Health Impact Assessment - Hermosa Beach - February 2014 - Draft

DraftHealthImpactAssessment‐ProposedE&BOilDrillingandProductionProjectCityofHermosaBeach,CA

HEALTHIMPACTASSESSMENTE&BOILDRILLINGANDPRODUCTIONPROJECT DRAFTFebruary2014Preparedfor:DepartmentofCommunityDevelopmentCityofHermosaBeach1315ValleyDriveHermosaBeach,CA90254Preparedby:McDanielLambert,Inc.1608PacificAvenue,Suite201Venice,CA90291310‐392‐6462


NoticeRegardingCommentPeriodThisdraftHealthImpactAssessmenthasbeenpreparedbyMcDanielLambert(anIntrinsikCompany) for the City of Hermosa Beach. It is being circulated to provide residents ofHermosa Beach, and interested parties an opportunity to review the initial conclusionscontainedherein,andprovidefeedbackforconsideration.Currently, no laws require the use of a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to evaluatepotentialpublichealth consequencesofproposedprojects, changes in landuseorpolicydecisions.However,inanefforttoprovidetheresidentsofHermosaBeachwithasmuchinformationaspossibleonthehealth,aswellasenvironmental,andeconomicimpactsoftheproposedproject, theCity ofHermosaBeach commissioned thisHIA.Thisdocumentwas prepared in coordinationwith theDraft EIR and Cost Benefit Analysis. TheHealthImpactAssessmentsupplementstheanalysisofhealtheffectspresentedintheDraftEIRbyincorporatingabroadreviewofpublichealthevidence,whichisnotlimitedtoregulatorythresholds.Wewelcomepublicreviewandcommentsonthisdocumentduringthesametimeframeasthepubliccommentperiodthat ismandatedby theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)processfortheDraftEIR.PubliccommentsreceivedbeforeApril14,2014willbereviewed and incorporated into the final version of this document. Based on commentsand/oradditionalinformationreceived,revisionstothisdocumentmayinclude:

Modificationofimpactassessments,oradditionaldataanalysis Explanationofmethods,assumptionsand/orconclusions

TheCityofHermosaBeachdoesnotsupportnoropposetheproposedproject.Thisreportpresents a neutral and unbiased perspective on the potential health impacts of theproposedprojecttotheCity.CommentsforconsiderationintheFinalHealthImpactAssessmentcanbesubmittedto:

E‐mail:[email protected]

orviamail/inpersonto:Attn:KenRobertson

CommunityDevelopmentDirectorCityofHermosaBeach1315ValleyDrive

HermosaBeach,CA90254(310)318‐0242

PleaseprovidecommentsnolaterthanApril14,2014.


TABLEOFCONTENTSEXECUTIVESUMMARY...................................................................................................................................i 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................1 1.1 CityofHermosaBeach.........................................................................................................................1 1.2 OilDevelopmentandProductionActivities................................................................................1 1.3 ProjectDescription................................................................................................................................3 1.4 HIAProcessandRole............................................................................................................................5

2.0 Screening.......................................................................................................................................7 3.0 Scoping...........................................................................................................................................8 3.1 StakeholderEngagement....................................................................................................................8 3.2 Pathways.................................................................................................................................................10 3.2.1 AirQuality......................................................................................................................................13 3.2.2 WaterandSoilQuality..............................................................................................................15 3.2.3 NoiseandLight............................................................................................................................17 3.2.4 Traffic...............................................................................................................................................19 3.2.5 CommunityLivability...............................................................................................................21

4.0 Assessment................................................................................................................................23 4.1 AirQuality...............................................................................................................................................26 4.1.1 AirQualityandHealth..............................................................................................................26 4.1.2 CurrentConditions.....................................................................................................................32 4.1.3 ProjectedImpact.........................................................................................................................36

4.2 WaterandSoilQuality.......................................................................................................................44 4.2.1 Water,SoilandHealth..............................................................................................................44 4.2.2 CurrentConditions.....................................................................................................................45 4.2.3 ProjectedImpact.........................................................................................................................46

4.3 NoiseandLight.....................................................................................................................................48 4.3.1 Noise,LightandHealth............................................................................................................48 4.3.2 CurrentConditions.....................................................................................................................51 4.3.3 ProjectedImpact.........................................................................................................................52

4.4 Traffic........................................................................................................................................................57 4.4.1 TrafficandHealth.......................................................................................................................57 4.4.2 CurrentConditions.....................................................................................................................58 4.4.3 ProjectedImpact.........................................................................................................................60

4.5 CommunityLivability........................................................................................................................66 4.5.1 CommunityLivabilityandHealth........................................................................................66 4.5.2 CurrentConditions.....................................................................................................................69 4.5.3 ProjectedImpact.........................................................................................................................71

5.0 Conclusions...............................................................................................................................74 6.0 References.................................................................................................................................84


FIGURESFigure1‐1 ProposedProjectSiteandProximitytoSchoolsFigure3‐1 DistributionofSurveyParticipantsbyPlaceofResidenceFigure3‐2 Social‐EcologicalHealthFrameworkFigure3‐3 AirQualityPathwayDiagramFigure3‐4 WaterandSoilQualityPathwayDiagramFigure3‐5 NoisePathwayDiagramFigure3‐6 TrafficPathwayDiagramFigure3‐7 CommunityLivabilityPathwayDiagramFigure4‐1 LocalNOxEmissionSourcesFigure4‐2 LocalPMEmissionSourcesFigure4‐3 LocalNOxEmissionSourceswithProjectFigure4‐4 SafeRoutetoSchoolFigure4‐5 PedestrianSidewalk,ValleyDr./6thSt.Figure4‐6 ProjectSiteLocationandTIAStudyArea

TABLESTableES‐1 HealthImpactAssessmentSummaryTable1‐1 RankingofEnvironmentalandHealthAreasofConcernTable4‐1 2008LABasinEmissionsforOilandGasDevelopmentandProduction

Activities(tonsperday)Table4‐2 SummaryofCurrent,Project‐relatedandTotalNOxEmissionsTable4‐3 SummaryofCurrent,Project‐relatedandTotalPM10EmissionsTable4‐4 SummaryofChangeinPM10ConcentrationsandMortalityTable4‐5 Summary of Cancer Burden and Change in Hermosa Beach Incidence

RatesTable4‐6 SummaryofOdorAssessmentTable4‐7 Summary of Existing Noise Levels Around the Project Site (Overall

AverageLeq)Table4‐8 ProjectTripGenerationEstimatesTable4‐9 RoadwaySegmentAnalysis,6thStfromValleyDrtoHermosaAve.Table5‐1 HealthImpactAssessmentSummary

APPENDICESAppendixA SummaryofLosAngelesUrbanOilDrillingSitesAppendixB ScopingChecklistAppendixC PublicCommentsandInputtotheHIAProcessAppendixD HealthImpactAssessmentCommunitySurveyAppendixE BaselineHealthAssessmentAppendixF QualityofLifeCommitteePresentationAppendixG AgencyforToxicSubstancesandDiseaseRegistryToxFAQsAppendixH CHAPISGriddedEmissionsOutput


GlossaryofTerms,Acronyms,andAbbreviationsAcronymorTerm ExplanationACS AmericanCancerSocietyAERMOD AirmodelingprogramusedinEIRAES AESRedondoBeachPowerPlantAML Acutemyelogenousleukemia,alsocalledacutemyeloidleukemiaBCHD BeachCitiesHealthDistrict,servingManhattan,Hermosa,andRedondo

BeachesBTEX Acronym for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes, compounds

commonlyfoundinpetroleumderivativesCal/EPA CaliforniaEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyCBA Cost‐benefit analysis, a method of considering the advantages and

disadvantages of a project by converting all outcomes into monetaryvalues

CEQA CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct,legallyrequiresEIRCHAPIS CommunityAirPollutionInformationSystemCity CityofHermosaBeachCommunityDialogue

A group of 15‐30 community members engaged in activities to helpdefinethequalityoflifeandvisionforthefutureofHermosa

CUP Conditional Use Permit approved on August 12, 1993, which theproposedprojectmustcomplywith

dB decibeldBA A‐weighteddecibel,toapproximatehumansensitivitytosoundDDT PesticidebannedbytheUSEPAin1972duetoenvironmentaleffectsDeterminantsofhealth

Factorsthatcontributetothehealthofindividualsorcommunities

E&B E&BNaturalResourcesManagementCorporationEIR EnvironmentalImpactReport,theanalysisoftheenvironmentaleffects

ofaprojectandreasonablealternativestoit,mandatedbyCEQAH2S HydrogensulfideHBEF HermosaBeachEducationFoundationHHRA HumanHealthRiskAssessmentHIA HealthImpactAssessment,acombinationofprocedures,methods,and

toolsbywhichaprojectcanbejudgedastoitspotentialeffectsonthehealthofapopulation

IARC InternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer


AcronymorTerm ExplanationIncidencerate AmeasureofthenewcasesofillnessduringaspecifiedtimeperiodLeq Equivalentsoundlevel,ortheaveragenoiseleveloveraperiodoftimeLOS Level of service, related to the degree of traffic congestion at

intersectionsMATESIII MultipleAirToxicsExposureStudyIIIMorbidity ReferstothepresenceofdiseaseinanindividualorpopulationMorbidityrate Ameasureofthefrequencyofdiseaseinadefinedpopulationduringa

specifiedtimeintervalMortalityrate Ameasureof the frequency of death in adefinedpopulationduring a

specifiedtimeintervalMTCO2e MetrictonsofcarbondioxideemissionsNOx OxidesofNitrogenOEHHA CaliforniaOfficeofEnvironmentalHealthHazardAssessmentPAHs PolycyclicaromatichydrocarbonsPCE PassengercarequivalencePCB Polychlorinatedbiphenyl,PCBsarenolongercommerciallyproducedin

theUSduetotoxicityPCH PacificCoastHighway,themosttraffickedroadwayinHermosaBeachPM Particulate matter, particles with a diameter smaller than 10 µg are

referred toasPM10, andparticleswithadiameter smaller than2.5µgareknownasPM2.5

ppb Partsperbillionppm PartspermillionProposedproject ProposedE&BoildrillingandproductionprojectSCAQMD SouthernCaliforniaAirQualityMonitoringDistrictSIR Standardized incidence ratio, quotient of observed and expected

numberofcases(e.g.,cancercases)Site Proposedprojectsite,atthecurrentCityMaintenanceYardTMDL Totalmaximumdailyload,aregulatorywaterqualityrequirementTPH TotalpetroleumhydrocarbonsTIA TrafficimpactanalysisUSEPA UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyµg/m3 MicrogrampermetercubedVOCs VolatileorganiccompoundsWSB WalkingschoolbusWHO WorldHealthOrganization

Draft Health Impact Assessment - Proposed E&B Oil Drilling and Production Project -i-

City of Hermosa Beach, CA

EXECUTIVESUMMARYTo inform the Hermosa voters, this assessment focused on potential health impactsassociated with the Applicant’s proposed oil drilling and production project and theEnvironmentalImpactReport’sproposedmitigationmeasures. ThebenefitofthisHealthImpact Assessment is that is an evaluation focused on how the proposed project couldaffect health status, health behaviors and social and economic resources. The HIAsupplements the analysis of health effects presented in theDraft EIR by incorporating abroadreviewofpublichealthevidence,whichisnotlimitedtoregulatorythresholds.Health Impact Assessment consists of these five essential components: (1)screening –decidingwhetherornotanHIAwouldbevaluableandfeasible,(2)scoping–determininghealthissuesforanalysis,(3)assessment–usingdata,professionalexpertise,andscientificresearchtoassessthemagnitudeandlikelihoodofpotentialhealthimpactsconsideringthemitigations, (4)reporting– synthesizing theassessment findings into thisHIAreportandcommunicatingtheresultsinpublicmeetings,and(5)monitoring(iftheproposedprojectis approved) – tracking the potential impacts or benefits of project decisions on healthdeterminants and health status. In the scoping step, existing health and environmentalmeasuresfortheCityofHermosaBeachfromregulatoryagencymonitoringandpublishedreportsweredocumentedintheBaselineHealthAssessment(seeAppendixE).Based on community input, review of the project description, and available scientificevidence,fiveareasofhealthfocuswereassessed:airquality,waterandsoilquality,noiseand light, traffic and community livability. Within each area of health focus, potentialhealthdeterminantsandoutcomeswere identifiedandassessed througha reviewof thescientific literature, consultationwithanengineeringexpert, informationcollected in theEIRprocess,andsecondarydataanalysis.Eachofthepotentialhealthimpactsandbenefitswerecharacterizedwithanumericrankbasedonwhethertheproposedprojectmayresultinapositiveornegativeeffect,andbasedonthegeographicextent,likelihood,vulnerablepopulations,durationandfrequencyofexposure,andmagnitudeofthehealthimpact.Thelowestpossiblerank is6andthehighestpossiblerank is15,withanegative(‐)numberrepresentingnegativehealtheffectsandapositive(+)numberrepresentingpositivehealtheffects. The numeric ranks do not represent a quantitative estimate of risk, but areprovided for the purpose of describing the relative importance of each potential healthimpactcomparedtotheotherpotentialhealthimpactsinthisHIA.The health determinants that produced rankings on the higher end of the negativespectrum(ranking from‐16 to ‐11) includeairemissions (oxidesofnitrogen,particulatematter, volatile organic compounds, and odor‐releasing compounds), noise and lightingdisturbances, traffic injury, access to green spaces, and social cohesion. The healthdeterminantsthatproducedrankingsonthelowerendofthenegativespectrum(ranking

Draft Health Impact Assessment - Proposed E&B Oil Drilling and Production Project -ii-


from ‐10 to ‐6) include greenhouse gas emissions, surface water, soil deposition, aspill/blowoutevent,andpropertyvalues.MitigationmeasuresproposedintheEIRslightlydecrease the ranking for odor, soil deposition, and traffic injury, but otherwise did notchange therelative importanceof thepotentialhealth impacts. Thehealthdeterminantsthat produced positive rankings include lighting safety, community resources foreducation, andpolitical involvement. The characterizationof eachhealthdeterminant isprovidedinTableES‐1. Insummary,majorfindingsfromtheHIAinclude:AirQuality

Evidence in the literature suggests negative health impacts of prioritypollutantairemissions:Increasesinnitrogenoxidesandparticulatematterinaircan increase mortality rates, and respiratory and cardiovascular disease rates.Exposure to particulatematter air emissions from the proposed project activitiesinvolving fuel combustion (during Phases 2 and 4) may lead to an increase inmortalityof0to1.6peopleperyear.IncreasedNO2emissionsfrommicroturbinesinPhase4,mayleadtoanincreaseinchildhoodasthmacasesofuptosixadditionalcasesperyear.TheassessmentsofincreasedparticulatematterandNO2emissionswere health protective by assuming that all residents in Hermosa Beach will beexposed to the pollution concentrations predicted for residences closest to theproposedsite.

Hydrogen sulfide odor emissions will likely have negative health impacts:Odorsensitivityvariesgreatlyfrompersontoperson.Potentialhealthimpactsfromodoremissionsrangefromnauseaandheadachestomentalhealtheffects.

Greenhousegasemissionsarenot likelytodirectly impacthealth: Hermosahas low susceptibility to the local effects of global change both due to currentclimate conditions and the ability of the community to manage impacts from achanging climate. Additionally, goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions suggestthat greenhouse gas emissions from the project could be offset by alternativemeasures,whichcouldbefurtherexplored.

TABLEES‐1.CHARACTERIZATIONOFHEALTHIMPACTS

*Hydrogensulfideandodormitigationmeasureswoulddecreasefrequencyto‘infrequent’**ThehealthscreeninglevelproposedintheEIRandadditionalsoilsamplingdecreasethepotentialnegativehealthimpactbychangingthelikelihoodto‘unlikely.’***MitigationmeasuresproposedintheEIR(e.g.increasedcrossing‐guardpresence,additionalwarningsignsandlights)wouldreducelikelihoodto‘unlikely’.AttributeKey‐eachattributeissummedresultinginhealthrankingsrangingfrom6to15,withadirectionofeitherpositive(+)ornegative(‐):GeographicExtent:Classifiedasglobal(0points),localized(closeproximitytotheproject,1point)orcommunity‐wide(acrossHermosaBeach,2points).VulnerablePopulations:Classifiedasno(affectsallsubpopulationsevenly,1point)oryes(disproportionatelysensitivepopulationsimpacts,2points).Duration:Classifiedasshort(lessthanamonth,1point),medium(morethanamonthandlessthanayear,2points)orlong(morethanayear,3points).Frequency:Classifiedasinfrequent(periodically,orrarely,1point),orfrequent(potentialforconstantormultipleexposures,2points).Likelihood/StrengthofEvidence:Classifiedasunlikely(littleevidencethathealthimpactorbenefitcouldoccurasaresultoftheproposedproject,1point),possible(logicallyplausiblethathealtheffectsmayoccur,2points),orlikely(evidencesuggestshealtheffectscommonlyoccurinsimilarprojects,3points).Magnitude/Severity:Classifiedaslow(healtheffectscanbeeasilymanagedanddonotrequiretreatment,1point),moderate(healtheffectsthatrequiretreatmentormedicalattentionandarereversible,2points),orsevere(healtheffectsthatarechronic,irreversibleorfatal,3points).

Impact DirectionGeographicextent

Vulnerablepopulations Duration Frequency

Likelihoodofhealthimpact

Magnitudeofhealthimpact Rank

EIRMitigatedProjectRank

AirQualityOxidesofNitrogen Negative Community‐wide Yes Long Frequent Possible Moderate ‐13 SameParticulateMatter Negative Community‐wide Yes Long Frequent Likely Severe ‐15 SameVolatileOrganicCompounds Negative Community‐wide Yes Long Frequent Possible Severe ‐14 SameHydrogenSulfideandOdor Negative Community‐wide Yes Long Frequent Likely Moderate ‐14 ‐13*GreenhouseGasEmissions Negative Global Yes Long Frequent Unlikely Low ‐10 SameWaterandSoil SurfaceWater Negative Community‐wide Yes Short Infrequent Possible Low ‐9 SameSoilDeposition Negative Localized Yes Short Infrequent Possible Moderate ‐9 ‐8**Spill/BlowoutEvent Negative Community‐wide Yes Short Infrequent Unlikely Severe ‐10 SameNoise,VibrationandLighting NoiseDisturbances Negative Community‐wide Yes Medium Frequent Likely Moderate ‐13 SameLightingDisturbances Negative Localized Yes Long Frequent Unlikely Moderate ‐11 SameLightingSafety Positive Localized No Long Frequent Possible Moderate +11 SameTraffic TrafficInjury Negative Localized Yes Long Frequent Possible Severe ‐13 ‐12***PhysicalActivity Negative Localized Yes Long Frequent Possible Low ‐11 SameCommunityLivability Propertyvalues Negative Localized None Long Frequent Possible Low ‐10 SameCommunityResources–GreenSpaceAccess

Negative Localized Yes Long Frequent Possible Moderate ‐12 Same

CommunityResources–Education

Positive Community‐wide Yes Long Infrequent Likely Low +12 Same

SocialCohesion Negative Community‐wide Yes Medium Frequent Possible Low ‐11 SamePoliticalinvolvement Positive Community‐wide None Medium Frequent Possible Low +10 Same

Draft Health Impact Assessment - Proposed E&B Oil Drilling and Production Project -iv-


WaterandSoilQuality

Containment strategy will likely eliminate health impact of hazardouschemicalsinsurfacewaterrunoff:Wallsandbermswillcontainstormwaterandspillswithin theprojectsite, therefore thepublicwillnot likelycome intocontactwithchemicalsinsurfacewaterrunoff.

Insufficient data to quantify the contaminants currently present in surfacesoil: Soilparticulatescontaininghazardouschemicalscanbetransportedthroughthe air to nearby residential areas and parks, especially during high winds andconstruction activities. Lead in soil may pose a health risk, however additionalsampling isneededbeforesitepreparationoccurs inthefirstphaseoftheproject.AdditionalsoilsamplingistobeconductedinSpring2014tofullycharacterizethecontaminantspresentinsoilattheproposedprojectSite.

Evidencefromothercrudeoilspillsandwellblowouteventsindicatethelowlikelihoodoflong‐termnegativehealthimpacts: Short‐termexposuretocrudeoil can lead to headaches, eye/skin irritation, respiratory conditions, anxiety, anddepression. If a spill reaches the Pacific Ocean, local fishingwould be negativelyimpacted.Althoughawellblowouthasaverylowprobability,suchaneventcouldresultinfatalities.

NoiseandLight

Evidenceintheliteraturesuggestsnegativeimpactsofnoiseemissions:Noiseisstronglylinkedtosleepdisturbance,cardiovasculardisease,stress,anddecreasedstudent achievement. Increases in nighttime noise during drilling, testing, andproduction activities will likely change the quality of sleep of nearby residentialneighborhoods. Pipelineconstructionnoisewillreachlevelsabove70dBA,whichcan increase risk of hypertension and may impact schools in the vicinity of theproposedpipelineroute.

Mitigation measures and uncertainties associated with nighttime lightingplan: Light disturbances are associated with sleep disturbance and decreasedmelatoninhormoneproduction.Theproposedprojecthasageneraldescriptionofdowncastlightingthatishoodedandshielded,whichwouldreducethepotentialfornegativehealthimpacts.Becausethebrightnessofthelightingisnotspecified,thepossiblelevelofglareintothesurroundingareacouldnotbepredicted.

Evidence in the literature suggests positive impacts of nighttime lighting:Additional lightingmay improve the perception of safety and contribute tomorephysicalactivityintheimmediatevicinityoftheSiteatnighttime.

Traffic

Insufficientdataonpedestrianandbicyclist frequencytoquantifythetrafficinjuryimpactsfromtrucktraffic:Childrenandelderlyaremorevulnerabletothe

Draft Health Impact Assessment - Proposed E&B Oil Drilling and Production Project -v-


increasedriskoftrafficinjury.AlthoughValleyisahighlytraveledsidewalk,nodataarecurrentlyavailabletoquantifytheexistingnumberofpedestriansandbicycliststhatfrequentlytravelbyValleyDriveand6thStreet.ThemitigationmeasuresintheEIRwillreducetheriskoftrafficinjury.

Traffic safety and perceived traffic safety can impact health by decreasingphysicalactivitylevels: Residentsmaychoosetoavoidwalkingbyareasaffectedbytrucktraffic,becausetheyfeeltheirsafetyiscompromised.Sincethecommunityvalues awalkable environment, it is possible that residentswill find an alternateroutetowalk.

CommunityLivability

Propertyvaluesandstress: Anactualorperceived loss inpropertyvaluesmaycausestressamonghomeowners.

Evidence in the literature supports an association between access tocommunityresources,physicalhealth,andmentalhealth:Perceivedhazardsinthenaturalenvironmentmaydecreasegreenspaceuseandleadtonegativehealthimpacts,includinghigherratesofobesity,heartdisease,andpsychologicaldistress.

Revenueforschools: Educationisoneofthemostpowerfulpredictorsofhealth.Quality of education has positive social and economic health impacts. Projectrevenuethatcouldbesetasideforschoolswouldbeasmallproportionofcurrentprivatedonationsmadetoschoolsonanannualbasis.Thissuggeststhatalternativeavenuesforoffsettingstatefundingdeficitscouldbeexplored.

Evidence in the literature suggests negative and positive impacts of theopportunity for residents to vote on the oil and gas project: Communityparticipation in voting on the settlement has created negative health impacts ofstressanddisruption in social cohesion. On theotherhand,political engagementmaycreatepositivehealthimpacts,becauseindividualsareabletoexercisecontroloverdecisionsthataffecttheirhealthandwell‐being.

Based on these findings, the proposed oil drilling andproduction project could result innegativehealthimpactsrangingfromlocalizedtocommunity‐wide,howevertheextentofsome of these impacts is uncertain and could not be quantified. Given the limited dataavailable and uncertainties in some instances, decision‐makers (Hermosa Beach voters)maywanttoconsideradditionaloptionssuchas:

Airmonitoringtoverifymodelassumptions:Airemissionswerecalculatedusingconservative assumptions based on standard operations and regional ambient airdata.Whiletheestimatedprojectimpactonairqualityislikelytobeconservative,there are uncertainties associated with various model assumptions. Additionalupwindanddownwindmonitoringofdust andkey contaminantswouldallow forongoingevaluationduringconstructionandotherproject‐relatedactivities.Upwind

Draft Health Impact Assessment - Proposed E&B Oil Drilling and Production Project -vi-


and downwind monitoring would need to be done for a period of time ofapproximately sixmonths before any project activities to understand the normalbackgroundvariations.

Follow‐up community health assessment: Hermosa Beach is recognized as ahealthy city with favorable demographic health indicators and mortality rates,compared to other cities in California and Los Angeles County. If the project isapproved, health statistics reported in county and state‐wide databases could bemonitored to assesswhether or not any changes from baseline occur. However,therearelimiteddataavailabletoquantifypotentialhealthimpactsoftheprojectonsleep disturbance, stress, social cohesion and other quality of life factors. Acommunity health survey could be used as a tool to establish current baselineconditions,andtomonitorwhetherhealthstatuschangesduringtheproject.

Alternate funding sources: Oil revenue has the potential to positively impacthealth through improvingschoolprograms,aswellasothercommunityresourcesnot addressed in this assessment. The financial working committee in theCommunityDialoguegroupidentifiednumerousopportunitiesinHermosaBeachtoraiseadditionalrevenuefordesiredprojectsintheCity.Alternateopportunitiesforrevenueshouldbefurtherexplored.

Regardless of whether the proposed projectmoves forward, the City of Hermosa Beachshould continue to prioritize public health considerations during decision‐makingprocesses to ensure the well‐being of community members into the future.

Draft Health Impact Assessment - Proposed E&B Oil Drilling and Production Project -1-


1.0 IntroductionUnder the settlement agreement that ended litigationwithMacphersonOil Company, anelectionwillbeheldtoallowtheCityofHermosaBeachvoterstodecidewhethertorepealthe existingbanonoil drilling in the city limits. The termsof the settlementagreementprovidethat,ifvotersagreetolifttheban,theCitywillenterintoadevelopmentagreementwithE&BNaturalResourcesManagementCorporation(E&B)todevelopanoildrillingandproductionfacilityattheCityMaintenanceYard(theSite)andtheCitywilloweE&B$3.5million.Ifthevotersdonotliftthebanonoil,theCityofHermosaBeach(theCity)wouldoweE&Batotalof$17.5million.Inordertoinformvotersaboutthepotentialeconomic,social,environmental,andhealthimpactsand/orbenefitsofE&B’sproposedoildrillingandproductionproject, theCity isconducting this Health Impact Assessment (HIA), in addition to a Cost‐Benefit Analysis(CBA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR complies with the CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA),whiletheCBAandHIAarestand‐alonedocumentstheCity elected to complete in order to provide community members with additionalinformationontheproposedoilproject.TheHIAalsoprovidestheopportunityforhealthinputintotheeconomicandenvironmentalassessments.If the project is approved by Hermosa Beach voters, the oversight agencies that willparticipateinenvironmentalandsafetyreviewsincludetheCaliforniaCoastalCommission,theStateLandsCommission,theSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrictandtheStateDivisionofOil,GasandGeothermalResources.

1.1 CityofHermosaBeachFoundedin1907,HermosaBeachisknownas“TheBestLittleBeachCity”.HermosaBeachhas a population of approximately 20,000 people, with a high proportion of residentsbetween theageof25and50 (USCensus,2013). TheCity is carryingoutaCommunityDialogueprocesstoidentifythevaluesandlong‐termgoalsforHermosaBeach.Aseriesofworkshops has been conducted to engage local residents and business owners indescribing priorities and building a framework for decision‐making. The HIA team hasbeenparticipating inandcoordinatingwith theCommunityDialogueprocess inorder toincorporate key quality of life aspects, as identified by Hermosa Beach communitymembers,intotheevaluationofoverallcommunityhealthandwell‐being.

1.2 OilDevelopmentandProductionActivitiesThe current boom in domestic crude oil production is approaching the historical highachieved in 1970 of 9.6 million barrels per day (EIA 2013). Projections and analysissummarized in the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2014Release Overview attribute the growth in domestic production to improvements in



advanced technologies for crude oil and natural gas production. Specifically for U.S.production of crude oil, projections for higher production volumes result mainly fromincreased onshore oil production, primarily from formations with low permeability.Californiaremainsonetothetopproducersofcrudeoilinthenation,accountingforalmostone‐tenthofthetotalU.S.production(EIA2013).PetroleumreservoirsareconcentratedingeologicbasinsalongthePacificCoastandintheCentralValley.LosAngelesisconsideredthe most urban oil field in the country, with a long history of the petroleum industryoperating in nonindustrial areas (CLUI 2010). Due to the high cost of land in the LosAngelesbasin, therehasbeeneconomic incentive todevelopmoderndrilling technologythatallowsoilwellstobeconcentratedintosmallerareas.Directionaldrillingtechniquesdecrease the industry’s surface footprint while increasing the subsurface drillable area.Since industrial processes are generally not desired in densely populated areas due toenvironmental and health concerns, many oil drilling sites in Los Angeles haveincorporatedmitigationmeasures(e.g.noisemuffling,visualbarriers,closed‐loopsystems)tohelpreducethepotentialimpactstosurroundingcommunities.Thereare34knownactiveoilfieldsintheLosAngelesBasinspreadoutacrosstheregionsof Inglewood, Westside and Downtown, Eastern Los Angeles and Inland, the Coast andSouthBay,HarborandLongBeach,andtheSouthCoast(seeAppendixA). Theactiveoilfields vary greatly in size and in oil production volumes. Small fields like Chino‐SoquetproducejustoverathousandbarrelsofoilperyearwhileWilmington,themostproductiveoil field intheLosAngelesBasin,producesabout3.5millionbarrelsperyearfrom1,300activewells.Manyofthewellsoperateindenselypopulatedurbanareas.Forexample,inthe Beverly Hills Field oil is accessed from three urban well sites, including one withinBeverly Hills High School and another on Pico Blvd hidden from view by a windowlessfour‐walledstructurethatappearstobeanofficebuildingtothepasserby.Giventhelonghistoryofoildrilling inLosAngeles, thewells andpumpjackswereoftenpresentbeforesuburbanhousingdevelopmentsencroachedupondrillingleases.AppendixAsummarizessomeoftheknownhealthconcernsassociatedwithurbandrillingsites. Varioushealthandenvironmentalconcernssurroundproductionat the Inglewoodoil field, which covers 950 acres in urbanized Los Angeles. In 2006, noxious gasesentrainedindrillingmudswerereleasedanddetectedbyneighborsmorethan1,000feetfrom drilling activities. As a result of several investigations, a 2011 CEQA lawsuitsettlement required the operator to: reduce drilling of new wells, increase air qualitymonitoring, and adhere to more stringent noise limits. Additionally, LA County wasrequired to perform mandatory health assessments with environmental justicecomponents.Otherhealthconcernsfromurbanoildrillingrelatetosurfacemethaneseeps,noiseandodor,andlandsubsidence.OilseepsfromtheSaltLakeoilfieldlocatedbeneath



theFairfaxdistrictcauseda1985methaneexplosionataclothingstore, injuringover20people. Concern about the potential for future fire and explosions led the City of LosAngelestoimposerequirementsformethaneventingandmonitoring.This HIA evaluates potential health impacts that could result from oil drilling andproduction activities in the City of Hermosa Beach according to the site‐specific projectdescription,assummarizedinSection1.3below.

1.3 ProjectDescriptionTheproposedE&BOilDevelopmentProject(proposedproject)consistsof30productionwellsona1.3‐acresitelocatedonthecurrentCityMaintenanceYardproperty(theSite)atthe corner of Valley Drive and 6th Street in the City of Hermosa Beach (the City). Forreference, Figure 1‐1 shows the Site location in relation to the public, private, andpreschoolsintheCity.E&B’s proposed project would also involve the installation of underground pipelines totransport theprocessedoilandgas. Thecompletedescriptionof theproposedproject isprovided in the Project Application and supporting documents (E&B 2012, 2013a,b).Briefly,theproposedprojectconsistsofthefollowingobjectives:

Developtheproposedprojectconsistentwiththe1993ConditionalUsePermitandtheMarch2,2012SettlementAgreement,withtheutilizationofdirectionaldrillingtechniquesfromtheProjectsite,whichisthecurrentCityMaintenanceYard;

Maximize oil and gas production from the Torrance Oil Field within the City’sjurisdiction,therebymaximizingtheeconomicbenefitstotheCity;

Provide an oil and gas development project on the Site that utilizes the latesttechnology and operational advancements related to safety and productionefficiency in order to provide a project that would be safe and would meet theapplicableenvironmentalrequirements;

Conduct construction and drilling activities on the project site incorporatingtechnological advancements, operational practices, and design features related toair quality, odors, noise, hazards, and water quality to minimize the potentialimpactsontheadjacentcommunityandtheenvironment;

Provide landscaping, hardscaping, signage, lighting, and other design features tominimizethevisualeffectsoftheproposedprojectontheadjacentcommunity;and

Implement operational practices and incorporate design features to provide safevehicular ingress and egress during temporary construction activities and theongoingoperationoftheproposedproject.

To accomplish these objectives, the proposed project would occur in four phases, asdescribedbelow.



Figure1‐1:SiteLocationandProximitytoSchools

Source:CaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth<http://gis.cdph.ca.gov/cnn2.0/cnn.html?mapid=4587189>Phase1–SitePreparationandConstruction(6to7months):TheprimarypurposeofPhase1istopreparetheSitefordrillingandtesting,aswellasthesubsequentphasesofthe proposed project. Construction activities include clearing and grading the Site,constructingretainingwallsandthewellcellar,installingfencingandelectricalequipment,and placing existing overhead utilities underground. At this time, the CityMaintenanceYard would be relocated to a temporary or permanent location. The most disruptiveconstruction activities during this phase are expected to be demolition of existinginfrastructureon theSiteandconstructionof thewell cellar. Constructionactivitieswillalso require truck trips in order to deliver and remove construction equipment, which

ProposedProjectSite



wouldutilizedesignatedtruckroutesinthecitiesofHermosaBeach,RedondoBeachandTorrance.Phase2–DrillingandTesting(10to13months): Thisphasewillinvolvedrillingandtestingofwellsinordertoestimatethepotentialproductivityandeconomicviabilityoftheproposed project. The primary construction and drilling activities include installing atemporary trailer on the northeast corner of the site, setting up the drill rig and otherproductionequipment,drillingthetestwells,andoperationactivities.Thedrillrigwouldoperatefor24hoursperday,7daysperweekforanestimated120daysduringthisphase.A35‐foot‐highbarrierwallwouldbeconstructedaroundtheperimeteroftheSiteduringalldrillingactivities.Phase3–FinalDesignandConstruction(16months): IfPhase2determinesthattheproposedprojectiseconomicallyfeasible,Phase3wouldbecarriedouttopreparetheSitefor permanent oil and gas production facilities and to construct offsite pipelines. Afterremoving the temporary production equipment fromPhase 2 and preparing the Site forearthmovingactivities,theRemedialActionPlanwouldbeimplementedtoaddressmetalandpetroleum‐contaminatedsoilandgroundwaterattheSite. Thisphasewould involveextendingandcompletingtheconstructionofthecementwellcellar(tobeapproximately8feet wide by 120 feet long by 12 feet deep), placing a small office building onsite, andconstructingsoundbarrierwalls.Thepermanentoilproductionfacilitywillincludetanks,vessels, piping, pumps, filters and correspondingmetering equipment. The Site will bepaved and the facility will be designed in a manner to capture all liquids, includingrainwater,indesignatedcontainmentareas.Streetimprovements(e.g.newcurbs,gutters,sidewalks)willbemadealong6thStreetandValleyDrive.Phase 4 – Development and Operations (approximately 30 years): Phase 4 willmaximize oil and gas recovery through the construction of an 87‐foot high drill rig, thedrilling of an additional 30wells and through the continuous operation of the proposedproject.Itisestimatedthatitwilltaketwoweekstosetupthedrillrig,andtwoandahalfyears to drill the remaining 30 wells. Facility operations and maintenance will becontinuousforapproximately30years,withfivere‐drillsoccurringduringanygivenyear.Overthelifeoftheproposedproject,activewellswillrequireperiodicmaintenance,whichwill be accomplished by utilizing a 110‐foot high “workover” rig (duringweekdays 8:00a.m.to6:00p.m.only).

1.4 HIAProcessandRoleThis report considers the potential health impacts of the four phases of this proposedproject by evaluating social, economic, and environmental factors specific to the localcommunity.AsdescribedaboveintheoutlineofPhase1(Section1.3),accomplishingthe



objectivesofE&B’sproposedprojectnecessitatesrelocatingtheCityMaintenanceYardtoatemporaryorpermanentlocation. AnypotentialimpactsofmovingtheCityMaintenanceYard are considered independent of the proposed project and are not addressed in thisHIA.InaccordancewiththeGuideforHealthImpactAssessment(CDPH2010)andtheNationalResearchCouncilCommitteeReporton theRoleofHealth ImpactAssessment (2011), theHIAconsistsofthesefiveessentialcomponents:

1. Screening–DecidingwhetherornotanHIAwouldbevaluableandfeasible.2. Scoping – Determining health issues for analysis, the temporal and spatial

boundariesforanalysis,andresearchmethodstobeemployed.3. Assessment –Usingdata, professional expertise, and scientific research to assess

themagnitudeandlikelihoodofpotentialhealthimpacts.Thisincludesidentifyingthesignificance,anyappropriatemitigationsand/ordesignalternatives.

4. Reporting–Synthesizingtheassessmentfindingsandcommunicatingtheresultsinwrittenreports,factsheets,andpublicmeetings.

5. Monitoring – Tracking the potential impacts or benefits of project decisions onhealthdeterminantsandhealthstatus.

Overall, this HIA is part of the City’s efforts to evaluate the various social, economicenvironmentalandhealthimpactsoftheproposedoilproject.TheobjectiveofthisHIAisto informcommunitymembersofpotentialhealth impactsassociatedwith theproposedproject.



2.0 ScreeningThe screening step determineswhether to conduct anHIA and begins to define specificobjectives by considering potential project impacts to public health and definingcommunityvulnerabilities. Severalfactorsareconsidered,includingthevalueoftheHIA,the feasibility and capacity to conduct anHIA, and the openness of the decision‐makingprocess(CDPH2010).TheprimaryobjectiveofthisHIAistoidentifyandinformvotersofpotentialhealthimpactsand/orbenefitsoftheproposedproject. Abetterunderstandingofthelikelihood,magnitudeandextentofpotentialhealthimpactsisneeded,andtheCityofHermosaBeachiscommittedtocommunicatingthefindingsoftheHIAtofacilitatethedecision‐making process. The availability of existing regulatory frameworks to evaluatehealthimpactsisalsotakenintoconsiderationwhendeterminingtheneedforanHIA.Theproposed E&B oil drilling and production project is subject to regulation under CEQA,whichrequiresanEIR.WhileCEQAlegallyrequireshealth‐basedstandardsbeaddressedintheEIR,traditionallyEIRsarenotdesignedtocomprehensivelyaddresshealthimpacts,includingsocialandeconomicdeterminantsofhealth.ThebenefitofthisHIAisthatitisanevaluationfocusedonhowtheproposedprojectcouldaffecthealthstatus,healthbehaviorsandsocialandeconomicresourcesnecessaryforpublichealth.The proposal for oil and gas development in the City of Hermosa Beach has generatedconsiderablecontroversy. InanOpenHouse inSeptember2013andapublicmeeting inOctober2013,residentsexpressedavarietyofconcernsaboutthepotentialhealthimpactsoftheproposedproject.Healthconcernsassociatedwithoilandgasfacilities,raisedbythecommunity,included:

Physical–hazardsresultingfromaccidents,malfunctionsandemergencies Environmental–adverseimpactstothequalityofair,water,soilorfood Socioeconomic–impactstocommunityresources Psychological–mentalhealthimpacts Other–cumulativeeffects,politicalstressofthedecision‐makingprocess

Thequestionsandcommentsreceivedatthepublicmeetingregardingthesehealthtopicsreinforced the City’s decision to conduct an HIA. Therefore, it was determined thatconducting an HIA on the proposed project would add value and serve to increase theconsiderationofhealth in thedecision‐makingprocess. TheresidentsofHermosaBeachwillbevotingonwhether to lift thebanonoildrilling inNovember2014,andwillhaveinformation from theHIA, EIR and CBA available to helpmake their decision. The HIAprocess began more than a year before the vote in order to allow time for adequatestakeholder engagement, review of scientific literature, and communication of resultsbeforetheelectionisheld.



3.0 ScopingThe initial considerations raised in the screening stepare furtherdefined in the scopingstep, as the areas of focus and HIA objectives are more clearly identified. The scopingprocessfollowedtheGuideforHealthImpactAssessment(CDPH2010),whichoutlinestheprocess for identifying priority issues, research questions and methods. Additionalguidance documents were used in the development of this HIA, including the TechnicalGuidance for Health Impact Assessment in Alaska (2011), because many of the HIAs inAlaska have been conducted to evaluate potential impacts from proposed oil and gasdevelopmentprojects. Lastly,toolsandresourcesprovidedbyHumanImpactPartners,anationwide organization dedicated to building the capacity of HIAs, supplemented thescopingprocess through its searchabledatabaseof scientific articles on social, economicandenvironmentaldeterminantsofhealth.Since the proposed project can impact a range of health outcomes in the community, acomprehensive scoping checklist that considers the likelihoodandmagnitudeof impactswas used to begin this step (see Appendix B). Through stakeholder participation andreview of scientific evidence supporting potential health impacts, this list was furtherrefinedinthescopingstep.

3.1 StakeholderEngagementBroadparticipationbystakeholdersinthecommunityisakeycomponentofHIA,andthescopingstepinparticular. Communityparticipationandexpertconsultationsensurethatthe most important issues and best evidence are included in the analysis. Healthdeterminantswereprioritizedbasedonbothkeyissuesidentifiedbycommunitymembers,healthresearchandprofessionalexperience.CommunityinputfollowingapublicOpenHouseandHIAscopingmeetingwerecarefullyconsidered.Thecompilationofwritten‐feedbackisincludedinAppendixC.InadditiontotheOpenHouseandpublicmeetingtosolicitpublicinput,anonlinesurveywasconductedto understand the key issues of concern among community members. The survey wasannounced at the public input meeting, and posted on the City’s website. The surveyconsisted of four multiple choice questions, and a copy of the survey is provided inAppendixD.Thequestionsaskedwhererespondentslive,whetherthereisconcernabouthealthimpactsoftheproposedproject,whatpotentialhealthimpactsareofmostconcern,and if the level of concern depends on the various project phases. A total of 292communitymembersresponded.ThemajorityofthesurveyparticipantsliveinHermosaBeachneartheSiteoftheproposedproject(SouthofPierAvenueandWestofPacificCoastHighway,seeFigure3‐1).



FIGURE3‐1.DISTRIBUTIONOFSURVEYPARTICIPANTSBYPLACEOFRESIDENCE

Ofthe292surveyparticipants,nearlyallcommunitymembers(93%)areconcernedaboutthe potential health impacts of the proposed project. The remaining 7% of surveyparticipantsareeithernotconcernedaboutpotentialhealthimpactsorarenotsure.Foratotal of 18 topics, surveyparticipants ranked their level of concern as “very concerned”,“somewhatconcerned”,“notconcerned”or“noopinion”;participantswerealsogiventheoptiontospecify“other”concerns.Overall,surveyrespondentsareveryconcernedaboutallofthehealthandenvironmentaltopics(responsesof“Iamveryconcerned”rangedfrom62% to 89% for individual topics). Table 3‐1 (presented below) ranks the concerns ofrespondents in order of greatest concern. The issues of most concern includeexplosions/spills, impactstotheoceanorbeach,soilcontamination,airquality,odorandsurfacewatercontamination.Possiblevibrationimpacts,parkingproblemsandlightsarealso priority issues, but overall concern is lower relative to other issues. A total of 73surveyparticipantsalso specifiedotherareasof concern that arenot listed inTable3‐1.Among the most common free response answers, concerns include hydrogen sulfide,cancer, traffic accidents, and sensitivity of children to environmental exposures. ThecompletelistofsurveyresponsesisincludedinAppendixD.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Hermosa Beach ‐North of Pier

Ave and West ofthe PCH

Hermosa Beach ‐South of Pier

Ave and West ofthe PCH

Hermosa Beach ‐North of PierAve and East of

the PCH

Hermosa Beach ‐South of PierAve and East of

the PCH

ManhattanBeach

Redondo Beach

Survey Question 1: Where do you live?



TABLE3‐1.RANKINGOFENVIRONMENTALANDHEALTHAREASOFCONCERN

Answer Options Very

concerned Somewhat concerned

Not concerned

No opinion

Rating Average

Explosions/Spills/Accidents 254 23 6 1 1.13 Potential impacts to the ocean 259 16 10 1 1.14 Soil contamination 249 27 8 1 1.16 Air quality issues 247 26 9 1 1.17 Odor 248 25 8 2 1.17 Surface water contamination 244 22 11 3 1.19 Truck traffic 230 45 6 2 1.22 Drinking water contamination 234 30 15 4 1.25 Property values 223 33 19 4 1.3 Noise 220 39 21 3 1.32 Land subsidence (sinking) 212 43 16 6 1.34 Less access to community spaces 210 51 16 5 1.35 Earthquakes 207 55 20 2 1.36 Image of the City 210 41 24 4 1.36 Vibration 204 47 25 6 1.41 Parking problems 195 58 23 6 1.43 Lights 177 63 32 6 1.52

Thelastquestionofthesurveyaskedifthelevelofconcerndiffersbasedonthephaseofthe proposedproject. The responses reflected a higher level of concern associatedwithbothdrillingphases–Phase2andPhase4.Comparatively,thesurveyrespondentsarelessconcernedwiththeconstructionphases,Phase1and3. TheassessmentinSection4willreference the corresponding project phase and/or duration of potential environmentalexposure.

3.2 PathwaysA complex interplay of factors determines the health of individuals and communities.Environmental exposures can influence individual behaviors, social networks, livingconditionsandcultureinlocalandglobalcommunities.Therefore,determinantsofhealthincludethesocialandeconomicenvironment,inadditiontothephysicalenvironmentandanindividual’scharacteristicsandbehaviors.Therearemanymodelsthathaverecognizedthe social‐economic influences on health, and one example provided by the federalgovernment’snationalhealthobjective,HealthyPeople2020,isshowninFigure3‐2below.



FIGURE3‐2.SOCIAL‐ECOLOGICALHEALTHFRAMEWORKSource:HealthyPeople2020(USHHS2008)Inthescopingprocess,pathwaydiagramswerecreatedtounderstandthepotentialhealthimpacts and benefits of approving the proposed project on social, economic, physical,psychologicalandotherhealth‐relatedqualityoflifeoutcomes.Publicinputandareviewof other oil and gas development projects in the Los Angeles area were taken intoconsiderationtofurtherrefinetheareasofhealthfocusforthisevaluation.Duetothelargevarietyindesignsforoilandgasdevelopmentprojects,aprofessionalengineerwithover15 years of experience in the oil and gas industry was consulted to identify specificvulnerabilitiesofthisproposedprojectasdescribedintheE&Bprojectapplication(2012,2013a,b).Additionally,keycasestudiesandreviewarticlesofhealthassessmentsrelatedto oil and/or gas development taken into consideration during the development ofpathwaysforthisHIA,including:

1. Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Final Supplement IntegratedActivityPlan/EnvironmentalImpactStatement(BLM2008)

2. Health ImpactAssessment forBattlementMesa,GarfieldCountyColorado (UofC2010)

3. InglewoodOilFieldCommunitiesHealthAssessment(LACDPH2011a)4. HealthImpactAssessmentofShaleGasExtraction(NAP2013)



In the process of identifying pathways to evaluate in this HIA, the data for baselineconditionswereestablished. Whiletherearemanyimportanthealthimpactstoevaluate,the scope of the HIA is dependent on available data and methods to conduct theassessment. HIAisanemergingfieldofstudy, inwhichthetechnicalcapacitytoconductqualitative and qualitative analysis is continuing to evolve. In the scoping step, existinghealth and environmental measures from regulatory agency monitoring and publishedreportsweredocumented in theBaselineHealthAssessment (seeAppendixE). BaselinedatacollectedforthepurposesoftheEIRwerealsoincorporatedintotheBaselineHealthAssessment. Original data collection, such as health surveys or exposure assessment, isbeyondthescopeofthisHIA.

Basedonpublicinput,reviewoftheprojectdescription,andavailablescientificevidence,the followingpathways throughwhichhealthcouldbe impactedby theproposedprojectarepresentedinSections3.2.1through3.2.5:

AirQuality WaterandSoilQuality NoiseandLight Traffic CommunityLivability



3.2.1 AirQualityIntheprojectdescription,E&Bstatedthatitsproposedoilandgasdevelopmentfacilitywillutilizethelatesttechnologyandoperationaladvancementsinordertoreduceimpactsonairquality,especiallyconsideringtheproximityoftheadjacentneighborhood.Thespecificmeasures proposed include an automatic drill rig powered by electricity (as opposed todiesel), limiting the number of truck trips to and from the Site, and air monitoringactivities. ThisHIA identifiedandevaluated fourprimarysourcesofairquality impacts:construction,trucktraffic,andoperations.

Unlesscompletelymitigated,airemissionsfromprojectconstructionhavethepotentialtoimpact the surrounding community. Construction equipment and vehicles transportingequipmentcanexposeresidents,commercialbusinesses,pedestriansandbicycliststofineparticulateanddieselparticulatematteremissions(seeFigure3‐3).

On‐roadvehiclescanalsocausetrafficcongestion,andincreasetheriskoftrafficinjurytomotorists,pedestriansandbicyclists (seeSection4.4). Inadditiontoemissions fromtheinternal combustion engines of construction equipment, soil excavation and movementduringconstructionactivitiescangeneratedust.

Emissions during oil production operations (including testing, drilling and productionphases)alsohavethepotentialtoimpacttheairqualityoftheneighborhood.Theemissionsources associated with operational activities include onsite microturbines used togenerate onsite electricity, routine and emergency flaring events, and volatile fugitiveemissions from valves, compressors, pumps and connections. Muds that containhydrocarbons can surface and release hydrocarbon vapors (referred to as “mud off‐gassing”). Drilling muds may contain hydrogen sulfide, benzene and other volatilecontaminants, which can pose adverse short‐term and long‐term health effects to thenearbycommunity. Additionally,hydrogensulfideandhydrocarbonvaporscan leak intoambient air and exceed odor thresholds. Due to the close proximity of the site toneighbors,businessesandthepublic(within100feetofbusinesses,160feetofresidencesand20feetof thepublicsidewalks),numerousotherscenarioscouldcauseodorsoffsite.These could include various maintenance activities and small spills; equipmentcomponentscouldalsoleakandcauseodors.There is a large amount of evidence in the public health literature that describes theassociation between ambient air pollutants and health outcomes, specifically respiratoryand cardiovascular disease; however, there are inconsistencies and difficulties ininterpreting the abundance of the available information. The supporting evidence forevaluating the air qualityhealthdeterminants illustrated in Figure3‐3 is summarized inSection4.1.1.



FIGURE3‐3.AIRQUALITYPATHWAYDIAGRAM



3.2.2 WaterandSoilQualityThree primary sources of water and soil quality impacts were identified in the scopingphase: (1) discharge of wastewater and surface water runoff during construction andoperations, (2) deposition of windblown soil particulates to offsite surface soil, and (3)contaminationfromacrudeoilspillorupsetevent.TheprimarywaterresourceneartheSite and pipeline route is the Pacific Ocean. The ocean provides a potential exposurepathwayforrecreationaluserstocomeintodirectcontactwithcontaminantsfromtheSite,ortoingestfishorseafoodthatmaybeimpactedfromsiteactivities. Therearenoothersurfacewaterbodiesinthevicinityoftheproposedproject.Adjacentlandusesthatcouldbeimpactedbysoilparticulatesincluderesidential,commercialandrecreationalareas.There are other potential impacts in this area of focus that are not evaluated. Potentialstormwater impacts have been addressed in the EIR, and amitigationmonitoring planwould improve the existing sewer to allow for the capacity required to support theproposedproject.Therefore,stormwaterisnotfurtherevaluatedinthisassessment.Additionally, groundwater is not evaluated as groundwater beneath the Site is notcurrentlyusedasadrinkingwatersource.ThewaterandsoilqualitypathwaydiagraminFigure3‐4summarizesthepotentialprojectimpacts,healthdeterminantsandassociatedhealthoutcomes.



FIGURE3‐4.WATERANDSOILQUALITYPATHWAYDIAGRAM



3.2.3 NoiseandLightConstruction, operations and related activities such as truck traffic aremajor sources ofenvironmental noise for the proposed oil project. Health studies have documented thatnoiseexposureisassociatedwithincreasedbloodpressure(hypertension),cardiovasculardisease,sleepdisturbance,annoyance,andchildren’s learningabilities. Constructionandoperation activities also have the potential to cause vibration disturbances. Groundvibration produced by the drilling and production activities would be below the 0.01inches/secondthresholdwhenitreachestheclosestsensitivebusiness,asoundrecordingstudio,itwasdeterminedtobelessthansignificantintheEIR(MRS2014).Vibrationwasexcluded from this assessment due to this lowmagnitude of potential impact combinedwiththelowrankingvibrationreceivedinthesurveyofhealthconcerns(Table1‐1).Roadvehicletrafficisasignificantsourceofnoiseinurbanareas,andhasbeenwellstudiedin the public health literature. Noise generated by vehicle traffic depends on the trafficvolume, traffic speed, and vehicle type. To comply with Site safety plans, many timesequipmentisfittedwithloudback‐upwarningsystems.Inadditiontopotentialnoiseimpacts,disturbancesassociatedwithnighttimelightinghavebeen identified as a health determinant. The proposed project will require lighting tomaintainasafeworkingenvironmentforemployeesatnight. Keylightingfeaturesoftheproposed project include downcast lights on the Site entrance, the construction trailersand/orofficebuildings,andthedrillrigequipment.Alllightfixtureswouldbeshieldedanddowncast, andwould be located behind the 35‐foot sound attenuationwall tominimizelightspillorglarebeyondtheSiteperimeter.The noise and light pathway diagram in Figure 3‐5 summarizes the potential projectimpacts,healthdeterminants,andassociatedhealthoutcomes.



FIGURE3‐5.NOISEANDLIGHTPATHWAYDIAGRAM



3.2.4 TrafficThe construction phases and permanent operations of the proposed project will causeincreasesinavarietyoftraffic,especiallylargetrucktraffic.Theinfluxofnewtrucktrafficand the impact on safety is one of the primary concerns among community members.Increasesintransportationandtrafficcanimpactthehealthandsafetyofacommunitybyincreasing the risk of motor vehicle accidents, increasing release of hazardous airpollutants (see Section 4.4.1) and increasing road traffic noise (see Section 4.3.1).Increased perception of traffic safety hazards can also impact physical activity levels ofcommunitymembers(recreationandpersonalcommuting).ThetrafficpathwaydiagraminFigure3‐6summarizesthepotentialprojectimpacts,healthdeterminants,andassociatedhealthoutcomes.



FIGURE3‐6.TRAFFICPATHWAYDIAGRAM



3.2.5 CommunityLivabilityDuringthescopingphase,manycommunitymemberscommentedthatthepresenceofoilandgasindustry intheCityofHermosaBeachhasthepotential tochangetheidentityofHermosa Beach as “The Best Little Beach City.” Regardless of whether the proposedprojectwouldimposeanincreaseinenvironmentalhazardsorhealthrisks,neighborshaveexpressedconcernthattheintroductionofindustrycouldalterthecity’simage.Whiletheproposed Site is small in size (1.3 acre), the current lack of industrial sites in HermosaBeachbringsthisissuetotheforefront.Why do people live in Hermosa Beach? As part of the Community Dialogue process, acommunity‐ledcommitteewasassembledtodefineimportantqualityoflifefactors. Thiscommittee found common themes that describe the identity of Hermosa Beach (seeAppendixF):

Citystreetsarecleanandthebeachenvironmentisregularlymaintained Reputationforbeingasmallscenictownandfriendlybeachcommunity Barsthatattractpartycrowdsatnight Healthconsciouscommunitythatenjoysexercisingandspendingtimeoutdoors Accessiblecitygovernmentwithactivecitizensinvolvement Safeenvironmentwithlowcrimerate Knownforgreen/sustainableactivitiesandcarbonneutralgoal Schoolshaveahighreputationandbenefitfromcommunityinvolvement

Thisareaofhealthfocusincorporatesthequalityoflifevaluesintoanevaluationofthreekeyproject impacts that could result fromactual orperceivedchanges in environmentalexposures:potentialchangeincityidentify,cityrevenuefromoilandgasproduction,andaccesstoneighborhoodresources(e.g.Greenbelt,Farmer’sMarket,andbeach).Inadditionto impacts fromtheproposedproject, thissectionalso identifies impactsandbenefitsfromtheopportunitytovoteontheproposedproject.Communitymembershaveexpressedconcernthatlettingvotersdecidewhethertheproposedprojectisapprovedhascreatedpoliticaldivisionsandstress. Residentswhoare in favoraredivided fromthosewhoareagainsttheproposedproject.Whilethedebateovertheproposedprojecthasthepotentialtodisruptsocialcohesion,involvingthecommunityinthepoliticalprocesscanbebeneficialtohealthandwell‐being.ThecommunitylivabilitypathwaydiagraminFigure3‐7 summarizes the potential project impacts, health determinants, and associated healthoutcomes.



FIGURE3‐7.COMMUNITYLIVABILITYPATHWAYDIAGRAM



4.0 AssessmentFiveareasofhealthfocuswereidentifiedandassessedinthisreport:airquality,soilandwater quality, traffic, noise and community livability. Within these assessment areas,healthdeterminantswere identified through thepathwaydiagrams (Figures3‐3 through3‐7). For example, health determinants identified for air quality are nitrogen oxides,particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hydrogen sulfide, odor, andgreenhousegases.TheimpactassessmenttakesintoaccounttheproposedprojectasdescribedbyE&Binitsproject application, aswell asmitigation controls set forth in the EIR (MRS 2014). EIRmitigationmeasuresareintendedtoreducesignificantimpactswherefeasible.MitigationmeasuresidentifiedintheEIRareconditionswhichmustbemetiftheproposedprojectisapproved by Hermosa voters. Section 8.0 of the EIR contains a listing of all mitigationmeasuresthatwillbeincludedasconditionsofapprovalfortheproposedproject.AssessmentMethodsSeveralmethodswereusedtoassesspotentialhealthimpactsoftheproposedproject:

1. Literature review using PubMed and Google Scholar to search the public healthevidence for each health determinant and health outcome combination. Forexample to assess the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and heat‐related illness, the following search termswere used: greenhouse gas OR climatechangeANDheat‐related illnessORphysicalhealthORpsychologicalhealth. Tobeincludedintheanalysis,sourceshadtobepeer‐reviewedorpublishedinthegreyliterature(informallypublishedliterature)byacrediblesource.

2. Consistentwith the scoping phase, a professional engineerwith over 15 years ofexperienceintheoilandgasindustrywasconsultedtoidentifyindustrystandardsandspecificvulnerabilitiesrelevanttotheproposedprojectdesign.

3. Information collected in theEIRprocesswasused to carryout analysesof healthoutcomes. For example, the projected concentration of odorous materials isincorporatedintothehealthassessmentofodorandthepredictednumberoftrucktraffic trips from the Traffic Impact Analysis is incorporated into the healthassessmentoftrafficsafety.

4. Dataanalysisofexistinghealthconditionsandpotentialhealtheffectestimateswasconducted, as the availability of data allowed. For example, if baselinemortality/morbidity rates were available and increase in mortality/morbiditiesratescouldbeestimatedfortheproposedprojectimpact,thentheresultingchangeinmortality/morbiditywascalculated in thisassessment. This typeofcalculationwaspossible forestimatingchange incancermortalityandasthmamorbidityasaresultofinhalationexposuretoairemissions.



Lastly,aqualitativerankingscalewasusedinordertocharacterizehealthimpactsand/orbenefits of the proposed project according to public health considerations: direction ofhealtheffect,geographicextent,likelihood,vulnerablepopulations,durationandfrequencyof exposure, and magnitude/severity1. For each category of health consideration,consistent definitionswere identified and assigned numerical values. Numeric rankingsaresummedforeachhealthimpacttocreatearelativerank.Thelowestpossiblerankis6and the highest possible rank is 15, with a negative (‐) number representing negativehealtheffectsandapositive(+)numberrepresentingpositivehealtheffects.Thenumericranksdonotrepresentaquantitativeestimateofriskandarenotintendedtobecomparedtohealthstandards,norarethenumericranksmeaningfuloutsidethecontextofthisHIA.Theyareprovidedforthepurposeofdescribingtherelativeimportanceofeachpotentialhealth impact compared to the other potential health impacts in this HIA. Twoindependentreviewersassignedrankingstoensureobjectivityandconsistency.

1. Direction:Dependingonwhetherthepredictedchangemayeitherimprove(+)oradversely impact (‐) the community, the health determinant is assigned either anegativeorpositivevalue.

2. Geographic Extent: Classified as localized (may occur in close proximity to theproposed project activities, i.e., within a few blocks, 1 point) or community‐wide(may occur across Hermosa Beach, 2 points). If the geographic extent is global(there are no geographic boundaries), then geographic extent is weighted as 0points.

3. PresenceofVulnerablePopulations: Classifiedasno (affectsallsubpopulationsevenly, 1 point) or yes (disproportionately affects subpopulations that are moresensitivetopotentialhealthimpacts,2points).

4. Duration of Exposure: Classified as short (less than a month, 1 point),medium(more than amonth and less than a year, 2 points) or long (more than a year, 3points).

5. FrequencyofExposure:Classifiedasinfrequent(periodically,orrarely,1point),orfrequent(potentialforconstantormultipleexposures,2points).

6. Likelihood/StrengthofEvidence:Classifiedasunlikely(littleevidencethathealthimpactorbenefitcouldoccurasaresultoftheproposedproject,1point),possible(logically plausible that health effects may occur, 2 points), and likely (evidencesuggestshealtheffectscommonlyoccurinsimilarprojects,3points).

1ThequalitativerankingscalechosenforthisassessmentisatooldevelopedbytheColoradoSchoolofPublicHealthforanevaluationofoilandgasdevelopmentnearacommunity(UofC2010).



7. Magnitude/Severity:Classifiedaslow(healtheffectscanbeeasilymanagedanddonotrequiretreatment,1point),moderate (healtheffects thatrequiretreatmentormedical attention andare reversible, 2points), and severe (health effects that arechronic,irreversibleorfatal,3points).

RelationshiptotheEIRAs discussed in Section 2.0, the proposed project is subject to regulation under CEQA,whichrequiresanEIR.CEQAalsorequirestheidentificationandanalysisofhealtheffectswhentheEIRisconducted. However,thesignificanceofahealthimpactevaluatedintheEIR relates to comparison to quantitative thresholds from regulatory standards. Theestablishedenvironmentalthresholdsmaynotreflectthebreadthofimpactsconsideredbythe HIA. For instance, air emissions that meet regulatory criteria (and thereforeconsideredinsignificantintheEIR)maystillincreaseadversehumanhealthoutcomesinapopulation.Further,whileCEQAlegallyrequiresthathealth‐basedstandardsbeaddressedintheEIR,traditionallyEIRsarenotdesignedtocomprehensivelyaddresshealth impacts, includingsocialandeconomicdeterminantsofhealth. PublichealthagenciesacknowledgethattheEIRprocesshastraditionally includedatmostacursoryanalysisofhealtheffects. HIAisbecoming the preferred method to evaluate health impacts of proposed projects andpolicies in many local governments, academic institutions, public health agencies andnonprofitorganizationsacrossthecountry(CDPH2010,NRC2011).



4.1 AirQualityTheE&Bproposedoilandgasproductionfacilitycouldaffectairqualitybecauseoftheairemissionsfromconstructionandoperations,notablycriteriapollutants(CO,NOx,SOx,andPM), aswell as volatile organic compounds and hydrogen sulfide. Air emissions and/orambientconcentrationswereestimatedintheEIR(MRS2014).WhileacomprehensivelistofemissionswasidentifiedandmodeledintheEIR,thisHIAfocusesonfourairpollutantsthatcouldhavethemostadversehealthimpacts:

OxidesofNitrogen(NOx) ParticulateMatter(PM) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), specifically benzene and polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons(PAHs) Hydrogensulfide(H2S)andotherodors

This HIA also addresses potential health impacts associated with the emission ofgreenhousegases.

4.1.1 AirQualityandHealthThere are a substantial number of studies evaluating the potential associations betweenhealthoutcomesandexposurestoairpollutants,whichhavebeenimportantinidentifyingsusceptiblesubgroupsandassociatedriskfactors.OxidesofNitrogenRecentstudiesprovidescientificevidencethatNO2isassociatedwitharangeofrespiratoryeffects,andthereissufficientevidencetosuggestalikelycausalrelationshipbetweenevenshort‐termexposuretoNO2andrespiratorydiseaserates(USEPA2008).Followingshort‐termNO2exposure, there isan increasedriskofsusceptibility tobothviralandbacterialinfections. Among asthmatic children, multicity studies show support for associationsbetween respiratory symptoms and childhood asthma at ambient levels of NO2 (24‐hraverageranging from18 to32ppb) (Schildcroutetal.2006,Mortimeretal.2000). Inasystematicmeta‐analysisofsingle‐andmulti‐citystudiesinvestigatingambientNO2levels,thecombinedoddsratio(OR)forasthmasymptomswas1.14(95%CI:1.05–1.24)(USEPA2008). Positive associations have been reported between short‐term ambient NO2concentrations and increased number of emergency department visits and hospitaladmissions for respiratory disease, primarily asthma. The positive association betweenhospital admissions and NO2 exposure is consistent among children, older adults andasthma patients of all ages. A recent study concluded infants are more susceptible toasthmawhenexposedtoNO2duringthefirstyearoflife–anincreaseinaverageNO2of9.4µg/m3duringthefirstyearoflifewasassociatedwithanoddsratioof1.17forphysician‐diagnosed asthma (95% CI: 1.04–1.31) (Nishimura et al. 2013). Long‐term exposurestudieshavenotprovidedconclusiveevidencethatNO2actsasacarcinogen.



Evidence that NO2 has a role in the development of cardiovascular disease is lacking inshort‐term and long‐term studies (USEPA 2011). The effects of NO2 on cardiovascularhealthinanimalstudiesarealsoinconsistentandprovidelittleplausibilityfortheeffectsofNO2on thecardiovascularsystem(USEPA2011). PositiveassociationsbetweenambientNO2 concentrations and hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease are diminishedwhen carbon monoxide and particulate matter are also included in the model; therebyindicating thestudiesofNO2exposureandcardiovasculardiseaseareconfoundedbyco‐pollutants.Results from several large US and European mortality studies indicate a positiveassociation between short‐term ambient NO2 concentrations and the risk of all‐causemortality,with theeffectestimatesranging from0.5 to3.6%excessrisk inmortalityper10.6 µg/m3incrementalchangeindaily24‐houraverageNO22.IncreasesinshorttermNO2exposurewereassociatedwith increases inmortalityratesofbetween0.05%and1.72%(per10µg/m3NO2) (Andersonet al. 2007). Awidely reportedAmericanCancerSociety(ACS)studyreportsanincreaseinNO2exposureisassociatedwithanincreaseofupto5%inmortality rate fromall‐causes (per11.2 µg/m3) (Popeetal.2002). Whilemostof thepublichealthliteraturefocusesoncardiovascularandrespiratory‐relatedhealthoutcomes,recentstudiesofurbanairpollutionhavealsolinkednitrogendioxidetopretermbirthandlowbirthweight.Bothshort‐termandlong‐termstudiessupporttheconclusionthatpeoplewithpreexistingpulmonary conditions are likely at greater risk from ambient NO2 exposures than thegeneral public. Specifically, older adults (>65 years of age) are at an increased risk ofmortality and hospitalizations, while children (<18 years of age) more frequentlyexperience adverse respiratory health disease outcomes such as asthma than adults.PeoplewithoccupationsthatrequirethemtobeoutdoorsclosetosourcesofNO2andothertraffic pollutants (e.g. crossing guards, highway patrol officers, taxi drivers)may also bemorevulnerabletoNO2exposure.

ParticulateMatterParticulatematterisawidespreadairpollutantcomposedofamixtureofsolidandliquidparticles, and its effectsonhealtharewelldocumented. Particleswithadiameterof10micrometers or smaller are referred to as PM10, and particles with a diameter of 2.5micrometers or smaller are known as PM2.5. Both PM10 and PM2.5 include inhalableparticlesthataresmallenoughtoenterthe lungs,andbothshort‐term(hours,days)and

2Excessriskestimatesarestandardizedtoa20‐ppbincrementalchangeindaily24‐haverageNO2ora30ppbincrementalchangeindaily1‐hmaxNO2.



long‐term(months,years)exposurecanresultinincreasedrespiratoryandcardiovasculardisease. Specifically, PM exposure is associated with exacerbation of asthma and anincreaseinhospitaladmissions.Inaddition,increasedmortalityratesfromcardiovascularandrespiratorydiseasessuchaslungcancerarewelldocumented. Themostsusceptiblegroupsincludepeoplewithpre‐existinglungorheartdisease,olderadultsandchildren.Long‐termexposuretoPM2.5isastrongerriskfactorformorbidityandmortalitythanthelargerPM10. Long‐termexposuretoPM2.5 isassociatedwithanincreaseinthelong‐termrisk of cardiopulmonarymortality by 6–13%per 10 µg/m3 of PM2.5 (Beelen et al. 2008,Krewskietal.2009),andisassociatedwitha2to11%increaseinall‐causemortalityper10 µg/m3 of PM2.5 (Pope et al. 2002). In a sensitivity analysis of the ACS study, theCommitteeonMedicalEffectsofAirPollution(2009)estimatedthattheall‐causemortalityhasanoverall rangeofplausibilityof0 to15%. All‐causedailymortality isestimatedtoincreaseby0.2–0.6%per10µg/m3ofPM10(WHO2005,Samolietal.2008).Thescientificevidence forhealth impacts fromcombustion‐relatedPM ismore consistent than that ofPMfromothersources.InaSouthernCaliforniaAirBasin(SoCAB)Study,infantsexposedto elevated levels of PM10 were at higher risk of death from respiratory illnesses. TheSoCABStudyalsofoundthatmothersexposedtoPM10duringpregnancyareathigherriskof reproductivehealthoutcomes, suchaspretermdelivery,deliveringa lowbirthweightinfantandcongenitalheartdefects(RitzandWilhelm2008).VolatileOrganicCompoundsVolatileorganiccompounds(VOCs)primarilyassociatedwithoilandgasemissionsourcesandhealtheffectsincludebenzene,toluene,ethylbenzene,xylene,andpolycyclicaromatichydrocarbons(PAHs).ThisevaluationfocusesontheVOCsidentifiedintheEIRairtoxicsrisk assessment as having the most carcinogenic potential – benzene and PAHs (MRS2014).BenzeneisclassifiedasacarcinogenaccordingtotheInternationalAgencyforResearchonCancer (IARC), USEPA and California EPA (Cal/EPA). The major effect of long‐termexposure to benzene is on the blood – it can cause a decrease in red blood cells andadverselyimpacttheimmunesystem.Exposuretohighlevelsofbenzeneinairoverlongperiodsoftimecancauseleukemia,specificallyacutemyelogenousleukemia(AML),whichis a cancerof theblood‐formingorgans (ATSDR2007, seeAppendixG). It isnotknownwhether children are more sensitive to benzene exposure than adults, however animalstudieshaveshownthatdevelopmentaleffectssuchaslowbirthweightanddelayedboneformationarepossible.



PAHsareagroupofover100differentchemicalsthatareformedasaresultofincompletecombustion. In addition to being found in crude oil, some PAHs are used inmedicines,plastics and pesticides (ATSDR 1996, see Appendix G). Some PAHs are also knowncarcinogens. The types of cancer reported in carcinogenic PAH exposure studies aredependent on the route of exposure (Cal/EPA 2005). In the case of inhalation ofcarcinogenicPAHs,thecancersofconcernarerelatedtothelungandrespiratorysystem.Benzo(a)pyrene, which is classified as a carcinogen by IARC, USEPA and Cal/EPA, isconsideredtobethemostcarcinogenicPAH.Theepidemiological evidence for the carcinogenicityofbenzeneandbenzo(a)pyrenearefromstudiesofworkersexposedtothesechemicalsforlongperiodsoftimeinoccupationalsettings. Conclusions from studies of potential community‐wide exposure to benzene,benzo(a)pyreneandotherpetroleum‐relatedchemicalsvarywidely.Associationsbetweenoilandgasactivityandcommunitycancerrateshavebeenthefocusofsomehealthstudies.Theliteratureexaminingthisrelationshipissummarizedbelow.

Apopulation‐wideleukemiaincidencestudycarriedoutfrom1986to1988inChinausingleukemiacasedatawascollectedfromhospitals,clinics,andfactorydoctors.The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of leukemia in oil fields was significantlyhigher(1.46,p<0.01)thanotherindustrialareassuchascoalmines(SIR=1.18)andsteel factories (SIR = 1.04), as well as urban (SIR = 1.16) and rural areas (SIR =0.89). A limitation of the study was that the authors did not account for anypotentialconfounderssuchasageandsex(ChongliandXiaobo1991).

SeveralstudiesinEcuadorhavebeenconductedtoexaminecancerratesinavillagelocatednearoil fields. SanSebastianetal(2001)reportedtheoverallcancerratewas 2.3 times higher than a reference population, though the difference wasstatistically insignificant (95% CI: 0.97, 4.46), and leukemia incidence amongchildrenlivinginproximitytooilfieldswassignificantlyhigher(relativerisk=2.56;95% CI: 1.35, 4.86). However, this study has been criticized for exposuremisclassificationandKelshetal. (2009)foundthatoverallcancerandsite‐specificcancerratesweresimilarorloweramongthevillageresidents.

ACroatianstudyexaminedbloodcancerincidenceratesbetweenpopulationslivingnear oil and gas fields comparedwith those living in areas free from oil and gasdevelopment. The authors reported an association between oil and gasdevelopmentactivitiesand relative riskof chronicmyeloid leukemiaandmultiplemyeloma.Incidenceofchronicmyeloidleukemiawas3.4timesthatinthereferencearea(95%CI:1.65,6.87),andmultiplemyelomawas1.6timesthatinthereferencearea(95%CI:1.01,2.63)(GazdekandMustajbegovic2007).

OneavailablebiomonitoringstudywasconductedinresponsetocitizenconcernsinDISH, Texas. The Texas Department of State Health Services (TxDSHS) collected



bloodandurinesamplesfrom28peoplewholivedinandnearDISH.DISHisoneofthelargestonshorenaturalgasfieldsinNorthAmerica.Overall,VOCsinbloodwereconsistent with exposure to household products and drinking water, and theinvestigation did not indicate that community‐wide exposures from gas wells orcompressorstationswereoccurringinthesamplepopulation

In another study (Mokry 2010), the Texas Department of State Health Servicesrespondedtolocalcitizens’concernthatbenzenefromgasdrillingcouldbecausingcancer inFlowerMound,Texas. Standardized incidence ratioswere calculated toevaluate if there was a higher incidence of cancer in the potentially exposedpopulation,with a focus on cancers associatedwith benzene ‐ leukemia andnon‐Hodgkin'slymphoma.Therewasnoevidenceofexcesscancer,withtheexceptionoffemale breast cancer, a cancer not known to be associated with exposure tobenzene.

The majority of these studies are ecological studies, which means that aggregatedcharacteristicsofpopulationsareusedinsteadofindividual‐levelinformation.Manyofthestudieshavegroup‐leveldataonexposurestatus,anddonotmeasureindividualexposuretocontaminants.Overall,ecologicalstudiesandexposuresmustbeinterpretedcautiouslyandwithoutconcludingthatcausativerelationshipsexistontheindividuallevel.HydrogenSulfideHydrogensulfide isnaturallyoccurring incrudeoil andnaturalgas. It canbeextremelytoxicandirritating,anditsprimaryhealtheffectisrespiratoryfailure. Acuteexposuretohigh levels of H2S can result in loss of consciousness and death. A single loss ofconsciousness event can result in permanent neurobehavioral damage (Skrtic 2006).Several community studies investigatedwhether there isanassociationbetweenchronicH2Sexposureandneurologicaleffects.EnvironmentalsourcesofH2Swereassociatedwithnausea, headaches and eye irritation at levels as low as 7‐10 ppb (Jaakola 1990 andMarttila1995).

OdorThehumannoseisverysensitiveandcandetectodorsatlowlevels(ofteninthepartperbillion, orppb, range). Several compounds associatedwithoil andgasdevelopment canproduce odors. Sulfur compounds, found in oil and gas, have very low odor thresholdlevels, such as the rotten eggs smell fromhydrogen sulfide (H2S). Manyvolatile organiccompounds(VOCs)foundinoilandgastypicallyhavea“gasstation”likeodor.Theeffectsof theseodors are related to the frequency, duration, concentration, and the individuals’levelofsensitivity.



Although the H2S odor threshold is highly variable within the human population, it isestimatedthat50%ofhumanscoulddetecttheodorofH2Sat8ppb,whileover90%coulddetecttheodorat50ppbandvirtuallyeveryonecoulddetectH2Sat200ppb(CollinsandLewis, 2000). Exposure to concentrations above 30 ppbmay cause eye, nose, or throatirritation, headaches and nausea in some people (Cal/EPA 1999). It may also causedifficulty breathing for individuals with existing respiratory problems such as asthma.Briefexposurestohighconcentrationsofhydrogensulfide(greaterthan500,000ppb)cancause serious health effects including a loss of consciousness or sudden death (ATSDR2006).ThismeansyoucanbegintosmellH2Satlevelsbelowthoseconsideredharmfultohealth.

VOCsinoilandgasmayalsoproduceodors.Manyvolatilecompoundsfoundinoilandgas(pentane, n‐pentane, hexane, ethane and longer chain hydrocarbons) typically have apetroleum or gasoline odor with varying odor thresholds. Themost odiferous of thesecompoundsare1)hexane,whichhasanodorthresholdofbetween68and248ppm,and2)pentane,withanodor thresholdof2ppm(New Jersey2007). Exposure to low levelsofVOCsabovetheodorthresholdmaycausetemporaryirritationoftheeyes,nose,throat,orskin,headachesandnausea.ItispossiblethatpeoplewithasthmamaybemoresensitivetotheeffectofinhaledVOCs(USEPA2014).

While health effects directly associated with odors include irritation, headaches, andnausea,ambientodorshavebeenshownto impactapopulation’sgeneralwell‐beingandtheabilitytoperformvarioustasks. AccordingtotheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO),odorannoyanceaffectsqualityof life, therefore thesocialwellbeingdimensionofhealth.For example, Schiffman and colleagues reported that neighbors of large‐scale hogoperationsexperienced increased levelsofmooddisorders includinganxiety,depression,and sleep disturbances attributable to exposures to odorous compounds from livestockproduction(Schiffmanetal.1995,2000).

GreenhouseGasesGreenhouse gas emissions play a significant role in global climate change, and there aremany complex pathways in which climate change can affect population health.Environmental effects of climate change include extreme weather events, impacts onecosystems and sensitive species, sea‐level rise and environmental degradation. Thehealth effects that may result include heat illness and fatalities, increase in infectiousdisease, impaired crop/livestock yields, and loss of livelihoods (McMichael et al. 2006).Overthepast50years,studieshavedocumentedanincreasedprobabilityanddurationofheatwaves(Frichetal.2002).Heatwavescanleadtoheatstrokeanddehydration,andaremore likely to impact young children, older adults and peoplewith pre‐existingmedicalconditions.Ontheotherhand,somereductionintheriskofdeathrelatedtoextremecoldweatherisexpected(USGlobalChange2009).



Duetothecomplexityandmultitudeoffactorsconsideredinclimatechangepathways,itisdifficulttoquantifythepotentialchangeinhealthoutcomes.However,theWHOestimatedthatclimatechangewasresponsibleformorethan150,000deathsworldwidein2000,and88%ofthisburdenfallsonchildren(WHO2002).Duetorisingtemperatures,theamountofpollenproductionandlengthofpollenseasonisincreasing,whichpresentsanincreasedrisktoallergens.Increaseinweedandgrasspollenshavebeenassociatedwithincreasedasthma hospital admission rates and emergency department visits among children(Schmier and Ebi 2009). More recent studies have been exploring the relationshipbetweenheatimpactsonschoolperformanceamongchildren(Dapietal.2010).It is also difficult to predict health‐related impacts from climate change at local scalesbecause small regional area may have either less temperature‐sensitive or moretemperature‐sensitiveclimates.Onalocallevel,climatechangeimpactstohealtharemoreobvious in tropical regionswithalreadyveryhot temperaturesduringcertainmonthsofthe year (IPCC 2013). Socioeconomic status plays a large role in access to preventionstrategies to reduce the potential impacts of climate change through greenhouse gasreductionstrategies.Publichealthimplicationsofclimatechange,especiallyquantificationoftheeffectsonchildren’shealthneedmoreresearch(SheffieldandPhilip2011).

4.1.2 CurrentConditionsAirQualityConditionsComparedtootherCaliforniacommunities,Hermosahasa lowairpollutionburdenfromcumulativeenvironmentalsources(seeAppendixE).Airmonitoringstationsprovidedatafor localized areas around the monitors, though not all individual cities have monitors.Hermosa does not have an air monitoring station within its city boundaries, and iscontainedintheSouthwestCoastalLosAngelesCountyarea(Area3,Station820),withanairmonitoringstationinHawthorne3.Therefore,HermosaBeachairqualityisassumedtobesimilar toambientconditions inHawthorne. The2012SCAQMDbaselinedata for theprimaryairpollutantsofconcernassociatedwiththeproposedprojectare:

Nitrogen dioxidemaximum1‐hourwas 126.1µg/m3 and the annual averagewas19.6µg/m3.

PM10maximum1‐hourwas31µg/m3andtheannualaveragewas19.8µg/m3.The Southwest Coastal LA County air monitoring station did not sample for particulatematter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). California’s Office ofEnvironmentalHealthHazardAssessment(OEHHA)estimatedtheannualmeanofPM2.5of

3AppendixEpresents2011‐2012SouthCoastAirMonitoringDistrict(SCAQMD)dataonannualaverageandmaximumconcentrationsofairpollutants,ascomparedtoairqualitystandardsandareferencemonitoringstationinLosAngeles.



Onroad Mobile39%

Offroad Mobile12%

Industrial44%

Small

Commercial

2%

Areawide3%

FIGURE 4‐1.LOCAL NOX EMISSION SOURCES

13.74µg/m3,whichisabovetheCaliforniaairqualitystandardof12µg/m3(seeAppendixE). No baseline data are available to establish benzene, PAH, or hydrogen sulfideconcentrations.AcrosstheLAbasinin2008,totalemissionsofNOxandVOCwereestimatedtobe758and593 tons per day, respectively (SCAQMD 2012). As shown in Table 4‐1 below, 1.2% ofbasin‐wide VOC emissions can be attributed to petroleum production and developmentactivities and less than 1% of NOx total emissions. Note that this does not includeemissionsassociatedwithmobile sources, suchas truck traffic, or constructionactivitiesthattakeplaceatoilandgasproductionfacilities.TABLE 4‐1. 2008 LA BASIN EMISSIONS FOR OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTIONACTIVITIES

Source VOC NOx PM10 PM2.5

Fuel Combustion

Oil and Gas Production 0.10 0.73 0.10 0.10

Petroleum Refining 1.30 0.0 1.56 1.54

Petroleum Production and Marketing

Oil and Gas Production 1.35 0.08 0.01 0.01

Petroleum Refining 4.12 0.32 1.92 1.68

Total Emissions 6.87 1.13 3.59 3.33

Note: Emissions are reported in tons per day

To provide current emission sourceestimates for the local area around theproposed project site, the Community AirPollutionInformationSystem(CHAPIS)wasused to map emission sources. CHAPISreportsemissioninventorystatistics fora4x 4 kilometer grid around the Site (seeFigures4‐1through4‐3),whichincludesthecombined contribution of emissions fromcars and trucks, alongwith industrial sites.Whiletheseemissionestimatesaremodelednot measured, exposure, they provide apointofreferenceforambientconditionsinHermosaBeach.

CurrentnitrogenoxideemissionsintheSitevicinityareestimatedtorangefrom0to529tonsperyear.Theonlyindustrialsourceofnitrogenoxideemissionswithinonemile radius is theAESRedondoBeachpowerplant facility,whichcontributes



44%ofthetotalnitrogenoxideemissions.Cars,trucks,boatsandotherrecreationalvehiclesaccount for51%ofnitrogenoxides in the localHermosaBeacharea (seeFigure4‐1andAppendixH).

PM10emissionsinthelocalHermosaBeacharearangefrom0to225tonsperyear,with themajority of these emissions coming from theAESRedondoBeachpowerplant facility. The total PM10

emission rate in the 4 km2 areaaround the site is 270 tons peryear (Figure 4‐2 and AppendixH).

Benzene emissions in the localHermosa Beach area range from0 to 7150 pounds per year, andthe majority of benzeneemissions are attributed to on‐roadmobilesourcessuchascarsand trucks. The total benzeneemission rate in the 4 km2 areaaroundthesite is38,700poundsperyear(seeAppendixH).

CHAPISdoesnotreportemissionsinventorygriddedmappingforPM2.5,PAHsorhydrogensulfide.FortheVOCsofpotentialconcern,benzeneandPAHs,theCaliforniaAirResourcesBoardreportsannualsummariesforonlyselectmonitoringstationsacrossthestate.Theclosestmonitoring stationwith data on these VOCs is North Long Beach. Benzene ambient airconcentrationshavebeensteadilydecreasingoverthelasttwodecades.In2011,themeanbenzene concentration forNorth LongBeachwas 0.444 ppb and in 2012 themeanwas0.402ppb. The2012ambient level isassociatedwithanestimatedcancerriskof41permillionpeopleexposed(CARB2014). PAHambientairconcentrationshavealsobeenonthedecline. TheMultipleAirToxicsExposureStudy III (MATES III) is amonitoring andevaluation study conducted in theSouthCoastAirBasin. MATES IIIdata from2008areusedtoestimatecurrentconditionsfortheHermosaBeacharea. Thisevaluationfocuseson the most carcinogenic chemical in the group of PAHs, benzo(a)pyrene. Threemonitoring stations, Central LA,Rubidoux andWilmington,monitor benzo(a)pyrene andaverageconcentrationsare0.12,0.14and0.18ng/m3, respectively (Table IV‐3,SCAQMD2008).

Onroad Mobile7%

Offroad Mobile3%

Industrial82%

Small Commercial

1%

Areawide7%

FIGURE 4‐2.LOCAL PMEMISSION SOURCES



GreenhouseGasEmissionsThe Hermosa Beach community and City Councilestablished a Sustainability Plan to reduce per capitalgreenhousegasemissions.SomeofthepriorityareasfortheSustainabilityPlanare toencourageresidents tousealternativemodesoftransportation,adoptgreenbuildingstandards,andlocallypromoteenergyefficiency(HBGTF2011). The Sustainability Plan consists of a frameworkforaclimateactionplan,whichestablishesmilestonestomeet greenhouse gas reduction goals. The 2007emissionsinventoryreportedthat134,253metrictonsofcarbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)were generated fromcommunityandmunicipalsources.Thelargestsectorsofemissions were transportation (59%) and electricity(40%; as cited in HBGTF 2011). Municipal operationsaccount for only 1% of the total community emissions.The Sustainability Plan identified reduction strategiesandtargetsinordertomeetitsgoalof15%reductionin2005levelsby2020.HealthConditionsOverall,thecurrenthealthconditionsofHermosaBeachresidentsarefavorablecomparedto Los Angeles County and other communities in California (see Appendix E). Thefollowing health statistics describe Hermosa Beach mortality and disease rates that areoften associated with air quality in the scientific literature, as previously described inSection4.1.1:

Theall‐causemortalityrateis40.5per10,000people(CDPH2013). Themortality rate for chronic lower respiratory disease is 2.3 per 10,000 people

(CDPH2013). The leading cause of death is heart disease,with a rate of 9.2 per 10,000 people

(CDPH2013). Theasthmaincidencerateamongchildrenis12.8%fortheTorranceHealthDistrict,

whichincludesHermosaBeach(LACDPH2011b). The totalhospitalization rateand theasthmahospitaladmissionrate is7,040per

and35.9per100,000people,respectively(OSHPD2013). The observed number of cancer cases in the City ofHermosaBeach iswithin the

expected number, based on age‐, race‐ and sex‐adjusted incidence rates for LosAngelesCounty,forallcancersexceptmelanomaandbreastcancer.

Source:HBGTF2011

Greenhouse GasEmissionsby the Numbers

Community:59%: Travel to/from the city40%: Electricityconsumptions1%: Municipal operations6.8 Metric tons CO2e/personMunicipal Operations:51%: Transportation fuels25%: Employee commutes47%: Electricity/gas33%: Streetlights/facilities11%: Waste disposal



4.1.3 ProjectedImpactThe EIR produced emission estimates for NOx, PM, VOC and hydrogen sulfide for bothmitigatedandunmitigatedscenarios. Ifthecalculatedemissionsfortheproposedprojectarebelow the levelof significance thresholdemission levels, thendetailedairdispersionmodeling was not conducted. The resulting air emissions and/or concentrations wereevaluatedwithrespecttopossiblehealthimpactsthatcouldbeassociatedwithpredictedairpollutantlevels.NitrogenOxidesThe baseline nitrogen oxide emissions modeled by CHAPIS mapping program arecomparedtothephasewiththehighestprojectedprojectemissions(MRS2014),andthetotal NOx emissions estimated for Hermosa Beach area during the proposed project arepresented in Table 4‐2 below. The percent increase in total NOx emissions in HermosaBeachwould range from4% to 6% for the unmitigated project and 2% to 2.5% for themitigated project for Phases 3 and 4. The NOx emissions due to Phases 1 and 2wouldresultina1%increaseovercurrentambientconditions.TABLE4‐2.SUMMARYOFCURRENT,PROJECT‐RELATEDANDTOTALNOXEMISSIONS

Project Phase Current NOx Emissions

Project‐related NOx Emissions

Total NOx Emissions During Project Phase

Phase 1 (Construction)

Unmitigated 529 10.2 539.2

Mitigated 529 5.5 534.5 Phase 2 (Construction and Operational


Mitigated 529 5.3 534.3 Phase 3 (Construction)


Mitigated 529 13.6 542.6 Phase 4 (Construction and Operational)


Mitigated 529 5.8 534.8

Note:NOxemissionsarepresentedintonsperyear,andassumethatthemaximumprojectedemissionsforeachphaseintheEIRwouldoccur365daysperyear.



The most prevalent form of NOxemissions is NO2. In the atmosphere,NOx forms ozone (O3) and acid rain.There are insufficient data to quantifythechangeinhealthoutcomesbasedonthe total change in NOx emissions.Additional air modeling would beneeded to estimate NO2 emissions, andresulting change in health outcomescouldthenbequantified.Iftheproposedproject is approvedbyvoters and thereis a 2.5% increase in NOx emissionsduring Phase 3 as projected in the EIR,the contribution of industrial NOxsourceswouldchangefrom44%to45%ofHermosaBeacharea‐wideemissions.

Under the mitigated project scenario, the NOx emissions do not exceed the Draft EIRsignificantimpactthresholds,thereforeairdispersionmodelingresultswererequestedasa supplemental analysis from the EIR team. The project‐specific air dispersion modelestimatesthatNOxairconcentrationswouldbehighestduringPhase4duetooperationofmicroturbines. During Phase 4, the annual average NOx in ambient air near the closestresidentialreceptorisestimatedtobe11.3µg/m3.,andthe24‐hourpeakNOxisestimatedtobe40.2µg/m3.TheamountofNOxassumedtoconverttoNO2isbasedonthereportedexhaust ratios for microturbines, which are approximately 10%. However, the NO2conversion rate is a function of downwind distance, with higher conversion rates asdistance increases. Fortheclosestresidentialneighbor, theincreases inNO2ambientairconcentrationsareestimated toequal1.13and4.02µg/m3(annualaverageand24‐hourpeak,respectively).Given the anticipated change in NO2 air concentrations, it is possible to calculate anestimatedchangeinhealthoutcomesbasedoneffectestimatespublishedinthescientificliterature. There is sufficient evidence in the public health literature to suggest a likelycausalrelationshipbetweenshort‐termexposuretoNO2andrespiratoryillnessrates,andshort‐termexposuretoNO2hasbeenassociatedwithasthmaamongchildren.TocalculatethepotentialhealthimpactfromtheincreaseinNO2concentrations,thefollowingequationwasused:

Onroad Mobile39%

Offroad Mobile11%

Industrial45%

Small Commercial

2%

Areawide3%

FIGURE 4‐3.LOCAL NOX EMISSIONSOURCES WITH PROJECT



ΔinMorbidity ΔinAirPollutionXEffectEstimateXMorbidityRateXExposedPopulation

Where:ΔinMorbidity= numberofexcesscasesduetothechangeinambientairpollution

measureΔinAirPollution= thedifferencebetweenthecurrentlevelandthetotalafter

consideringproject‐relatedimpactsEffectEstimate= percentagechangeinmortalityduetoaoneunitchangeinambient

airpollutionMorbidityRate= averagenumberofpeoplethatarediagnosedperyearExposedPopulation= thenumberofpeopleaffectedbythechangeinairpollutionTopredict thechange inasthmaratesamongchildren, thecalculation inputs include theestimated change in short‐term NO2 air concentrations (4.02 µg/m3 per 24‐hours), theeffect estimate is a 14% increase in asthma symptomsper 37.64µg/m3 increase inNO2(USEPA2008), thecurrentasthmarate in the region is12.8%(LACDPH2011b), and theexposedpopulation isequaltothenumberofchildrenunder18living inHermosaBeach(3,101children).AsaresultofincreasedNO2emissionsfrommicroturbinesinPhase4,thepotential increase in asthma incidence is estimated to equal 6 additional cases per year.This assessment is overly conservative by assuming that all residents inHermosaBeachwillbeexposedtotheNOxconcentrationpredictedforresidencesclosesttotheproposedsite.ParticulateMatterThebaselinePM10emissionsmodeledbyCHAPISmappingprogramarecompared to thephase with the highest projected project emissions (MRS 2014), and the total PM10

emissions estimated for the Hermosa Beach area during the proposed project arepresented inTable4‐3below. Thepercent increase in totalPM10emissions inHermosaBeachwouldrangefrom0.04%to0.16%fortheunmitigatedprojectand0.02%to0.03%forthemitigatedprojectforPhases3and4.TABLE4‐3.SUMMARYOFCURRENT,PROJECT‐RELATEDANDTOTALPM10EMISSIONS

Project Phase Current PM10 Emissions

Project‐related PM10 Emissions

Total PM10 Emissions During Project Phase





Mitigated 225 0.7 225.7



Project Phase Current PM10 Emissions

Project‐related PM10 Emissions

Total PM10 Emissions During Project Phase





Mitigated 225 0.6 225.6

Note:PM10emissionsarepresentedintonsperyear,andassumethatthemaximumprojectedemissionsforeachphaseintheEIRwouldoccur365daysperyear.The CHAPIS mapping program does not provide baseline data for PM2.5 emissions,thereforetheproject‐relatedPM2.5emissionscannotbecomparedtocurrentconditionsforthefineparticulatefractionofemissions. Underthemitigatedprojectscenariopresentedin theEIR, thePM10 andPM2.5 emissions for Phase2 andPhase4 exceed the significantimpactthresholdsduetoflaringandmicroturbines. Modelingpredictsthatthechangeinparticulatematterairconcentrationscouldvary from0.003 to1.37µg/m3dependingonthesourceandthephaseoftheproposedproject.GiventheestimatesinthechangeofPM10airconcentrations, it ispossibletocalculateanestimated change in health impacts based on effect estimates published in the scientificliterature. To calculate the mortality health impact from the increase in PM10concentrations,thefollowingequationwasused:

ΔinMortality ΔinAirPollutionXEffectEstimateXMortalityRateXExposedPopulationWhere:ΔinMortality= numberofexcessdeathsduetothechangeinambientairpollution

measureΔinAirPollution= thedifferencebetweenthecurrentlevelandthetotalafter

consideringproject‐relatedimpactsEffectEstimate= percentagechangeinmortalityduetoaoneunitchangeinambient

airpollutionMortalityRate= averagenumberofpeoplethatdieperyearExposedPopulation= thenumberofpeopleaffectedbythechangeinairpollutionTo predict the change in mortality by all causes, the calculation inputs include theestimated change in PM10 air concentrations ranges from 0.003 to 1.37 µg/m3 per year(MRS2014),themortalityeffectestimaterangesfrom2%to11%per10µg/m3increasein



PM2.5 (Pope et al. 2002), exposed population is equal to the number of people living inHermosaBeach(19,506people).AsshowninthemodeledPM10andPM2.5emissions,PM2.5accountsfor95%to97%ofthePM10estimates,thereforeitisappropriatetousethePM2.5mortalityeffect estimate for the change inPM10 concentrations. Asa resultof increasedparticulatematterfromflaringsourcesinPhase2andmicroturbinesinPhase4,thechangeinmortalitybyallcausesisestimatedtobefrom0to0.4peopleperyearinPhase2andfrom0to1.6peopleperyearinPhase4(seeTable4‐4below).ThisassessmentisoverlyconservativebyassumingthatallresidentsinHermosaBeachwillbeexposedtothePM10concentrationpredictedforresidencesclosesttotheproposedsite.TABLE4‐4.SUMMARYOFCHANGEINPM10CONCENTRATIONSANDMORTALITY

Pollutant

Change in Outdoor PM10 (µg/m3)

Change in Mortality by All Causes (people per year)

Current PM10

Project‐related PM10

Total PM10

ACS Study Effect

Estimate1 Sensitivity Analysis2

Phase 2 Flaring

PM 24 hr 31 1.37 32.37 ‐ ‐

PM Annual 19.8 0.34 20.14 0.1 – 0.3 0 – 0.4

Phase 4 Flaring

PM 24 hr 31 3.85 34.85 ‐ ‐

PM Annual 19.8 0.003 19.80 0.0005 – 0.003 0 – 0.004

Phase 4 Microturbines

PM 24 hr 31 4.87 35.87 ‐ ‐

PM Annual 19.8 1.37 21.17 0.2 – 1.2 0 – 1.6 1AmericanCancerSocietyStudy(Popeetal.2002)2Sensitivityanalysiswasconductedusingeffectestimates fromasystematicreviewofairpollutionstudies(COMEAP2009). VolatileOrganicCompoundsIn the toxic air contaminant health risk assessment conducted in the EIR (MRS 2014),cancer risks and noncancer hazards were calculated for offsite populations, includingcommercialworkersandresidents.Inthistypeofhealthriskassessment,thecancerriskisdescribed as the increase in cancer cases among people exposed over a lifetime.Residential cancer risks are compared to a cancer risk threshold of one in one million(1x10‐6, or one excess case of cancer per one million people exposed). The noncancerhazardisaratiooftheexposureconcentrationcomparedtolevelsatwhichhealtheffectsmayoccur. NoncancerhazardsgreaterthantheUSEPAandCal/EPAthresholdof1.0areconsideredsignificant.Whentheproject‐relatedairemissionsaremodeled,theestimatedcancer risksexceed the1x10‐6 threshold,while thenoncancerhazardsarebelow the1.0significance threshold. Therefore, this evaluation focuses on comparing current cancer



incidence rates inHermosaBeachwith theprojected cancer burden for the unmitigatedandmitigated project scenarios. Table 4‐5 summarizes the potential change in cancerratesinHermosaBeach.TABLE4‐5.SUMMARYOFCANCERBURDENANDCHANGEINHERMOSABEACHINCIDENCERATES

Unmitigated MitigatedCurrent AllMalignantCancers1 35.0 35.0Project‐related CancerBurden2 0.12 <0.01Total AllMalignantCancers 35.12 35.0–35.01

1BaselineHealthAssessment,AppendixE2MRS2014HydrogenSulfideandOdorAspartof theairqualitycomponentof theEIR(Section4.2),modelingwasconductedtopredict the potential extent of odor impacts from normal operations (fugitive emissionsand muds off‐gassing) and a single leak release. The modeling utilized meteorologicalparameters and air dispersionmodels andwas conducted using the AERMODmodelingprogramassumingareasourcesforfugitivereleases,mudsoff‐gassingandoilcomponentfugitiveleaks.Odorousmaterialsatthesourcewereassumedtoinclude100H2Sppmasaworst case. H2S in crude oil vapors was assumed to be ten times higher (1,000 ppm)becausevaporsabovecrudeoilcanhavesubstantiallyhigherH2Scontentthanthegas.Theodorthresholdwasconservativelysetat2ppbforH2S.The results of the modeling indicate that concentrations of odorous materials duringnormaloperationscouldbeashighas5.8timestheodorthreshold,primarilydrivenbyH2Slevelsfromdrillingmudsoff‐gassing(seeTable4‐5below).Odorsfollowingasingleleakreleasecouldproduceconcentrationsgreaterthantheodorthresholdatnearbyresidencesand businesses and public areas offsite. According to the EIR, odor impacts wouldthereforebeconsideredpotentiallysignificant.TheEIRalsodescribesthat,becauseodorthresholdsformaterialsareverylow,inthepartsper billion, releases of odor causing materials create impacts at considerable distances.Therefore, odor impacts associatedwith accidental releases, such as tankpressure reliefdevicereleases,orminorreleasesfromtheoilorgasequipment,duetothecloseproximityofneighbors,couldalsoimpactsurroundingareas.



TABLE4‐6.SUMMARYOFODORASSESSMENT Source Output Value at receptor, 3

min avg time (ppm)

Odor threshold

(ppm)

Max to threshold

ratio

Fugitive Release Gas (source emission rate 6.64E‐05 g/s‐m2)

H2S 100 ppm 0.0001 0.002 0.03

Hexane 2.9% 0.0077 68 0.00

Pentane 3.0% 0.0094 2 0.00

Combined Value ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.04

Fugitive Release Crude (source emission rate 6.13E‐05 g/s‐m2)

H2S 1000 ppm 0.0006 0.002 0.31

Hexane 9.8% 0.0239 68 0.00

Pentane 10% 0.0291 2 0.01


Muds Off‐gassing Release (source emission rate 6.38E‐03 g/s‐m2)

H2S 1000 ppm 0.0104 0.002 5.20

Hexane 9.8% 0.4044 68 0.01

Pentane 10% 0.4925 2 0.25


Total Peak Hour Odor Impact, Normal Operations 5.81

Single Leaker Release

H2S 100 ppm 0.0018 0.002 0.89

Hexane 2.9% 0.2057 68 0.00

Pentane 3.0% 0.2539 2 0.13


Source:AERMODOutputfromAirAppendixofEIR(MRS2014)Theremaybeothersourcesofodor thatarenotaddressed in theEIR. Forexample, theprojectdescriptionexplainsthatbeforethegasleavestheSiteitwouldbeodorizedusinganodorizing substance suchasmercaptan, as requiredby law. Theremaybeup to500gallonsofmercaptanstoredonsite. Mercaptan,whichsmellslikerotteneggs, isaddedtotheodorlessandcolorlessnaturalgassopeoplecandetectitspresence.Thehealtheffectsfollowingmercaptan releasewouldbe similar to low levels ofH2S. Therefore, there areotherpotentialodorissues,associatedwiththeuseofmercaptan.Becauseodorsensitivityandresponsetoodorsdiffersfrompersontoperson,theinfluenceofodorsonthehealthof individualscannotbequantitativelyevaluated. Forpeoplewhoaremore sensitive to odors, smelling a small amount can cause headaches and nausea.Sensitivepopulationsincludeyoungchildren,pregnantwomen,theelderlyandpeoplewithchronichealthproblems. More thananunpleasantodor, thesmellscouldhavedramaticconsequences for community livability nearby the proposed project Site where people



placeahighvalueonenjoyingtheoutdoors.Theodorsanticipatedfromthepresenceofanoil production facility near homes will disrupt the outdoor beach lifestyle in the areassignificantlyimpactedbyodors.Further,thecompromiseofindependenceassociatedwiththeoutdoorlifestylemaygivewaytofeelingsofdepressionforsomepeople.The emissions associated with operational activities are likely to create negative healtheffects primarily due to hydrogen sulfide emissions. Because releases of odor‐causingmaterials creates impacts at considerable distances, the impact of the odor may becommunity‐wide.Thedurationofodorexposurewillbelong,spanningthe30+yearPhase4portionoftheproposedproject.Withoutmitigation,theodorswillbefrequent.Withorwithouttheproposedmitigation, it is likelythat therewillbehealtheffectsasaresultoftheproposedproject.GreenhouseGasEmissionsThe proposed project is estimated to produce 11,852 million metric tons of CO2e(MTCO2e),whichisslightlyabovetheSCAQMDthresholdof10,000MTCO2e(MRS2014).WiththeproposedmitigationintheEIR,themaximumgreenhousegasemissionsperyearwouldbe10,000MTCO2e.HermosaBeachanditsresidents,asevidencedbytheSustainabilityPlan,havepreventionandreductionstrategiesinplacetoreducetheeffectsofgreenhousegasemissionsontheenvironment andpublic health. While theCity isworking to reduceGHGemissions, theissue is a regional and global one in terms of total carbon emissions. Compared to theglobal scale,Hermosa’s currentmoderate climate is less susceptible to dangerously hightemperatureincreasesthaninthetropics.Inordertoassessthepotentiallocalhealtheffectsofgreenhousegasemissionsandrelatedclimate change, theCity’s capacity tomanagenewandchanging climate conditionsmustalsobetakenintoconsideration.Thepossibilityofhealthimpactsresultingfromchangesingreenhousegasemissionsdependslargelyonwhetherornotvulnerabilitiesexistinthecommunity. Other cities have been successful in reducing deaths during heatwaves byorganizingcommunity‐widealertsandoperatingahotlinewithnursestoassistcallerswithhealth problems. Additionally, implementation of community programs to assist olderadults with home improvements that save energy and allow for comfortable indoortemperatureshaveknowntobesuccessful(USGlobalChange2009).Thepotentialhealthimpactscannotbequantifiedgiventheavailabledataandcomplexitiesofclimatechangepathways. GiventhatHermosais lesssusceptibletothelocaleffectsofglobalchangeandprogressiveinitiativesinplacetoreducethemagnitudeandseverityof



adverse impacts fromclimatechange,potentialnegativehealth impacts fromgreenhousegas emissions are estimated as negligible to minor. It is also possible that California‐recoveredoilmaybeassociatedwithfewerGHGemissionsontheglobalscaleiffuelfromlocal sources replaces oil from foreign sources. This is primarily because foreign oil isassociatedwithsubstantialemissionsduetotransportationoverthousandsofmilestogettoCalifornia(MRS2014).

4.2 WaterandSoilQualityThissectionassesses thepotentialhealth impactsof threeexposurepathways thatcouldposearisktoresidential,commercialandrecreationalcommunitymembers:(1)dischargeofwastewaterandsurfacewaterrunoffduringconstructionandoperations,(2)depositionofwindblownsoilparticulatestooffsitesurfacesoil,and(3)contaminationfromacrudeoilspill or upset event. This assessment is based on a review of community healthassessments andhealth risk assessments of crudeoil contamination at other oil and gasdevelopmentorproductionfacilities.

4.2.1 Water,SoilandHealthAsrainwaterrunsoverthehardsurfacesontheproposedprojectSite, itcanpickupoiland grease residues, concrete washout water, heavy metals, and debris, and then rundirectly into thePacificOcean. Thechemicals carriedby thewatercanbecaustic to theenvironmentandhumanhealthandresultinacutehealthsymptomssuchaseyeandskinirritation.Windblown soil particulates may contain various chemicals of human health concern.Peoplecanbeexposedtotheseparticulateswhentheyinhale,throughincidentalingestionof dust, or in extreme cases, childrenmay intentionally consume soil (a behavior calledpica). Depending on the naturally occurring and anthropogenic components of soil,particulatescanpresentvaryingdegreesofhumanhealthrisk.Theprimarychemicalsofconcerninoilspillsarevolatileorganiccompounds,specificallybenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, naphthalene, other polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons(PAHs),aswellasmetals. Whilepipelinesaregenerallyregardedasasafewaytotransportoil,pipelineaccidentsdooccur.Amajorpipelineaccidentin2010spilled840,000gallonsofcrudeoilintotheKalamazooRiverinMichigan(MDCH2013).Pipelinefailures canbe fatalwhen explosions occur near populated areas. Communitymemberssurveyed immediately following two oil spill events reported headaches, eye/skinirritation, respiratory conditions, anxiety, and depression (UDOH 2011, MDCH 2013).Emergency response and cleanup efforts following pipeline oil spills are effective inlimiting the public’s exposure to crude oil contaminants. Risk assessments of soil and



surfacewaterfollowingcleanupofpipelinerupturesindicatethatresidualchemicallevelsfound in the environment are not expected to cause long‐term harm to public health.However,oil spillcleanupworkersareknowntoexperiencearangeofsymptomsdue todirectcontactwithcrudeoilduringemergencyresponseactivities. Additionally, largeoilspillscanimpactfishconsumptionadvisoriesandlocaleconomiesthatdependonfishandseafoodcommerce. Long‐termeffectsofoilspillshavenotbeenwellstudied; thisgapinpublic health knowledge has been acknowledged by the scientific community since the2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred (Woodward 2010) and is currently beingaddressedbytheGulfLong‐termHealthFollow‐upStudy.AsdescribedintheEIR,blowoutsoccurwhenthedrillingencountersanareaofpressurethatexceedsthecapacityofthedrillingmuds,andoilandgastoflowbackupthewelltothesurface(MRS2014). Whilewellblowoutsarerare,theycanbeextremelydangerous.Directhealthimpactscanincludefatalitiesandinjuries,aswellasavarietyofneurologicalconditions linkedtoacuteexposure. Additionally,potential indirecthealth impactsofoilspills or well blowoutsmay include elevated levels of anxiety and depression, resultingfrom either the perceived risk of a potential upset or from an actual upset event.Psychological impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Florida and Alabamacommunitieshavebeendescribed,particularlyamongbusinessownerswhoexperiencedeconomiclossassociatedwithcommunityoilexposure(Grattanetal.2011).AsdiscussedinSection3.1,thefearofanaccidentalexplosionoroilspillwastheconcernrankedhighestamong the community. This indicates potential stress related to the fear of a fatalexplosionoranenvironmentallydevastatingoilspill.

4.2.2 CurrentConditionsCurrentWaterConditionsThe City of Hermosa has 2 miles of beach within the larger Santa Monica Bay, whichstretchesnorth toMalibuandsouth toPalosVerdesPeninsula,and theproposedprojectsite is located less thanhalfamile fromthebeach. TheentireSantaMonicaBayand itsbeacheswerelistedasimpairedunderSection303(d)oftheCleanWaterActbecausethesurface waters do not meet federal water quality standards. Impairments in the SantaMonicaBayareduetothehumanhealthrisksassociatedwithconsumptionofaquaticlifedue to contamination from DDT and PCBs, and the recreational health risks due to thepresenceofcoliformbacteria(USEPARegion92012).As described in the Baseline Health Assessment (Appendix E), the presence of coliformbacteriaintheSantaMonicaBayisanindicatorthatwaterqualitymaynotbesufficienttousewatersforrecreation.Toaddresstheproblemofbacteriainthewater,theLosAngelesRegional Water Quality Control Board established the Santa Monica Bay bacteria Total



MaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)in2003.TheTMDLrequirescitiestoimprovewaterqualitythroughcompliancewithtargetsforbacteriainsurfacewater.TheCityofHermosaBeach’sstormwater pollution prevention program is amultifaceted program designed to reducerunoffandensurecompliancewiththeTMDL.EffortsoftheHermosastormwaterpollutionpreventionprogramincludeinfiltrationprojects,lowflowdiversiontosanitarysewer,andagreasecontrolordinance(SBSP2013).CurrentSoilConditionsSoildatatocharacterizecurrentconditionsarenotavailableforareassurroundingtheSite,suchastheArdmore/ValleyGreenbeltarea,residentialyards,orotherparkssuchasClarkField. The only information available on soil conditions exists for the current CityMaintenance Yard. Brycon completed a site investigation in 2012 that was focused oncharacterizing the extent of the contamination related to the former landfill, as well aspossibleimpactsfromcurrentmaintenanceyardactivities.Soilsamplingwasconductedtocharacterizetheextentofpetroleum‐relatedcontaminantsonsite,includingbenzene,VOCs,andlead.Theextentofshallowsoilsamplingintheupper2feetwasverylimitedduringthisinvestigation,howeveronesoilsamplecollectedat3‐feetbelowgroundwasidentifiedto have diesel‐range hydrocarbons present at a concentration of 3720 mg/kg, which isabove the commercial human health screening levels of 2400 mg/kg (RWQCB 2013).ConcentrationsofTPHmotoroil,BTEX,andotherVOCswerenotfoundabovehealth‐basedscreeninglevels.PAHsinsoil(withtheexceptionofnaphthalene)werenotanalyzed.Metalswereanalyzedin26soilsamples,andleadwasidentifiedasanonsitecontaminantof concern. Themaximum lead concentrationof9,680mg/kgwas identified froma soilsample collected from 15‐feet below ground; this concentration is above both theresidential and commercial scenario soil screening levels of 80 mg/kg and 320 mg/kg,respectively, established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(Cal/EPA 2009). Lead and other site‐related contaminants have the potential to traveloffsiteduringsitepreparationinPhase1fortheproposedproject.

4.2.3 ProjectedImpactSurfaceWaterRunoffConstruction activities to build the proposed oil and gas development facility and thepipelinecorridorscouldresultindischargeofcontaminantsanddebrisintosurfacerunoffthatenters thestormdrainsystemand flows in thenearbySantaMonicaBay. Potentialconstruction‐related contaminants that could impactoffsite soil and/orwater includeoiland grease residues, concrete washout water, heavy metals, and debris. However, theproposedprojectdescriptionexplainsthattheSitewillbeabletocontainanystormwater



and spills that occur. The Sitewill havewalls andberms inplace toprevent impacts towaterqualitybyescapingoffsitethroughdrainagesthatcouldreachthePacificOcean.ThechemicalsinwastewaterfromtheSitecouldbecaustictotheenvironmentandhumanhealthandresultinacutehealthsymptomssuchaseyeandskinirritation.However,thereisalowprobabilitythatpeoplewillbeexposedtoSite‐relatedwastewaterduringnormaloperations.OffsiteSoilDepositionAsdescribedabove, theonsite soil is currently impactedby former landfillactivitiesandpossiblyfromcurrentmaintenanceyardactivities.Theprimarycontaminantofconcerninonsitesoilislead,howeveronsitesurfacesoildataislimited.Anexhaustivelistofpotentialchemicals of concern will be tested in onsite surface soils prior to commencing projectactivities, in order to fully characterize chemicals in the soil that could travel offsitethrough windblown dust and project‐related construction activities. Prior to thesupplementalsurfacesoilsamplingevent,thereisalargeamountofuncertaintyassociatedwithpotentialoffsiteimpactsduetofugitivedustemissions.Tobeprotectiveofresidentialchildrenlivingnearbywhocouldbeexposedtoleadinfugitivedustemissions,offsiteleadin soil should not exceed 80 mg/kg. This level, proposed in the EIR, is based on theCaliforniaOfficeofEnvironmentalHealthHazardAssessment’s(OEHHA)benchmarkfornomorethan1µg/dLincreaseinbloodleadlevelamongschoolchildrenandfetuses(OEHHA2007). Depending on the results from the surface soil sampling thatwill occur prior toPhase1oftheproposedproject,removalofonsitesoilmaybenecessarytopreventoffsitesoilcontamination.Additionalassessmentwillberequiredafterthesurfacesoilsamplingeventandbeforetheproposedprojectinitiation.UpsetEvent–PipelineRuptureorWellBlowoutLastly, operations could result in an upset incident such as a pipeline rupture or wellblowout, which could release petroleum‐related contaminants into surface soils andwaters, andcouldalso result in fatalitiesand injuries. Crudeoil isa complexmixtureofhydrocarbonsandothercompounds. Whencrudeoilenters theenvironment, the lightervolatilehydrocarbonssuchasbenzenearedispersedmorerapidly intoambientair. Theheavier hydrocarbons and metals remain in sediment, soil and surface water, and maypresentanexposurehazardtopeople livingneartheproposedsiteandspendingtimeatthebeach.Intheeventofacrudeoilspill(e.g.pipelinerupture),therearetwopotentialpathwaysthatcould result in exposure to these chemicals – one from contactwithwater in the SantaMonica Bay and the second from eating fish caught from the ocean. The potential for



people to experience adversehealth effects becauseof surfacewater runoff entering thebeach and ocean is dependent on the characteristics of a possible crude oil spill.Additionally,anoilspillmayresultinafishandseafoodadvisorybecausetheSantaMonicaBayisanimportantsiteforrecreationaldivingandfishing. Specifically,Pacificmackerel,guitarfish,bonito,halibut,sardines,spinylobster,rockcrabs,seaurchins,shrimp/prawnsarerecreationallyfishedinthearea.Awellblowoutaccident, and theassociatedconsequencessuchas fireandvaporclouds,would potentially result in more severe impacts to human health. For the proposedproject,thereisconsiderableuncertaintyregardingwhetherlevelsofpressurethatwouldbeencounteredinthewellsduringdrillingandproductioncouldresultinablowout.Itispossiblethatthereservoirisnotpressurized,inwhichcaseablowoutcouldnotoccur.Therisk of fatality and/or injuries from awell blowout accident depends on the size of theexplosion and the proximity to populated areas. Because the proposed project site islocated within 100 feet of nearby residences, a well‐blow out incident could result infatalitiesamongthepublic.AspartoftheEIR,afrequencyanalysiswasconductedtoestimatetherateofupseteventsduringtheproposedproject.Thefailurerateforacrudeoilspillscenariothatcouldaffectareas outside the Site is one failure per 6,421,148 years (MRS 2014). Assuming thereservoirispressurizedandblowoutscouldoccur,thefailureratesforawellheadruptureduring drilling and production are one failure per 162 and 604,127 years, respectively(MRS 2014). Therefore, the most likely upset scenario would be a wellhead blowoutoccurringduringthedrillingphasesoftheproposedproject.

4.3 NoiseandLightThis section focuses on the assessment of potential impacts from two aspects of theproposedproject:noiseandlight.

4.3.1 Noise,LightandHealthNoiseDifferent individualshavedifferentsensitivities todifferent typesofnoise,whichreflectsdifferences in expectations and attitudes of a specific community. In Hermosa, theCommunityDialoguequalityoflifecommitteeidentifiedtwotypesofsoundsthatareheardfrequently intheneighborhoodanddonotcauseannoyance: windchimesandfoghorns.Not coincidentally, these two sounds are representative of the beach lifestyle. This is aspecific example of how attitudes can influence tolerance to noise more than theunderlyingauditoryphysiology.



Selecting the appropriate noise level criteria is an important step to evaluating andmitigating noise effectively. Unlike chemicals, noise energy does not accumulate in thebodyorenvironment;howeveritcanhavebothshort‐termandlong‐termhealtheffectsonpeople.Somesucheffectsincludeannoyance,sleepdisturbance,interferencewithspeechand other daily activities, effects on the cardiovascular system and other relatedphysiologicalhealtheffects.Annoyanceisoftenthemajorconsiderationbecauseitreflectsthecommunity’sdislikeofnoiseanditsconcernsaboutthefullrangeofpotentialnegativeeffects.Noiseand lighthavebeencitedasahealthconcern forresidentsandanimals livingneardrillingoperations(Witter2012,Adair2012).

Levelsofcommunitynoiseabove55decibels(dB)areassociatedwithalargenumberofadversehealthconditions.

AccordingtotheWorldHealthOrganization,reductionsofnoiseby6‐14dBA(“A”=weighted)resultinsubjectiveandobjectiveimprovementsinsleep.

Chronicroadnoisecanaffectcognitiveperformanceofchildrenincludingattentionspan,concentrationandmemory,readingability,anddiscriminationbetweensounds.Thereisacleardose‐responserelationshipbetweenenvironmentalnoisefromtrafficandhighbloodpressure.

Increasingcommunitynoiseandtrafficnoiseincreasestheriskofmyocardialinfarctionatnoiselevelsabove60dBA.Noisecanalsointerferewithspeechcommunicationoutdoors,intheworkplaceandintheschoolrooms,interferingwiththeabilityofpeopletoperformtheirwork.

Finally,thecombinationofnoiseandpoorqualityhousinghasbeenassociatedwithhigherstressandstresshormonelevels.

The mechanism for many of the relationships between noise and disease outcomes isthoughttobemediatedbyphysiologicstressresponseandelevatedlevelsofcortisolandother stress hormones. In a recent San Francisco Department of Public Health and UCBerkeleystudyofnoiselevelsandannoyanceinSanFrancisco,itwasfoundthatelevatednoise levels disproportionately impact those living in high population density areas ofneighborhoods in San Francisco. These high noise areas are also associated with low‐incomelevelsandlimitedEnglishspeakingability.Exposure to road trafficnoisehasbeenassociatedwith sleepdisturbance,qualityof life,and cardiovascular problems. A study of noise pollution in the Netherlands found anassociationbetween long‐termexposure toroadtrafficnoiseandan increase inmorningtiredness (de Kluizenaar 2009). Dratva et al. (2010) found that a high level of noiseannoyancewasinverselyassociatedwithhealth‐relatedqualityoflife.Hartetal.exploredtheassociationsofchanges in trafficexposurewithchanges inmyocardial infarctionand



all‐causemortalityrisk incohortstudyofUS femalenurses. Women livingatresidencesconsistently close to traffic were at higher risk of myocardial infarction and all‐causemortality compared to those living at residences consistently far from traffic (Hart et al.2013).Basedonaquantitativemeta‐analysisof24studies,vanKempenetal.(2012)foundthateveryfivedecibel(dB)increaseintrafficnoisecorrespondedwitha3.4%increaseintheoddsofhypertension. Aneight‐houraverageofat least55dBwasassociatedwithahigher risk of cardiovascular disease (van Kempen et al. 2012). Sorensen et al. (2011)found a significant association between traffic noise and stroke; each 10 dB increase innoiseexposureresultedina14%increaseinstrokeriskforpeopleage50andolderand27%higherriskforthoseage65yearsandolder.LightLight pollution is the emission of artificial light into areas where it is unnecessary,unwanted,ordisruptive.Commonformsoflightpollutionincludeglare,over‐illumination,lighttrespass,up‐lighting,andglow.Artificiallightsourcesalternaturallightlevelsintheenvironment,whichmayintroduceadverseecologicalandhumanhealtheffects.Studiesonlight pollution have shown that artificial light influences ecological and biologicalprocesses.However,uncertaintyremainsastowhetherartificiallightposeshumanhealthrisks, and if so, to what extent and magnitude (Kantermann & Roenneberg, 2009). Inaddition to ecological and biological effects, artificial light may also influence the socialenvironment. Glare from light fixtures is a common factor in both vehicle accidents andpedestriandeaths,mainlybecauseeyesdonotreadilyadjusttoextremelightingcontrasts(Gray & Reagan 2007). Light trespass into the home can create social tension betweenresidentsandlightsourceemitters(Gastonetal.2012),andcanalsoimpactsocio‐culturalperceptionsofnature,albeitsubjectively(Cinzanoetal.2000).Adverse effects of artificial lighting on ecosystems, or ecological light pollution arewidespreadandwell‐documented(Longcore&Rich2004),andhaveprovidedthebasisforstudyinglightpollutionandpotentialhumanhealtheffects.Artificiallightnotablydisturbsnocturnalspeciesandecosystemsthroughthealterationofdiurnallightanddarkpatternswhich are involved in regulating migration, reproduction, and predator‐prey relations(Gotthard2000;Lorne&Salmon2007;Mooreetal.2000).Furthermore,lightpollutioncanalso impact plants due to the artificial polarization of light which regulates naturalpolarization of sunlight involved in photosynthesis (Horváth et al. 2009). These findingshave contributed to a growing interest in exploring potential effects of artificial light onhumanhealth.In humans, artificial lighting can disrupt circadian rhythms, which are necessary forregulating sleep patterns and promoting good health. Specifically, melatonin hormone



production, which is essential to maintaining circadian rhythms can be suppressed byartificiallight.Melatoninsuppressionhasbeenshowntopromotegrowthinbreasttumorsamongwomen, aswell as other cancers including colorectal cancer, prostate cancer andsuspected childhood leukemia. Although evidence is limited, one study examining lightexposurefoundincreasedincidenceofbreastcancerinnightshiftworkersandincreasedincidenceofcolorectalcancerinrotatingnightshiftworkers(Schernhammeretal.2004).Inaddition,lowerincidencesofbreastcancerwereobservedintotallyblindpeoplewithnolightperceptionthanblindpeoplewithsomelightperception(Feychtingetal.1998;Hahn1991).However,studies investigating lightatnighthavesuggested thathumancircadianrhythmsarewavelengthdependent.These findings indicate thathumanmelatonin levelsaremost sensitive to exposure to shortwavelengths, or blue light, and thatwavelengthshouldbeconsideredinthecontextofilluminance(Lockleyetal.2003).

4.3.2 CurrentConditionsNoiseAs described in the draft Environmental ImpactReport (EIR), baseline noisemonitoringwasconductedfromAugustandSeptember2013(MRS2014).Noisemonitoringcapturedcurrent weekday and weekend noise conditions at monitoring locations around theproposedprojectsite(6thSt.andCypress,634LomaSt.,730CypressSt.,5268thSt.,6006thSt.,VeteransParkway).Table4‐7showstheoverallaverageLeqateachsamplinglocationaround the Site, during daytime and nighttime hours on weekday and weekends. Theequivalentsound level,Leq is theaveragenoise levelover theperiodof time,reported indBA,orA‐weighteddecibel toapproximatehumansensitivity tosound. ThedaytimeLeqaroundtheSiterangedfrom51.5to61.2dBAandthenighttimeLeqaroundtheSiterangedfrom 46.5 to 58.5 dBA. Typical noise levels in an urban outdoor environment areapproximately 65dBAduring theday and approximately 45dBAduring thenight (MRS2014).DaytimeLeqlevelsarewithintypicalnoiselevelsandnighttimeLeqlevelsarewithin16dBAoftypicalnoiselevels.Thelocationon526th8thStreetisthehighestfordaytimeornighttime.



TABLE4‐7.EXISTINGNOISELEVELSAROUNDTHEPROJECTSITE(OVERALLAVERAGELEQ)

Monitoring Location

Overall Average Leq Monday ‐ Friday

Overall Average Leq Saturday & Sunday

Daytime (8 a.m. ‐7 p.m.)

Nighttime (7 p.m. ‐ 8 a.m.)

Daytime (8 a.m. ‐7 p.m.)

Nighttime (7 p.m. ‐ 8 a.m.)

6th Street & Cypress 61.2 53.0 58.0 52.2

634 Loma Dr. 55.8 48.8 51.5 47.0

730 Cypress St. 58.9 48.5 53.0 48.0

526 8th Street 63.6 58.5 63.3 58.3

600 6th Street 60.6 54.2 57.6 50.8

Veterans Parkway 56.4 47.8 52.1 46.5

Note: All levels reported in dBA Source: Table adapted from EIR Table 4.11‐5 (MRS 2014)

LightThe proposed project Site iswithin a dense residential areawith some commercial andindustrial uses. Surrounding buildings are comprised primarily of one to three‐storystructures. During nighttime hours, the surrounding area is characterized bymoderatelevels of interior and exterior lighting for nighttime activities, security, parking, andsignage.Themajorityoftheselightsourcesareshieldedanddirectedtowardsthegroundsoastominimizeimpactsonsurroundinguses.Interiorlightingspill‐overfromwindowsand porches of the residential uses contribute to the ambient nighttime levels. Otherexteriorlightingsourcesincludepole‐mountedstreetlightingalongadjacentstreets.The EIR noted the most significant nighttime lighting observed in the area around theproposed Site was from Clark Stadium. Light levels currently generated from the CityMaintenanceYardattheproposedSitearelowtomoderate.Lightsourcesincludeexteriorsecuritylightingonbuildingfacadesandlightpoleslocatedinthesurfaceofparkingareas.Somelightspillintothenightskywasobserved(MRS2014).

4.3.3 ProjectedImpactNoiseThenoiseimpactsfromconstructionandoperationoftheproposedprojectweremodeledintheEIR,basedequipmentusagedatamadeavailablebyE&Bandpublishednoiseleveldata for the type of work that will be conducted onsite (MRS 2014). This modelincorporatesspecificnoisereductionfeaturessuchasa16‐foothightemporaryacousticalbarrierandbestmanagementpracticesforoperatingmechanicalequipment(i.e.switchingequipment off when not in use). This assessmentmodeled noise for each phase of theproposedproject for a both first‐story and second‐story residential scenarios, aswell astrucktrafficinHermosaBeach,RedondoBeachandTorrance.



Phase1–Duringdemolition,thenoisiestactivitiesareexpectedtooccurforupto7weeks,and range from59.6dBA to67.4dBA that representinga change frombaselineofup to13.2dBAforsecond‐storyresidentialusesnorthwestofthesiteonCypressStreetandwestof the site on Loma Drive, respectively. Construction noise impacts during this phasewould have similar increases in daytime noise levels, ranging up to 67.2 dBA (with amaximum change of up to 12.7 dBA from baseline levels). With mitigation measuresproposedintheEIR,theincreaseinaverageresidentialdaytimenoiselevelduringPhase1wouldbehalfasmuch,withanincreaseofupto6.3dBA.Phase 2 – During this 12 month phase of drilling and testing, noise emissions fromproduced oil pumps, water injection pumps, vapor recovery systems and drilling rigoperations are expected. Becausedrilling and testing occurs 24hours per day, theEIRpredictsimpactstonighttimenoisetobethemostsignificantduringthisphase. Baselinenighttimenoise levels ranging from37.6 to45.6would increase to42.8and50.7dBA inresidential areas. Even with mitigation measures proposed in the EIR, nighttime noiselevelswouldstillincreaseto42.7to50.0dBA(MRS2014).Phase3–Constructionactivitiesareanticipatedtolastfor14monthsonsite,andpipelineconstruction activities are scheduled to take approximately 4months during this phase.Duringthis12monthphaseofdrillingandtesting,noisewillbeemittedfromproducedoilpumps. Constructionactivitieswouldoccur in thedaytime,andcause increases innoiselevelssimilartoPhase1,ofupto12.1and13.3dBAincreasesonCypressStreetandLomaDrive, respectively. Additional mitigationmeasures would reduce the increase in noiselevelsbyhalf,andtheproposedprojectwouldthenincreasenoiseemissionsby5.3and6.2dBAonCypressStreetandLomaDrive.The EIR concluded the pipeline construction machinery would result in a substantialincrease in ambient noise levels. Baseline noise levels along the pipeline route rangingfrom54.9to69.7dBAwouldincreasetonoiselevelsrangingfrom79.6to89.6.Duetothenature of the work, options for mitigating pipeline construction noise are limited‐ andthereforetheextentofthepipelineroutewouldexperiencenoiselevelssufficienttoresultinadversehealthoutcomes. Theproposedpipelineroute(seeFigure2.15inEIRSection2),runssouthalongValleyDrivethennortheastalongHerondoStreetandeastalong190thStreet. On average, the increase in daytime noise levels due to pipeline constructionactivitieswouldbe24.6dBAoverambientnoise.Phase 4 – The longest phase of the proposed project with a scheduled duration of 30monthswould consist ofnoise emissions from thehydraulicpowerunit, themudpump,metalclangingnoises,waterreinjectionpumpsandcoolerunitsamongotherdrillingand



productionequipment. Drillingandproductionwilloccursimultaneouslyduringthefirst2.5yearsof thisphaseandwouldoccur24hoursperday;therefore, themostsignificantnoiseimpactduringthisphasewouldoccuratnight,assimilartoPhase2.Baselinenoiselevelsinnearbyresidentialneighborhoods(rangingfrom37.6to45.6dBA)wouldincreaseto levels ranging from42.1 to50.3dBA. The largest increase inaveragenighttimenoiselevel would occur on Cypress Street and Ardmore Avenue. With additional mitigationmeasuresproposedintheEIR,nighttimenoiselevelswouldrangefrom41.7to49.8dBA.Truck Traffic Noise – According to the EIR noise assessment, the additional trafficgenerated by the proposed projectwill bemost pronounced on ValleyDr. between PierAve.and6thSt.andbetween6thSt.andHerondoSt.(MRS2014).ThepredictedincreaseinCommunityNoiseEquivalentLevel(CNEL)asaresultifvehicletrafficonValleyDriveismodeledtorangefrom0to0.1dBA.In a review of the health literature and the projected noise emissions, project‐relatedactivitiesduringPhases2and4arelikelytoresultinadversehealthoutcomes,specificallysleep disturbance, cardiovascular disease and stress. There is much evidence that highnoise levels impact student achievement, but since the Site location is greater than 0.5milesfromtheclosestschool(ValleyElementary),schoolchildrenwillnotbeimpactedbythe long‐term noise impacts of the proposed project. However, Phase 3 pipelineconstruction activities, lasting approximately 4 months, may disrupt students attendingschoolsintheproximityoftheproposedpipelineroute(includingJeffersonElementaryinRedondoBeach).Evenwithmitigation,itwouldnotbepossibletoreducenoiseimpacttovulnerablepopulationsalongthepipelineroute.During4monthsofpipelineconstruction,anumberofresidentialareasinHermosaBeach,RedondoBeachandTorrancemaybe impactedbynoise levelsabove70dBA,whichcancontributetoriskofhypertension(Passchier2000). Additionally, increasesover60dBAmaycontribute toan increase riskofheartattacks (Babisch2008). While there is someevidence supporting this association in the scientific literature, there is not enoughevidence tosupportanexposure‐responserelationshipandquantify thedegree towhichcardiovascularmortalityormorbidityratesmightincrease.In addition to the pipeline construction noise, the increase in nighttime noise levels inresidential neighborhoods during Phases 2 and 4 may impact the quality of sleep.According to theWorldHealthOrganization, a noise level difference of 6 to 14 dBA canchangethequalityofsleepandthisisroughlythelevelofincreaseprojectedfornighttimedrilling andproductionactivities. Sleepdisturbances are associatedwith a largehostof



healthconsequences,suchasincreasedriskofhypertension,diabetes,obesity,depression,heartattack,andstroke(NAS2006).Lastly,additionalnoisemaybegeneratedbytrucktrafficbetweenthehoursof9a.m.and3p.m., however disturbances from truck traffic noise are expected to be minimal. Thisconclusion is supported by the small increase in noise emissions predicted in the noiseassessment(MRS2014).LightThefirstphasewouldoccurforaperiodofapproximatelysixmonthsbetweenthehoursof8:00a.m.and6:00p.m.ExistingstreetlightsalongtheperimetersoftheSitewillprovidesufficientlighting,andnonighttimelightingwillbenecessary.Thesecondphasewouldoccurcontinuouslyfortwenty‐fourhoursperday,sevendaysperweekforapproximatelytwelvemonths.Toensuresitesecurityandsafety,temporarylowenergy light fixtures at a height of 10 ft. will be provided at the Site entrance and exit.Additionally, each construction trailerwould require two 150‐watt light fixtures at eachend of the trailer. When a drilling rig is present, the rig represents a lighted structurehigher than surrounding structures. Lighting for the drill rigwill require pole‐mountedlightsapproximately15 ft.above therigplatformandon thedrill rigmast,whichwouldstartapproximately19ft.abovegroundsurfaceandextendupwardtoapproximately87ft.An acoustical coverwould enclose the drill rigmast, andLED lightingwouldbemaskedwithinthecovertoprovidevisibilityandensureworkersafety.Pole‐mountedlightswouldalsobeprovidedforthedrillrigequipmentalongawalkplatformapproximately19ft.Thetemporaryproductionequipmentandshippingtankswouldadditionallyrequire150‐wattflood lights where needed. However, all light fixtures would be shielded, hooded anddowncast, and would be located behind the 35 foot sound attenuation wall, which willsignificantlyreduceoperationallightspillorglarebeyondtheSiteperimeter(MRS2014).There is the potential that the operations during the second phase could produce a skygloworcoronaresultingfromthereflectionoflightoverthetopofthewall.Thethirdphasewouldoccurforaperiodofapproximatelyfourteenmonthsbetweenthehoursof8:00a.m.and6:00p.m.,andnonighttimelightingwillbenecessary.Thefourth,finalphasewouldoccurforaperiodofapproximatelythirtytothirty‐fiveyears.Toensuresite security,150‐watt light fixtureswouldbeestablishedat theSiteentranceand exit at a height of 15 ft. Lightingwould also beprovided for the office building andwouldconsistofa150‐wattlightfixturewall‐mountedatthebuildingentranceataheightof 10 ft. Further lighting would be required for the drill rig, in addition to the interior



border of the 16 ft. split‐faced wall. All light fixtures would be shielded, hooded anddowncast,aswellaslocatedbehindthe16ft.split‐facedwallinordertolimitanyemissionoflightorglarebeyondtheSite.Since the levelof illuminance isnotprovided in theprojectdescription,assumptionsaremade regarding the lighting thatwill be required for nighttime lightingwork zones andactivities(ATSSA2013). ItisassumedthatthemajorityofnighttimelightingwillrequireLevel 1 illuminance (54 lux) for tasks requiring low level accuracy and slow‐movingequipment in the vicinity of large objects, like non‐rig and non‐equipment areas of theproposed project Site. Level 2 illuminance (108 lux) will most likely be used for tasksinvolving moderate level accuracy near operating equipment areas, like near shippingtanks,drillrigequipmentareasandtemporaryproductionequipmentareas.UptoLevel3illuminance(215lux)maybeusedfortasksrequiringhighlevelvisualacuityordifficulty,likeonornearthedrillrigoftheSite.Althoughtheprojectproposal indicateswattagefor light fixturesandfloodlights(i.e.150watts), illuminance is not specified.Additionally, the project proposal only specifies LEDlightingwithin theacoustic coverof thedrill rigmast, anddoesnot specify further lightbulbtypeswhichwouldbeutilized.Lightingguidelinesstatethatlightemittedhorizontallymay produce glare, whereas light directed downwards with a flat lens and shield thatcompletelycoverstheuppersurfaceofthebulbcanpreventup‐lightingandglow(Astrolabnd; Environews 2009). Further, surfaces within the facility, including those of thesoundwall, ground treatments, equipment, and structures can produce glare and lightspillagedependingonthefinalcolorsandfinishes,andtheintensityandangleoflighting.Duetotheseuncertainties,itisdifficulttoquantifyilluminanceandtheextentofglowandglareintothesurroundingarea.Artificial lighting may produce negative health effects which would be limited to thevicinityofthesite.Sinceocularsensitivitytoglareincreaseswithage,elderlypopulationsaremoresusceptibletochangesinlighting(Rubinetal.2007).Thedurationoflightingwilloccurcontinuouslyatnightandwill last longerthanoneyear.Although limitedevidencesuggeststhatlightingmayposecarcinogeniceffects,itisunlikelythatglareandglowwillbeemittedbeyondtheSiteperimeterduetothelocationofthelightfixturesandproposedmitigation. It is therefore unlikely that health effects will occur if E&B implements themitigationdescribedintheprojectdescription.Lightingmayalsoproducepositivehealtheffects,whichwouldbelimitedtothevicinityofthe site.ResidentsandvisitorsofHermosaBeachcanpotentiallybenefit fromadditionalnighttimelightingincludingincreasedleisure‐timephysicalactivityandcommutingbyfoot



ofbicycleaswellasincreasedperceptionofsafety(Velasquezetal.2009).Itisanticipatedthatthesechangeswouldbemostevidentinareaswithhighpedestriantraffic,alongValleyDriveandportionsoftheGreenbeltincloseproximitytotheSite.Suchbehavioralchangesmaypromotehealthierlifestylesandthus,contributetooverallhealth(Heathetal.2012).

4.4 TrafficThistrafficassessmentfocusesonthepotentialimpactstheproposedprojectmayhaveontrafficaccidentsandinjuries,especiallyonvulnerablepopulationssuchasschoolchildrenandelderly.

4.4.1 TrafficandHealthVehiculartrafficisaknownsafetyhazard.Potentialnegativeimpactstotrafficsafetymaybeassociatedwithnumberofvehicles,vehicletype,roadinfrastructure,drivingbehavior,andpopulationdensity.Increasesintrafficareassociatedwithincreasedriskofinjuryanddeathduetovehicle‐vehicle,vehicle‐pedestrian,andvehicle‐bicyclecollisions.Pedestrianinjury collisions often occur in areaswith large numbers of pedestrians and high trafficflow. In a study of nine intersections in Boston’s Chinatown, researchers calculated anincreaseinthreetofiveinjuriesperyearforeachincreasein1,000vehicles(Bruggeetal.2002). An analysis of pedestrian injury at roadway intersections in Oakland, Californiafoundthattheriskofcollisionforpedestriansincreaseswithhighertrafficvehicleflow,aswell as with commercial andmixed‐use areas when compared to only residential areas(Geyeretal.2005).Vehicle‐pedestrianaccidentsdisproportionatelyimpacttheelderlyandtheveryyoung,duetoslowerwalkingspeedsandslowerreactiontimes(USDOT2012).Largetruckcrashesareassociatedwithanincreasedseverityofinjurytotheoccupantsofothervehicles involved in the crashes. According to theNationalHighwayTraffic SafetyAssociation,in2011largetruckswereassociatedwith3,757fatalitiesintheUnitedStates.Of these fatalities in2011,72percentwereoccupantsofothervehicles,11percentwerepedestriansorbicyclists,and17percentwereoccupantsoflargetrucks(NHTSA2013).Traffic safety and perceived traffic safety can also impact health by altering physicalactivitypatterns.Perceivedandactualriskofinjurymaydiscouragewalkingandbicycling,whichcandirectlyimpacthealthbydecreasingphysicalactivitylevels.Physicalinactivityisamajorcontributortothesteadyriseinratesofobesity,diabetes,heartdisease,stroke,and other chronic health conditions in the United States (CDC 2011). Research hasdemonstratedthatadults livinginneighborhoodscharacterizedbyhigher levelsoftrafficsafetyhadincreasedoddsofbeingactive(Jongeneel‐Grimenetal.2013).Perceivedtrafficsafety is also associated with levels of physical activity among children. A surveyconducted on a representative sample of the U.S. population inquired whether children



walkedorbikedtoschoolandsoughttoidentifyanybarrierstowalkingorbiking.Oftherespondents,40%reportedthat trafficdangerwasabarrieragainstwalkingorbiking toschool(CDC2002).

4.4.2 CurrentConditionsTraffic on streets in Hermosa Beach consists of motorists who live, work, recreate, andshopinHermosaBeach,aswellasmotoristswhoarepassingthroughtheCitybutdonotstopforanyreason.CommutertrafficisprimarilyconcentratedonPacificCoastHighway(PCH).StreetsparalleltoPCH(ArdmoreAve.,HighlandAve.,ValleyDr.,andProspectDr.)also absorb some of the spillover commuter traffic. Traffic counts were collected onroadway segments of Pier Ave, Valley Drive, and Herondo Street in mid‐July 2013 tospecificallyestablishbaselinetrucktrafficinthevicinityoftheSite.Basedonthethree‐daytrafficcountdata,adailyaverageof55two‐andthree‐axletrucks(mediumtrucks)werecountedalongValleyDrive,betweenPierAvenueandHerondoStreet. Nofour‐(ormore)axletruckswerecounted(ArchBeachConsulting2013).While current pedestrian and bicyclist counts are not available, Hermosa Beach isconsideredapedestrianandbike‐friendlycity.AccordingtotheSouthBayBicycleMasterPlan,theCityofHermosaBeachhas1.8milesofClassIbikepath(bicycle‐onlypathsalongthe beach), 0.5miles of Class II bike paths (bicycle lanes) and2.8miles of Class III bikepaths(sharedroadformotoristandbicyclists)foratotalof5.1mileswithintheCity(Alta2011).TheSouthBayBicycleMasterPlanseekstofurtherencouragebicyclistsspecificallybyconvertingValleyandArdmoretoone‐waystreetswithbikelanes(WLCI2011).Childrenattendingeitherof the twoschools inHermosa(HermosaViewElementaryandHermosa Valley) arrive and leave via passenger car,walking, or bicycle. Hermosa ViewElementaryislocatedonthecornerof19thSt.andProspectAve.(eastofPCH)andHermosaValleySchool is locatedonValleyDr.between18thSt.andPierAve.(westofPCH). Since2011,HermosaViewElementaryhashadaWalkingSchoolBus(WSB)programledbytheBeach Cities Health District (BCHD), as a means of encouraging healthy behavior andcurbing childhood obesity. The WSB program allows children within a mile radius ofschooltomeetupwithclassmatesandBCHD‐trainedparentvolunteersatdesignated“busstops,”andsafelywalktocampus. WSBisbetween7:50and8:15a.m.and“stops”atthefollowing locations: Hollowell/Prospect, 6th St./Prospect, 9th St./Prospect, and 15thSt./Prospect. Hermosa Beach City School District publishes a map showing all the saferoutes to school, which includes Valley Drive in front of the Site and the Proposed CityMaintenanceYard(SeeFigure4‐4).ItisimportanttonotethatthereisnolandscapebufferalongmostpartsofValleyDrive,withpedestriansidewalkslocatedimmediatelyadjacenttotheroad(seeFigure4‐5).



FIGURE4‐4.SAFEROUTESTOSCHOOL

Source:MRS,2014



Source:GoogleMaps

FIGURE4‐5. PEDESTRIANSIDEWALK,VALLEYDR./ 6TH ST.The Baseline Assessment foundthat fatalities resulting frommotorvehicle collisions in Hermosa arevery rare (seeAppendixE). Whilevehicle‐vehicle accidents are farmore common than vehicle‐pedestrian and vehicle‐bicycleaccidents, pedestrians andbicyclists are more likely to sufferfrominjuriesandsevereinjuriesasaresultofthecollisioncomparedtomotorists or vehicle passengers.On average, from 2009 to 2011 inHermosa,100%ofreportedvehiclecollisions involvingpedestriansresulted inan injury,91% of vehicle collisions involving bicycles resulted in an injury, and 35% of vehiclecollisionwithanothervehicleorstationaryobjectresultedinaninjury.Therearecertainstreetswherepedestriansaremorevulnerable tocollisionwithavehicle, includingPCH,PierAve.,HermosaAve.,andBeachDrive(seeAppendixE).

4.4.3 ProjectedImpactDuring Phase 1 of the proposed project, there would be demolition and constructionactivities resulting in various vehicles traveling to and from the Site. Constructionimprovements to the intersectionof6thSt./ValleyDr.willprovide thenecessary turningradius for project‐related trucks turning southbound on Valley Dr. from 6th St.(constructionwould include the relocation of a stop sign and striping, removal of utilitypoleandutilities,andtheremovalofparkingspaces).DuringPhase2andPhase4,processedoilwouldberemovedfromtheSitebytruckanddeliveredtoanoff‐sitelocation.Theelectricautomateddrillrig,withanapproximately87‐foothighrigmistanditsassociatedequipmentwouldbebroughttotheSiteonlargetruckswithtrailerspermittedbytheCityandtheCaliforniaHighwayPatrol.Othertemporaryandpermanentproductionequipmentwouldalsobebrought to theSiteby large truckswithtrailers. A trucking safetyprogramwouldbe implemented toaddresspotential truckingrisksassociatedwiththetransportoftheprocessedoiltoanoff‐sitelocation.During Phase 3, there would be construction activities resulting in various vehiclestraveling to and from the Site, including trucks used in the export of soil during theimplementation of the remedial action plan at the Site. In addition, there would beconstruction activities associated with the installation of off‐site pipelines resulting in



short‐term road closures in the Cities ofHermosaBeach, RedondoBeach, and Torrance.OtherdesignfeaturesofPhase3wouldincludetheinstallationofnewcurbs,gutters,andsidewalksalongthefrontageoftheSiteonValleyDr.and6thSt.AsdescribedintheEIR(MRS2014),theproposedprojectwillbeimplementedconsistentwithResolutionNo.93‐5632,approvedonAugust12,1993, foraConditionalUsePermit(CUP),includingthefollowingtrafficrequirements:

All truck deliveries shall be limited to daylight hours (9 a.m. – 3 p.m.), MondaythroughFriday.

Thenumberoftrucktripsshallbelimitedtoamaximumof18roundtripsperday,exceptforanemergencysituation.

Project related truck travel shall be restricted to specific truck routes and accesspoints as approved by the PublicWorks Department. Signs shall be installed todirectdetourtrafficasapprovedbythePublicWorksDirector.

SiteaccessshallbedesignedtoenabletruckstoturnintothesitewithoutinhibitingtrafficmovementonValleyDriveor6thStreet.

Areas of construction and maintenance activities [for the pipeline construction]shallbedelineatedbysigns,flagmen,pavementmarkings,barricades,andlights,asdeterminedbypermitrequirementsofalllocalagencies.

Wherepedestrianactivitiesareaffectedduring[pipeline]construction,appropriatewarningsignsshallbeinstalledandpedestrianswillbediverted.Pedestrianaccessto business and residences will be maintained during construction. Specialfacilities,suchashandrails,fences,andwalkwaysshallbeprovided,ifnecessary,forthesafetyofpedestrians.

The proposed project would also include implementation of a City‐approved PedestrianProtectionPlanduringPhases1and3toprovidespecificpedestrianprotectionmeasuresduringperiodicsidewalkclosuresalongValleyDrivethroughoutPhase1(duringweek5,betweenweeks6and13,betweenweeks58and59,andbetweenweeks60and61)andPhase3(firstfiveweeks,betweenweeks5and8,betweenweeks9and11,andbetweenweeks26and27).TrafficImpactAnalysisA Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Arch Beach Consulting in November, 2012(with an August 2013 Technical Memorandum Addendum) identifies intersections androadway segments that could be impacted by the proposed project, establishes baselinetraffic conditions, and estimates the level of traffic that would be generated duringconstruction and operation, and compares traffic conditions with and without theproposedproject(ArchBeach2012,2013).



Toassessthetrucktrafficgeneratedbytheproposedprojectagainstroadcapacityduringthemorningandeveningpeakcommutehours,whichcontainprimarilypassengercars,aPassenger Car Equivalence (PCE) factor was applied to all trucks generated by theproposed project4. Table 4‐8 provides trip generation rates, in terms of PCE, for eachphaseoftheproposedproject.Basedontheadjustedtripgenerationmethodology,Phase1would generate 110 daily trips, Phase 2would generate 170 daily trips, Phase 3wouldgenerate 218 daily trips, Phase 4 would generate 152 daily trips, and the ongoingoperationswouldgenerate44dailytrips.TheheaviesttrafficwouldoccurduringPhase3finaldesignandconstruction,lastingapproximately16months.

TABLE4‐8.PROJECTTRIPGENERATIONESTIMATES

Construction Activity Vehicle Type

Daily (PCE)

In Out Total

PHASE 1 – SITE PREPARATION PEAK ACTIVITY

3+ axle truck (3.0) 45 45 90 2 axle trucks (2.0) 0 0 0 Cars‐pickups (1.0) 10 10 20

Total with PCE 55 55 110

PHASE 2 – EXPLORATORY DRILLING AND TESTING PEAK ACTIVITY



PHASE 3 – FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PEAK ACTIVITY



PHASE 4 – DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION PEAK ACTIVITY



OPERATIONAL PHASE – LIFE OF PROJECT PEAK ACTIVITY



Source: Arch Beach Consulting, 2012

The TIA performed average daily traffic counts from 33 roadway segments and 44intersectionspotentially impactedby theproposedproject (seeFigure4‐6). Toevaluatetheproposedproject’spotential impactonroadwaysegmentsandintersections, thetotalPCE trips associated with each phase of the proposed project was added to each4 A PCE factor of 2.0 was applied to 2‐axle medium trucks (i.e., one medium truck is equivalent to twopassenger cars); and a PCE factor of 3.0 was applied to 3+ axle heavy trucks (i.e., one heavy truck isequivalenttothreepassengercars).



intersection to determine if there was a potential to exceed significance criteria. Thesignificance criteria in the EIR for Hermosa Beachwere based on level of service (LOS)ratings,ordegreeoftrafficcongestionatintersections.FIGURE4‐6.PROJECTSITELOCATIONANDTIASTUDYAREA

Source:MRS,2014TheTIA concluded that project‐related trafficwouldnot significantly impact the level ofserviceonanyof the studied roadway segments. The findingofno significant impact isprimarilybecause (1)current trafficat some impacted intersections isbelowcapacityor(2)thenumberofadditionalvehiclesperdayatotherheavily‐trafficintersectionsissmallrelativetocurrenttrafficvolumes.Percentincreaseoverbaselinetrafficcountsareoverallverysmall(usuallylessthan1%),exceptfortheimpacttotrafficprojectedfortheroadwaysegment on 6th St. from Valley Dr. to Hermosa Ave. Results of the roadway segmentanalysisforthissectionduringeachproposedprojectphasearesummarizedinTable4‐9below.DuringPhase3,lastingapproximately16months,trafficisprojectedtoincreasebyover a third duringmorning and evening peak hours. However, the existing use of theroadwayismuchlessthancapacity(i.e.,806dailytripsoutofcapacityfor2,500),thereforetheincreasedoesnothaveasignificantimpactontrafficcongestion.



TABLE4‐9.ROADWAYSEGMENTANALYSIS,6THSTFROMVALLEYDRTOHERMOSAAVE.

Construction Activity Time Capacity Existing

Existing + Ambient (2015)

Existing + Ambient + Project

% Impact

PHASE 1 – SITE PREPARATION PEAK ACTIVITY

a.m. 200 72 73 89 8%

p.m. 200 73 74 90 8%

daily 2,500 806 812 922 4.4%

PHASE 2 – EXPLORATORY DRILLING AND TESTING PEAK ACTIVITY

a.m. 200 72 73 109 18%

p.m. 200 73 74 110 18%

daily 2,500 806 812 982 6.8%

PHASE 3 – FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PEAK ACTIVITY

a.m. 200 72 73 140 33.5%

p.m. 200 73 74 141 33.5%

daily 2,500 806 814 1,032 8.7%

PHASE 4 – DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION PEAK ACTIVITY

a.m. 200 72 73 107 17%

p.m. 200 73 74 108 17%

daily 2,500 806 819 971 6.1%

OPERATIONAL PHASE – LIFE OF PROJECT PEAK ACTIVITY

a.m. 200 72 76 87 5.5%

p.m. 200 73 77 88 5.5%

daily 2,500 806 845 889 1.8%

Source: Arch Beach Consulting, 2013

Basedon theTIA, theEIR indicates thatproject‐related trafficwillnothavea significantimpactontrafficcongestionaccordingtolevelofservicecriteria.However,levelofservicecriteriawerederivedfordeterminingimpactstoroadwaycapacityratherthanimpactstotraffic‐related injury. Further, traffic volume is only one component of traffic‐relatedsafety. Type of vehicle, vehicle speed, and driving behavior also affect risk of trafficaccidents.Asdiscussedinthedescriptionofcurrentconditions,therewerenoheavytrucktrips onValleyDr. during the three day count period in July 2013. The increased trucktraffic,particularlygiventhebaselineofzeroheavytrucks,couldrepresentasafetyhazardtobicyclistsandpedestrians.ThereisnobaselineinformationonthenumberofbicyclistsorpedestriansthatuseValleyDrive roadway so it is difficult to estimate potential changes in bicyclist or pedestrianinjury risk. The available pedestrian information for Valley Dr. is related to elementaryschool‐agedchildrenbecauseitisdesignatedasasafepedestrianroutetoschool.StudentswalkingtoHermosaValleySchoolareexpectedtobeinschoolinthemorning(asearlyas8:15a.m.)priortotrucksbeingonValleyDrive.Astheregularschooldayendsasearlyas2:48 p.m. for some students, trucks would still utilize Valley Drive while students are



walkingonadjacentsidewalks.Inaddition,HermosaValleySchoolhasdayswhenstudentsaredismissedasearlyat12:15p.m. Also,onWednesdays, school isdismissedearlierat1:45p.m.forsomestudents(HBCSD2014).The introductionof truck tripsuncommonwith existing conditions in closeproximity tosensitivereceptorswouldpresentarisktopedestriansandbicyclists. WhiletruckroutesextendthroughoutHermosaBeachandadjacentcommunitiesduringpipelineconstruction,theimpactwouldbeconcentratedattheintersectionofValleyDr.and6thSt.sincenearlyallproject‐relatedvehicleswillbeusingthis intersection,andthereforecrossingoverthesidewalk.Peoplemorevulnerabletotrafficinjuryincludeyoungchildrenandtheelderly.The duration of traffic safety impacts will be long, spanning the entire length of theproposedproject,butgreatestduringthe16month‐longPhase3portion.Truckdeliveriesare limited between the hours of 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.,with the number of roundtrip trucktrips limited to18perday. Injurydue to traffic collision is possible as trucks are large,havereducedvisibilityduetotheirsizeandelevation,andthereisnobarrierbetweenthesidewalkandthestreetonsomeroadways. Traffic injurycanresult infatalityorseriousinjury,especiallywhenaccidentsinvolvepedestriansorbicyclists.As discussed above, perception of traffic safety is associated with physical activity.Increased truck traffic, especially along Valley Dr., may make the adjacent sidewalk(includingtheschoolroute)lesswalkablebecauseparents,children,andothercommunitymembers feel that theirsafety iscompromised. PortionsofValleyDr.withno landscapebufferbetweenthesidewalkandroadwaymaybeparticularlysusceptibletodecreasedusebypedestriansandbicyclists.Again,theimpactwouldbeconcentratedattheintersectionofValleyDr.and6thStreetandthedurationofimpactswillbelong.Communitymemberscanchoosetoavoidtheareasofconcentratedtrucktrafficandthereforeoveralldecreasesin physical activity are unlikely. Decreased physical activity can contribute to chronichealthproblems.MitigationofTrafficImpactsThe EIR recommends mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant impactassociatedwith the introduction of truck trips in close proximity to sensitive receptors.Mitigationmeasuresinclude:

IncreasedcrossingguardpresenceneartheSite, Installation of warning signs/yellow lights that warn drivers of the approaching

areawheretrucksmaybeenteringtheroadway, Ensuring that trucks are not too long to hang over into Ardmore Avenue when

utilizingthePierAvenueandValleyDriveintersection,and



ConvertingValleyDrivetoone‐waytoincreaselanewidthandenhancepedestrianand bicyclist access (consistent with the recommendation in the Beach CitiesLivabilityPlan[WLCI2011]).

The addition of a crossing guard and the elimination of trucks outside of school hourswouldreducethelikelihoodofinjuryriskrelatedtochildrentravelingfromschool,therebyreducingthelikelihoodofhealtheffectsfromtrucksfrompossibletounlikely.Additionally,convertingValleyDrivetoaone‐waythoroughfarewouldincreasetheseparationdistancebetweenpedestriansandtruckstravelingonValleyDrive,thereforealleviatingsomeoftherealandperceivedriskofinjurytopedestriansandbicyclistsalongValleyDrive.

4.5 CommunityLivabilityThe potential changes in environmental exposures, as well as perceived changes, canimpactamultitudeofsocialandeconomicdeterminantsofhealthinHermosaBeach.IntheCommunity Dialogue process, community members identified core values of their City.Thequalityoflifecommitteepresentation(AppendixF)wasreviewedanddiscussedwiththeprojectteaminordertoidentifythefollowinghealthdeterminantsinthisareaofhealthfocus:

PropertyValues CommunityResources SocialCohesion PoliticalInvolvement

4.5.1 CommunityLivabilityandHealthPropertyValuesResidential property is often the most valuable asset that an individual will own andthereforeitprovidesausefulmeasureofsocio‐economicstatus.Akeyfeatureofpropertyis the location‐specific capital, and its proximity to desirable places such as reputableschools,greenspaces,safestreetsandrestaurants. To illustrate theassociationbetweenpropertycharacteristicsandhealthmeasures,arecentstudycorrelatedhigherresidentialproperty value measures with lower cardiovascular risk, lower obesity risk, reducedcholesterolscoresandlowerdiabetesrisk(Coffeeetal.2013).Thiscorrelationreflectstheutilityofpropertyvalueasasocioeconomicstatusindicatorforhealthresearch.After home prices in the U.S. fell in 2008, public health research found that homeforeclosurewasstronglyassociatedwithpoorhealth.Asurveyconductedin2011inNorthCarolina found thatpeoplewho reportedpersistent stress orworry abouthousing costsweremorelikelytohavehigherratesofadversehealthoutcomes,includingdiabetes,highblood pressure, and depression, compared to respondents reporting lower levels ofhousingstress(HerrickandDiBona,2013).



CommunityResourcesIn this assessment, community resources includeaccess to recreational areasandschoolprograms that promote opportunities for community involvement and enjoyment.Communityresourcesthatencouragegoodnutritionandphysicalactivityareinstrumentalin improving quality of life. For example, community garden programs funded byCaliforniaHealthyCitiesandCommunitieshaveprovidedopportunitiesforgoodnutritionandphysical activity education. InOceanside, two community gardenswereestablishedand228residentsreceivenutritioneducation;oftheseresidents,86%reportedadesiretoimproveeatinghabits(Twissetal.2003).A largenumberof studies show that access tooutdoorgreen spacesbenefits theoverallphysicalandmentalwell‐beingofcommunities;howeverthemechanismforthisbeneficialrelationshipisunclear.Greenspacescanallowpeopletoreducestressbyconnectingwithnatural environments, provide an opportunity for social interaction, and encouragephysicalactivity.However,arecentstudyfoundthattheavailabilityofgreenspaceisnotdirectly associated with physical activity (Ord 2013). Therefore, a combination of bothphysicalandpsychologicalmechanismsarelikelyresponsiblefortheassociationbetweengreen space and health. In a large study of more than 260,000 middle to older ageAustralians(Astell‐Burt2013),residentsintheneighborhoodswiththemostgreenspacewereatlowerriskofpsychologicaldistress(Kesslerscoresof22+)andwerelesssedentary(OR=0.8,95%CI:0.77,0.87) than residents inneighborhoodswith the leastgreenspace(OR=0.83,95%CI:0.76,0.92).Accesstogreenspacebenefitedmentalhealthamongmorephysicallyactivepeople,anddidnotappeartobenefittheleastphysicallyactivepeople.InalongitudinalstudyofBritishhouseholds,movingurbanareaswithmoregreenspacewasassociatedwithsustainedmentalhealthimprovementsforthreeconsecutiveyears(Alcock2014);howeverthisstudydidnotexploretheinteractionwithlevelofphysicalactivity.A cross‐sectional study of young adolescent Canadians observed a weak relationshipbetween green space and positive emotional well‐being, though stronger effects wereobservedinsmallcitiescomparedwithruralandlargerurbanareas(Huynh2013).TheNationalRecreation andParksAssociation recommends ten acres of park spaceper1,000residents.Astudymeasuringtherelationshipbetweencoastalproximityandhealthandwell‐beingfoundlivingnearthecoastwasassociatedwithabettergeneralhealthandmental health (White et al. 2013). There are a number of factors that determine theaccessibilityofgreenspace(Garcia2011):distancebetweengreenspacetowherepeoplelive,walkability,safety,physicalappearance,andhoursofoperationand/orcost.



In addition to green spaces promoting community health, education is a communityresourcethatresidentsconsidervaluabletooverallqualityoflife.Notonlydoeseducationcontributetoeconomicmeasuresofsuccess(e.g.income,employment),butithasalsobeenshown to promote social well‐being indicators including increased civic engagement,reducedcrimeandincreasedsocialandemotionalskills(OECD2010).SocialCohesionSocialcohesioncanbethoughtofastheconnectednessbetweencommunitymembersandhow the interactions between community members affect the community. A benefit ofsocialcohesionissocialsupport.Strongsocialsupportandcommunitynetworksgenerallyhave positive effects on physical andmental health of individuals. Studies have shownsocial support contributes to self‐esteem and strengthens a person’s ability to handlestress,potentiallydecreasingriskofdepression(Hawthorne2008,Cohenetal.2000,andPoortinga2006). It issuggested thata lackof social supportcan lead tonegativehealthoutcomes such as mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer (Berman 1992,Frasure‐Smith et al. 1992, and Nishimoto et al. 1992). Conversely, social support helpspatientsrecoverfasterfromillness(Fontana1989).PoliticalInvolvementOneindicatorofahealthycommunityisahighdegreeofpublicparticipationinandcontrolover thedecisionsaffectingone’s life,health,andwell‐being. Involvement incommunityorganizations and the political process are ways that individuals exercise control overdecisionsthataffecttheirlives(Kawachietal.1997).Group membership and political participation are significantly associated with humanhealthoutcomes.

Ananalysisofdatafrom40diverseU.S.communitiesshowedthatpeoplewhowereinvolved in electoralparticipationwere22% less likely to reportpoor/fairhealth(Kimetal.2006)

In a study about neighborhood environment in England and Scotland, if politicalengagement was low, people had 52% higher odds of reporting poor health (Cumminsetal.2005)

Ahigherlevelofcivicengagementthroughtiestocommunitygroupswasassociatedwith increased recall of cardiovascular disease health‐promoting messages in alongitudinalcohortfromtheMinnesotaHeartHealthProgram(Viswanath2006)

Community and political engagement also increase people’s self‐efficacy, which is theperceivedabilitytoaffectchangeinone’slife. Researchdemonstratesunfavorablehealthconsequences attached to low levels of control. For example,workers in jobswith highdemandsandalowlevelofdiscretionfordealingwiththemshowmoreheartdiseaseand



other conditions (North et al. 1996). Increasing self‐efficacy is a key to encouragingbehaviorchangeofallkinds(Bandura1997).

4.5.2 CurrentConditionsPropertyValuesAsdiscussedintheBaselineHealthAssessment(AppendixE),themedianvalueofowner‐occupiedhomes inHermosaBeach is $1,000,001. Thehomeownership rate inHermosaBeach is less than that of LA County (44.9 percent versus 47.8 percent). Thehomeownershipprofile is likelyexplainedbyHermosaasabeachtouristdestinationandanareahighlyattractivetobothrentersandleasers.Further,withamedianhousingunitvalue over one million dollars, homeownership in Hermosa Beach is over twice asexpensiveinHermosaBeachcomparedtoCounty‐wide.Sincefluctuationspropertyandlandvaluecanimpactcommunitystresslevels,thecurrentstressratingsofHermosaBeachresidentsarediscussedinthissection.Overall,HermosaBeachisknowntobeahealthy,walkable,bikeable,andsociallyengagedcommunity–allindicators of low stress. TheBeachCitiesHealthDistrict (BCHD) conducted a survey of1,332 residents in Hermosa Beach and surrounding communities, and found the overallwell‐being rating for residentsofHermosaBeach,ManhattanBeach, andRedondoBeachwashigherthantheCaliforniaaverageandabovethetoptierofothercities.Morethan90percentoflocalresidentssaidtheyhadaccesstohealthcare,healthinsuranceandenoughmoney for food, shelter and other basic needs. Two‐thirdswere found to be “thriving.”However,thesurveyalsofoundthat46percentoftheBeachCitiesresidentsfeltstressedfor most of the day, a number that ranked their stress higher than most communities,176thoutof188 communities surveyed.Whenasked if theyhadsignificantworries, 37percentsaidtheydid,whichrankedtheBeachCities177thoutof those188communitiessurveyed(BlueZones2010).CommunityResourcesHermosa Beach residents have access to community resources, such as parks, andpreventative health programs are readily available to the community. AdditionallyHermosaBeachhasatop‐tierschooldistrictinadditiontoothereducationprograms.HermosaBeachhasatotalof15parksorgreenspacesthatamountto159acres,includingtheHermosaCityBeach(GreenInfoNetwork2014).Basedonatotalpopulationof19,605,thereareapproximately8acresofgreenspaceper1,000residents. This ismuchhigherthanmostinnercityassemblydistrictsthathavelessthan1acreofgreenspaceper1,000residents. Communitieswiththe leastaccesstogreenspacetendtobethosewith lowerincome levels and more people of non‐white race/ethnic backgrounds. Demographicindicators show that Hermosa Beach is not highly vulnerable to poor health outcomes



traditionally associated with poverty, unemployment, and low educational attainment.TheLosAngelesCountyDepartmentofPublicHealthrankedHermosaBeachnumber1outof117citiestohavetheleastlevelofeconomichardshipcounty‐wide.TheCityofHermosaBeachanditscommunitymembersareexceptionallycommittedtoanoutdoorlifestyleandmakingtheirenvironmentahealthyplacetolive.In2010,theBeachCities Health District joined the Blue Zones ProjectTM initiative to create a beach citiescommunitythatishealthierandmorewalkable,bikeable,andsociallyengaged.BlueZonesusestheGallup‐HealthwaysWellBeingIndex™tobenchmarkthewell‐beingof thebeachcities and measure progress (Blue Zones 2010). In addition, the Beach Cities HealthDistrict (BCHD) seeks to promote health and prevent diseases in the communities ofHermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. According to the 2013 BCHDreport,twooutoffivebeachcitiesadultsdonotmeetfederalguidelineforphysicalactivity.TheHermosaBeachCityElementarySchooldistrictismuchbetterthanthestateaverageinquality, ranked in the top 4%nationwide (USNews 2013). Only 2%ofHermosaBeachresidents have less than a high school degree. According to the Community Dialogueworking committee on quality of life, parents and teachers work in a collaborativeenvironmentthat issupportiveofstudents. Thecommunityisactively involvedinmajorfundraiserstoassistandpromotethesuccessofitsschools(seeAppendixF).TheHermosaBeachEducationFoundation(HBEF)isa100%volunteerorganizationthatraisesmoneytosupport student programs. In 2012, HBEF contributed a total of $1,290,038 benefit allgrade levels inHermosaBeachCity SchoolDistrict. Theseprivatedonationsgo towardsfunding programs like science labs, libraries and elective classes like journalism, drama,technologyandart. Looking forward, residentswould like toworkwith the local schooldistrictinordertomaintainandfurtherimproveschools.In order to support after‐school recreational programs, the City of Hermosa BeachexpandeditsPositiveActiveRecreationforKids(PARK)programthatfocusesoncraftsandsports. Forolderadults,theCityofHermosaBeachhasaHermosaFive‐OSeniorActivityCenter that is open to all South Bay residents. This center offers a variety of exerciseprograms,walking groups, lectures andotheroutings to keep seniors socially connectedandactiveinthecommunity.SocialCohesionAccordingtoarecentpoll,46percentofBeachCitiesresidents(fromHermosa,Manhattan,and Redondo Beaches) felt stressed for most of the day (see Appendix E). Baselineindicators show that Hermosa Beach residents are vulnerable to health problemsassociatedwithstress.



PoliticalInvolvementTherearenodataavailabletodocumentthecurrentstatusofpoliticalinvolvementamongHermosa Beach residents. However, as part of the Community Dialogue process, thecommunity‐led committee defined “accessible city government and citizens who areactively involved” as an important quality of life factor that describes the identity ofHermosaBeach.Thissuggestsanactivelyinvolvedcommunity.

4.5.3 ProjectedImpactPropertyValuesTheCostBenefitAnalysis completeda comprehensivepeer‐reviewed literaturesearchofotheroilandgasdevelopmentpropertiesincloseproximitytoresidentialneighborhoods(Kosmont2014). Basedon the literature, theCostBenefitAnalysis estimates that anoildrilling and production project inHermosaBeach could decrease property values in thevicinity of the Site by up to 10%. Given themean home value of $1million, this couldequatetoalossofupto$100,000foranindividualwantingtoselltheirhome.Giventhevariability between housing markets, it is difficult to quantify the possible change inpropertyvaluesintheareasurroundingtheproposedsitewithmuchcertainty.Adecreasein property values is a logically plausible impact, but limited evidence to support thisconclusion.Inadditiontothemonetarylossinvalueofproperty,anyrealorperceivedlossinpropertyvaluemaycausestressandanxietyamongresidentialandcommercialpropertyownersinthecommunity.ManyofthehomeownersinHermosaBeacharelandlords,asindicatedbythe low homeownership rate. When property values serve as a source of income, thepossibility of decreasing rental values may cause financial stress. While the extent offinancial stress cannot be quantified, stress‐related health impacts may occur amongHermosaBeachpropertyowners.CommunityResourcesThe proposed project can impact community resources in two ways: (1) the perceivedchangeinenvironmentalqualitymaydecreaseaccesstoavailablegreenspaces,and(2)oilproductionrevenuecouldimprovefundingsourcesavailabletoHermosaBeachschools.HermosaBeachisaveryactivecommunitythatvaluesoutdoorrecreationandenjoymentofgreenspaces. Perceivedenvironmentalhazardssuchaschanges inair, soilandwaterquality, and fear of a well blowout could change the community behavior patterns anddecreasegreenspacesinclosevicinitytotheSite–CypressPark(i.e.ClarkPark)andClarkStadium, South Park and the Greenbelt. Decreased physical activity can contribute to



increasedriskof chronic conditionssuchasdiabetesandobesity, inaddition to increaseriskofpsychologicaldistress.The current amount of green space per capital in Hermosa Beach (8.1 acres per 1,000residents) is less than the amount recommended by the National Recreation and ParksAssociation (10acresper1,000 residents). Therefore,HermosaBeach residentsmaybeinterested in developing additional green spaces to improve physical and psychologicalhealth.TheCommunityDialoguequalityoflifeworkingcommitteeidentifiedthedesiretoincrease children’s beach play areas by adding swings and slides. It is possible that theproposedprojectcouldgeneraterevenue tosupport improvementsofexistingparksanddevelopmentofadditionalrecreationalareas.TheCostBenefitAnalysisestimatesthatthemajorityofoilandgasrevenuewouldcomefromthetidelandsfund,whichcouldbeusedtofundbeachpreservationandchildrenplayareas.Theamountoftidelandsrevenueandtheproportionoftherevenueavailabletoimprovegreenspacesoutsideofthebeachandcoastalareasareuncertain.Additionalschooldistrict fundingwould improveeducationprograms inHermosaBeach,and therefore improve the social and economic health outcomes among schoolchildrenthroughoutthecommunity.TheCostBenefitAnalysisestimatestheSchoolDistrictwouldreceivenetrevenuesofapproximately$1.2‐$3.8millionin2014dollarsoverthelifeoftheproposed project. As the annual amount of School District funding from the proposedprojectdependsontheamountofoilproduced,theCostBenefitAnalysisestimatesarangethatHermosaBeach schoolsmay receiveperyear. Basedon theCBAExpected case theSchoolDistrictwouldreceiveaminimumof$10,000peryearandamaximumof$130,000theyearofpeakproduction (averageof approximately$52,000peryear). Basedon theApplicant’sproductionestimates,theSchoolDistrictwouldreceiveaminimumof$10,000per year and a maximum of $360,000 the year of peak production (an average ofapproximately$112,000peryear) (Kosmont2014). Thisaverageannualcontribution tothe Hermosa Beach City School District funding would account for approximately 4%(basedonCBAExpected)to9%(basedonApplicantestimates)oftheamountthatparentsandcommunitymembersdonatedin2012throughtheHBEF(approximately$1.3million).Therefore, the estimatedmagnitude of revenue contributions from the proposed projecttowardseducationisexpectedtobesmall.SocialCohesionSocial cohesion does not lend itself to measurement. However, based on input fromcommunity members during the open house and scoping meeting, political stresssurroundingtheimpendingvoteonrepealingoilinHermosaBeachisverypresentandhasalready impacted social cohesion in the community. Community members view the



situationasadividerinthecommunity–thoseinfavorofoilversusthoseagainstoil.TheproposedprojectcouldfurtherdisruptsocialcohesionduetofrictionbetweensupportersandcriticsofoildevelopmentinHermosaBeach.The disruption in social cohesion associated with the community vote on the proposedproject may create negative health effects. Because all adult residents will have theopportunitytovote,theimpactmaybecommunity‐wide.Itispossiblethattheelderlyofthecommunityaremorevulnerableto impactsonsocialcohesionastheymayrelymoreonsocialsupportnetworksfortheirhealthneeds.Thedurationofpoliticalstressislong,lastingintheyearleadinguptoandthemonthsfollowingthevote.Politicalstresswillbefrequentbecause itmaybeconstantlyexperienced. Evidencesuggests thatdisruption insocialcohesioncanpossiblyhavehealthconsequences. Disruptioninsocialcohesioncanhaveavarietyofhealthconsequences,butthemostlikelyconsequenceinHermosaBeachisstress.PoliticalInvolvementAs part of the settlement, there is a unique opportunity inHermosaBeach for voters todecide for themselves whether to open the community to oil drilling. The City hasencouragedcommunityparticipationthroughouttheprocessofconductingreviewsoftheimpactsfromtheproposedproject.Communityturnoutatthepublicscopingmeetingshasbeen approximately 300‐400 people and participation in the HIA scoping survey wasapproximately 300 people. The Community Dialogue is a group of 15‐30 communitymemberswhoareengagedinactivitiestohelpdefinethequalityoflifeandthevisionforthefutureofHermosaBeach. InadditiontotheCity‐sponsoredcommunityparticipation,the impending vote has brought some community members to action, resulting in acoalitioncalledStopHermosaBeachOil.StopHermosaBeachOilisagroupofconcernedresidents, small business owners, professionals, and former council members with themissiontocareforandprotectthecommunity,environmentandPacificOcean.Thepublicreview process for the Environmental Impact Report will provide a vehicle forparticipation from a broader community. With regard to health, the demonstration ofcommunity political engagement in Hermosa Beach shows the potential for the socialinvolvementandparticipationtomoderateself‐efficacyandoverallhealthstatus.Theimpactfrompoliticalengagementmaycreatepositivehealtheffects.Becausealladultresidents will have the opportunity to vote, the impact may be community‐wide. Theduration of political engagement is long, lasting the year leading up to and themonthsfollowingthevote.Politicalengagementcanindirectlyinfluencepositivehealthbehavior,primarilybytriggeringself‐efficacy.



5.0 ConclusionsToinformdecision‐making,thisassessmentfocusedonpotentialhealthimpactsassociatedwith theApplicant’sproposedoildrillingandproductionprojectand theEIR’sproposedmitigation measures. The benefit of this Health Impact Assessment is an evaluationfocusedonhowtheproposedprojectcouldaffecthealthstatus,healthbehaviorsandsocialandeconomicresourcesnecessaryforpublichealth.TheHIAsupplementstheanalysisofhealtheffectspresentedintheDraftEIRbyincorporatingabroadreviewofpublichealthevidence,whichisnotlimitedtoregulatorythresholds.Basedonpublicinput,reviewoftheprojectdescription,andavailablescientificevidence,fiveareasofhealthfocuswereassessed:airquality,waterandsoilquality,noiseandlight,traffic and community livability. Within each area of health focus, potential healthdeterminants and outcomes were identified and assessed through a literature review,consultation with an engineering expert, information collected in the EIR process, andsecondarydataanalysis.Asthefinalstepintheassessment,eachofthepotentialhealthimpactsandbenefitswerecharacterizedbasedonwhethertheproposedprojectmayresultinapositiveornegativeeffect (i.e., direction), and based on the geographic extent, likelihood, vulnerablepopulations,durationandfrequencyofexposure,andmagnitudeofthehealthimpact. AsdescribedinSection4.0,numericrankingsweresummedforeachhealthimpacttocreatearelative rank. The lowest possible rank is 6 and the highest possible rank is 15,with anegative (‐) number representing negative health effects and a positive (+) numberrepresenting positive health effects. The numeric ranks do not represent a quantitativeestimate of risk, nor are the numeric ranksmeaningful outside the context of this HIA.Theyareprovidedforthepurposeofdescribingtherelativeimportanceofeachpotentialhealth impact compared to the other potential health impacts in this HIA. Thecharacterization of each health determinant is provided in Table 5‐1 and summarizedbelow.AirQualityProject‐related releasesofnitrogenoxides,PM,andVOCsmay result in community‐widenegative health effects. Children, older adults, and individualswith respiratory diseasesaremorevulnerabletoaircontaminantsofconcern.Airpollutantsemissionswill last forthedurationoftheproposedprojectandtherefore, thedurationofexposurewillbe longand frequent. Evidence in the literature suggests it is possible that health effects fromexposuretonitrogenoxidesandVOCswouldoccur,andthatitislikelythathealtheffectssuch as increased mortality and cardiovascular disease from PM exposure will occur.Exposure tonitrogenoxidesmodeled fromPhase4emissionsmay lead toan increase in



childhoodasthmacasesofuptosixadditionalcasesperyear,consideredmoderatehealthimpacts. Exposure to particulate matter air emissions from proposed project activitiesinvolvingfuelcombustionmayleadtoanincreaseinmortalityofupto1.6peopleperyear,therefore health effects are consideredmore severe. Exposure to VOCsmay lead to anincreasedcancerrisk,alsoconsideredsevere.Usingtherankingscheme,nitrogenoxides,PM, and VOCs are expected to produce health ranks of ‐13,‐15, and ‐14, respectively.MitigationmeasuresproposedintheEIRdonotresultinchangestotheserankings.Theemissionsofodor‐causingmaterialsduringoperational activitiesare likely to createnegativehealth effectsprimarilydue tohydrogen sulfide emissions. Because releasesofodor‐causingmaterials create impacts at considerable distances, the impact of the odormay be community‐wide. People more vulnerable to odors include young children,pregnantwomen, the elderly andpeoplewith chronichealthproblems. Thedurationofodorexposurewillbelong,spanningthe30+yearPhase4portionoftheproposedproject.Withoutmitigation,theodorswillbefrequent. Giventhedurationandfrequencyofodorexposure, it is likely that therewill be health effects as a result of the proposedproject.Odors can cause minor health impacts such as headaches and nausea but can alsopotentiallyhavementalhealthconsequences;thusthemagnitudeof impactsismoderate.Usingthenumericalrankingscheme,odorimpactsareexpectedtoproducerankof‐14.Byimplementingmitigationmeasures,theoiloperationswouldreducethefrequencyofodorevents.Mitigatedodorimpactsproducearankof‐13.Project‐relatedgreenhousegasemissionsmaycontributetoglobalclimatechangeandtheassociatedhealthimpacts.Whiledurationofgreenhousegasemissionswouldbelongandfrequent,healtheffectsareunlikelybecauseoflowsusceptibilitytoclimatechangeduetolocationandlocalinitiativestoconfrontclimatechange.Thehealtheffectmostcommonlyattributedtoincreasesingreenhousegasesisheatillness;thusthemagnitudeofimpactsislow. Using the ranking scheme, greenhousegas emissionsproduceahealth rankof ‐10.The mitigation measure proposed in the EIR only slightly decreases greenhouse gasemissionsandthereforedoesnotchangetheranking.SoilandWaterQualitySurfacewaterrunoffcouldresultincommunity‐widenegativehealtheffects.Peoplemorevulnerabletothehealthimpactsofsurfacewaterrunoffincludethosewhousethebeachmorefrequentlyforrecreationalactivity,includingsurfers.ThecontainmentstrategywilllikelykeepstormwaterwithintheSite,sothedurationofsurfacewaterrunoffisshortandinfrequent. In the event that contactwith chemicals in site‐related surfacewaters doesoccur, minor health impacts such as skin and eye irritation, are possible. Using thenumericalassignment,surfacewaterimpactsresultinarankof‐9.



Soil particulates containing hazardous chemicals can be transported through the air tonearby residential areas and parks, and pose a negative health risk. Children aremorevulnerable that adults to hazardous materials in soil because they tend to incidentallyingest soil during outdoor play and they have lower proportional body weight. Thedurationofcontactwithcontaminatedsoil isexpectedtobeshort induration,andoccurinfrequently.Itispossiblethatcurrentcontaminantconcentrationsinsoilarehighenoughtocausehealthimpacts.Forexample,exposuretosoilwithhighconcentrationsofleadcanresult in learning deficiencies and behavioral problems. Such health impacts from soilcontamination are rated as moderate in magnitude. The health protective measuresproposedintheEIR,thepotentialremovalofsoilafterperformingadditionalsamplingtocharacterize lead contamination, decreases the potential health impact of ‐9 to ‐8 bychangingthelikelihoodto‘unlikely.’A crudeoil spill fromapipelinereleaseorwellblowoutcould result in community‐widenegative health impacts. Children are more vulnerable to environmental contaminantsthanadultsbecausetheyhaveincreasedexposure.Acatastrophiceventwouldbeshortinduration,andthelowlikelihoodofsuchaneventoccurringcharacterizesitasinfrequent.Evidence from other crude oil spills and well blowout events indicate that short‐termexposure to crude oil likely can lead to headaches, eye/skin irritation, respiratoryconditions, anxiety, and depression. Because a catastrophic pipeline explosion or wellblowoutscouldcausefatalities,themagnitudeofhealthimpactcouldbehigh,resultinginanoverallrankingof‐10.

TABLE5‐1.CHARACTERIZATIONOFHEALTHIMPACTS

*Hydrogensulfideandodormitigationmeasureswoulddecreasefrequencyto‘infrequent’**ThehealthscreeninglevelproposedintheEIRandadditionalsoilsamplingdecreasethepotentialnegativehealthimpactbychangingthelikelihoodto‘unlikely.’***MitigationmeasuresproposedintheEIR(e.g.increasedcrossing‐guardpresence,additionalwarningsignsandlights)wouldreducelikelihoodto‘unlikely’.AttributeKey‐eachattributeissummedresultinginhealthrankingsrangingfrom6to15,withadirectionofeitherpositive(+)ornegative(‐):GeographicExtent:Classifiedasglobal(0points),localized(closeproximitytotheproject,1point)orcommunity‐wide(acrossHermosaBeach,2points).VulnerablePopulations:Classifiedasno(affectsallsubpopulationsevenly,1point)oryes(disproportionatelysensitivepopulationsimpacts,2points).Duration:Classifiedasshort(lessthanamonth,1point),medium(morethanamonthandlessthanayear,2points)orlong(morethanayear,3points).Frequency:Classifiedasinfrequent(periodically,orrarely,1point),orfrequent(potentialforconstantormultipleexposures,2points).Likelihood/StrengthofEvidence:Classifiedasunlikely(littleevidencethathealthimpactorbenefitcouldoccurasaresultoftheproposedproject,1point),possible(logicallyplausiblethathealtheffectsmayoccur,2points),orlikely(evidencesuggestshealtheffectscommonlyoccurinsimilarprojects,3points).Magnitude/Severity:Classifiedaslow(healtheffectscanbeeasilymanagedanddonotrequiretreatment,1point),moderate(healtheffectsthatrequiretreatmentormedicalattentionandarereversible,2points),orsevere(healtheffectsthatarechronic,irreversibleorfatal,3points).

Impact DirectionGeographicextent

Vulnerablepopulations Duration Frequency

Likelihoodofhealthimpact

Magnitudeofhealthimpact Rank

EIRMitigatedProjectRank

AirQualityOxidesofNitrogen Negative Community‐wide Yes Long Frequent Possible Moderate ‐13 SameParticulateMatter Negative Community‐wide Yes Long Frequent Likely Severe ‐15 SameVolatileOrganicCompounds Negative Community‐wide Yes Long Frequent Possible Severe ‐14 SameHydrogenSulfideandOdor Negative Community‐wide Yes Long Frequent Likely Moderate ‐14 ‐13*GreenhouseGasEmissions Negative Global Yes Long Frequent Unlikely Low ‐10 SameWaterandSoil SurfaceWater Negative Community‐wide Yes Short Infrequent Possible Low ‐9 SameSoilDeposition Negative Localized Yes Short Infrequent Possible Moderate ‐9 ‐8**Spill/BlowoutEvent Negative Community‐wide Yes Short Infrequent Unlikely Severe ‐10 SameNoise,VibrationandLighting NoiseDisturbances Negative Community‐wide Yes Medium Frequent Likely Moderate ‐13 SameLightingDisturbances Negative Localized Yes Long Frequent Unlikely Moderate ‐11 SameLightingSafety Positive Localized No Long Frequent Possible Moderate +11 SameTraffic TrafficInjury Negative Localized Yes Long Frequent Possible Severe ‐13 ‐12***PhysicalActivity Negative Localized Yes Long Frequent Possible Low ‐11 SameCommunityLivability Propertyvalues Negative Localized None Long Frequent Possible Low ‐10 SameCommunityResources–GreenSpaceAccess

Negative Localized Yes Long Frequent Possible Moderate ‐12 Same

CommunityResources–Education

Positive Community‐wide Yes Long Infrequent Likely Low +12 Same

SocialCohesion Negative Community‐wide Yes Medium Frequent Possible Low ‐11 SamePoliticalinvolvement Positive Community‐wide None Medium Frequent Possible Low +10 Same

-77-



NoiseandLightDuring fourmonthsofpipelineconstruction,community‐wideresidentialareas includingHermosaBeach,RedondoBeachandTorrancemaybeimpactedbynoiselevelssufficienttoresult in adverse health outcomes. Children and individualsmore sensitive to noise aremore vulnerable to noise‐related health impacts. Noise emissionswill occur recurrentlyduringpipelineconstructionandconstantlyduringotherprojectphases.Exposuretonoiseis likely to result inmoderate health outcomes such as sleep disturbance, hypertension,stress and short‐term impacts to student achievement. Using the numerical rankingscheme, noise impacts produce a rank of ‐13. Even with mitigation, it would not bepossibletoreducenoiseimpactstovulnerablepopulationsalongthepipelineroute.Artificial lighting may produce negative health effects which would be limited to thevicinityof thesite. Elderlypopulationsaremoresusceptible tochanges in lighting. Theduration of lighting will occur continuously at night and will last longer than one year.While limited evidence suggests that lighting may pose carcinogenic effects, the healtheffectsmore likely tobe associatedwith light exposureareofmoderatemagnitude (e.g.,sleepdisturbance). However,all light fixtureswouldbe shielded,hoodedanddowncast,andmostwouldbelocatedbehindthe35ft.soundattenuationwall,whichwillsignificantlyreduceoperationallightspillorglarebeyondtheprojectsiteperimeter.Whenadrillingrigispresent, therig representsa lightedstructurehigher thansurroundingstructures,andlightspilloverfromtheSiteislikely.Usingthenumericalrankingscheme,lightdisturbanceimpactsproducearankof‐11.Lightingmayalsoproducepositivehealtheffects,whichwouldbelimitedtothevicinityofthe site.ResidentsandvisitorsofHermosaBeachcanpotentiallybenefit fromadditionalnighttime lighting including increased leisure‐time physical activity and increasedperceptionofsafety.Suchbehavioralchangesmaypromotehealthierlifestyles,andcouldresultinarankof+11.TrafficTheintroductionoftrucktripsmayresultinnegativehealthoutcomes.TheimpactwouldbeconcentratedattheintersectionofValleyDr.and6thSt.sincenearlyallproject‐relatedvehicleswillbeusing this intersection,andthereforecrossingover thesidewalk. Peoplemorevulnerabletotraffic injury includeyoungchildrenandtheelderly. Thedurationoftrafficsafetyimpactswillbelong,spanningtheentirelengthoftheproposedproject,butgreatestduringthe16month‐longPhase3portion.Theremaybeasmanyas18roundtriptrucktripsperday;thereforethefrequencyofexposureisdefinedas‘frequent’.Injurydueto trafficcollision ispossibleas trucksare large,havereducedvisibilitydue to theirsizeand elevation, and there is no barrier between the sidewalk and the street on some



roadways. Traffic injurycanbe fatal. Using thenumerical rankingscheme, traffic injuryimpactsproducea rankof ‐13. Mitigationmeasuresproposed in theEIR (e.g., increasedcrossing guards)would reduce the likelihood of health effects frompossible to unlikely,resultinginafinalrankof‐12.Increased truck traffic, especially along Valley Dr., may make the adjacent sidewalk(includingtheschoolroute)lesswalkablebecauseparents,children,andothercommunitymembersfeelthattheirsafetyiscompromised.Again,theimpactwouldbeconcentratedatthe intersectionofValleyDr. and6th Street and thedurationof impactswill be frequentthroughouttheproposedproject.However,communitymemberscanchoosetoavoidtheareasofconcentratedtrucktrafficandthereforeoveralldecreasesinphysicalactivityareunlikely, and of low magnitude. Using the numerical ranking scheme, increased trucktrafficimpactstophysicalactivityproducearankof‐11.CommunityLivabilityAnyactualorperceived loss inpropertyvaluemaycausenegativehealth impactsamongproperty‐owners in the vicinity of the Site over the length of the proposed project.Negativehealtheffectsmayincludepsychologicalstressamongresidentialandcommercialproperty owners. The health impacts are rated as low in magnitude, and decreasedpropertyvaluesproducearankof‐10.Perceived hazards in the natural environment may decrease use of green space in thevicinityoftheSite,resultinginnegativehealthimpacts.Perceivedenvironmentalhazardssuch as changes in air, soil and water quality, and fear of a well blowout could becontinuousover the lengthof theproposedproject. Evidence suggests that this effect ispossible, and that decreased physical activity levels are associated with diabetes, heartdisease,andstress.Usingthenumericalrankingsystemdecreasedgreenspaceuseresultsinarankof‐12.Revenuesetasideforschoolsmayleadtocommunity‐widepositivehealthimpacts.Projectrevenuecouldbeset‐asideforschoolsoverthelong‐termprojecttimeline,thoughfundingwould only be provided occasionally (i.e. on an annual basis). Evidence suggests thateducation is one of the most influential predictors of health. However, health‐relatedimpacts are determined to be low because oil revenue for schools would equal a smallproportion (4 to 9 percent) of current private donationsmade to schools on an annualbasis.Therefore,healthimpactsfromrevenuetowardsschoolsproducearankof+12.The disruption in social cohesion associated with the community vote on the proposedproject may create negative health effects. Because all adult residents will have the



opportunitytovote,theimpactmaybecommunity‐wide.Itispossiblethattheelderlyofthecommunityaremorevulnerableto impactsonsocialcohesionastheymayrelymoreon social support networks for their health needs. Political stressmaybe frequent, andlasting for about one year. Disruption in social cohesion can have a variety of healthconsequences,but themost likelyconsequence inHermosa is stress. On theotherhand,theimpactfrompoliticalengagementmaycreatecommunity‐widepositivehealtheffects.Political engagement can indirectly influence positive health behavior, primarily bytriggering self‐efficacy. Thus, disruption in social cohesion and increased politicalengagementproducehealthranksof‐11and+10,respectively.Overall,thehealthdeterminantsthatproducedrankingsonthehigherendofthenegativespectrum(ranking from‐11 to ‐16) includeairemissions (oxidesofnitrogen,particulatematter, volatile organic compounds, and odor‐releasing compounds), noise and lightingdisturbances, traffic injury, access to green spaces, and social cohesion. The healthdeterminantsthatproducedrankingsonthelowerendofthenegativespectrum(rankingfrom ‐6 to ‐10) include greenhouse gas emissions, surface water, soil deposition, aspill/blowoutevent,andpropertyvalues.MitigationmeasuresproposedintheEIRslightlydecrease the ranking for odor, soil deposition, and traffic injury, but otherwise did notchange therelative importanceof thepotentialhealth impacts. Thehealthdeterminantsthat produced positive rankings include lighting safety, community resources foreducation,andpoliticalinvolvement.Insummary,majorfindingsfromtheHIAinclude:AirQuality

Evidence in the literature suggests negative health impacts of prioritypollutantairemissions:Increasesinnitrogenoxidesandparticulatematterinaircan increase mortality rates, and respiratory and cardiovascular disease rates.Exposure to particulatematter air emissions from the proposed project activitiesinvolving fuel combustion (during Phases 2 and 4) may lead to an increase inmortalityof0to1.6peopleperyear.IncreasedNO2emissionsfrommicroturbinesinPhase4,mayleadtoanincreaseinchildhoodasthmacasesofuptosixadditionalcasesperyear.TheassessmentsofincreasedparticulatematterandNO2emissionswere health protective by assuming that all residents in Hermosa Beach will beexposed to the pollution concentrations predicted for residences closest to theproposedsite.

Hydrogen sulfide odor emissions will likely have negative health impacts:Odorsensitivityvariesgreatlyfrompersontoperson.Potentialhealthimpactsfromodoremissionsrangefromnauseaandheadachestomentalhealtheffects.



Greenhousegasemissionsarenot likelytodirectly impacthealth: Hermosahas low susceptibility to the local effects of global change both due to currentclimate conditions and the ability of the community to manage impacts from achanging climate. Additionally, goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions suggestthat greenhouse gas emissions from the project could be offset by alternativemeasures,whichcouldbefurtherexplored.

WaterandSoilQuality Containment strategy will likely eliminate health impact of hazardous

chemicalsinsurfacewaterrunoff:Wallsandbermswillcontainstormwaterandspillswithin theprojectsite, therefore thepublicwillnot likelycome intocontactwithchemicalsinsurfacewaterrunoff.

Insufficient data to quantify the contaminants currently present in surfacesoil: Soilparticulatescontaininghazardouschemicalscanbetransportedthroughthe air to nearby residential areas and parks, especially during high winds andconstruction activities. Lead in soil may pose a health risk, however additionalsampling isneededbeforesitepreparationoccurs inthefirstphaseoftheproject.AdditionalsoilsamplingistobeconductedinSpring2014tofullycharacterizethecontaminantspresentinsoilattheproposedprojectSite.

Evidencefromothercrudeoilspillsandwellblowouteventsindicatethelowlikelihoodoflong‐termnegativehealthimpacts: Short‐termexposuretocrudeoil can lead to headaches, eye/skin irritation, respiratory conditions, anxiety, anddepression. If a spill reaches the Pacific Ocean, local fishingwould be negativelyimpacted.Althoughawellblowouthasaverylowprobability,suchaneventcouldresultinfatalities.

NoiseandLight Evidenceintheliteraturesuggestsnegativeimpactsofnoiseemissions:Noise

isstronglylinkedtosleepdisturbance,cardiovasculardisease,stress,anddecreasedstudent achievement. Increases in nighttime noise during drilling, testing, andproduction activities will likely change the quality of sleep of nearby residentialneighborhoods. Pipelineconstructionnoisewillreachlevelsabove70dBA,whichcan increase risk of hypertension and may impact schools in the vicinity of theproposedpipelineroute.

Mitigation measures and uncertainties associated with nighttime lightingplan: Light disturbances are associated with sleep disturbance and decreasedmelatoninhormoneproduction.Theproposedprojecthasageneraldescriptionofdowncastlightingthatishoodedandshielded,whichwouldreducethepotentialfor



negativehealthimpacts.Becausethebrightnessofthelightingisnotspecified,thepossiblelevelofglareintothesurroundingareacouldnotbepredicted.

Evidence in the literature suggests positive impacts of nighttime lighting:Additional lightingmay improve the perception of safety and contribute tomorephysicalactivityintheimmediatevicinityoftheSiteatnighttime.

Traffic Insufficientdataonpedestrianandbicyclist frequencytoquantifythetraffic

injuryimpactsfromtrucktraffic:Childrenandelderlyaremorevulnerabletotheincreasedriskoftrafficinjury.AlthoughValleyisahighlytraveledsidewalk,nodataarecurrentlyavailabletoquantifytheexistingnumberofpedestriansandbicycliststhatfrequentlytravelbyValleyDriveand6thStreet.ThemitigationmeasuresintheEIRwillreducetheriskoftrafficinjury.

Traffic safety and perceived traffic safety can impact health by decreasingphysicalactivitylevels: Residentsmaychoosetoavoidwalkingbyareasaffectedbytrucktraffic,becausetheyfeeltheirsafetyiscompromised.Sincethecommunityvalues awalkable environment, it is possible that residentswill find an alternateroutetowalk.

CommunityLivability

Propertyvaluesandstress: Anactualorperceived loss inpropertyvaluesmaycausestressamonghomeowners.

Evidence in the literature supports an association between access tocommunityresources,physicalhealth,andmentalhealth:Perceivedhazardsinthenaturalenvironmentmaydecreasegreenspaceuseandleadtonegativehealthimpacts,includinghigherratesofobesity,heartdisease,andpsychologicaldistress.

Revenueforschools: Educationisoneofthemostpowerfulpredictorsofhealth.Quality of education has positive social and economic health impacts. Projectrevenuethatcouldbesetasideforschoolswouldbeasmallproportionofcurrentprivatedonationsmadetoschoolsonanannualbasis.Thissuggeststhatalternativeavenuesforoffsettingstatefundingdeficitscouldbeexplored.

Evidence in the literature suggests negative and positive impacts of theopportunity for residents to vote on the oil and gas project: Communityparticipation in voting on the settlement has created negative health impacts ofstressanddisruption in social cohesion. On theotherhand,political engagementmaycreatepositivehealthimpacts,becauseindividualsareabletoexercisecontroloverdecisionsthataffecttheirhealthandwell‐being.



Based on these findings, the proposed oil drilling andproduction project could result innegativehealthimpactsrangingfromlocalizedtocommunity‐wide,howevertheextentofsome of these impacts is uncertain and could not be quantified. Given the limited dataavailable and uncertainties in some instances, decision‐makers (Hermosa Beach voters)maywanttoconsideradditionaloptionssuchas:

Airmonitoringtoverifymodelassumptions:Airemissionswerecalculatedusingconservative assumptions based on standard operations and regional ambient airdata.Whiletheestimatedprojectimpactonairqualityislikelytobeconservative,there are uncertainties associated with various model assumptions. Additionalupwindanddownwindmonitoringofdust andkey contaminantswouldallow forongoingevaluationduringconstructionandotherproject‐relatedactivities.Upwindand downwind monitoring would need to be done for a period of time ofapproximately sixmonths before any project activities to understand the normalbackgroundvariations.

Follow‐up community health assessment: Hermosa Beach is recognized as ahealthy city with favorable demographic health indicators and mortality rates,compared to other cities in California and Los Angeles County. If the project isapproved, health statistics reported in county and state‐wide databases could bemonitored to assesswhether or not any changes from baseline occur. However,therearelimiteddataavailabletoquantifypotentialhealthimpactsoftheprojectonsleep disturbance, stress, social cohesion and other quality of life factors. Acommunity health survey could be used as a tool to establish current baselineconditions,andtomonitorwhetherhealthstatuschangesduringtheproject.

Alternate funding sources: Oil revenue has the potential to positively impacthealth through improvingschoolprograms,aswellasothercommunityresourcesnot addressed in this assessment. The financial working committee in theCommunityDialoguegroupidentifiednumerousopportunitiesinHermosaBeachtoraiseadditionalrevenuefordesiredprojectsintheCity.Alternateopportunitiesforrevenueshouldbefurtherexplored.

Regardless of whether the proposed projectmoves forward, the City of Hermosa Beachshould continue to prioritize public health considerations during decision‐makingprocessestoensurethewell‐beingofcommunitymembersintothefuture.



6.0 ReferencesAgency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR). 1996. Polycyclic AromaticHydrocarbons (PAHs), Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine ToxFAQs.August.Availableonlineat:http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts69.pdf

AgencyforToxicSubstancesandDiseaseRegistry(ATSDR)2006.ToxicologicalProfileforHydrogen Sulfide. Retrieved from:http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=389&tid=67

Agency forToxic Substances andDiseaseRegistry (ATSDR). 2007. Benzene,DivisionofToxicology and Environmental Medicine ToxFAQs. August. Available online at:http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts3.pdf.

AmericanTraffic Safety ServicesAssociation(ATSSA). 2013.Nighttime lighting guidelinesforworkzones:aguidefordevelopingalightingplanfornighttimeworkzones.Retrievedfromhttp://www.workzonesafety.org/files/documents/training/fhwa_wz_grant/night_lighting_guide.pdf.

ArchBeachConsulting.2012.TrafficImpactAnalysis,E&BOilDevelopmentProject,CityofHermosaBeachPlanningApplicationAppendixM.

ArchBeachConsulting. 2013.TechnicalMemorandum,DailyTraffic Counts inVicinity ofE&BProjectSite.

Anderson HR, Atkinson RW, Bremner SA, Carrington J, Peacock J. 2007. Quantitativesystematic review of short term association between ambient air pollution (particulatematter,ozone,nitrogendioxide,sulphurdioxide,andcarbonmonoxide),andmortalityandmorbidity. AirPollutionEpidemiologyDatabase(APED)QuantitativeReview.DivisionofCommunityHealthSciences,St.George’sUniversityofLondon.June.

Astrolab. nd. Practical guide for lighting to reduce light pollution and save energy. Parcnational du Mont‐Mégantic. Retreived from http://astrolab‐parc‐national‐mont‐megantic.org/files/ssparagraph/767127306/astrolab_practical_guide_for_lighting.pdf

BureauofLandManagement(BLM),2008.NortheastNationalPetroleumReserve–AlaskaFinal Supplement Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, USDepartment of the Interior. Available online at:www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/planning/npra_general/ne_npra/northeast_npr‐a_final.html

Bandura A. (1997) Self‐efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman andCompany.Pages1‐7,279‐313.

Beach Cities Health District (BCHD). 2013. Beach Cities Community Health Update.Retrievedfrom:http://www.bchd.org/



BlueZones. 2010. BlueZonesProject in theBeachCitiesofCalifornia. Retrieved from:http://www.bluezones.com/programs/blue‐zones‐communities/blue‐zones‐project‐in‐the‐beach‐cities‐of‐california/

BruggeD,LaiZHillC,RandW.Traffic injurydata,policy,andpublichealth: lessonsfromBostonChinatown.JournalofUrbanHealth2002;79:87‐103.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014. Benzene and Benzo(a)pyreneConcentrations, Annual Air Toxics Summary, North Long Beach Monitoring Station.Accessedvia:http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/toxics/

California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) 1999. Determination of acutereferenceexposurelevelsforairbornetoxicants:hydrogensulfideacutetoxicitysummary.Retrievedfrom:http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/acute_rels/pdf/7783064A.pdf

California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2010. A Guide for Health ImpactAssessment. Retrieved from:http://www.cdph.ca.gov/pubsforms/Guidelines/Documents/HIA%20Guide%20FINAL%2010‐19‐10.pdf

California Department of Public Health (CDPH). 2013. Death Profiles by Zip Code.Retrieved from:http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/DeathProfilesbyZIPCode.aspx

CinzanoP,FalchiF,ElvidgeC,etal.2000.TheartificialnightskybrightnessmappedfromDMSP Operational Linescan System measurements. Monthly Notices of the RoyalAstronomicalSociety,318(3):641‐657.

CoffeeNT,LockwoodT,HugoG,PaquetC,HowardN,DanielM.2013.Relativeresidentialproperty value as a socioeconomic status indicator for health research. InternationalJournalofHealthGeographics,12:22.

CohenS,UnderwoodLG,GottliebBH.2000.SocialSupportMeasurementandIntervention.OxfordUniversityPress.NewYork.

CollinsPandLewisL.2000.HydrogenSulfide:EvaluationofCurrentCaliforniaAirQualityStandard with Respect to Protection of Children. Prepared for California Air ResourcesBoardandCaliforniaOfficeofEnvironmentalHealthHazardAssessment. In:Summaryofthe toxicity assessment of hydrogen sulfide conducted by the Secretary’s ScientificAdvisoryBoardonToxicAirPollutants.http://daq.state.nc.us/toxics/studies/H2S

CommitteeontheMedicalEffectsofAirPollutants(COMEAP).2009.Long‐termExposuretoAirPollution:EffectonMortality.HealthProtectionAgency,CrownCopyright.



Cummins S, Stafford M, MacIntyre S, Marmot M, Ellaway A. 2005. Neighborhoodenvironment and its associations with self‐rated health: evidence from Scotland andEngland.JournalofEpidemiologyandCommunityHealth59:207‐213

Dapi LN, Rocklöv J, Nguefack‐Tsague G, Tetanye E, Kjellstrom T. 2010. Heat impact onschoolchildren in Cameroon, Africa: potential health threat from climate change. GlobHealthAction3;doi:10.3402/gha.v3i0.5610[Online29November2010].DratvaJ,ZempE,DietrichD,etal.Impactofroadtrafficnoiseannoyanceonhealth‐relatedquality of life: Results from a population‐based study. Quality of life research.2010;19(1):37‐46.E&B Natural Resources, 2012. Planning Application and Appendices, Volumes 1 – 3,November14,2012.

E&BNaturalResources,2013a. Response toPlanningApplicationCompletenessReview,April11,2013.

E&BNaturalResources,2013b.ResponsetoRequestedClarifications,June24,2013.

Environews. 2009. Missing the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution. EnvironmentalHealthPerspectives117(1):A20‐A27

FeychtingM,OsterlundB,AhlbomA,BaughK,etal.1998.Reducedcancerincidenceamongtheblind.Epidemiology,9(5):490‐494.

FontanaAF,KernsRD,RosenbergRL, ColoneseKL. (1989) Support, stress, and recoveryfromcoronaryheartdisease:alongitudinalcausalmodel.HealthyPsychology8(2):175‐93.

Frasure‐Smith N, Lesperance F, Gravel G, Masson A, Juneau M, Talajic M, Bourassa MG.2000. Social support, depression, and mortality during the first year after myocardialinfarction.Circulation101:1919–1924EllK,NishimotoR,MedianskiL,MantellJ,HamovitchM.1992.

FrichP,AlexanderLV,Della‐MartaP,etal.Observedcoherentchangesinclimaticextremesduring the second half of the twentieth century. Climate Research 2002; 19: 193–212.Gaston K, Davies T, Bennie J, et al. 2012. Reducing the ecological consequences ofnight‐timelightpollution:optionsanddevelopments.JournalofAppliedEcology,49:1256‐1266.

GeyerJ,RafordN,RaglandD,PhamT.2005.Thecontinuingdebateaboutsafetyinnumbers–datafromOakland,CA.UCBerkeleyTrafficSafetyCenter:UCB‐TSC‐RR‐TRB3.



GotthardK,2000.Increasedriskofpredationasacostofhighgrowthrate:anexperimentaltestinabutterfly.JournalofAnimalEcology,69:896‐902.

GrattanLM,RobertsS,MahanWT,McLaughlinPK,OtwellWS,andMorris JG. 2011. TheEarly Psychological Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Florida and AlabamaCommunities.EnvironmentalHealthPerspectives,119(6):838‐843.

GrayR,&ReaganD,2007.Glaresusceptibility testresultscorrelatewith temporalsafetymarginwhenexecutingturnsacrossapproachingvehiclesinsimulatedlow‐sunconditions.OphthalmicandPhysiologicalOptics,27:440‐450.

Hahn R, 1991. Profound bilateral blindness and the incidence of breast cancer.Epidemiology,2:208‐210.

HartJ,RimmE,RexrodeK,andLadenF.2013.ChangesinTrafficExposureandtheRiskofIncidentMyocardialInfarctionandAll‐CauseMortality.Epidemiology2013;24:734‐742.HawthorneG.2008.Perceivedsocial isolationinacommunitysample: itsprevalenceandcorrelateswith aspectsofpeoples' lives. SocialPsychiatryAndPsychiatricEpidemiology.43(2):140‐150.

HeathG,ParraD,SarmientoO,etal.2012.Evidence‐basedinterventioninphysicalactivity:lessonsfromaroundtheworld.TheLancet,380(9838):272‐281.

HermosaBeach City SchoolDistrict (HBCSD). 2014.HermosaBeach City SchoolDistrictWebsite,accessedJanuary2014,http://www.hbcsd.org/

Hermosa Beach Green Task Force (HBGTF). 2011. Sustainability Plan, CommunityDevelopment Department, City of Hermosa Beach. June. Accessed online at:http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=1471&meta_id=91625.

Herrick,H,andDiBona,V.2013.TheAssociationofhousingstress,health,chronicdiseaseand health care resources: results from the 2011 North Carolina BRFSS Survey. SCHSStudies (166) . Accessed online at:http://www.schs.state.nc.us/schs/pdf/SCHS_Study166_FIN_20130604.pdf

HorváthG,KriskaG,Malik,P,etal.2009.Polarizedlightpollution:anewkindofecologicalphotopollution.FrontiersinEcologyandtheEnvironment,7(6):317‐325.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate change 2013 thephysicalsciencebasis.Accessedonlineat:http://climate2013.org/



Jongeneel‐Grimen B, BusschersW, DroomersM, van Oers HAM, Stronks K, et al. (2013)ChangeinNeighborhoodTrafficSafety:DoesItMatterinTermsofPhysicalActivity?PLoSONE8(5):e62525.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062525

KantermannT,&RoennebergT,2009.Islight‐at‐nightahealthriskfactororahealthriskpredictor?ChronobiologyInternational,26(6):1069‐1074.

Kawachi I, Kennedy BP, Lochner K, Prothrow‐Stith D. (1997) Social capital, incomeinequality,andmortality.AmJPublicHealth87:1491‐8

KelshMA,Morimoto L, Lau E. 2009. Cancermortality and oil production in theAmazonRegionofEcuador,1990‐2005.InternationalArchivesofOccupationalandEnvironmentalHealth;82(3):381‐95.

KimD,KawachiI.2006.Amultilevelanalysisofkeyformsofcommunity‐andindividual‐levelsocialcapitalaspredictorsofself‐ratedhealthintheUnitedStates.JournalofUrbanHealth83(5):813‐826

deKluizenaar Y. Long‐term road traffic noise exposure is associatedwith an increase inmorningtiredness.JAcoustSocAm.2009;126(2):626.doi:10.1121/1.3158834.Kosmont Companies (Kosmont). 2014. Draft Cost Benefit Analysis, E&B DevelopmentProject.February.Krewski et al. 2009. Extended Follow‐up and Spatial Analysis of the American CancerSociety Study Linking Particulate4 Air Pollution and Mortality. Health Effects Institute,ResearchReportNo.140,May.Accessibleonline:http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/docs/RR140‐Krewski.pdf

Lockley S, Brainard G, Czeisler C, et al. 2003. High sensitivity of the human circadianmelatoninrhythmtoresettingbyshortwavelengthlight.JournalofClinicalEndocrinology&Metabolism,88(9):4502‐4505.

Longcore T, & Rich C, 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology andEnvironment,2:191‐198.

Lorne J, & Salmon M, 2007. Effects of exposure to artificial lighting on orientation ofhatchlingseaturtlesonthebeachandintheocean.EndangeredSpeciesResearch,3:23‐30.

LosAngeles CountyDepartmentof PublicHealth (LACDPH), 2011a. InglewoodOil FieldCommunities Health Assessment. Bureau of Toxicology and Environmental Assessment,February.

LosAngelesCountyDepartmentofPublicHealth(LACDPH),2011b.PercentofChildren(0‐17yearsold)withcurrentprevalenceofasthma(everdiagnosedwithasthmaandeither



currentlystillhasasthmaand/orhadanasthmaattackinthepast12months). Accessedonline,LosAngelesCountyHealthSurvey2011Results.

MarineResource Specialists (MRS). 2014. Draft Environmental Impact Report, E&BOilDevelopmentProject.February.

McMichaelAJ,WoodroofRE,HalesS.2006.Climatechangeandhumanhealth:presentandfuturerisks.Lancet;367:859‐69.PublishedonlineFebruary9.

Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH). 2013. Public Health Assessment,Kalamazoo River/Enbridge Spill: Evaluation of Kalamazoo River surface water and fishafter a crude oil release). Division of Environmental Health, Michigan Department ofCommunityHealth.Accessibleonlinevia:http://www.michigan.gov/mdch.

Moore M, Pierce S, Walsh H, et al. 2000. Urban light pollution alters the diel verticalmigration of Daphnia. Proceedings of the International Association of Theoretical andAppliedLimnology,27:779‐82.

MortimerKM,TagerIB,DockeryDWetal.2000.Theeffectofozoneoninner‐citychildrenwith asthma: identification of susceptible subgroups. Am J Respir Crit Care Med162(5):1838–1845.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2006. Sleep Disorders and Sleep Deprivation: AnUnmet Public Health Provlem. Committee on SleepMedicine and Research, Institute ofMedicine of the National Academies. Accessible online:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19960/pdf/TOC.pdf

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2013. Health Impact Assessment of Shale GasExtraction:WorkshopSummary.InstituteofMedicineoftheNationalAcademies.

NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration(NHTSA).Trafficsafetyfacts2011data:Largetrucks.April2013;DOTHS811752.Retrievedfrom:http://www‐nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811752.pdf

NationalResearchCouncil(NRC).2011.ImprovingHealthintheUnitedStatesRoleofHealthImpactAssessment.

NewJerseyDepartmentofPublicHealth,HazardousSubstanceFactSheetforpentane,March2007andhexane,April2004.

NishimuraK,Galanter J,RothLet al. 2013. Early‐LifeAirPollutionandAsthmaRisk inMinorityChildren, theGALAIIandSAGEIIStudies. AmJournalofRespirCritCareMed;188(3):309‐318.

NishimotoR,Medianski L,Mantell J, HamovitchM. 1992. Social relations, social supportandsurvivalamongpatientswithcancer.JournalofPsychosomaticResearch36:531–541.



NorthFM,SymeSL,FeeneyA,ShipleyM,MarmotM.1996.PsychosocialworkenvironmentandsicknessabsenceamongBritishcivilservants:theWhitehallstudy.AmericanJournalofPublicHealth86(3):332‐340.

OEHHA,2007,DevelopmentofHealthCriteriaforSchoolsSiteRiskAssessmentPursuanttoHealthandSafetyCodeSection901(g):ProposedChild‐SpecificBenchmarkChangeinBloodLeadConcentrationforSchoolSiteRiskAssessment.availableat:http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/public/kids/index.html

OfficeofStatewideHealthPlanningandDevelopment(OSHPD).2013.StatisticsgeneratedonHealthyCity.org,10/28/2013.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2010. ImprovingHealthandSocialCohesionthroughEducation.

PoortingaW.Socialrelationsorsocialcapital?individualandcommunityhealtheffectsofbondingsocialcapital.SocSciMed.2006;63:255‐270.

Pope et al. 2002. Lung Cancer, CardiopulmonaryMortality, Long‐termExposure to FineParticulateAirPollution.JAMA287(9):1132‐41.

Ritz B andWilhelmM. 2008. Air Pollution Impacts on Infants and Children. SouthernCalifornia Environmental Report Card, Fall 2008. Institute of the Environment andSustainability, University of California Los Angeles. Accessible online:http://www.environment.ucla.edu/reportcard/article.asp?parentid=1700

RubinG,NgE,Bandeen‐RocheK,etal.2007.AProspective,Population‐BasedStudyoftheRoleofVisualImpairmentinMotorVehicleCrashesamongOlderDrivers:TheSEEStudy.InvestigativeOphthalmology&VisualScience,48(4):1483‐1491.

SamoliE,PengR,RamsayTetal. 2008. AcuteEffectsofAmbientParticulateMatteronMortality inEuropeandNorthAmerica:Results from theAPHENAStudy. EnviroHealthPerspect,116(11):1480‐1486.

SchernhammerE,RosnerB,WillettW,etal.2004.EpidemiologyofUrinaryMelatonin inWomen and Its Relation to Other Hormones and Night Work. Cancer EpidemiologyBiomarkers&Prevention,13:936‐943.

Schiffman S, Sattely‐Miller E, Suggs,M, and Graham, B. The effect of pleasant odors andhormonestatusonmoodofwomenatmidlife.BrainResBull.1995;36(1):19‐29.

Schiffman S,Walker J, Dalton P, Lorig T, Raymer J, ShustermanD, et al. Potential healtheffects ofodor from animal operations, wastewater treatment, and recycling ofbyproducts.JAgromed.2000;7:7–81.



Schildcrout JS, Sheppard L, Lumley T et al. 2006. Ambient air pollution and asthmaexacerbationsinchildren:aneight‐cityanalysis.AmJEpidemiol164(6):505–517.Skrtic,L.

SheffieldPE, Philip JL. 2011. GlobalClimateChange andChildren’sHealth:Threats andStrategiesforPrevention.EnviroHealthPersp;119(3):291‐298.

Skrtic, L. 2006.Hydrogen Sulfide,Oil andGas, andPeople’sHealth. Submitted in partialsatisfactionoftherequirementforthedegreeofMaster’sofScienceMay2006EnergyandResourcesGroupUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.

SorensenM,HvidbergM,AndersonZJ,NordsborgRB,LillelundKG,JakobsenJ,TjonnelandA, Overvad K, Raaschou‐Nielsen O. Road traffic noise and stroke: A prospective cohortstudy.EurHeartJ.2011;32(6):737‐744.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq466.

South Coast Air QualityManagement District (SCAQMD). 2008. MATES III Final Report,MultipleAirToxicsExposureStudyintheSouthCoastAirBasin.September.

StateofAlaskaHIAProgram,2011. TechnicalGuidance forHealth ImpactAssessment inAlaska,Version1.1.DepartmentofHealthandSocialServices.

TheCenter forLandUse Interpretation(CLUI),2010. UrbanCrude:TheOilFieldsof theLos Angeles Basin, Spring. Accessed online: http://clui.org/newsletter/spring‐2010/urban‐crude.

Twiss J, Dickinson J, Duma S et al. 2003. Community Gardens: Lessons Learned fromCalifornia Healthy Cities and Communities. American Journal of Public Health; 93(9):1435‐1438.

UnitedStatesCensusBureau:StateandCountyQuickFacts(USCensus),2013.Dataderivedfrom Population Estimates. Last Revised: June. 2013. Retrieved from:http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0633364.html

USCenters forDiseaseControlandPrevention (CDC).2002.Barriers tochildrenwalkingandbikingtoschool‐‐UnitedStates,1999.MMWR.51(32):701‐704.US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Transportation Health ImpactAssessment Toolkit – 2011. Retrieved from:http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/transportation/promote_strategy.htmU.S.DepartmentofTransportation(USDOT)2012.PEDSAFE:PedestrianSafetyGuideandCountermeasure Selection System – Crash Statistics. Retrieved from:http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/crashstats.cfm.



United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2013. Annual Energy Outlook2014, Early Release Overview. Accessed online:www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2014).pdf.

UnitedStatesDepartmentofHealth andHumanServices (USHHS).2008.The secretary’sadvisory committee on national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for2020.Rockville,MD:U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices.

UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA).1997.NitrogenOxides:ImpactsonPublicHealthandtheEnvironment.OfficeofAirandRadiation,August.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Integrated ScienceAssessment forOxides ofNitrogen –HealthCriteria. National Center for EnvironmentalAssessment–RTPDivision.July.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Integrated ScienceAssessment forParticulateMatter. NationalCenter forEnvironmentalAssessment–RTPDivision.December.

United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (USEPA).Accessed in 2014.Odors fromtheBPOilSpill.Retrievedfrom:http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/odor.html

U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyRegion9(USEPARegion9).2012.SantaMonicaBayTotalMaximumDailyLoadsforDDTsandPCBs.Retrievedfrom:http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/tmdl/Established/SantaMonica/FinalSantaMonicaBayDDTPCBsTMDL.pdf

University of Colorado (UofC), 2010. Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa,GarfieldCounty,Colorado.ColoradoSchoolofPublicHealth,Denver.

UtahDepartmentofHealth(UDOH).2011.PublicHealthAssessment,RedButteCreekOilSpill,SaltLakeCity,SaltLakeCounty,Utah. EnvironmentalEpidemiologyProgram,OfficeofEpidemiology,UnderaCooperativeAgreementwiththeAgencyforToxicSubstancesandDisease Registry. http://health.utah.gov/enviroepi/appletree/redbuttecreekoilspill/SA‐Chevron%20Oil%20Spill%20PHA.pdf.

Velasquez K, Holahan C, You X, 2009. Relationship of perceived environmentalcharacteristicstoleisure‐timephysicalactivityandmeetingrecommendationsforphysicalactivityinTexas.PrevtingChronicDisease,6(1):1‐16.

ViswanathK, SteeleWR, Finnegan JR. 2006. Social capital and health: Civic engagement,community size, and recall ofhealthmessages.American JournalOfPublicHealth96(8):1456‐1461



WhiteMP,AlcockI,WheelerBW,DepledgeMH.2013.Coastalproximity,healthandwell‐being:resultsfromalongitudinalpanelsurvey.HealthPlace;23:97‐103.

WLCI2011,WalkableandLivableCommunities Institute,HealthwaysBlueZonesVitalityCity:BeachCitiesLivabilityPlan,August2011

Woodward C. 2010. Gulf oil spill exposes gaps in public health knowledge. CanadianMedicalAssocJournal,182(12):1290‐1292.

WorldHealthOrganization(WHO).2002.TheWorldHealthReport2002:ReducingRisksandPromotingHealthyLife.Accessibleonline:http://www.who.int/whr/2002/en/

World Health Organization (WHO). 2005. Air quality guidelines: global update 2005.Particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. Accessible online:http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_SDE_PHE_OEH_06.02_eng.pdf

World Health Organization (WHO). 2013. Health Effects of Particulate Matter, Policyimplications for countries in eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central Asia.http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/189051/Health‐effects‐of‐particulate‐matter‐final‐Eng.pdf.

Appendix A

Summary of Los Angeles Urban Drilling Sites

AppendixA:SummaryofLosAngelesUrbanOilDrillingSites

Region Oil Field Location Production Urban Features Health and Environmental Concerns

Inglewood Inglewood

underneath the Baldwin Hills, between

Culver City and Inglewood

produces more than 3 million barrels of oil

per year from 430 active wells

largest remaining contiguous oil production

landscape (950 acres) in urbanized Los

Angeles, neighbors are more than 1,000 feet

from drilling activities

in 2006, gasses entrained in drilling muds were released and

detected by neighbors; 2011 CEQA lawsuit settlement resulted in:

reduced drilling of new wells, increased air quality monitoring,

more stringent noise limits, and mandatory health assessments

Sawtelle

underneath Veterans Administration land

on both side of the 405 Freeway 18 wells, extracting 175K barrels per year

accessed on the Veterans Administration

campus

Cheviot Hill underneath much of Century City

2 well sites remain active, extracting 57K

barrels per year

accessed through sites located on two

separate golf courses

Beverly Hills

extends from Century City to past Fairfax,

centered under Pico

90 operating wells, producing more than 850K

barrels per year

accessed through three urban well sites ‐ one

operates within Beverly Hills High School

in 2003 a suit was filed alleging the well site was responsible for a

higher than average cancer rate at the highschool but the case was

later dismissed

Salt Lake

underneath city from Beverly Hills to the

Wilshire 40 operating wells

accessed on the west side of the Beverly

Center mall

oil field seeps caused a 1985 methane explosion at a Ross Store

(across from the Fairfax Farmers Market, injuring over 20 people)

Las Cienegas

extends from La Brea to downtown Los

Angeles

27 oil and gas producing wells producing 0.5

million barrels per year

accessed through 4 sites set among residential

properties

increassed drilling activityon West Adams in 2004 promprted

neighborhood compliants about noise and odor

Los Angeles City

underlies an area on the north side of

downtown, from Hoover to Dodger Stadium

Almost entirely shut down, producing just

1.2K barrels of oil

hundreds of wells drilled throughout the urban

area

methane seeps and hydrogen sulfide odors led to safety concerns

for highschool built on top of field

Los Angeles Downtown

underneath the Staples and Convention

Center area

12 extraction and 2 injection wells, producing

35K barrels per year well site on Hill Street

steam injection at the site is thought to be responsible for ooze

that came to the street surface in 2006, prompting street closures

and evacuations

Montebello underneath Montebello hills produces over 600K barrels of oil per year

surrounded by a shopping mall, housing, a

closed dump, and Whittier Narrows dam and

basin

Bandini underlies part of East Los Angeles 20K barrels per year

clusters of pumpjacks around rail yards south

of the I‐5 and I‐710 intersection

East Los Angeles underlies part of East Los Angeles 40K barrels per year

a dozen pumpjacks operate amidst office and

warehouse spaces

Santa Fe Springs under the city of Santa Fe Springs 160 wells produce 600,000 barrels per year most pumping takes place in office parking lots

Walnut

small field in La Puente, next to the City of

Industry produces around 8K barrels per year pumpjacks within golf course

Whittier along the southern base of the oil field produces around 125K barrels per year

active oil fields have held back full suburban

development

current court case and community concerns that opening the hills

to drilling will result in impacts to human health and the

environment

Sansinena

Puente‐China corridor, between Whittier

and Brea‐Olinda pruduces around 260K barrels per year

Brea‐Olinda west of Highway 57, on the LA/OC line

historic site but still operating more than 500

active wells, producing more than 1.1 million

barrels per year

East Coyote northern Orange County 69 wells extract around 200K barrels per year

covered over mostly by housing and a golf

course

Yorba Linda

contiguous with the east end of the East

Coyote Oil Field

most wells capped but still produces 20K

barrels per year has been taken over by suburban development

Richfield just south of Yorba Linda

around 100 active wells, around 340K barrels

per year

scattered pumpjacks around the community in

recently developed part of Yorba Linda

Olive west of Anaheim 3 active wells, 18K barrels per year

Esperanza underlies hills east of Yorba Linda 8K barrels per year

Chino‐Soquet underlies hills southwest of Chino 1.2K barrels per year near the edge of Chino Hills State Park

Mahala

underlies hills between the Prado Dam and

Chino Hills State Park 1.5K barrels per year undeveloped area

Westside and

Downtown

Eastern and

Inland

Draft Health Impact Assessment - Proposed E&B Oil Drilling and Production Project City of Hermosa Beach, CA

AppendixA:SummaryofLosAngelesUrbanOilDrillingSites

Playa del Rey

underlies the marina and Ballona Creek

estuary

over 100 closed and capped wells, few

operating wells remain, former wells currently

serve as major natural gas storage area

Hyperion underneath the west end of LAX

small oil field, only one well produces about

10K barrels of oil per year

El Segundo

underlies much of the community and

refinery at El Segundo

most wells are inactive, two producing wells

yield around 15K barrels per year

two active wells in the industrial part of El

Segundo

Howard Townsite

underlies an area along the 105 Freeway

north of Gardena

4 active wells produce less than 10K barrels

per year on houselots between homes and businesses

Rosecrans

underlies a mostly industrial area along the

110 Freeway, between Gardena and

Compton produces around 150K barrels per year

46 active pumpjacks along railway, freeway, in

industrial yards, parking lots, and house lots

Torrance

underlies a wide area of developed land in

the South Bay

producing nearly 400K barrels per year,

former directionally drilled oil wells in the

harbor area at Redondo Beach are now

capped off

100 wells are scattered in residential and retail

areas

Long Beach

underlies the Signal Hill Area, south of the

Long Beach Airport

nearly 300 active wells produce more than 1.5

million barrels per year

wells scattered in retail, industrial, and

residential areas of Signal Hill

Wilmington

under the port and city of Wilmington,

extending from Torrance to Seal Beach

including offshore portions

the most productive oil field in the Los

Angeles Basin (3.5 million barrels per year),

1,300 active wells pumpjacks scattered around the city

extensive pumping has led to land subsidence over the whole of

port area ‐as low as 29 feet

Seal Beach

underlies the estuary of the San Gabriel

River

130 wells producing around 500K barrels per

year

clusters of pumpjacks around housing and

marinas

Huntington Beach underlies much of Huntington Beach produces nearly 2 million barrels per year

two offshore platforms and 200 wells

extending for over a mile along PCH

other parts of the land have been restored to natural habitat

(marshland)

West Newport

on the Coast at the mouth of the Santa Ana

River

produces around 100,000 barrels per year

from 100 wells

undeveloped Ranch site holds most of

pumpjacks

Source: CLUI 2010, grey shading indicates no information was available (does not indicate that health concerns are not present)

Coast and South

Bay

Harbor and Long

Beach

South Coast


Appendix B

Scoping Checklist

HealthCategoryTypicalOutcomesConsideredinthisCategory Currentlocalhealthconsideration?

Howmaytheprojectimpacthealthandwellbeingoflocalcommunity?

Isanin‐depthHIAnecessarythatexaminesthisareainmoredetail?

GreenhouseGases

TherearenoexistingfacilitiesinHermosaBeachwithreportedGHGemissions.TheclosestfacilityistheAESPowerPlantthatgenerated93,255metrictonsCO2equivalentin2010.

Long‐termgreenhousegasemissionsexceedtheSCAQMDlevelofsignificanceof10,000metrictonsCO2equivalent

Yes.Hermosahasagoalofbeingcarbonneutral.Thishealthdeterminantisimportanttoresidents.

AirQuality‐fugitivedusts,criteriapollutants,VOCs,mercaptan

CurrentlevelsofparticulateairpollutioninthevicinityofHermosaBeachapproachand/orexceedairqualitystandards.

AirqualityassessmentwillrelyontheairtoxicsriskassessmentconductedintheEIR.Closeloopsystemindicateslocalemissionswillnotbeimpacted.

Yes.Thereisstrongevidencelinkingairqualitywithincreasediseaseanddeathrates.

WaterQuality‐petroleumhydrocarboncontaminationofgroundwater,oceanwater

TheSantaMonicaBaysurfacewatersarelistedasimpairedundertheCleanWaterActduetocontaminationDDTandPCBs,andcoliformbacteria.

ThestormwaterplanincludesthecontainmentofallstormwaterduringPhase2,sothatstormwaterinfiltratesandevaporatesonsite.Pollutantdischargewillbecontainedbywallsandbermsonsite.

Yes,communitymembersprioritizedwaterandotherenvironmentalquality.

Soil‐fugitivedustscarriedtosurroundingareas

Currentcitymaintenanceyardhaselevatedlevelsoflead,whichareabovecommercialandresidentialrisk‐basedvalues.

ResidentsandrecreationaluserscouldbeexposedtoleadandothercontaminantsinsurfacesoilaroundtheSite

Yes,uncertaintiesregardingcurrentsitecontaminantsandfateandtransportofleadindustrequirefurtherevaluation

Noise

DaytimeL50NoiseStandardof50dBAiscurrentlyexceededbylightmanufacturingpropoertiestothewestandresidentialproperitestothenorthandeast,howeverresidentialareasmaystillbeimpacted.

Increaseindaytimeandnighttimenoiselevelsmaycausesleepdisturbances

Yes,nightimenoisedisturbanceshavethepotentialtobeabovecurrentconditions.Theamountofnoiseincreaserequiresfurtherevaluation.

Light

Existingconditionsaretypicalofaresidentialneighborhood.Limitedlightingatnightsuchasstreetlights.Parkinglotlightsilluminatethepublicparkingarea.

Thelighting,asproposedintheApplicant’sLightingPlan,wouldbedesignedtobedirecteddownwardandshieldedinordertoavoidobtrusivelightspillagebeyondtheProjectsite,reflectiveglare,andilluminationofthenighttimesky.

Yes.Althoughimpactsmaybeminimaliflightsareshieledandcastdownwards,thereisuncertaintyassociatedwiththeamountoflightingthatwillbeneededonsite.Evaluationofothernighttimeworkzonelightingscenariosmayprovideadditionalinformation.

Chemicalexposures

PhysicalHazards/Nuisances


VibrationVibrationsmaydisturbsurroundinglightmanufacturingandresidentialproperties.

10typesofequipmentweremodeledtoproducevibrationlevelsof0.5psi,asdescribedintheprojectdescription.TheEIRpredictsvibrationwillhaveminimalhealthimpact.

No.Healthimpactnotanticipated,andvibrationsarenotahealthconcernofthecommunity.

Odor

Noknownodorcomplaintsinthecurrentlightmanufacturingareabytheproposedsite.

Odoreventscouldoccurfromproductionequipmentordrillingupsetconditions.Mainconcernsarehydrogensulfide,combustiongasesandmercaptan.

Yes.Odordistrubancesareoftenreportedaturbandrillingsites,andmayimpacthealthinthesurroundingneighborhood.

Changestogroundwater/wetlandsthatprovideshabitatforvector‐bornedisease Noexistingvulnerabilities Noneidentified

No,nowetlandsareasexist.TherearealackofexistingsurfacewaterfeaturesintheCityandsurfacewaterrunoffisexpectedtobecontainedonsite.

Crowdedlivingandworkingconditionscanincreaseriskfordiseasetransmission Noexistingvulnerabiltiies

Totalnumberofworkersduringanygivenphasewillbeapeakof35employees.

Notrelevanttothisproject,becausethenumberofemployeesissmall

Micronutrientdeficiencies

HermosaBeachhasaccesstoalargeamountoffreshandhealthyfoodchoices,includingsupermarketsandaFarmersMarket. Noneidentified

No,potentialhealthimpactswerenotidentified

Physicalactivity2outof5beachcitiesadultsdonotmeetthefederalphysicalactivityguidelines

Environmentalcontaminationorpercievedriskofenvironemntalcontaminationmaydecreasephysicalactivityfrequency

Yes,communityvaluesoutdooractivitiesandhealthylifestyle

PedestrianRerouting

Existingsidewalkson6thand8thstreetsareinterruptedandnotfriendlytopedestrians.ExistingsidewalksalongArdmore/ValleyandVeteran'sParkwaygreenbeltareverypedestrianfamily.

Phase1‐sidewalksalongValleyand6thstreet/8thstreetintersectionswouldbeclosed;Phase2‐none;Phase3‐sidewalksalongValleyand6thstreet,addasidewalkon6thstreet;Phase4‐none.

Yes,walkablecitylifestyleisanimportantqualityoflifeindicatorinHermosa

Oilpipelinerupture Noexistingoilpipelines

Projectdescriptionestimated2per10,000peryear,maximumof778barrels

Yes.Althoughlowprobabilitiyofoccurrence,couldresultinseverehealthimpacts

Includesfatalandnon‐fatalinjurypatterns Noexistingoiltruckingactivities

Truckaccidentrateof4.2per1,000peryear,maximumof160barrels

Yes.Additionoftrucktrafficcouldnegativielyimpactsafetyandphsycialactivity.

Infectiousdisease

Accidents/Injuries

Food,Nutrition,PhysicalActivity


Project‐relatedincomeandrevenuetoimproveinfrastructure

CommunitymembersareinterestedinprojectrevenuetosupportCityresourcessuchasanewsewersystem,andimprovedschoolprograms

Possiblethatrevenuecouldcontributetocityprojectsandcommunityprograms

Yes.Improvedcommunityresourcesarelinkedwithpositivehealthoutcomes.

Increasedemandonwaterandsanitationinfrastructurebecauseofprojectsneedornon‐residentworkers WaterinCaliforniaisinhighdemand. Needtofindalternativewatersource.

No.Alternativesourcesofwaterandimprovedsanitationinfrastructurearebothpossible,ifneeded.

Revenuefromtheprojectthatsupportsconstructionandmaintenanceofwater&sanitationfacilities

Communitywouldliketoimprovesewersysteminfrastructure Positiveimpact

No.Notaprioritylistedincommunitycommentsandinput.

Depression,anxietyHospitalizationrateduetomentalillnesslowerthanCaliforniareferencepopulation

Project‐relatedenvironmentalhazardscouldimpactpsychologicalhealththroughnoiseandodordistubrances,orreducingaccesstogreenspacesandtheoutdoors

Yes.Includethishealthoutcomeinliteraturesearchesofpossibleimpacts.

SuicideMortalityratefromsuicide1.3per10,000people(2009‐2010)

Depressionandotherpsychologicalhealthimpactsofprojectcouldleadtosuicide.


Substance/alchoholabuse

Hospitalizationrateduetoalcohol‐druguseandalcohol‐druginducedmentaldiseasehigherthanCaliforniareferencepopulation

Substanceabuseisassociatedwithotheradversechronichealthoutcomes


Culturalintegrity/changeCurrentbeachcultureandlackofindustrialinfluence

PossiblychangetheidentifyofHermosaasa"TheBestLittleBeachCity"

Yes.Thecity'scharacterinfluencesocialbehaviorandoverallwellbeingofcommunity.

Education

Higheducationalattainment‐nearly99%ofHermosaresidentsoverage25haveattainedhighschooleducationorgreater,nearly70%havebachelor'sdegreeorhigher

Possiblerevenuefromprojectcouldsupportschoolsanddistricts.

Yes.Thispossibleoutcomeisimportanttocommunitymembers,andeducationisoneofthemostimportanthealthindicators.

CommunityPoliticalStress Residentsarepoliticallyengaged

Somefeeltheimpendingvoteisdividingthecommunityandpittingthemagainstoneanother(citepersonalinterationswithcommunitymembers)

Yes.Communitymembersareinterestedinthishealthdeterminantbeingassesed.

SocialDeterminantsofHealth

WaterandSanitation


Income/Poverty

Medianannualhouseholdincomeisover$100,000;3.6%ofHermosareisdentslivingbelowpovertylevel

Propertyvaluefluctuationsmaychangepersonalrevenue

Yes.Communitymembershaveexpressedinterestregardingthepotentialimpactonpropertyvalues.

HealthcareAccess/Insurance

Increaseddemands

NohospitalsidentifiedinHermosa,howeveralargenumberofhealthresourcesexistwithin5milesofhermosa

Increaseindiseaseratescouldcauseincreaseinmedicalcosts

No.Accesstohealthresourceswasnotidentifiedasavulnerability.

Earthquakes/Subsidence

Catastrophicevent,emergencyresponsecapability

Nearbyseismicactivityfrom1981to2010wassurveyed.Therewasoneshallowearthquake(lessthan5milesbelowgroundsurface)inWilmingtonOilField,andnoneinTorranceOilFieldincludingRedondoBeacharea(Geosytnec2013). Lowprobabilityandhighrisk

No.Theprojectproposessufficientmitigationmeasurestoreducetheriskofearthquakes/subsidence.Subsidencewillbemonitoredandprojectactivitieswillstopifsubsidenceismeasuredmorethan1ft.

Populationhealthindicators(i.e.lifeexpectancy,mortality,infantmortality,child<5mortality,quality‐adjustedlifeyears)

HermosaappearstohaveafavorablemortalityprofilecomparedtoLosAngelesCounty Possible increase in mortality rates

Yes. These health indicators were included

in the literature search.

Cancer

CancerratesinHermosadonotexceedexpectedratesgivenpopulationdemographics.Lowerrateofcolorectalcancersobserved Possible increase in cancer rates

Yes. Cancer will be included in literature

search of available public health data.

Survey‐basedmeasuresofcommunitywell‐being No data available Possible decrease in well‐being factors

Yes. Community well‐being factors will be

considered in all potential health impacts.

Prematurityrate See Maternal Age Possible increase in prematurity rate

Yes. Prematurity rate was included in

search terms for environmental hazard

literature searches.

Adolescentpreganancyrate No vulnerabilities identified None identified No, no project impacts identified

AdequacyofprenatalcareOf babies born in 2011, 88% received prenatal

care beginning in the first trimester None identified No, no project impacts identified

Fetalalcoholsyndrome No vulnerabilities identified None identified No, no project impacts identified

Lowbirthweight Low birth weight rate was 7% in 2011 Air quality may impact low birth weight

Yes. Low birth weight was included in

search terms for environmental hazard

literature searches.

MaternalAgeZero births to women <20 years old, 47% of births

were to women 35+ in 2011 None identified No, no project impacts identified

Maternal‐ChildHealth

GeneralHealthandWellbeing


AppendixC

PublicCommentsandInputtotheHIAProcess

Appendix D

Health Impact Assessment Community Survey

Response Percent

Response Count

24.4% 6644.1% 1197.8% 217.0% 196.7% 18

10.7% 2924

27022

Number Other (please specify)1 Torrance2 Torrance3 torrance4 torrance, palos verdes area5 Torrance6 Torrance7 Torrance8 Torrance9

10 Leimert Park-Baldwin Hills11 Long Beach12 Torrance13 san fernando valley but go to the beach often and the air quality has gone down again14 Hawthorne15 Mar Vista, California16 South Gate17 Oceanside, Ca18 Visit my patents there19 rancho palos verdes20 [Personal information removed]21 Lawndale22 Lakewood23 Our lives depend on the Bay, no matter wear you live. THE BAY IS NOT FOR SALE.24 Torrance

Other (please specify)

Question 1: Where do you live?

Hermosa Beach - South of Pier Ave and East of the

skipped question

Hermosa Beach - North of Pier Ave and West of the

Redondo Beach

This is the ONLY serious question in this survey. Of COURSE everyone is sane enough to be"concerned" about all those things AND nuclear warfare AND rabid dogs. I am CONCERNED about those as well


Hermosa Beach - North of Pier Ave and East of the

answered question

Answer Options

Manhattan Beach

Hermosa Beach - South of Pier Ave and West of the


Response Percent

Response Count

94.2% 2743.8% 113.1% 9

2911skipped question

No

Question 2: Are you concerned about how the proposed oil production project could impact you and/or your family's health and quality of life?

answered question

Yes


Not Sure

Answer Options


I am very concerned

I am somewhat concerned

I am not concerned

I don't have an opinion

Rating AverageResponse

Count

247 26 9 1 1.17 283220 39 21 3 1.32 283177 63 32 6 1.52 278204 47 25 6 1.41 282248 25 8 2 1.17 283230 45 6 2 1.22 283195 58 23 6 1.43 282210 51 16 5 1.35 282234 30 15 4 1.25 283244 22 11 3 1.19 280259 16 10 1 1.14 286249 27 8 1 1.16 285254 23 6 1 1.13 284207 55 20 2 1.36 284212 43 16 6 1.34 277223 33 19 4 1.30 279210 41 24 4 1.36 279

73286

6

Number Other (please specify)1

2

34 I am concerned about all the ways this

project will negatively impact our

5 Global warming: We need to consume less

6

78

910

11

12

13

14

1516

17

181920

21

2223

2425

2627

28

This project would ruin our City in all the above ways. The residents of Hermosa Beach must do everything they can to stop this project to maintain our quality of life now and in the future.

I am concerned about potential diversion of limited water resources to the use of oil well drilling and/or potential hydraulic fracturing as is evidenced by the "Will Serve" letter from the West Basin Municipal Water District for 375 acre feet of reclaimed water to the E&B Oil Project, since such water would otherwise be available for other uses such as irrigation, thus placing additional demands on potable water supplies to make up for the potential loss of 375 acre feet of reclaimed water resources. I am further concerned that such added demands on limited water supplies will help support the West Basin Municipal Water District's plan to build a major ocean water desalination facility at the NRG facility in El Segundo.

I see only major risks and no material benefit to the citizens and property owners of Hermosa Beach. I also invite you to review the Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa Garfield County, CO: http://www.garfield-county.com/public-health/documents/1%20%20%20Complete%20HIA%20without%20Appendix%20D.pdf - which was prepared by 7 individuals who include 2 Medical Doctors, and collectively hold 3 MSPH, 1 PHD, 1 MPH degrees.

we all are affected because the wind comes right over the hill and into all areas and affects all of usParticualte matter is carcinogenic. Air quality...the wind blows east. I have lived in Hawthorne for 60 years and we go to the beach, eat at the restaurants, enjoy the entertainment and shops in HB , MB and RB. Also this is a small planet and what affects one area impacts all of us.Impact to tourism. Do not allow drilling to happen!!

Most wonderful beach community south of malibu and north of san onofre. Some of the greatest people in l a county. They're going to put a gargantuan blemish in the south bay and risk the welfare of it's terrific inhabitants lo the entire south bay. Its an unnecessary risk and more important to preserve an already challenged ecosystem.I work for a reconstructive surgeon in Beverly Hills...we have a large number of young women patients living in Manhattan Beach, addresses within 3 miles of the oil plants that have breast cancer. Makes me wonder...because I live here too.

With solar energy in almost unlimited supply, doing this is stupidity and greed at work.while certain aspects of the project do not affect me directly, (i.e., noise, lights, vibrations, odor, etc.), I would not want them imposed upon anyone in this community.Final debt incurred by the city due to mismanagement of the whole project.the question is not IF a spill will happen, but WHEN will it happen. Ask the folks in Mayflower, Arkansas. Ask the folks who live along the Gulf of Mexico. Ask the folks who live anywhere near an oil field.

I do not live in the immediate areas, but I am concerned for the health and safety and environmental protection----FOR ALL AREAS. Thank You, [Personal information removed]

I am extremely worried about all the above ramifications of oil drilling.

All of the above, plus unknown factors which could potentially show up later in our (and our children's) health.

the discussions held so far seem to relate only to how this can be done successfully but without the actual dollar amounts to the city and how my life as a home owner in HB is going to be benefited-so far it is all let us do it and there is money for you.Oil drilling and production is a dirty, noisy and dangerous business and it has no place in such a densely populated town.Quality of life; specifically health risks to all and , in particular , children and elderly, and the potential contamination to the air , ocean and environment


Surface water/runoff contamination

Earthquakes

Truck traffic

answered question

I am concerned about the incidences of hear disease, lung disease and cancer in our community. Will there be a benchmark study that identifies hotspots that then has comparison studies over time?

The people already voted NO on oil drilling - - why are we still "talking about it" ???

Impact on property valuesi have health concerns and my doctor told me to move if the city moves forward with this proposal.


Potential impacts to the ocean or beach

Lights

Property values

Less access to community spaces (e.g., the greenbelt

Answer Options

Explosions/Spills/Accidents

Noise

Land subsidence (sinking)

Parking problems

Question 3: If you said YES or NOT SURE (to #2), please indicate your level of concern, if any, on the following issues:

Soil contamination

Vibration

Image of the City

Drinking water contamination

Air quality issues (e.g. particulate emissions)

Odor

skipped question

Oil drilling is a great idea and will bring much needed revenue to our city.I support oil drilling.

it feels terribly wrong to release these chemicals and dig up the earth

Effects of discharges into older capped wells. Hydrogen sulfide danger. Evacuation routes. Falling drilling rigs. Cross-contamination from animals and oil workers. Psychological and physiological effects of fear, stress and anxiety. Emotional discord from fractured relationships within the community.


29

30

313233

34

3536373839

4041

42

4344

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

5354

555657

58

5960

6162

63

646566676869

Safety for recreation and enjoyment on Valley- baseball field, park, green belt, lawn bowling, farmers market, children walking to/ from schoolcancer!

I live a couple of blocks from this site. I am a mother with two small children ages 3 and 4. I am very concerned about their health and their ability to enjoy our neighborhood parks, such as the green belt and South Park, and the beach.Walking and biking safety. Overall traffic not just truck traffic. Regulation of any project being overseen by a government body. Slow poisoning from Toxic Airborne Chemicals. Health Issues like Headaches, Respiratory problems, Nosebleeds, everything from Autism to Alzheimer's but mostly kids being exposed to the very toxic chemicals associated with Oi and Gas Drilling and Production.SAY WHAT? If you live any place in the southbay, all of these are of concern unless you are greedy or brain dead.Cancer, nose bleeds, birth defectsDrilling in Hermosa is a bad idea for the city. I would never vote for itlong term chronic health issues, potential for further litigation over illness, plus all of the above.

"City" in theory gets richer, but my quality of life deteriorates dramatically.The construction phase will generate noise, traffic and i've heard E&B will need to remove the green belt from 8th street down to 2nd street to allow their tractor trailers with supplies to come in. This phase is ongoing for 2 years and will disrupt my family, children not walking to school and noise. We live on top of 7th street and the wind blows up our street like a wind tunnel and the noise, pollutants and light will come right up our street.

It is wrong for the City to ignore the voice of the people in 1995 vote to approve Citizens Initiative , Measure E, which restored a total ban on Oil Projects CITYWIDE. how dare they consider any EIR before a new vote.

Exposure to lawsuits from adjacent cities from decreased property values, image of city, etc.Quality of the company Hermosa has signed a deal with. Nobody has done a background check on a company that you are going to enter into a $1 billion+ dollar agreement. Steve Layton is the President of over 9 companies. Has anyone done their due diligence on the various companies he runs? He has documented with the State of California at least 16 spills of 16,000 gallons over 6 years with EB! What about the other companies he runs? I just read about hiscompany in Huntington Beach that may have spilled 700 gallons of oil and may have gas leaks. He has already had major spills and declared bankruptcy. Is methane blowouts of capped wells buried under homes should be #1 on your list. Do your homework!

Quality of life. Residential should be residential. A peacefull oasis with light industrial warehouses is acceptible. This is my home (right next door) this is my greenbelt and place of refuge. This is going to be unsightly and out of place. The city screwed up on this agreement and they MUST fix it.

nosebleeds from children (like the la times story) blowouts on capped wells

obstructed viewsmfrom tall oil derecsThe green belt trail is one of few open space areas for residents, children and visitors. It is also a nesting and hunting habitat for migratory birds, raptors and other species of animals. This industrial site will negatively impact this space,

pipeline through Tonga lands, Redondo and TorranceI live close to Hermosa. I already am very concerned about adverse effects of airport, vehicle traffic, and refinery pollution in south bay. If this project happens, I will move my family out of south bay and relocate to San Diego for my job.

Will this be a 24 hr /7 days operation, Will the people nearest the drill site if passed be trained and be hired to work there

This community is too small for the amount of oil drilling and the risk is too significant. Too many examples exist of how other communities have been negatively affected. People move to Hermosa Beach to avoid this kind of potential environmental calamity.I am also very concerned about the effect on ocean life. I am not sure if that falls under the umbrella of "ocean or beach," but want to be sure that ocean life is considered.It seems that truck traffic will result in an increased rate of road deterioration (especially on Valley Drive?). The road maintenance costs (and general loss of a traffic route for any road repairs/construction) needs to be well defined & strongly considered for this proposal.

I am also concerned about ultimately adding to the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We are already facing a crisis produced by the amounts released to date, and they are already having problematic health and economic impacts on the entire planet.

Also, I don't like the idea of changing a "light industrial" area of our tiny city into a heavy industrial area.My only concern is the financial impact to the city and the ME if the oil drilling is not allowed. I have no concerns at all about health issues. My only concern is how the city is going to pay the $17.5M fine if this doesn't pass. I don't want it coming out of my pockets. AND I would rather see the city spend it's money on much needed repairs such as a sewer upgrade. There are so many other areas in the city that need improvement and repair. Let's spend the money where it is needed and NOT on a $17.5M fee if this doesn't pass.

Poisonous gas leaksDisruption due to construction of wells and pipeline

Increased risk for those at high risk for cancer (I have had it 3 times), comprimised immune symptoms, children and infants, respitory issues, seniors.I am concerned that all of the potential health hazards are not even known yet. Companies routinely try to deny that diseases and impacts of any drilling/contamination are their responsibility. It is always blamed on something else or postulated that the amount of poison that is released is so insignificant that there are no health risks associated. Yet we see cancer rates rise, the rates of neurological diseases increase and many other potential health issues that we cannot even predict occur in clusters around these toxic sites. I am very concerned!Suggest "subsidence" be defined as having to do with sinking and not "subsidy".The most important concern are methane blowouts. There are many abandoned wells buried under homes. Do we want to have methane alarms on our homes like Playa Vista? I think not.The city does not have a hospital or clinic in case of an multiple emergency, which is possible when you have this kind of business in a small town. Nor has many ambulances for Transfers to nearby hospitals.

[Personal information removed]

I already live close to the Redondo power plant and it's an eye sore. These oil pumps will have the same impact.I BOUGHT MY HOME IN 1984 ON 2ND & VALLEY THE SOLE PURPOSE OF NOT BEING BY IMDUSTRIES SUCH AS THIS. I LIVED THROUGH THE MCPHEARSON NIGHTMARE AND HOPE THE CITY REALISES ONCE AGIN THAT OIL DRILLING IS NOT A GOOD CHOICE FOR HERMOSA BEACH NOW OR EVER!!

The oil and gas industry’s exemptions to major environmental lawshttp://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/060211_earthworks_fs_oilgasexemptions.pdfdanger of traffic for our kids going to schoolChildren safety with trucks on roadKeep that [Expletive] overseas or tap into Alaska!

I am opposed to the oil industry due to global warming. I believe that oil SHOULD be more expensive, so that we learn to use other fuels. finding more sources of oil is NOT how to save this planet.I am gravely concerned that this project would pose significant risks to our long term health - cancer, asthma, etc. There is no way this project can mitigate my concerns to a reasonable tolerance. Absolutely no way whatsoever.Children playing near trucks


7071

7273

There are so many potential risks that to even consider this project from a health and quality of life perspective is ludicrous.Effects of inhalation of low level esulfer dioxide and benzene on small children and infants. I live 150 yards due east of the drill site. Will my families rate of cancer and illness increase even 1 percent due to this project.All of it. Everything about this projects scares me

Exposure to NORMs (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) brought to surface and stored on site during processing. Exposure to toxic chemicals and substances.

Psychological issues and effects of stress. Years of construction hassles, street closure, noise, flaring methane.


I am very concerned

I am somewhat concerned

I am not concerned

I don't have an opinion

Rating AverageResponse

Count

237 28 10 4 1.22 279249 20 7 3 1.15 279243 22 10 3 1.18 278256 16 6 2 1.12 280232 22 14 4 1.23 272

44280

12

Number Other (please specify)1234

5

6789

10

11

1213141516

1718

19202122

2324

2526

2728293031

32

33

343536

EB is not clear how long and or often the 150' rig will be installed. They said 2 weeks but every year?The guys running E&B could have been in jail for their past failures.

When will it end?I am not any more concerned about oil drilling than I am about new home construction and associated noise.All phases of the project are of great concern o me and my family. The impacts to the health of the community, the local environment and the surrounding environment (including air, water, soils) is of great concern as well. This report should be shared with residents and government of surrounding communities such as Redondo Bch and Manhattan Bch.

I own a house on 8th Street just west of PCH and at night can hear the waves crashing on the beach. It is not loud, but just loud enough to enjoy the sound in the early mornings when cars are not driving along the street. I don't want this sound to be replaced by construction and drilling that will occur 24/7 in Hermosa. Although this project will bring money to Hermosa Beach, it will devalue my home.

there are 3600 24hr continuous drilling days allowed in the lease , 120 days for each well, the EIR says they will use 900 days, 30 days per well. This means that 2700 days are 'drill credits' per the lease to be used anytime in the 35 years, this is a health impact and is not even considered in the EIR as proposed. READ THE LEASE.PLEASE if you want to know more possible impacts, like all processes 'known or unknown' if you want a blank chemical check for example.

I am very concerned about the project not being cleaned up when production ends.

I DO NOT WANT OIL DRILLING OF ANY KIND DOWN THE STREET FROM MY HOME.This was already defeated so now they do an end around and try to get it through again because they have the money to do so. When the wants of the financially capable overcome the wants of the majority, we are in trouble.Clean up of site after project ends. The City had to sue Stinnett Oil, the last driller, to clean up the site after they stopped. With the litigation, this took many Who will clean up spills when they occur? Who will pay my medical bills when I or my family becomes sick? Who will provide fresh, safe water for me when mine is contaminated?

I am concerned about opening up drilling into Santa Monica Bay, whether it is in Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, or Torrance.I could not find any history of exploitation of oil and gas in an area as populated as Hermosa Beach, or many wells concentrated in such a small surface.

Please have some sense people. If this happens it will surely ruin a great place to live and vacation.I suspect all phases of the proposed project will take longer than projected and that operations can be extended past the 35 year lease term. I also think it's unconscionable to allow non-stop drilling operations (24/7) during any phase of the project.

This project will despoil the South Bay. PERIOD.PLEASE STOP THE MADNESSWe have reached the limit of environmental destruction. STOP. The city should invest in clean, green solar energy. We have the sun....invest in that!This project will be (and has been already) a concern on many levels. Oversight by the City officials, the project specifics and everything in between. I have zero confidence in this company or it's management, nor do I have confidence that the City officials know enough about oil production to effectively oversee this project.

I'm concerned that the crazy people in Hermosa Beach will start a riot if oil drilling is approved. Oil drilling is a great idea for our town. I wish everyone could see that.I support oil drilling.Fear of a catastrophic accident. Ground water contamination. Cancer & other diseases. Collapse of property value. Destruction of our current idyllic quality of Clean up could be hell. Our children & grandchildren will be stuck with this nightmare.what are the system management procedures after the final phase of the project should it go forward?Concerned more agressive oil stimulation/extraction techniques not currently disclosed will be used in the future as the well production decreases. Also concerned about 30 plus capped wells after project ends.

The people already voted NO on oil drilling - - why are we still "talking about it" ???This is insanity. This is FRACKING for both olil and natural gas. This is insanity.!I don't want oil drilling period!!! Any phase is a bad phase. We need renewables!!!I am concerned that this proposed project would provide no health or environmental benefits to the city of Hermosa Beach or South Bay region. Hermosa Beach does not NEED the revenue from a project that will ABSOLUTELY have detrimental effects to the image, health, and everyday life in Hermosa Beach and South Bay. The only question is HOW BAD those effects will be. E&B Natural Resources does not provide clear information on their site about the harmful effects of oil production that will be caused by this project (like all oil exploration projects). I hope that the EIA and Health assessment will make those impacts clear to the people of Hermosa Beach. Although not directly related to health, it would be interesting to better understand how this project would effect the efforts of Hermosa Beach to become carbon neutral: http://www.easyreadernews.com/8361/carbon-neutrality-gets-push/I am very opposed to drilling oil in the Santa Monica Bay, especially in Hermosa Beach where I own a home. There is no way we can be assured that there will not be catastrophic consequences from extracting oil from under the ocean floor. We have a beautiful beach and ocean that needs to be preserved.

I am also concerned that should this project be approved, and complete 35 years of oil production, that after the termination of oil production and abandonment of the site by E&B Oil, that the 30 oil production wells and 4 water injection wells will leave an ongoing risk to future generations of South Bay residents through the potential degradation and/or damage by natural forces such as seismic activity, of the capped well bores, which could lead to future gas, oil, contaminated water, and other potential pollutant leakage, blow outs, explosions, spills, and other unintended consequences that would otherwise not exist without these 34


spills happen wherever drilling takes place. end of discussion.Migration of toxic elements and release into environment after leasehold is abandond.If it ever does end!Extremely concerned E&B will not take full financial responsibility for any accidents or damage to property or human life as a result of their prospective drilling without extensive & costly litigation.


Phase 3 -Final Design and Construction (approx. 16

skipped question

Answer Options

After the project ends

Phase 2 -Drilling and Testing/Install Production

answered question

Question 4: If you said YES or NOT SURE (to #2), please indicate if your level of concern differs based on the phase of the proposed project. If you would like more information on each phase, please refer to Slides 9 through 14 of the EIR presentation: click here

Phase 4 -Drilling, Development and Operations (ongoing

Phase 1 -Site Preparation/Construction (approx. 6-7


37

38

39404142

4344

Health effects for next generationsOnce the oil is tapped and flows, there is no turning back. the potential for contamination is with us, and it is permanent. I have never seen a pristine oil field recovery.I don't want oil wells of any kind in Hermosa Beach. I don't want any oil or gas pipeline or fracking or any other type of oil drilling or excavation in Hermosa We currently have a zero percent chance of experiencing health or safety issues related to oil drilling in Hermosa. There is no way the inherent dangers posed by oil drilling can be mitigated except to prevent oil drilling from happening at all.

I plan to live in Hermosa Beach until I retire. Although, people focus on the immediate environmental impact of the project, I think people tend to forget to ask "What is going to happen to this place, after these guys leave".

Lets see, if the people lived here that put this survey together lived here wouldn't they check every box "I am very concerned" ? Inane, our city and our life blood the ocean is NOT for sale

Drilling is a bad idea. I will be voting no.I live very close to the proposed sight, [Personal information removed]


Appendix E

Baseline Health Assessment

Appendix E: Baseline Health Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Demographics .................................................................................................................1 1.3 CurrentHealthConditions .............................................................................................3

1.3.1 Cancer Data ..................................................................................................................3 1.3.2 Mortality Data ..............................................................................................................5 1.3.3 Hospitalization Data.....................................................................................................6 1.3.4 Birth Outcomes ............................................................................................................7 1.3.5 Pedestrian-Related Injury.............................................................................................8 1.3.6 Health Behaviors ..........................................................................................................9

1.4 EnvironmentalQuality ...................................................................................................9 1.4.1 OutdoorAir .................................................................................................................9 1.4.2 Noise ..........................................................................................................................12 1.4.3 SurfaceWater ...........................................................................................................13 1.4.4 EnviroScreen .............................................................................................................14

1.5 AccesstoHealthSupportingResources .....................................................................15 1.6 CommunityHealthPromotion ....................................................................................16 1.7 Limitations ....................................................................................................................17 1.8 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................17 1.9 References .....................................................................................................................19


FIGURES

Figure1: AgeDistributioninHermosaBeachvs.CountyofLosAngeles(embedded)Figure2: Pedestrian‐vehicleCollisions(2003‐2007)inHermosaBeachFigure3: SouthwestCoastalLosAngelesCountyAirMonitoringAreaFigure4: TrafficDensityinLosAngelesCountybyZipCodeFigure5: CalEnviroScreenResultsfortheCityofHermosaBeachFigure6: LicensedHealthcareFacilitiesnearHermosaBeachFigure7: GroceriesandFarmersMarketsinHermosaBeach

TABLES (Embedded in Text)

Table1: DemographicSummaryTable2: Expected and observed numbers of cancer cases by type and race in Los

AngelesCountyandHermosaBeach,2000‐2010Table3: MortalityProfileinLosAngelesCountyandHermosaBeach,2009‐2010Table4: HospitalizationsinCaliforniaandHermosaBeach,2010Table5: BirthOutcomesinCaliforniaandHermosaBeach,2011Table6: MotorVehicleCollisionsandInjuriesbyTypeofCollisioninHermosa,2009‐

2011Table7: AirQualityinSouthwestCoastalLACountyandCentralLA,2011‐2012Table8: SummaryofExistingNoiseLevelsAroundtheProjectSite(Lmax)

ATTACHMENT1 USCBaselineCancerAssessment


- 1 -

1.1 INTRODUCTIONTheobjectivesofthebaselinehealthassessmentaretoestablishthecurrenthealthstatusoftheCityofHermosaBeach(Hermosa)community,andtoevaluatewhetherthecurrentprofile of the community reveals vulnerabilities to any of a number of health outcomes.Understanding baseline conditions is particularly important when conducting a HealthImpactAssessmentbecausepre‐existing conditions canmediatepotentialhealth impactsassociatedwiththeproposedproject.Forexample,populationswithbaselineexposuretohighlevelsofairpollutantsaremorevulnerabletoadversehealthimpactsfromadditionalincreasesinairpollution.Themethods used in the baseline health assessment are based on the Guide for HealthImpact Assessment from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH 2010).According to the CDPH Guide for HIA, the selection of indicators for the baselineassessment should include indicators for health status, as well as indicators for knownsocial,economic,andenvironmentalhealthdeterminants,andshouldreflectpriorityhealthissues being addressed in the HIA. Hermosa‐specific health indicators are compared toeither Los Angeles County (LA County) or the State of California, in that order ofpreference,dependingonwhichmeasureswereavailable.BycomparingHermosadatatothesamedataforalargergeographicregion,wewereabletocharacterizethehealthstatusinHermosarelativetoexpectedhealthstatus.ThebaselinehealthassessmentfocusesontheCityofHermosaBeach,wherethemajorityof the proposed project activities take place. We acknowledge that similar assessmentsmay be valuable for the other impacted communities, due to pipeline construction andtruckroutesplannedthroughareasofLawndaleandGardena.However,impactsoutsideofHermosa will be limited to shorter periods of the project timeline and baseline healthassessmentsforothercitieswereoutsidethescopeofthisHIA.1.2 DEMOGRAPHICSDatafromthe2010USCensuswasusedtoobtaindemographic informationforHermosaBeachandtheCountyofLosAngeles,asacomparisonpopulation(USCensus2013).The2010populationofHermosawas19,506with52.7percentmaleand47.3percentfemale.TheagedistributioninHermosaaccordingtofiveyeariscomparedtotheagedistributioninLosAngelesCountyinFigure1.ThemostobviousdifferencesbetweentheHermosaandLosAngelespopulationsareinthe15to19and25to29ageincrements.InHermosa,thepercentage of teenagers ages 15 to 19 is fewer than half the percentage for LA County(3.1%vs.7.7%),while thepercentageofyoungadultsages25to29 isnearlydoublethepercentageforLACounty(13.4%vs.7.7%).Ageisanimportantfactor indeterminingvulnerability. AccordingtothecensusdataforHermosa, approximately 25 percent of the population may be considered to be morevulnerabletocertainenvironmentalexposures,basedonage(9%overtheageof65and16%under 18 years). This is less than the percentage of Los Angeles County residentsconsideredvulnerabletoenvironmentalexposuresbasedonage(35%).


- 2 -

Figure1.AgeDistribution,HermosaBeachvs.LosAngelesCounty

Source:USCensus,2010Table 1 below provides both city and county level demographic indicators from the USCensus. In the 2010 US Census, 95.8 of residents in Hermosa reported one race: 86.8percent identified asWhite, 5.7 as Asian, 1.2 percent as Black or African American, 0.3percentasAmericanIndianandAlaskaNative,0.2percentasNativeHawaiianandOtherPacific Islander, and 1.7 percent as some other race. Compared to the County of LosAngeles,Hermosa ismuch less racially and ethnically diverse. On the county level, 48.2percent of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latino while in Hermosa, only 8.4percentofthepopulationidentifiesasHispanicorLatino.MedianhouseholdincomeinHermosaBeachisalmostdoublethatofLACounty($102Kvs.$56K). Fewer than 4 percent of Hermosa residents live in poverty, compared to 16.3percentofLAcountyresidents. Nearly70percentofHermosaresidentshaveobtainedabachelor’s degree or higher, compared to less than 30 percent in greater Los AngelesCounty.Incontrasttotheincomeprofile,thehomeownershiprateinHermosaislessthanthatofLACounty(44.9percentversus47.8percent).ThehomeownershipprofileislikelyexplainedbyHermosaasabeachtouristdestinationandanareahighlyattractivetobothrenters and leasers. Further,with amedianhousingunitvalueoveronemilliondollars,homeownership inHermosa isover twiceasexpensive inHermosacomparedtoCounty‐wide.Educationlevel, income,andhousingareallcomponentsofsocialdeterminantsofhealth.Socialdeterminantsofhealthrefer to therole thatoursocialenvironmentandeconomicsituationplay inshapingourhealth,associalandeconomic factorsare thesingle largestpredictorofhealthoutcomes,comparedtoclinicalhealthcare,healthbehaviors,andthe

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Under 5

5 to 9

10 to 14

15 to 19

20 to 24

25 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 44

45 to 49

50 to 54

55 to 59

60 to 64

65 to 69

70 to 74

75 to 79

80 to 84

85 years +

Percent of population

Age Category

Hermosa Beach

Los Angeles County


- 3 -

Table1.DemographicSummary

Source:USCensus,2010physical environment (LACDPH 2013). The Los Angeles County Department of PublicHealth(LACDPH)ranked117citiesinLACountybyeconomichardship,usingthefollowingindicators: (1)crowdedhousing, (2)percentofpersons livingbelowtheFederalpovertylevel, (3) unemployment, (4) percent of persons over age 25 without a high schooleducation,(5)dependency(percentageofthepopulationunder18orover64years),and(6)percapitaincome.Basedon2005‐2009datafortheindicatorslisted,LACDPHrankedHermosaBeachnumber1outof117cities,thatis,HermosaBeachwasdeterminedtohavetheleastlevelofeconomichardshipcounty‐wide.Overall,demographicindicatorsshowthatHermosaBeachisnothighlyvulnerabletopoorhealthoutcomestraditionallyassociatedwithpoverty,unemployment,andloweducationalattainment.1.3 CURRENTHEALTHCONDITIONSInformationwasgatheredfromvarioussourcestodescribethebaselinephysicalhealthofcommunitymembersinHermosa.1.3.1 Cancer Data The University of Southern California Cancer Surveillance Program (USC‐CSP) is thepopulation‐basedcancerregistryforLosAngelesCountythatwasbegunin1972.Bylaw,

2010 Census Measures Hermosa Beach LA County

Population 19,506 9,818,605

Persons under 18 years, percent 15.9% 23.7%

Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2010 9.0% 11.5%

Female persons, percent 47.3% 50.7%

Race

White alone, percent 86.8% 71.6%

Black or African American alone, percent 1.2% 9.3%

American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent 0.3% 1.5%

Asian alone, percent 5.7% 14.5%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent 0.2% 0.4%

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino, percent 8.4% 48.2%

High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007‐2011 98.5% 76.1%

Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007‐2011 69.9% 29.2%

Homeownership rate, 2007‐2011 44.9% 47.8%

Housing units in multi‐unit structures, percent, 2007‐2011 48.4% 41.9%

Median value of owner‐occupied housing units, 2007‐2011 $1,000,001 $478,300

Median household income, 2007‐2011 $102,289 $56,266

Persons below poverty level, percent, 2007‐2011 3.60% 16.30%


- 4 -

allcancersdiagnosedinCaliforniasinceJanuary1,1988arereportedtooneoftheregionalregistries that form the California Cancer Registry (CCR), the legally mandated cancerreportingsystemofCalifornia.TheUSC‐CSPservesasRegion9oftheCCR,andisalsooneoftheregistriesparticipatingintheNationalCancerInstitute’sSurveillance,Epidemiology,andEnd‐ResultsProgram(SEER).TheCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth,theCentersfor Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute fund cancersurveillanceconductedbyUSC‐CSP.DataiscollectedonallnewcancerpatientsdiagnosedinLosAngelesCountysince1972andincludesinformationonage,race/ethnicity,patient’saddress at diagnosis, gender and specific type of cancer. All invasive cancers, excludingnon‐melanomaskincancers,arereported,alongwithinsitubreastandbladdercancer,andbenignbrain tumors. Completeness of the reporting to the registry is estimated at over95%.Thisanalysis,includedasAttachment1,isinresponsetoarequesttoDr.CozenattheUSC‐CSP for the baseline risk of certain cancers in the City ofHermosaBeach. Cancer typesexamined are those related to petroleum production (leukemia), common cancers, andcancersidentifiedbycommunitymembersasbeingspecificconcerns. USC‐CSPexaminedthe expected and observed incidence of these cancers in the area of concern. Theaggregatedcensustractsexaminedwere:‐06037621001,‐06037621002,‐06037621004,‐06037621102,and‐06037621104.AsseeninTable2below,theobservednumberofcancercasesintheCityofHermosawaswithintheexpectednumber,basedonage‐,race‐andsex‐adjustedincidenceratesforLosAngelesCounty, forall cancersexceptmelanomaandbreast cancer (all racesonly). TheobservednumberofcolorectalcancerswassignificantlylowerinHermosathanexpected.The statistically significant increase in melanoma and breast cancer diagnoses amongresidentsofHermosaBeachcomparedtoLosAngelesCountycanlargelybeexplainedbyknownlifestyleriskfactors.HighersocioeconomicstatusisanacceptedriskfactorforbothofthesecancersanditislikelythatthatHermosaBeachresidentshavehigherincomeandeducation thanLosAngelesCounty residentsasawhole. In fact, inanextensiveanalysisacrossLosAngelesCounty,whensocioeconomicstatuswasaccounted for,neighborhooddifferences in these cancers either disappeared (breast cancer) orwere greatly reduced(melanoma)1.Inaddition,sunexposureisthestrongestriskfactorformelanomaandthusanexcessofdiagnoseswouldbeexpected in theSouthernCaliforniabeachcommunities,assumingtheseresidentsspendmoretime inthesunduringdaylighthourscomparedtoresidents elsewhere in the county. Otherwise there is no evidence that residents ofHermosaBeachexperienceunusuallyhighorlowriskofcommontypesofcancer.


- 5 -

Table2.Expected andobservednumbersof cancer casesby type and race in LosAngelesCountyandHermosaBeach,2000‐2010Cancer Type Race L.A. County Hermosa Beach Pchisq

3

AAIR1 Observed number of patients

Observed number of patients

Expected number of patients2

Hodgkin Lymphoma

White4 All Races

3.70 2.45

1213 2583

5 6

1‐11 0‐9

0.85 0.40

Non Hodgkin Lymphoma

White4 All Races

22.27 18.56

9250 17535

27 30

18‐39 16‐38

0.85 0.53

Multiple Myeloma

White4 All Races

5.35 5.68

2326 5242

9 11

1‐12 2‐14

0.20 0.17

Leukemia: ALL White4 All Races

1.75 1.91

448 2041

<5 <5

0‐5 0‐6

0.64 0.92

Leukemia: AML

White4 All Races

4.01 3.62

1654 3441

<5 <5

0‐10 0‐10

0.85 0.75

Melanoma White4 All Races

49.13 23.65

19767 22616

114 122

52‐83 24‐49

<0.0001 <0.0001

Breast Cancer White4 All Races

188.03 144.65

39893 75480

117 148

99‐143 90‐120

0.78 0.00036

Prostate Cancer

White4 All Races

148.27 147.35

29250 60242

84 107

73‐112 80‐120

0.39 0.46

Bladder Cancer

White4 All Races

24.96 17.80

10990 16117

21 21

17‐39 13‐32

0.19 0.83

Colorectal Cancer

White4 All Races

53.26 49.46

23193 45821

37 41

47‐79 51‐84

0.0012 0.0016

Brain/nervous system

White4 All Races

16.74 13.07

6495 12747

23 23

13‐33 11‐33

0.90 0.51

1Average annual age‐adjusted incidence rates per 100,000 population at risk 2Based on Los Angeles County incidence rates and Hermosa Beach population in the years covered 3p‐value for observed /expected comparison using Chi‐square test 4Non‐Hispanic whites only

1.3.2 Mortality Data TheCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealthprovidesmortalitycountsofthemostcommoncausesofdeath(CDPH2013a).Mortalitydatawerecollectedforthemostrecenttwoyearsof data (2009 ‐2010) for the City of Hermosa Beach and LA County, as a comparisonpopulation. Table 3 below showsmortality counts and crude mortality rates based on2010 Census populations. Rates are unadjusted for age or race because data wereunavailable toperformadjustmentcalculations. Theall‐causemortality rate inHermosa(40.5deathsper10,000people)appears tobe lower than theall‐causemortality rate inLos Angeles County (56.9 deaths per 10,000 people). Hermosamortality rates are alsolower for diseases of the heart (9.2 versus 15.8) and cancer (9.0 versus 13.9). WhileHermosa appears to have a favorable mortality profile, differences in population agedistributionmayexplainanapparentdecreasedriskofmortality inHermosaBeach. Forexample, age is significantly associated with both heart diseases and cancers, and the


- 6 -

County of Los Angeles has a greater proportion of people age 65 years and older (11.5percent)comparedtoHermosa(9percent).Table3.MortalityProfileinLosAngelesCountyandHermosaBeach,2009‐2010

Cause of Death

Hermosa Los Angeles County

No. of deaths

Mortality Rate*

No. of deaths

Mortality Rate*

All causes 158 40.5 111686 56.9

Diseases of the Heart 36 9.2 31076 15.8

Maligant Neoplasms (Cancer) 35 9.0 27294 13.9

Cerebrovascular Disease (Stroke) 8 2.1 6483 3.3

Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease 9 2.3 5712 2.9

Unintentional Injuries 9 2.3 4210 2.1

Alzheimer's Disease 8 2.1 3917 2.0

Diabetes Mellitus 2 0.5 3811 1.9

Influenza and Pneumonia 8 2.1 3979 2.0

Chronic Liver Disease 3 0.8 2345 1.2

Intentional Self Harm (Suicide) 5 1.3 1504 0.8

Essential Hypertension and Hypertensive Renal Disease 2 0.5 1823 0.9

Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome, and Nephrosis 5 1.3 1904 1.0

All other causes 28 7.2 17628 9.0

*per 10,000 people. 2009‐2010 data from CDPH

1.3.3 Hospitalization Data TheOfficeof StatewideHealthPlanningandDevelopment (OSHPD)within theCaliforniaHealth and Human Services Agency provides hospital discharge data recordshospitalizations by disease or injury (based on ICD‐9 codes) by the geographic areacontaining the patient's home address (OSHPD 2013). OSHP data for overallhospitalizationrateandhospitalizationratesforcertaincommonconditionswereavailablefortheCityofHermosaBeachzipcode. Populationstatisticsfromthe2010censuswereusedintheratecalculation. Table4displaysHermosahospitalizationratesnexttostate‐wideratesforcomparisontoexpectedrates.Ratesareunadjustedforageorracebecausedatawereunavailable toperformadjustmentcalculations. Totalhospitalizationrateandhospitalizationrates forasthma,diabetes,acutemyocardial infarction,andmental illnesswere overall much lower in Hermosa compared to California. The rate of patientscategorizedashavingalcohol‐drugabuse/dependenceiselevatedinHermosacomparedtoCalifornia.Whilehospitalizationdatamayindicatehigherthanexpectedalcoholanddruguse in Hermosa, these results do not allow conclusions to be made about statisticalsignificance.


- 7 -

Table4.HospitalizationsinCaliforniaandHermosaBeach,2010

Hospitalization Rate in 2010 (rate per 100,000 people) Hermosa Beach State of California

Total Hospitalization 7,040a 10,660a

Asthma Hospitalization 35.9 94.3

Diabetes Hospitalization 15.4 145.6

Acute Myocardial Infarction/Heart Failure Hospitalization 143.5 367.1

Mental Illness Hospitalization 241 551.7

Alcohol‐Drug Use and Alcohol‐Drug Induced Mental Disease 169.2 109.1

arounded from rates of 70.4 and 106.6 per 1,000 people to estimate rate per 100,000 people Source: OSHPD from healthycity.org

1.3.4 Birth Outcomes AbirthprofilefortheHermosaZIPcodewasaccessedfromtheCDPH(CDPH2013b).Thebirthprofileincludesthenumberoflivebirths(basedonthemother’sresidenceatthetimeofdelivery), ageofmother, infantbirthweight, and trimesterduringwhichprenatal carewasinitiated. Table5providestheprofileinHermosa,comparedtoareferencegroupoftheStateofCaliforniaforthemostrecentyearofavailabledata(2011).Accesstoprenatalcare appears slightly better in Hermosa compared to state‐wide; 88% of women inHermosareceivedprenatalcareinthefirsttrimesterversus82%ofwomeninCalifornia.Infantsbornweighinglessthan2,500grams(about5.5pounds)areclassifiedaslowbirthweight(LBW). LBWisassociatedwith increasedriskof laterhealthproblemsaswellasinfant mortality. In 2011, 7% of Hermosa births and 7% of California births wereconsideredLBW,representingnodifferenceinthecruderates.Table5.BirthOutcomesinCaliforniaandHermosaBeach,2011

Hermosa Beach State of California

No.

% of births No.

% of births

Total Births in 2011 203 ‐ 503,856 ‐

Prenatal Care Trimester

First 179 88% 411,692 82%

Second 12 6% 65,152 13%

Third 1 0% 13,537 3%

None ‐ ‐ 2,451 0.5%

Infant Birth weight (grams)

<1500 6 3% 5,817 1%

1500‐ 2499 8 4% 28,342 6%

≥2500 189 93% 469,677 93%

Age of Mother

<20 ‐ ‐ 38,834 8%

20‐29 20 10% 238,113 47%

30‐34 88 43% 132,886 26%

35+ 95 47% 93,967 19% Source: CDPH (2013b)


- 8 -

Comparedtowomenstatewide,onaverage,womeninHermosagivebirthatanolderage.In2011,nearlyhalfofbirthsinHermosa(47%)weretomothersage35andolder;whilethemajorityof births inCaliforniawere tomothers age20 to29 (also47%). Typically,publichealthofficialsareconcernedabout therisksassociatedwithyoungmaternalage;however,advancedmaternalageisalsoassociatedwithseveraladversehealthoutcomes.For example, the risk of having a child with certain developmental conditions, such asautism or Down’s syndrome increases as women age (Shelton et al. 2010, Newberger2000). 1.3.5 Injury from Traffic Collisions In2008,theCityofHermosaBeachrequestedthattheInstituteofTransportationStudiesTechnologyTransferProgram,theUniversityofCaliforniaBerkeley,conductapedestriansafetyassessment(PSA)(BrownandMitman2008). Theobjectivesof thestudyweretoimprove pedestrian safety and walkability in the City. Compared to California cities ofsimilarsize,theCaliforniaOfficeofTrafficSafetyrankedHermosaBeach59outof101fortherateofpedestriancollisionsin2007(wherehighernumericranksindicatebettersafetyrecords). Figure 2 shows locations of pedestrian‐vehicle collisions over a five year timeperiod (2003 to 2007) and the number of pedestrians injured or killed in each location(therewasonepedestrianfatalityatPCHand16thStreetwhichisindicatedbythereddot).The map shows there are certain streets where pedestrians are more vulnerable tocollisionwithavehicle,includingPCH,PierAvenue,HermosaAvenue,andBeachDrive.The CaliforniaHighwayPatrol operates the Statewide IntegratedTraffic Records System(SWITRS) database that collects data gathered from collision scenes in California (CHP2014). CustomSWITRSquerieswere run toviewcollisiondata forHermosa from2009through2011(seeTable6).Theannualnumberofcollisions,injuries,andsevereinjuriesprovides important baseline risk ofmotor vehicle injury due to vehicle‐vehicle, vehicle‐pedestrian, and vehicle‐bicycle accidents. Over the reported time period, the annualnumber of vehicle‐pedestrian collisions ranged from three to ten, the annual number ofvehicle‐bicyclecollisionsrangedfromsixto14,andtheannualnumberofvehicle‐vehiclecollisions ranged from 104 to 125. From 2009 through 2011, the number of vehicle‐pedestrian collisions appeared to decrease and the number of vehicle‐bicycle collisionsappearedtoincrease.Whilevehicle‐vehicleaccidentsarefarmorecommonthanvehicle‐pedestrian and vehicle‐bicycle accidents, pedestrians and bicyclists are more likely tosufferfrominjuriesandsevereinjuriesasaresultofthecollisioncomparedtomotoristsorvehiclepassengers.TherewerezerofatalitiesfromanytypeofcollisioninHermosafrom2009through2011.LocationsofthereportedcollisionsarenotavailablefromSWITRS.


Figure2:HermosaBeachPedestrianCollisions,2003‐2008

Source:BrownandMitman(2008)


- 9 -

Table6.MotorVehicleCollisionsandInjuriesbyTypeofCollisioninHermosaBeach,2009‐2011

Year

Vehicle Collision w/ Injury Collisions (% of collisions)

No. of Severe Injuries

Ped. Bicycle Vehicle or Other



2009 10 6 125 10 (100%)

6 (100%)

36 (29%)

1 1 2

2010 5 10 121 5 (100%)

8 (80%)

40 (33%)

0 0 0

2011 3 14 104 3 (100%)

13 (93%)

44 (42%)

0 2 1

Source: Dept of California Highway Patrol (CHP), 2009‐2010

1.3.6 Health Behaviors Preventablecausesofdiseaseare linkedwithpoordiet,physical inactivity,andsmoking,andare responsible fornearly40percentofyearlymortality in theUnitesStates (BCHD2013). The Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) seeks to promote health and preventdiseasesinthecommunitiesofHermosaBeach,ManhattanBeachandRedondoBeach.In2013, theBCHDreportedon thehealthneeds incommunitymembers. According to the2013report:

29% of boys and 25% of girls entered local kindergartens overweight or obeseduringthe2011‐2012school‐year.

Sixtypercentofbeachcitiesadultsareoverweightorobese. Two out of five beach cities adults do not meet federal guideline for physical

activity. Alcoholanddruguseinthepast30daysinBCHD11thgraderswas20%higherthe

11thgradersacrossthestateasawhole. 17.4%ofHermosaBeachadultsaresmokers.

Theabovestatisticsonhealthbehaviorsinthebeachcitiesshowcommunitymembersmaybe vulnerable to preventable chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, stroke,diabetes, and arthritis (CDC 2009). However, as discussed in Section 1.5, communityinitiativesseektoactivelyimprovehealthbehaviorsinHermosaandthebeachcities. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTALQUALITYExisting environmental quality measures from regulatory agency monitoring andreporting,andEIRbaselinedocuments,aresummarizedinthesectionsbelow.1.4.1 OutdoorAirAirpollutants,includingparticulatematter,ozone,nitrogendioxide,anddieselexhaustcannegativelyimpacthumanhealth.Forexample,asthmaisbothcausedbyandworsenedbyexposuretoairpollutants(CDPH,2010).TheSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict(SCAQMD) is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and the urbanportionsofLosAngeles,RiversideandSanBernardinocounties. SCAQMD is responsiblefordeterminingcompliancewithstateandfederalambientairqualitystandardswithinitsgeographicaljurisdiction,andmaintainsanetworkofairmonitoringstationstoaccomplish


- 10 -

that objective. Air monitoring stations provide data for localized areas around themonitors, though not all individual cities havemonitors. Hermosa does not have an airmonitoringstationwithinitscityboundaries,andiscontainedintheSouthwestCoastalLosAngeles County area (Area3, Station 820),with an airmonitoring station inHawthorne(seeFigure3).Table 7 below presents 2011‐2012 SCAQMD data on annual average and maximumconcentrations of air pollutants, and the applicable regulatory standard, for SouthwestCoastalLACounty(inclusiveofHermosaBeach)andthereference locationofCentralLA(SQAMD2012). Bold concentrations indicate theareaexceeded thestateand/or federalstandardforthatpollutant.In2011,allairpollutantsintheSouthwestCoastalLACountyareawerebelow the regulatory thresholds, except for theannual averageofPM10 (21.7µg/m3)which slightly exceeded theCalifornia standardof20µg/m3. In2012,ozone1‐hour and ozone 8‐hour maximum concentrations (0.106 and 0.075 ppm, respectively)exceededtheCaliforniastandards(0.09and0.07ppm,respectively)inSouthwestCoastalLACounty.Ingeneral,airqualityinSouthwestCoastalLACountytendedtobesimilarorbetterthanairqualityinCentralLA.CentralLAconsistentlyexceededCaliforniastandardsforparticulatemattersin2011and2012.The Southwest Coastal LA County air monitoring station did not sample for particulatematterwithadiameterof2.5micrometersorless(PM2.5).Particlesinthissizerangecancomefrommanysourcesincludingcarsandtrucksandindustrialprocesses,andcanhaveadverse health effects on the heart and lungs, including lung irritation, exacerbation ofexisting respiratory disease, cardiovascular effects, and premature death due tocardiovascular effects (heart attacks, stroke, cardiac arrest, and/or congestive heartfailure) (USEPA 2012). California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA) estimated the annual mean of PM2.5 in all California zip codes based ongeostatisticalmethods (ordinary kriging) and usingmonitoring data for the years 2007‐2009. OEHHAestimatedHermosatohavePM2.5levelsof13.74 ug/m3. TheestimatedvalueexceedstheCaliforniastandardof12ug/m3(Cal/EPAandOEHHA2013).


Figure3:SouthwestCoastalLosAngelesCountyAirMonitoringArea

Source:SCAQMD(2012)

Southwest Los Angeles County Coastal (Air Monitoring Area #3)


- 11 -

Table7.AirQualityinSouthwestCoastalLACountyandCentralLA,2011‐2012

Southwest Coastal LA

County Central LA Standards

2011 2012 2011 2012 California Federal

Carbon Monoxide Max 8‐hour (ppm) 1.8 2.5 2.4 1.9 NA NA

Ozone Max 1‐hour (ppm) 0.078 0.106 0.087 0.093 0.09 NA

Max 8‐hour (ppm) 0.067 0.075 0.065 0.077 0.07 0.075

Nitrogen Dioxide Max 1‐hour (ppm) 0.097 0.067 0.109 0.077 0.18 0.1

Annual average (ppm) 0.0134 0.0104 0.0231 0.0248 0.03 0.053

Sulfur Dioxide Max 1‐hour (ppm) 0.012 0.0049 0.02 0.0052 0.25 0.075

PM10 Max 24‐hour (µg/m3) 41 31 55 80 50 150

Annual average (µg/m3) 21.7 19.8 29 30.2 20 NA

PM2.5 Max 24‐hour (µg/m3) ‐‐ ‐‐ 49.3 58.7 NA 35

Annual average (µg/m3) ‐‐ ‐‐ 13 12.5 12 12

Lead Max. monthly average (µg/m3) 0.008 ‐‐ 0.012 ‐‐ 1.5 NA

Sulfate Max 24‐hour (µg/m3) 5.9 ‐‐ 8 ‐‐ 25 NA

‐‐ pollutant not monitored; N/A : no current standard; ppm= parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

bold indicates exceedance of federal and/or state standard

Source: SCAQMD 2011‐2012


- 12 -

TheelevatedlevelsofparticulateairpollutioninthevicinityofHermosaBeach(PM2.5andPM 10) are likely related to traffic density in the region. The California EnvironmentalHealthTrackingProgramgenerateddataontrafficdensitybyzipcodebasedonthesumoftrafficvolumesadjustedbyroadsegmentlength(vehicle‐kilometersperhour)dividedbytotalroadlength(kilometers)within150metersoftheZIPcodeboundary. Figure4isamap of traffic density for zip codes in Los Angeles County, pointing out Hermosa. Ingeneral, the entire Los Angeles area has high traffic density; Hermosa has slightly lesstraffic density compared to those areas located adjacent to freeways but has heavilytraffickedroads(Cal/EPAandOEHHA2013). To provide current emission source estimates for the local area around the proposedprojectsite, theCommunityAirPollution InformationSystem(CHAPIS)wasusedtomapemissionsources. CHAPISreportsemissioninventorystatisticsfora4x4kilometergridaroundtheprojectsite,whichincludesthecombinedcontributionofemissionsfromcarsand trucks, alongwith industrial sites. While theseemissionestimatesaremodeledandare not the same as actual exposure, they provide a point of reference for ambientconditionsinHermosaBeach.

Currentnitrogenoxideemissionsintheprojectsitevicinityareestimatedtorangefrom0to529tonsperyear.Theonlyindustrialsourceofnitrogenoxideemissionswithin one mile radius is the AES Redondo Beach power plant facility, whichcontributes44%ofthetotalnitrogenoxideemissions.Cars,trucks,boatsandotherrecreationalvehiclesaccountfor51%ofnitrogenoxidesinthelocalHermosaBeacharea(seeAppendixE).

PM10emissionsinthelocalHermosaBeacharearangefrom0to225tonsperyear,with themajority of these emissions coming from theAESRedondoBeachpowerplantfacility.ThetotalPM10emissionsinthe4km2areaaroundthesiteis270tonsperyear(seeAppendixE).

Benzeneemissions in the localHermosaBeacharearange from0 to7150poundsper year, and themajority of benzene emissions are attributed to on‐roadmobilesources such as cars and trucks. The total benzene emissions in the 4 km2 areaaroundthesiteis38,700poundsperyear(seeAppendixE).

CHAPISdoesnotreportemissionsinventorygriddedmappingforPM2.5,PAHsorhydrogensulfide.1.4.2 NoiseNoiseexposurehasaneffectonstress,hypertension,bloodpressure,andheartdisease.AsdescribedinthedraftEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR),baselinenoisemonitoringwasconducted during August and September 2013 (MRS 2013). Noisemonitoring capturedexisting weekday and weekend noise conditions at monitoring locations around theproposedprojectsite(6thSt.andCypress,634LomaSt.,730CypressSt.,5268thSt.,6006thSt., VeteransParkway). Table 8 shows the overall average Leq at each sampling locationaround theproject site, duringdaytimeandnighttimehoursonweekdayandweekends.Theequivalentsoundlevel,Leqistheaveragenoiselevelovertheperiodoftime,reportedindBA,orA‐weighteddecibeltoapproximatehumansensitivitytosound.ThedaytimeLeqaround the project site ranged from 51.5 to 61.2 dBA and the nighttime Leq around the


Figure4:TrafficDensityinLosAngelesCountybyZipCode

Source:Cal/EPAandOEHHA(2013),http://www.ehib.org/page.jsp?page_key=980

City of Hermosa


- 13 -

project site ranged from 46.5 to 58.5 dBA. Typical noise levels in an urban outdoorenvironmentareapproximately65dBAduringthedayandapproximately45dBAduringthenight(MRS2013).DaytimeLeqlevelsarewithintypicalnoiselevelsandnighttimeLeqlevels arewithin 16 dBA of typical noise levels. Of the fivemeasurement locations, thelocationon526th8thStreetisthehighestfordaytimeornighttime.Table8.SummaryofExistingNoiseLevelsAroundtheProjectSite(OverallAverageLeq)

Monitoring Location

Overall Average Leq Monday ‐ Friday

Overall Average Leq Saturday & Sunday

Daytime (8am ‐7pm)

Nighttime (7pm ‐ 8 am)

Daytime (8am ‐7pm)

Nighttime (7pm ‐ 8 am)

6th Street & Cypress 61.2 53.0 58.0 52.2

634 Loma Dr. 55.8 48.8 51.5 47.0

730 Cypress St. 58.9 48.5 53.0 48.0

526 8th Street 63.6 58.5 63.3 58.3

600 6th Street 60.6 54.2 57.6 50.8

Veterans Parkway 56.4 47.8 52.1 46.5

All levels reported in dBA

Table adapted from EIR Table 4.11‐5 (MRS 2013) 1.4.3 SurfaceWaterTheCityofHermosahas2milesofbeachwithinthelargerSantaMonicaBay. TheSantaMonica Bay stretches north toMalibu and south to Palos Verdes Peninsula. The entireSanta Monica Bay and its beaches were listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of theCleanWaterActbecausethesurfacewatersdonotmeet federalwaterqualitystandards.Impairments in theSantaMonicaBayaredue to thehumanhealth risksassociatedwithconsumptionofaquaticlifeduetocontaminationfromDDTandPCBs,andtherecreationalhealthrisksduetothepresenceofcoliformbacteria(USEPARegion92012).ImpairmentsassociatedwithDDTandPCBsarerelatedtohistoricreleaseofDDTandPCBson thePalosVerdes shelfbetween1937and the1980s, consistingof approximately110tonsofDDTand10 tonsofPCBs. DDTandPCBsarenon‐petroleumrelated compoundswhichwerepreviouslyusedathighlevelsbeforetheUSbannedDDTsin1972andPCBsin1979. Due to the bioaccumulation of DDT and PCBs in aquatic tissues, the State ofCaliforniaissueditsfirstinterimseafoodconsumptionwarningsin1985.Communitiesoflowersocioeconomicstatusgenerallydependonfishprovidedbynearbysurfacewaterstoa greater extent than the general population (NEJAC, 2002). Hermosa communitymembers who regularly consume fish from the Santa Monica Bay may have increasedexposuretoDDTandPCBs.ThepresenceofcoliformbacteriaintheSantaMonicaBayisanindicatorthatwaterqualitymaynotbesufficienttousewatersforhumanbodyrecreation.Toaddresstheproblemofbacteria in thewater, the LosAngelesRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard establishedthe SantaMonica Bay bacteria TotalMaximumDaily Load (TMDL) in 2003. The TMDL


- 14 -

requires cities to improvewater quality through compliancewith targets for bacteria insurfacewater.TheCityofHermosaBeach’sstormwaterpollutionpreventionprogramisamultifaceted program designed to reduce runoff and ensure compliancewith the TMDL.Efforts of the Hermosa stormwater pollution prevention program include infiltrationprojects,lowflowdiversiontosanitarysewer,andagreasecontrolordinance(SBSP2013).1.4.4 EnviroScreenThe California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and the California Office ofEnvironmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) released a California CommunitiesEnvironmental Health Screening Tool, Version 1.1 in September 2013, known asCalEnviroScreen (Cal/EPA and OEHHA 2013). CalEnviroScreen is an online mappingapplicationthatcanbeusedtoidentifyCaliforniacommunitiesthataredisproportionatelyburdenedbymultiple sourcesofpollution. The tooluses existingenvironmental, health,demographic and socioeconomic data to create an overall screening score for zip codesacross thestate. Varioussecondarydata sourcesareusedbyCalEnviroScreen, includingairmonitoringdatapreviouslydiscussedinSection1.3.1.Anareawithanoverallhighscorewouldbeexpectedtoexperiencemuchhigherimpactsthanareaswithlowscores.Figure5showstheCalEnviroScreenmapforHermosaandthesurroundingcommunities.ThelightcolorforHermosaindicatesthatHermosawasinthe1st to 10th percentile for lowest EnviroScreen scores, indicating an overall lowpollutionburdeninHermosaBeachrelativetoothercommunities inCalifornia. EvencomparedtotheadjacentcommunitiesofManhattanandRedondo,Hermosahasthelowestscore.Themapclearlydepicts that communities to theeastof thecoastal zonesuffermuchgreaterpollutionburden.


Figure5:CalEnviroScreenResultsfortheCityofHermosaBeach

Source:Cal/EPAandOEHHA(2013).http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces11.html

City of Hermosa


- 15 -

Thespecificpollutionburdenmeasures thatwent into theoverallscore forHermosaaresummarizedbelow:

Annualportionofthedailymaximum8‐hourozoneconcentrationoverthefederalstandardof0.075ppm:0%(0percentile)

AnnualmeanconcentrationofPM2.5:13.74(81stpercentile) Dieselparticulatematterestimatedemissions fromon‐ andoff‐road sources fora

July2010weekday:3.73kg/day(40thpercentile) Total pounds of pesticide ingredients used in production agriculture per square

mile:0lbs(0percentile) Total toxicity‐weightedpounds of chemicals releasedon‐site to air orwater from

facilitiesinorneartheZIPcode:0lbs(0percentile) Sumoftrafficvolumesadjustedbyroadsegmentlengthdividedbytotalroadlength

within150metersoftheZIPcodeboundary:872.3(58thpercentile) Numberofcleanupsites(due to thepresenceofhazardoussubstances) in theZIP

code:0(0percentile) Weightedsumofsitesposingarisktogroundwater intheZIPcode(underground

storagetanks,industrialsites,drycleaners,etc.):5(7thpercentile) Weighted sum of permitted hazardous waste facilities and hazardous waste

generatorsintheZIPCode:0.8(38thpercentile) Number of pollutants across all water bodies designated as impaired in the ZIP

code:6(64thpercentile) Weightedsumofsolidwastesitesandfacilities:0(0percentile)

1.5 ACCESSTOHEALTHSUPPORTINGRESOURCESHealthsupportingresourcessuchashealthcareservicesandtheavailabilityofnutritiousfoods are important indicators for various health conditions in communities. Spatialdepictionsofresourcesinanareamaysuggestcausalhypothesesabouthealthoutcomes.Forexample, theabsenceof supermarkets (i.e., fresh foods) inanareamay indicate thatpeople have to rely on fast‐food chains and convenience stores selling only high calorieprocessedjunkfoods,puttingpopulationsatgreaterriskfordiet‐relatedhealthproblems(CDPH 2013a). The Network for Healthy California, a mapping application that allowsusers toqueryandviewhealthsupportingresourcesspatiallyacrossCalifornia,providessomeofthisinformationforHermosaBeach(CDPH2013c).Figure 6 shows the locations of licensed healthcare facilities near the area surroundingHermosa.Facilitytypesincludehospitals,clinics,homehealthagencies,andlongtermcarefacilities (facility address information is maintained and provided by the Office ofStatewideHealthPlanningandDevelopment). Themapdepictsaone‐milebufferaroundtheCitycenter,andshowsthattherearenolicensedhealthcarefacilitieswithintheCityofHermosaorwiththeareasoftheone‐milebufferzone.However,ifthatzoneisexpandedto5‐miles,therearemanyfacilities,mostlylocatedintheCityofTorrance(9primarycareclinics, 13 home health agencies, 4 hospitals, and 5 long‐term care facilities). For thosecommunitymemberswhodonotownavehicle,itmaybechallengingtoaccesshealthcaresincetherearenofacilitiesdirectlywithinHermosa.


Figure6:LicensedHealthcareFacilitiesnearHermosaBeach

Source:http://gis.cdph.ca.gov/cnn2.0/cnn.html?mapid=5908695


- 16 -

Figure7showsthelocationsofgrocerystoresandfarmersmarketsintheCity.Therearetwolargechaingroceries,tenothergroceries,andonefarmer’smarketwithinthezipcodeof90254.Therefore,theredoesnotappeartobeabarriertoaccessfreshfoodsinHermosaBeach.1.6 COMMUNITYHEALTHPROMOTIONTheCityofHermosaBeachanditscommunitymembersareexceptionallycommittedtoanoutdoorlifestyleandmakingtheirenvironmentahealthyplacetolive.In2010,theBeachCities Health District joined the Blue Zones ProjectTM initiative to create a beach citiescommunitythatishealthierandmorewalkable,bikeable,andsociallyengaged.BlueZonesusestheGallup‐HealthwaysWellBeingIndex™tobenchmarkthewell‐beingof thebeachcitiesandmeasureprogress(BlueZones2010).The baseline survey of 1,332 Beach Cities residents was conducted in 2010. Among itsmajorfindingswasthattheoverallwell‐beingratingforresidentsofHermosa,Manhattanand Redondo was higher than the California average and above the top tier of othercities.Morethan90percentof localresidentssaidtheyhadaccesstohealthcare,healthinsurance and enoughmoney for food, shelter and other basic needs. Two‐thirdswerefoundtobe“thriving.”However,thesurveyalsofoundthat46percentoftheBeachCitiesresidents felt stressed formostof theday, anumber that ranked them176thoutof188communities surveyed.Whenasked if theyhadsignificantworries,37percent said theydid,which ranked the Beach Cities 177th out of those 188 communities surveyed (BlueZones2010).

InFebruary2013,theCityofHermosaBeachbecamethefirstcommunityinthecountrytoachieve Blue Zones Community Policy designation – for adopting policies to improve itsresidents’well‐being.Thosepoliciesincludeda“LivingStreetsPolicy”focusedonmakingthe community more liveable, walkable, and bikeable (e.g., Pier Ave); and an action tocreate a community garden. Since the 2010 program launch in the Beach Cities HealthDistrict, more than 15,000 people and 75 businesses and restaurants in Hermosa,Manhattan and Redondo Beaches have adopted healthier practices, and the cities haveadopted policies that promote walkable and bikeable streets. After the first two years(2010‐2012) of commitment to the Blue Zones initiative, Gallup‐HealthwaysWell‐BeingIndexfoundthatacrosstheBeachCitiesHealthDistrict:

Obesity dropped 14 percent with an estimated 1,645 fewer obese adults. Lostpounds translate to $2.35 million in healthcare‐related savings for Beach Citiesbusinessesandresidentsovertwoyears.

Smoking rates declined more than 30 percent or 3,484 fewer smokers. Thisdecreaseequatesto$6.97million inhealthcare‐relatedsavingsbetween2010and2012.

Exercise rates increased by more than 10 percent as more people reportedexercisingatleast30minutesthreetimesperweek.

Healthyeatinghabits improved9percentwithmorepeople reportingeating five‐plusservingsoffruitsandvegetablesfourormoredaysinthepastweek.


Figure7:GroceriesandFarmersMarketsinHermosaBeach

Source:http://gis.cdph.ca.gov/cnn2.0/cnn.html?mapid=7032543


- 17 -

Stressindicatorsremainedlargelyunchanged. In 2012, the City ofHermosaBeach launched theHealthyAirHermosa public educationcampaign toensure residentsandvisitors canenjoya smoke‐freeenvironment inpublicoutdoorgatheringspotssuchasthePier,theStrand,theGreenbelt,PierPlaza,Cityownedparkinglots,andallparks.Smokingwaspreviouslybannedonthebeachincitybuildingsandinsiderestaurants(CityofHermosaBeach2012). 1.7 LIMITATIONSSomelimitationsofthisbaselinehealthassessmentareasfollows:

ThesmallpopulationinHermosaBeachmadeitdifficulttofinddataspecifictotheCity. For example, while information hospitalizations due to asthma werepresented, asthma rates for Hermosa Beach were not available. Prevalence ofasthmainHermosaBeach,particularlyinchildren,couldbeaffectedbyincreasesinair pollution due to the proposed project. The lack of more specific asthmainformationisasignificantdatagapinthisassessment.

Whereprevalenceandmortalitydatawasavailable forHermosaBeach, itwasnotpresentedaccording tocategoriesof race, age,gender,etc. Therefore, ratescouldnot be adjusted for appropriate comparison to either LA County or the State ofCalifornia.

In addition, small numbers did not allowmaking statistical comparisons to othergeographiclocations.

The pedestrian safety assessment was conducted over five years ago and manyimprovementshave takenplace since then, including thePierAvenue streetscapeimprovements. However, other streets have not undergone similar pedestrianimprovementssincethen.

Ambientairpollutiondatawereavailable for theSouthwestCoastal region,whichincludesHermosaBeachbutalsoincludestheLosAngelesinternationalairportandother facilities (i.e., the El Segundo refinery) considered sources of air pollution.Therefore, the aggregate data may not be representative of the local Hermosacommunity.

1.8 CONCLUSIONSTheobjectivesofthebaselinehealthassessmentweretoestablishthecurrenthealthstatusofHermosaBeachcommunitymembers,andtoevaluatewhetherthecurrentprofileofthecommunity reveals vulnerabilities to any of a number of health outcomes. The majorfindingsofthisbaselinehealthassessmentinclude:

According to thecensusdata forHermosaBeach,approximately25percentof thepopulation may be considered to be more vulnerable to certain environmentalexposures,basedonage(9%overtheageof65and16%under18years).

Overall,demographicindicatorsshowthatHermosaBeachisnothighlyvulnerabletopoorhealthoutcomestraditionallyassociatedwithpoverty,unemployment,andloweducationalattainment.

The observed number of cancer cases in the City of Hermosa was within theexpected number, based on age‐, race‐ and sex‐adjusted incidence rates for Los


- 18 -

AngelesCounty,forallcancersexceptmelanomaandbreastcancer.Thestatisticallysignificant increase inmelanoma andbreast cancer diagnoses among residents ofHermosaBeachcomparedtoLosAngelesCountycanlargelybeexplainedbyknownlifestyleriskfactors.

HermosaBeachappearstohaveafavorablemortalityprofile,accordingtoall‐causemortality,diseasesoftheheart,andcancer,comparedtoLACounty.

Hospitalizationrates forasthma,diabetes,acutemyocardial infarction,andmentalillness were overall much lower in Hermosa Beach compared to California.Hospitalization data may indicate higher than expected alcohol and drug use inHermosa.

In2011,nearlyhalfofbirthsinHermosaBeach(47%)weretomothersage35andolder;indicatingapotentialvulnerabilitytocertaindevelopmentalconditions,suchasautismorDown’ssyndrome.

PedestriansmaybevulnerabletoinjuryormortalityalongthePCH,HermosaAvenue,andBeachDrive.

BeachCitiesHealthDistrictstatisticsonobesity,physicalactivity,andalcohol,drugandtobaccouseshowcommunitymembersarevulnerabletopreventablecausesofchronicillness.

ElevatedlevelsofparticulateairpollutioninthevicinityofHermosaBeach(PM2.5and PM 10) put community members at increased risk for respiratory andcardiovascular effects. Traffic density is likely a significant contributor toparticulateairpollution.

DaytimeLmaxlevelsarewithin10dBAandnighttimeLmaxlevelsarewithin23dBAoftypicalnoise levels. The locationon526th8th Street is thehighest fordaytimeornighttime.

HermosaBeach,locatedontheSantaMonicaBay,hasimpairedsurfacewatersduetocontaminationfromDDTandPCBs,andthepresenceofcoliformbacteria.

Compared to other California communities, Hermosa Beach has a low pollutionburdenfromcumulativeenvironmentalsourcessuchasambientair,pesticideuse,chemicalreleases,traffic,hazardoussubstancescleanupsites,risktogroundwater,permittedhazardouswastefacilities,surfacewaterpollutants,andsolidwastesites.

Forthosecommunitymemberswhodonotownavehicle,itmaybechallengingtoaccesshealthcaresincetherearenofacilitiesdirectlywithinHermosaBeach.

NearlyhalfofBeachCityHealthDistrictresidentsreportbeingstressed. Hermosa’s commitment to an outdoor healthy lifestyle is exemplified through

progressontheBlueZonesProjectinitiativeandsmoke‐freepublicareas. Futureanalysiscanutilizedatapresentedinthisreporttoevaluateanychangesor

trends.


- 19 -

1.9 REFERENCES

BeachCitiesHealthDistrict.2013.BeachCitiesCommunityHealthUpdate.Retrievedfrom:http://www.bchd.org/BlueZones.2010.BlueZonesProjectintheBeachCitiesofCalifornia.Retrievedfrom:http://www.bluezones.com/programs/blue‐zones‐communities/blue‐zones‐project‐in‐the‐beach‐cities‐of‐california/Brown,S.J.andMitman,M.F.November2008.HermosaBeachPedestrianSafetyAssessment:Issues,Opportunities,andRecommendedStrategies.Retrievedfrom:http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=714CaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth(CDPH).2010.GuideforHealthImpactAssessment.Retrievedfrom:http://www.cdph.ca.gov/pubsforms/Guidelines/Documents/HIA%20Guide%20FINAL%2010‐19‐10.pdfCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth(CDPH).2013a.DeathProfilesbyZipCode.Retrievedfrom:http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/DeathProfilesbyZIPCode.aspxCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth(CDPH).2013b.BirthOutcomesbyZipCode.Retrievedfrom:http://www.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Pages/BirthProfilesbyZIPCode.aspxCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth(CDPH).2013c.NetworkforaHealthyCaliforniaGISMapViewer.Retrievedfrom:http://gis.cdph.ca.gov/cnn/CaliforniaEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheOfficeofEnvironmentalHealthHazardAssessment(Cal/EPAandOEHHA).2013.CaliforniaCommunitiesEnvironmentalHealthScreeningTool:CalEnviroScreen1.1.Retrievedfrom:http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces11.htmlCaliforniaHighwayPatrol(CHP).2014.StatewideIntegratedTrafficRecordsSystem.Retrievedfrom:http://iswitrs.chp.ca.gov/Reports/jsp/userLogin.jspCentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention.2009.ChronicDiseasesthePowertoPrevent,TheCalltoControl:AtAGlance2009.Retrievedfrom:http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/chronic.htmCityofHermosaBeach.2012.HermosaBeachLaunchesHealthyAirHermosaEducationProgramforNewSmoke‐freeOrdinance.Retrievedfrom:http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1418


- 20 -

CountyofLosAngelesPublicHealth(LACDPH).2013.HowSocialandEconomicFactorsAffectHealth.Retrievedfrom:http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/epi/docs/SocialD_Final_Web.pdfMRSConsultants,LLC.(MRS).2013.DraftEnvironmentalImpactReport.Newberger,D.S.2000.DownSyndrome:PrenatalRiskAssessmentandDiagnosis.AmFamPhysician,62(4):825‐832.OfficeofStatewideHealthPlanningandDevelopment(OSHPD).2013.StatisticsgeneratedonHealthyCity.org,10/28/2013.Shelton,J.F.,Tancredi,D.J.andHertz‐Picciotto,I.2010.Independentanddependentcontributionsofadvancedmaternalandpaternalagestoautismrisk.AutismRes,3:30–39.doi:10.1002/aur.116SouthBayStormwaterProgram.2013.CityofHermosaBeachStormwaterProgramHighlights.Retrievedfrom:http://southbaystormwaterprogram.com/member‐agencies‐2/hermosa‐beach/SouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict(SCAQMD).2012.HistoricalDatabyYear.Retrievedfrom:http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/historicaldata.htmU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyRegion9(USEPARegion9).2012.SantaMonicaBayTotalMaximumDailyLoadsforDDTsandPCBs.Retrievedfrom:http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/tmdl/Established/SantaMonica/FinalSantaMonicaBayDDTPCBsTMDL.pdfU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(USEPA).2012.ParticlePollutionandHealth.Retrievedfrom:http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/decfshealth.pdfU.S.CensusBureau:StateandCountyQuickFacts(USCensus).DataderivedfromPopulationEstimates,AmericanCommunitySurvey,CensusofPopulationandHousing,CountyBusinessPatterns,EconomicCensus,SurveyofBusinessOwners,BuildingPermits,CensusofGovernments.LastRevised:June.2013.Retrievedfrom:http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0633364.html


USC Cancer Surveillance Program Department of Preventive Medicine

University of Southern California USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1441 Eastlake Ave. MC 9175, Los Angeles, California 90089-9175 • Tel: 323 865 0447 • Fax: 323 865 0141

Kathleen Souweine, MPH January 10, 2014 McDaniel Lambert, Inc. (An Intrinsik Company) 1608 Pacific Ave., Suite 201 Venice, CA 90291 tel. 310.392.6462 [email protected]

Dear Ms. Souweine You requested information about the risks from cancer (Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, leukemias, melanoma, breast cancer, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, colorectal cancer, cancers of the brain and other nervous system) in Hermosa Beach compared to the County of Los Angeles as a whole. You provided us with 2010 census tracts 6210.01, 6210.02, 6210.04, 6211.02, 6211.04 and 2000 census tracts 6210.01, 6211.01, 6211.02. We are pleased to provide the following information in response to the request (Table 1, next page). The observed number of cancer cases was within the expected number, based on age-, race- and sex-adjusted incidence rates for Los Angeles County, for all cancers except melanoma and breast cancer (all races only). The statistically significant increase in melanoma and breast cancer diagnoses among residents of Hermosa Beach compared to Los Angeles County can largely be explained by known lifestyle risk factors. Higher socioeconomic status is an accepted risk factor for both of these cancers and it is likely that that Hermosa Beach residents have higher income and education than Los Angeles County residents as a whole. In fact, in an extensive analysis across Los Angeles County, when socioeconomic status was accounted for, neighborhood differences in these cancers either disappeared (breast cancer) or were greatly reduced (melanoma)1. In addition, sun exposure is the strongest risk factor for melanoma and thus an excess of diagnoses would be expected in the Southern California beach communities, assuming these residents spend more time in the sun during daylight hours compared to residents elsewhere in the county. Otherwise there is no evidence that residents of Hermosa Beach experience unusually high or low risk of common types of cancer. This information is provided on behalf of the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program and the California Cancer Registry. We will be happy to respond further to additional questions. Sincerely, Wendy Cozen, D.O., M.P.H. Professor, Departments of Preventive Medicine and Pathology Cc: Dennis Deapen, Dr.PH., Thomas Mack, M.D., M.P.H., Amie Hwang, Ph.D., Cyllene Morris, Ph.D. 1Mack TM, Cancers in the Urban Environment, Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, California, 2004.

mailto:[email protected]

Table 1. Expected and observed numbers of cancer cases by type and race in Los Angeles County and Hermosa Beach, 2000-2010.

Cancer Type Race L.A. County Hermosa Beach Pchisq3

AAIR1 Observed number of patients

Observed number of patients

Expected number of patients2

Hodgkin Lymphoma White4 3.70 1213 5 1-11 0.85

All Races 2.45 2583 6 0-9 0.40

Non Hodgkin Lymphoma

White4 22.27 9250 27 18-39 0.85

All Races 18.56 17535 30 16-38 0.53

Multiple Myeloma White4 5.35 2326 9 1-12 0.20

All Races 5.68 5242 11 2-14 0.17

Leukemia: ALL White4 1.75 448 <5 0-5 0.64

All Races 1.91 2041 <5 0-6 0.92

Leukemia: AML White4 4.01 1654 <5 0-10 0.85

All Races 3.62 3441 <5 0-10 0.75

Melanoma White4 49.13 19767 114 52-83 <0.0001

All Races 23.65 22616 122 24-49 <0.0001

Breast Cancer White4 188.03 39893 117 99-143 0.78

All Races 144.65 75480 148 90-120 0.00036

Prostate Cancer White4 148.27 29250 84 73-112 0.39

All Races 147.35 60242 107 80-120 0.46

Bladder Cancer White4 24.96 10990 21 17-39 0.19

All Races 17.80 16117 21 13-32 0.83

Colorectal Cancer White4 53.26 23193 37 47-79 0.0012

All Races 49.46 45821 41 51-84 0.0016

Brain/nervous system White4 16.74 6495 23 13-33 0.90

All Races 13.07 12747 23 11-33 0.51

1Average annual age-adjusted incidence rates per 100,000 population at risk 2Based on Los Angeles County incidence rates and Hermosa Beach population in the years covered

3P-value for observed /expected comparison using Chi-square test 4Non-Hispanic whites only

Appendix F

Quality of Life Committee Presentation

1.4 square miles of “The Best Little Beach City”

Quality of Life in Hermosa Beach Community Dialogue Committee

December 3, 2013

Commi%ee Members: Mike Collins Julian Katz Julie Hamill Koch Louisa Cushman Andrea Valcourt

The Commi%ee’s Challenge Answer the following ques:ons

•  Why did you move to Hermosa Beach and what keeps you here?

•  What are the community’s (the people’s) strengths and weaknesses?

•  What are the city’s (the government’s) strengths and weaknesses?

•  What are the city’s (the environment’s) strengths and weaknesses?

•  What would make you leave? •  How are these things linked together? •  What do you hope Hermosa Beach will

be like in 20 years?

Physically, Hermosa Beach lives up to its slogan…”the best li%le

beach city.”

•  The beach is broad and clean

•  The ocean water is clean (A+ from Heal the Bay)

•  The air is fresh and clean •  When the fog rolls in you

can hear the fog horn •  The city is only 1.4 miles

square •  But, there is more to living

here…

Hermosa is a clean city

•  Beach maintenance is done regularly.

•  Our streets are clean, our downtown sidewalks create an interes:ng dialogue.

•  Storm water basins help keep contaminates and debris out of the ocean.

•  Businesses are regulated to properly dispose of oil and other contaminates.

Reputa:on for being a small-‐town, friendly beach community

•  Surfing, swimming, walking, and volleyball bring like-‐minded people together •  Rollerblading, biking, jogging, and walking keep folks talking •  Pier Avenue, with its sidewalk dining, promotes camaraderie

•  Art shows and music fes:vals draw the people out of their homes •  Movies in the Park bring families together

Reputa:on for being a party town

•  Bars a%ract a party crowd •  Early 20’s crowd rent in the south end, sharing houses or apartments

•  Late night patrons are disrup:ve and destruc:ve

Hermosa is health conscious •  People walk, jog and bike for exercise, and to get from place

to place •  The city joined the Beach CiNes Health District’s Blue Zone

Project •  Hermosa was the first South Bay city to be cerNfied as a Blue

Zone city •  The city enhanced the Green Belt with workout staNons. •  The city maintains several large and

small parks •  CiNzens shop at the Farmers Market •  Children and adults get exercise

playing all sports

Accessible city government •  Council meeNngs are open to the public and available on TV

•  City council members provide office hours •  The council provides opportuniNes for public input on major issues

•  Teenagers asked for and received a skate park •  People wanted a community garden and that is in process

•  The city has a bike plan but has not added a bikeway in four years

Hermosa is a safe city

•  Police respond quickly to calls •  The crime rate is one of the lowest •  Businesses put products and produce on the sidewalks, without supervision

•  People walk safely about the city

Hermosa is a green city

•  A major city goal is for a carbon neutral footprint •  The city received awards for green acNviNes •  Council provided storm drain filtraNon systems •  Smoking is banned citywide, including the beach, but it is not enforced

•  Styrofoam food containers are banned •  Our Lady of Guadalupe church uses solar panels for its energy source

Hermosa schools are some of the best

•  The schools test in the top 10 percenNle •  Parents and teachers collaborate and support the students

•  The community parNcipates in major fundraisers to offset state shor[alls

Hermosa is a small, scenic town

•  Zoning keeps building heights at 30 feet

•  The town has kept historic buildings

•  MansionazaNon has not become a priority

•  There are original clapboard beach co]ages and newer “beach-‐type” homes

•  The city conNnues to maintain streets and infrastructure

Hermosa has involved ci:zens

•  People par:cipate at council mee:ngs and commi%ees •  Ci:zens join Leadership Hermosa and make a difference

•  Folks volunteer at schools and philanthropic organiza:ons •  Ci:zens and the council collaborate on the latest technology and products •  Local business owners are working with the city to a%ract new businesses

Hermosa wants to maintain its unique

character •  Maintain or enhance current

building limits •  Limit large developments and/or

“big box” stores •  Recruit small, green businesses •  Work with the school district to

maintain and improve schools •  The Council, police, and business

are partnering to reduce late Plaza acNviNes

•  Increase children’s beach play areas by adding swings and slides

•  Encourage arNst development such as an art district

Hermosa wants to maintain unique character without added cost

•  ConNnue having a balanced budget. No debt. •  InvesNgate whether regionalizing services would be beneficial •  Encourage volunteerism for projects, adopt-‐a grandparent for

schools •  Enlist colleges/universiNes to invest in technology projects here •  Seek out movie/TV filming projects •  ConNnue to apply for grants •  CiNzens and/or businesses donate roof tops for solar to benefit

the city and schools •  Rent out city faciliNes to private and/or philanthropic events •  Implement a strategy to a]ract businesses that ciNzens want

Hermosa Beach 20 years from now

•  The city a]racts families and small businesses to its safe streets. •  Hermosa is profitable, with small businesses as its base. •  The city has maintained its small town feel and kept large

structures at a minimum. •  Hermosa Beach’s PCH and AviaNon corridors are thriving. •  Pier Plaza is a more family-‐friendly place, with limited rowdy

night life. •  Hermosa Beach is a model green beach city. •  Hermosa is a consultant to other ciNes, which want posiNve

change.

Appendix G

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ToxFAQs

BENZENE CAS # 71-43-2

Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine ToxFAQsTM August 2007

This fact sheet answers the most frequently asked health questions (FAQs) about benzene. For more information, call the ATSDR Information Center at 1-800-232-4636. This fact sheet is one in a series of summaries about hazardous substances and their health effects. It is important you understand this information because this substance may harm you. The effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depend on the dose, the duration, how you are exposed, personal traits and habits, and whether other chemicals are present.

HIGHLIGHTS: Benzene is a widely used chemical formed from both natural processes and human activities. Breathing benzene can cause drowsiness, dizziness, and unconsciousness; long-term benzene exposure causes effects on the bone marrow and can cause anemia and leukemia. Benzene has been found in at least 1,000 of the 1,684 National Priority List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

What is benzene?

Benzene is a colorless liquid with a sweet odor. It evaporates into the air very quickly and dissolves slightly in water. It is highly flammable and is formed from both natural processes and human activities.

Benzene is widely used in the United States; it ranks in the top 20 chemicals for production volume. Some industries use benzene to make other chemicals which are used to make plastics, resins, and nylon and other synthetic fibers. Benzene is also used to make some types of rubbers, lubricants, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides. Natural sources of benzene include emissions from volcanoes and forest fires. Benzene is also a natural part of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke.

What happens to benzene when it enters the environment?

‘ Industrial processes are the main source of benzene in the environment. ‘ Benzene can pass into the air from water and soil. ‘ It reacts with other chemicals in the air and breaks down within a few days. ‘ Benzene in the air can attach to rain or snow and be carried back down to the ground.

‘ It breaks down more slowly in water and soil, and can pass through the soil into underground water. ‘ Benzene does not build up in plants or animals.

How might I be exposed to benzene?

‘ Outdoor air contains low levels of benzene from tobacco smoke, automobile service stations, exhaust from motor vehicles, and industrial emissions. ‘ Vapors (or gases) from products that contain benzene, such as glues, paints, furniture wax, and detergents, can also be a source of exposure. ‘ Air around hazardous waste sites or gas stations will contain higher levels of benzene. ‘ Working in industries that make or use benzene.

How can benzene affect my health?

Breathing very high levels of benzene can result in death, while high levels can cause drowsiness, dizziness, rapid heart rate, headaches, tremors, confusion, and unconsciousness. Eating or drinking foods containing high levels of benzene can cause vomiting, irritation of the stomach, dizziness, sleepiness, convulsions, rapid heart rate, and death.

The major effect of benzene from long-term exposure is on the blood. Benzene causes harmful effects on the bone

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

ToxFAQsTM Internet address is http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html

Where can I get more information? For more information, contact the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-32, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: 1-800-232-4636, FAX: 770-488-4178. ToxFAQs Internet address via WWW is http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html. ATSDR can tell you where to find occupational and environmental health clinics. Their specialists can recognize, evaluate, and treat illnesses resulting from exposure to hazardous substances. You can also contact your community or state health or environmental quality department if you have any more questions or concerns.

marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells leading to anemia. It can also cause excessive bleeding and can affect the immune system, increasing the chance for infection.

Some women who breathed high levels of benzene for many months had irregular menstrual periods and a decrease in the size of their ovaries, but we do not know for certain that benzene caused the effects. It is not known whether benzene will affect fertility in men.

How likely is benzene to cause cancer?

Long-term exposure to high levels of benzene in the air can cause leukemia, particularly acute myelogenous leukemia, often referred to as AML. This is a cancer of the blood-forming organs. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that benzene is a known carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the EPA have determined that benzene is carcinogenic to humans.

How can benzene affect children?

Children can be affected by benzene exposure in the same ways as adults. It is not known if children are more susceptible to benzene poisoning than adults.

Benzene can pass from the mother’s blood to a fetus. Animal studies have shown low birth weights, delayed bone formation, and bone marrow damage when pregnant animals breathed benzene.

How can families reduce the risks of exposure to benzene?

Benzene exposure can be reduced by limiting contact with gasoline and cigarette smoke. Families are encouraged not to

smoke in their house, in enclosed environments, or near their children.

Is there a medical test to determine whether I’ve been exposed to benzene?

Several tests can show if you have been exposed to benzene. There is a test for measuring benzene in the breath; this test must be done shortly after exposure. Benzene can also be measured in the blood; however, since benzene disappears rapidly from the blood, this test is only useful for recent exposures.

In the body, benzene is converted to products called metabolites. Certain metabolites can be measured in the urine. The metabolite S-phenylmercapturic acid in urine is a sensitive indicator of benzene exposure. However, this test must be done shortly after exposure and is not a reliable indicator of how much benzene you have been exposed to, since the metabolites may be present in urine from other sources.

Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?

The EPA has set the maximum permissible level of benzene in drinking water at 5 parts benzene per billion parts of water (5 ppb).

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set limits of 1 part benzene per million parts of workplace air (1 ppm) for 8 hour shifts and 40 hour work weeks.

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Toxicological Profile for Benzene (Update). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Public Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

BENZENE CAS # 71-43-2

HYDROGEN SULFIDE CAS # 7783-06-4

Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine ToxFAQsTM July 2006

This fact sheet answers the most frequently asked health questions (FAQs) about hydrogen sulfide. For more information, call the ATSDR Information Center at 1-888-422-8737. This fact sheet is one in a series of summaries about hazardous substances and their health effects. It is important you understand this information because this substance may harm you. The effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depend on the dose, the duration, how you are exposed, personal traits and habits, and whether other chemicals are present.

HIGHLIGHTS: Hydrogen sulfide occurs naturally and is also produced by human activities. Just a few breaths of air containing high levels of hydrogen sulfide gas can cause death. Lower, longer-term exposure can cause eye irritation, headache, and fatigue. Hydrogen sulfide has been found in at least 35 of the 1,689 National Priorities List sites identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

What is hydrogen sulfide? Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) occurs naturally in crude petroleum, natural gas, volcanic gases, and hot springs. It can also result from bacterial breakdown of organic matter. It is also produced by human and animal wastes. Bacteria found in your mouth and gastrointestinal tract produce hydrogen sulfide from bacteria decomposing materials that contain vegetable or animal proteins. Hydrogen sulfide can also result from industrial activities, such as food processing, coke ovens, kraft paper mills, tanneries, and petroleum refineries.

Hydrogen sulfide is a flammable, colorless gas with a characteristic odor of rotten eggs. It is commonly known as hydrosulfuric acid, sewer gas, and stink damp. People can smell it at low levels.

What happens to hydrogen sulfide when it enters the environment? ‘ Hydrogen sulfide is released primarily as a gas and spreads in the air. ‘ Hydrogen sulfide remains in the atmosphere for about 18 hours. ‘ When released as a gas, it will change into sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid. ‘ In some instances, it may be released as a liquid waste from an industrial facility.

How might I be exposed to hydrogen sulfide? ‘ You may be exposed to hydrogen sulfide from breathing contaminated air or drinking contaminated water. ‘ Individuals living near a wastewater treatment plant, a gas and oil drilling operation, a farm with manure storage or livestock confinement facilities, or a landfill may be exposed to higher levels of hydrogen sulfide. ‘ You can be exposed at work if you work in the rayon textiles, petroleum and natural gas drilling and refining, or wastewater treatment industries. Workers on farms with manure storage pits or landfills can be exposed to higher levels of hydrogen sulfide. ‘ A small amount of hydrogen sulfide is produced by bacteria in your mouth and gastrointestinal tract.

How can hydrogen sulfide affect my health? Exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide may cause irritation to the eyes, nose, or throat. It may also cause difficulty in breathing for some asthmatics. Brief exposures to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (greater than 500 ppm) can cause a loss of consciousness and possibly death. In most cases, the person appears to regain consciousness without any other effects. However, in many individuals, there may be permanent or long-term effects such as headaches, poor attention span, poor memory, and poor motor function. No health effects have been found in humans exposed to typical environmental concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (0.00011–0.00033 ppm).



ToxFAQsTM Internet address is http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html

Where can I get more information? For more information, contact the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-32, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: 1-888-422-8737, FAX: 770-488-4178. ToxFAQs Internet address via WWW is http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html. ATSDR can tell you where to find occupational and environmental health clinics. Their specialists can recognize, evaluate, and treat illnesses resulting from exposure to hazardous substances. You can also contact your community or state health or environmental quality department if you have any more questions or concerns.

Scientists have no reports of people poisoned by ingesting hydrogen sulfide. Pigs that ate feed containing hydrogen sulfide experienced diarrhea for a few days and lost weight after about 105 days.

Scientists have little information about what happens when you are exposed to hydrogen sulfide by getting it on your skin, although they know that care must be taken with the compressed liquefied product to avoid frost bite.

How likely is hydrogen sulfide to cause cancer? Hydrogen sulfide has not been shown to cause cancer in humans, and its possible ability to cause cancer in animals has not been studied thoroughly. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the EPA have not classified hydrogen sulfide for carcinogenicity.

How can hydrogen sulfide affect children? Children are likely to be exposed to hydrogen sulfide in the same manner as adults, except for adults at work. However, because hydrogen sulfide is heavier than air and because children are shorter than adults, children sometimes are exposed to more hydrogen sulfide than adults. Health problems in children who have been exposed to hydrogen sulfide have not been studied much. Exposed children probably will experience effects similar to those experienced by exposed adults. Whether children are more sensitive to hydrogen sulfide than adults or whether hydrogen sulfide causes birth defects in people is not known.

How can families reduce the risk of exposure to hydrogen sulfide? Families can be exposed if they live near natural or industrial sources of hydrogen sulfide, such as hot springs, manure holding

tanks, or pulp and paper mills. Families may want to restrict visits to these places.

Is there a medical test to show whether I’ve been exposed to hydrogen sulfide? Hydrogen sulfide can be measured in exhaled air, but samples must be taken within 2 hours after exposure to be useful. A more reliable test to determine if you have been exposed to hydrogen sulfide is the measurement of thiosulfate levels in urine. This test must be done within 12 hours of exposure. Both tests require special equipment, which is not routinely available in a doctor’s office. Samples can be sent to a special laboratory for the tests. These tests can tell whether you have been exposed to hydrogen sulfide, but they can not determine exactly how much hydrogen sulfide you have been exposed to or whether harmful effects will occur.

Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health? The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set an acceptable ceiling limit for hydrogen sulfide of 20 parts hydrogen sulfide per 1 million parts of air (20 ppm) in the workplace.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends a 10-minute ceiling limit of 10 ppm in the workplace.

Reference Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2006. Toxicological Profile for Hydrogen Sulfide (Update). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

HYDROGEN SULFIDE CAS # 7783-06-4

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs)

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ToxFAQs September 1996

SUMMARY: Exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons usually occurs by breathing air contaminated by wild fires or coal tar, or by eating foods that have been grilled. PAHs have been found in at least 600 of the 1,430 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This fact sheet answers the most frequently asked health questions (FAQs) about polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). For more information, call the ATSDR Information Center at 1-888-422-8737. This fact sheet is one in a series of summaries about hazardous substances and their health effects. This information is important because this substance may harm you. The effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depend on the dose, the duration, how you are exposed, personal traits and habits, and whether other chemicals are present.

What are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons?

(Pronounced p∂lÀ≥-s¥ kl≥k ØrÀí-mØt ≥k h¥Àdrí-kar bínz)

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of over 100 different chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances like tobacco or charbroiled meat. PAHs are usually found as a mixture containing two or more of these compounds, such as soot.

Some PAHs are manufactured. These pure PAHs usually exist as colorless, white, or pale yellow-green solids. PAHs are found in coal tar, crude oil, creosote, and roofing tar, but a few are used in medicines or to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides.

What happens to PAHs when they enter the environment? D PAHs enter the air mostly as releases from volcanoes,

forest fires, burning coal, and automobile exhaust.

D PAHs can occur in air attached to dust particles.

D Some PAH particles can readily evaporate into the air from soil or surface waters.

D PAHs can break down by reacting with sunlight and other chemicals in the air, over a period of days to weeks.

D PAHs enter water through discharges from industrial and wastewater treatment plants.

D Most PAHs do not dissolve easily in water. They stick to solid particles and settle to the bottoms of lakes or rivers.

D Microorganisms can break down PAHs in soil or water after a period of weeks to months.

D In soils, PAHs are most likely to stick tightly to particles; certain PAHs move through soil to contaminate underground water.

D PAH contents of plants and animals may be much higher than PAH contents of soil or water in which they live.

How might I be exposed to PAHs?

D Breathing air containing PAHs in the workplace of coking, coal-tar, and asphalt production plants; smokehouses; and municipal trash incineration facilities.

D Breathing air containing PAHs from cigarette smoke, wood smoke, vehicle exhausts, asphalt roads, or agricultural burn smoke.

D Coming in contact with air, water, or soil near hazardous waste sites.

D Eating grilled or charred meats; contaminated cereals, flour, bread, vegetables, fruits, meats; and processed or pickled foods.

D Drinking contaminated water or cow’s milk.



Where can I get more information? For more information, contact the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-32, Atlanta, GA 30333. Phone: 1-888-422-8737, FAX: 770-488-4178. ToxFAQs Internet address via WWW is http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html ATSDR can tell you where to find occupational and environmental health clinics. Their specialists can recognize, evaluate, and treat illnesses resulting from exposure to hazardous substances. You can also contact your community or state health or environmental quality department if you have any more questions or concerns.

ToxFAQs Internet address via WWW is http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs)

D Nursing infants of mothers living near hazardous waste sites may be exposed to PAHs through their mother's milk.

How can PAHs affect my health?

Mice that were fed high levels of one PAH during pregnancy had difficulty reproducing and so did their offspring. These offspring also had higher rates of birth defects and lower body weights. It is not known whether these effects occur in people.

Animal studies have also shown that PAHs can cause harmful effects on the skin, body fluids, and ability to fight disease after both short- and long-term exposure. But these effects have not been seen in people.

How likely are PAHs to cause cancer?

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that some PAHs may reasonably be expected to be carcinogens.

Some people who have breathed or touched mixtures of PAHs and other chemicals for long periods of time have developed cancer. Some PAHs have caused cancer in laboratory animals when they breathed air containing them (lung cancer), ingested them in food (stomach cancer), or had them applied to their skin (skin cancer).

Is there a medical test to show whether I’ve been exposed to PAHs?

In the body, PAHs are changed into chemicals that can attach to substances within the body. There are special tests that can detect PAHs attached to these substances in body tissues or blood. However, these tests cannot tell whether any

health effects will occur or find out the extent or source of your exposure to the PAHs. The tests aren’t usually available in your doctor’s office because special equipment is needed to conduct them.

Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a limit of 0.2 milligrams of PAHs per cubic meter of air (0.2 mg/m3). The OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for mineral oil mist that contains PAHs is 5 mg/m3

averaged over an 8-hour exposure period.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that the average workplace air levels for coal tar products not exceed 0.1 mg/m3 for a 10-hour workday, within a 40-hour workweek. There are other limits for workplace exposure for things that contain PAHs, such as coal, coal tar, and mineral oil.

Glossary

Carcinogen: A substance that can cause cancer.

Ingest: Take food or drink into your body.

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1995. Toxicological profile for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

Appendix H

CHAPIS Gridded Emissions Output

1/28/2014 CHAPIS: Calculate Statistics Results

1/1

Maximum Value: 107 Lbs./yr. Note: Data and summary statistics in this table are for point (industrial) sources only.Average Value: 107 Lbs./yr. Only point sources that fall within WHOLE grid cells are included in this table.Total Emissions: 107 Lbs./yr.

Combined Sources Within Map View:

33900 3150 107 924 598 38700

OnroadMobile

Of f roadMobile I ndustrial Small

Commercial A reawide Total

Benzene (Lbs.)

Note: Only complete grid cells are reported. The cellsincluded in this report are indicated on the map with a bluebox. The number of grid cells included can be adjusted byzooming the map in or out.

All gridded source types and all available facility categoriesare included in the summary, for any WHOLE grid cellswithin the map view.

1 Benzene industrial (point) emissions source found

Facil ID Company Addr ess Benzene(Lbs./yr ) SIC Code

115536 AES REDONDO BEACH, LLC 1100 HARBOR DRREDONDO BEACH, CA 90277 107 49 - Electric,Gas,Sanitary Services


http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facdet.php?co_=19&ab_=SC&facid_=115536&dis_=SC&dbyr=2001


1/1

Maximum Value: 481 Tons/yr. Note: Data and summary statistics in this table are for point (industrial) sources only.Average Value: 481 Tons/yr. Only point sources that fall within WHOLE grid cells are included in this table.Total Emissions: 481 Tons/yr.


431 127 481 21.8 36.2 1100

OnroadMobile



Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) (Tons)



1 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) industrial (point) emissions source found

Facil ID Company Addr ess Nitr ogen Oxides(NOx) (Tons/yr ) SIC Code





1/1

Maximum Value: 221 Tons/yr. Note: Data and summary statistics in this table are for point (industrial) sources only.Average Value: 221 Tons/yr. Only point sources that fall within WHOLE grid cells are included in this table.Total Emissions: 221 Tons/yr.


19.1 7.94 221 1.73 20.6 270

OnroadMobile



P articulate Matter<=10 (P M10) (Tons)



1 Particulate Matter<=10 (PM10) industrial (point) emissions source found

Facil ID Company Addr essPar ticulateMatter <=10

(PM10) (Tons/yr )SIC Code




Health Impact Assessment - Hermosa Beach - February 2014 - Draft

News & Politics

Transcript of Health Impact Assessment - Hermosa Beach - February 2014 - Draft