1 Mary Quinn
From: Victoria Yundt <
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 6:03 PM
To: Clerk; Jennifer Clark; Robert Holt;
Cc: Michael Lozeau; Juliana Lopez
Subject: Re: Supplemental Comment in Support of LIUNA’s Appeals of the City of Fresno Planning Commission’s Decision to Uphold the Planning and Development Department Director’s Approval of the Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 and Related Environmen...
Attachments: 2023.11.01 LIUNA Appellant Supplemental Comment re P22-04122 - FINAL & Ex. 1.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Honorable President Maxwell, Vice‐President Perea, and Councilmembers Karbassi, Arias, Chavez, Bredefeld, and Esparza, Clerk Stermer, Director Clark, Mr. Holt, and Mr. Siegrist:
On behalf of Appellant Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 294 and its members living in the City of Fresno (“LIU
NA”), please find comments attached regarding the Environmental Assessment No. P22‐04122 and Development Permit Application No. P22‐
04122, submitted by Living Spaces (the “Applicant”), and prepared for the proposed development of an approximately 104,867 square‐foot Living Spaces furniture retail store and showroom and associated parking, to be locate d upon an approximately 8‐acre site at the east side of North Abby Street between East Alluvial and East Spruce Avenues, in Fresno, California (the “Project”), which is scheduled to be heard on appeal by the City of Fresno City Council on November 2, 2023 (City Council Agenda Ite m 2 (ID No. 23‐1506)).
Thank you for your assistance. If you could please confirm receipt of this email and the attached comments, it would be appreciated. Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Victoria
‐‐
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
(she/her)
Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment(s) may contain privileged or confidential information. Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited by law. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you.
2 November 1, 2023
Via E-mail
Tyler Maxwell, President
Annalisa Perea, Vice-President
Mike Karbassi, Councilmember
Miguel Arias, Councilmember
Luis Chavez, Councilmember
Garry Bredefeld, Councilmember
Nelson Esparza, Councilmember
City of Fresno City Council
Attn: Todd Stermer, City Clerk
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Jennifer K. Clark, Director
Rob Holt, Supervising Planner
Philip Siegrist, Planner
Planning and Development Department
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Re: Supplemental Comment in Support of LIUNA’s Appeals of the City of Fresno Planning Commission’s Decision to Uphold the Planning and Development Department Director’s Approval of the Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 and Related Environmental Assessment No. P22- 04122, Including the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Living Spaces Retail Project; November 2, 2023 City Council Agenda Item 2 (ID No. 23- 1506)
Dear Honorable President Maxwell, Vice-President Perea, and Councilmembers Karbassi, Arias, Chavez, Bredefeld, and Esparza, Clerk Stermer, Director Clark, Mr. Holt, and Mr. Siegrist:
I am writing on behalf of Appellant Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 294 and its members living in the City of Fresno (“LIUNA”), regarding the Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 and Development Permit Application No. P22- 04122, submitted by Living Spaces (the “Applicant”), and prepared for the proposed development of an approximately 104,867 square-foot Living Spaces furniture retail store and showroom and associated parking, to be located upon an approximately 8-acre site at the east side of North Abby Street between East Alluvial and East Spruce Avenues, in Fresno, California (the “Project”), which is scheduled to be heard on appeal by the City of Fresno (“City”) City Council on November 2, 2023.
LIUNA submitted comments on the original Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND” or “MND”) on May 26, 2023. On July 24, 2023, Planning and Development Department Director, pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) Section 15-5009,
Living Spaces Retail Project, City Council Agenda Item 2 (ID No. 23 -1506) Appeals of Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 & Related Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 November 1, 2023
approved the Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 and Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 filed by Living Spaces. On August 8, 2023, LIUNA timely appealed the Director’s July 24, 2023 approval decisions. Prior to the Planning Commission’s October 4, 2023 appeal hearing for the project, LIUNA submitted a supplemental comment letter, which was prepared with the expert assistance of wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Mr.
Smallwood’s comment and his resume are attached as Exhibit A to LIUNA’s October 3, 2023 supplemental comment letter. On October 4, 2023, the Planning Commission denied LIUNA’s appeals. On October 16, 2023, LIUNA timely appealed the Planning Commission’s October 4, 2023 decision of the Planning Director’s approvals of the Development Permit Application and related MND for the Project.
As noted in LIUNA’s May 26, 2023 and October 3, 2023 comment letters and July 24, 2023 and October 16, 2023 appeals, LIUNA is concerned that the IS/MND prepared for the Project is legally inadequate. After reviewing the MND, we conclude that it fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts, including biological resources, air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas, and energy impacts. Therefore, we request that the City prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code (“PRC”) section 21000, et seq. This supplemental comment on the IS/MND has been prepared with the expert assistance of environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). SWAPE’s comment and resumes are attached as Exhibit 1 hereto and incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
As discussed below, SWAPE reported several issues related to the IS/MND requiring that the City prepare an EIR for the proposed Project.
DISCUSSION
I. THE IS/MND FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE THE PROJECT’S AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS.
A. The IS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Air Quality Impacts Requiring an EIR.
In determining that CEQA’s subsequent review provisions apply to the proposed Project, the City relied on emissions calculated with CalEEMod. 2022.1. (Ex. 1, pp. 1-3; IS/MND, p. 29.) This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-specific information related to a number of factors. For example, SWAPE explains that “CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type.” (Ex. 1, p. 1.) When more specific project information is known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The model is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions.
However, as SWAPE notes, the City’s use of CalEEMod. 2022.1 “poses a problem as the Living Spaces Retail Project, City Council Agenda Item 2 (ID No. 23 -1506) Appeals of Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 & Related Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 November 1, 2023
currently available version of CalEEMod 2022.1 is described as a ‘soft release’ which fails to provide complete output files. Specifically, the ‘User Changes to Default Data’ table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values.” (Id. p. 2; IS/MND, Appendix A, p. 66.) As a result, “the output files associated with CalEEMod Version 2022.1 fail to present the exact parameters used to calculate Project emissions.” (Ex. 1, p. 2.) Therefore, SWAPE states:
[A]n EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, or includes an updated air model using an older release of CalEEMod. (Ex. 1, p. 3.)
Thus, without preparing either an updated air quality analysis that includes the complete output files for the CalEEMod 2022.1, including the specific numeric changes to the default values, or preparing an updated air model using an older release of CalEEMod, the City fails to adequately analyze the potentially significant air quality and/or GHG impacts from project- generated emissions.
In addition, SWAPE also reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files provided in the “Living Spaces Fresno Project Custom Report” model included at Appendix A to the IS/MND, and found that several model inputs used to generate a project’s construction emissions were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. (Ex. 1 , p. 2.) As a result, SWAPE concludes that the Project’s construction emissions are underestimated. (Id.) An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. Specifically, SWAPE found that several values used in the IS/MND and “Living Spaces Fresno Project Custom Report” model’s air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND or otherwise unjustified (Ex. 1, pp. 3-4), including: “Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
Because of these errors in the IS/MND, the Project’s construction emissions were underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts. Thus, an EIR is needed to adequately address the air quality impacts of the proposed Project, and to mitigate those impacts accordingly.
B. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Health Impacts as a Result of Diesel Particulate Emissions.
An EIR is required to evaluate the significant health impacts to individuals and workers from the Project’s operational and construction-related diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions as a result of the Project. SWAPE’s analysis of health risks related to the Project concluded that the IS/MND failed to adequately analyze the health impacts related to the Project’s operational and construction DPM emissions, and provides substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have significant health impacts as a result of such emissions. (See Ex. 1, pp. 4-11.)
Living Spaces Retail Project, City Council Agenda Item 2 (ID No. 23 -1506) Appeals of Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 & Related Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 November 1, 2023
1. The IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate health risks from DPM emissions.
An EIR should be prepared to evaluate the significant health impacts to individuals and workers from the Project’s operational and construction-related DPM emissions. According to SWAPE, the IS/MND incorrectly concluded that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). (Ex. 1, pp. 4-6 (citing IS/MND, p. 32).) However, the IS/MND fails to mention or evaluate the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project construction or operation whatsoever. As such, the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons.
First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the IS/MND fails to quantitatively evaluate construction and operational-related TACs, or make a reasonable effort to connect emissions to health impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors from the Project. (Ex. 1, p. 5.) SWAPE identifies potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. (Id. (citing IS/MND, pp. 4, 31).) As such, the IS/MND fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project- generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.
Second, the IS/MND’s conclusion is also inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines.1 (Ex. 1, pp. 5-6.) OEHHA recommends that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. (Id., p. 5.) The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. (Id., p. 6.) Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the Project be evaluated. (Id.) An EIR is therefore required to analyze these impacts. (Id.)
Third, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact of the Project to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) specific numeric threshold of 20 in one million. (Ex. 1, p. 6.) Without conducting a quantified construction and operational HRA, the IS/MND also fails to evaluate the cumulative lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors from the Project’s construction and operation together. This is incorrect, and as a result, the IS/MND’s evaluation cannot be relied upon to determine Project significance. OEHHA guidance requires that the excess cancer risk be calculated separately for all sensitive receptor age bins, then summed to evaluate the total cancer risk posed by all Project activities. Therefore, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health
1 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
Living Spaces Retail Project, City Council Agenda Item 2 (ID No. 23 -1506) Appeals of Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 & Related Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 November 1, 2023
risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted and compared to the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million.
Thus, to more accurately determine the health risks associated with the Project’s operational and construction-related DPM emissions, an EIR should be prepared that includes updated health risk calculations using correct guidance.
2. There is substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health risk impact.
Correcting the above errors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. (Ex. 1, pp. 6-11.) SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential health risk impacts posed to residential sensitive receptors as a result of the Project’s construction and operational TAC emissions.
SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 125 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SJVAPCD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors.
While utilizing the recommended age sensitivity factors, SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately 125 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation is approximately 21.1 in one million for infants. (Id., p. 10.) SWAPE also concluded that the total excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of project construction and operation is approximately 32.8 in one million. (Id.) Therefore, the cancer risk for infants and lifetime residents exceeds the SJVAPCD’s threshold of 20 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. Hence, an EIR is required for the Project.
CEQA requires an agency to include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project’s air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. SWAPE’s screening-level HRA demonstrates that the Project’s construction and operation may have a significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used.
Because SWAPE’s screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, the City must prepare an EIR. This EIR should also include a construction and operational HRA which makes a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors. Thus, as SWAPE recommends, “an EIR analysis should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.” (Id., p. 11.)
C. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Requiring an EIR.
Despite the Project’s large size and numerous additional vehicle trips per day, the MND concludes that the Project will not generate greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions with any significant environmental impacts. The primary rationale cited by the MND is the Project’s Living Spaces Retail Project, City Council Agenda Item 2 (ID No. 23 -1506) Appeals of Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 & Related Environmental Assessment No. P22-04122 November 1, 2023
consistency with a checklist developed to implement the City of Fresno’s GHG Reduction Plan.
However, the few checklist items relevant to the Project fail to address the Project’s vehicle emissions – one of the GHG sources from the Project. The MND’s effort to utilize the checklist for this Project fails to disclose or meaningfully address the Project’s GHG impacts.
Although the checklist items identified in Appendix D would be applicable to certain aspects of the Project, none of them address the vehicle operations proposed by the Project. “If there is substantial evidence that the effects of a particular project may be cumulatively considerable notwithstanding the project's compliance with the specified requirements in the plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, an EIR must be prepared for the project.” (14 CCR § 15183.5(b)(2).) Because the checklist does not include a measure that would address the GHG emissions from the 311 new daily vehicle trips as a result of the Project, there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project’s may have a significant GHG impact. (See 14 Cal.
Admin. Code § 15064.4(a) (“A lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project”).)
Additionally, as SWAPE points out, the IS/MND includes reduction measures from the GHG Reduction Plan that are intended to mitigate GHG emissions but are not formally included as mitigation measures. As a result, these GHG reduction measures may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. (Ex. 1, pp. 11-13.) Therefore, there is no guarantee that any of the IS/MND’s GHG reduction measures will be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. (Id., p. 13.) Therefore, in incorrectly including several GHG mitigation measures without properly committing to their implementation, “the Project’s GHG analysis is insufficient and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.” (Id.) Thus, “an EIR is prepared to include the applicable strategies from the City’s GHG Reduction Plan as formal mitigation measures.” (Id.)
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, LIUNA requests that an EIR be prepared for the Project and that it be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. LIUNA reserves the right to supplement these comments in advance of and during public hearings concerning the Project. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).) Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
S ncerely,
Victoria Yundt
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP
EXHIBIT 1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
m
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
p
[email protected]
November 1, 2023
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: C omments on the Development Permit Application Project No. P22-04122 Dear Ms. Yundt,
We have reviewed the May 2023 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Development Permit Application No. P22-04122 (“Project”) located in the City of Fresno (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 104,867-sqaure-feet (“SF”) of retail space and 298 parking spaces on an 8- acre site.
Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.
Air Quality
Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files
Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”). 1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user 1 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.
2 can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and “output files” are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.
According to the IS/MND, CalEEMod Version 2022.1 is relied upon to estimate Project emissions (p. 4.2- 10). However, this poses a problem as the currently available version of CalEEMod 2022.1 is described as a “soft release” which fails to provide complete output files.2 Specifically, the “User Changes to Default Data” table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 66):
However, previous CalEEMod Versions, such as 2020.4.0, include the specific numeric changes to the model’s default values (see example excerpt below):
The output files associated with CalEEMod Version 2022.1 fail to present the exact parameters used to calculate Project emissions. To remedy this issue, the IS/MND should have provided access to the model’s “.JSON” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised input parameters. 3 Without access to the complete output files, including the specific numeric changes to the default values, we cannot verify that the IS/MND’s air modeling and subsequent analysis is an accurate
2 “CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Soft Release.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2022, available at: https://caleemod.com/. 3 “Video Tutorials for CalEEMod Version 2022.1.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/tutorials.
3 reflection of the proposed Project. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, or includes an updated air model using an older release of CalEEMod.4 Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Living Spaces Fresno Project Custom Report” model includes changes to the default construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 66).
As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 56):
As previously stated, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 5 As demonstrated above in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Construction would start in June 2023 and occur for 10 months. Overlap of building construction and architectural coating” (Appendix A, pp. 66).
Regarding the Project’s anticipated construction duration, the IS/MND states:
“Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in June 2023 and continue for a period of 10 months” (p. 30).
However, the changes to the individual construction phase lengths remain unsubstantiated. While the IS/MND states that the total duration of Project construction would be 10 months, the IS/MND fails to substantiate the individual construction phase lengths. Until specific evidence is provided, the model
4 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
5 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
4 should have included proportionately altered individual phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 10 months.
The construction schedule included in the model presents an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).
6 By disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As a result, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. Until we are able to verify the revised construction schedule, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Regarding the health risk impacts associated with Project construction and operation, the IS/MND states:
“Construction of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel- fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following the Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions as required by Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Project construction emissions would be below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Once the proposed project is constructed, the proposed project would not be a significant source of long-term operational emissions.
6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 32.
5 Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project operation. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation” (p. 32).
As demonstrated above, the IS/MND claims that Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact as criteria air pollutant emissions would not exceed the relevant significance thresholds.
However, the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons.
First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”
7 This poses a problem, as according to the IS/MND, construction of the Project would produce DPM emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a duration of approximately 10 months (p. 4). Furthermore, according to the IS/MND provided, operation of the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 311 daily unadjusted driveway trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 31). However, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to evaluate the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project construction and operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.
Third, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks. 8 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”9 As the Project’s anticipated construction duration of up to 10 months exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire construction period.
Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate
7 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 8 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 9 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 6 the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).10 While the IS/MND fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30- year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.
Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the Project’s combined excess cancer risk to the applicable SJVAPCD’s specific numeric threshold of 20 in one million.
The IS/MND should require all future projects to conduct an HRA comparing the excess cancer risk impact to the SJVAPCD’s specific numeric threshold of 20 in one million in a formal mitigation measure.
Pursuant to CEQA and SJAVPCD guidance, an analysis of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted.
Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.11 As discussed above, the model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). 12, 13 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.
We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM
10 exhaust estimates from the DEIR’s CalEEMod
output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.14 The IS/MND’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 1,751 pounds of DPM over the 305-day construction period.15 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability
10 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4. 11 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 12 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 13 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 14 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 15 See Attachment A for health risk calculations.
7 in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑠𝑠� = 1,750.9 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝐸
305 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔 𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸 𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔
3,600 𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.03014 grams per second (“g/s”).
Subtracting the 305-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 29.1 years. The IS/MND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 20 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.
Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑠𝑠� = 20 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝐸
365 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔 𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸 𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔
3,600 𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000288 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as an 8-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 254- by 127-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.
An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Fresno was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data. 16 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.
17 According to the IS/MND, the nearest sensitive
receptors is located approximately 65 feet, or 20 meters, of the Project site (p. 32). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 125 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 1.816 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 125 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1816 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.3172 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 125 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.03172 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.18
16 “Fresno.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0627000. 17 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf. 18 See Attachment B for AERSCREEN output files.
8 We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SJVAPCD.19 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high- point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:
Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)20
Age
Sensitivity
Factor21
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home22
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)23
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group.
Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the
cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day
-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. To assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:
19 “Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document.” SJVAPCD, May 2015, available at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf. 20 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/cr nr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
21 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 22 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 23 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 9 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × � 𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸
where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:
𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 305-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.59 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.41 years of the infantile stage of life, the entire child stage of life (2 – 16 years), as well as the entire adult (16 – 30 years) stage of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.
10 The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1816 2.10E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Construction 0.25 2.11E-05
Construction 0.59 0.1816 1.48E-05
Operation 1.41 0.0317 6.26E-06
Child (2 - 16) Total 14 0.0317 8.27E-06
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0317 1.27E-06
Lifetime 30 3.28E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks to the 3rd trimester of pregnancy and infant receptors at the MEIR located approximately 125 meters away, over the course of Project construction, are approximately 2.10, 21.1, 8.27, and 1.27 in one million, respectively. The total excess cancer risk associated with Project construction is approximately 32.8 in one million. The infant and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.
Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.
EPA, 1992).
In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).
The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening- level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. As our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could 11 result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR analysis should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.
Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
Pursuant with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the IS/MND claims the Project is consistent with the Fresno General Plan (“GP”), stating:
“The City of Fresno updated its 2014 GHG Reduction Plan in the year 2021 (GHG Reduction Plan Update) to conform with existing applicable State climate change policies and regulations to reduce local community GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030, consistent with the State objectives set by SB 32. The GHG Reduction Plan Update outlines strategies that the city will undertake to achieve its proportional share of GHG emission reductions. The GHG Reduction Plan Update includes a Consistency IS/MND to help the city provide a streamlined review process for new development projects that are subject to discretionary review pursuant to CEQA. This analysis evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan Update” (p. 58).
As demonstrated above, the 2021 GHG Reduction Plan includes an update to the 2014 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. Furthermore, the GHG Reduction plan Project Consistency IS/MND states:
“GHG Reduction Plan Update consistency review involves the evaluation of project consistency with the applicable strategies of the GHG Reduction Plan Update. The GHG reduction strategies identified in the GHG Reduction Plan Update relies upon the General Plan and additional local measures as the basis of the development related strategies to reduce GHG emissions. This IS/MND is developed based on the key local GHG reduction strategies and actions identified in the GHG Reduction Plan Update that are applicable to proposed development projects. Note that not all strategies listed below will apply to all projects. For example, not all projects will meet mixed-use related policies of the General Plan, because not all projects are required to be mixed use” (Appendix D, pp. 111).
As discussed above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impact based on the Project’s consistency with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan.
Specifically, the IS/MND claims that the Project would be consistent with the applicable strategies (see excerpt below) (pp. 111, 112, 113; Table 3).
12 13
However, the IS/MND’s claim that the Project is consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan, and the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is unsupported, as the IS/MND fails to implement the above-mentioned reduction measures as formal mitigation measures. According to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on Mitigation Measures:
“While not “mitigation”, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP).
Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact.”
24 As demonstrated above, measures that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Thus, we cannot guarantee that the above-mentioned reduction strategies would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As such, the IS/MND fails to demonstrate consistency with the GHG Reduction Plan Update. Until an EIR is prepared to include the applicable strategies from the City’s GHG Reduction Plan as formal mitigation measures, the Project’s GHG analysis is insufficient and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project.
Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 25 SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1:
24 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 25 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4 .0-10; 4.0-19 –
4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 14 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
i) On Caltrans projects, Caltrans Standard Specifications 10-Dust Control, 17-Watering, and 18-Dust Palliative shall be incorporated into project specifications.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.
Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low-emission heavy- duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). 15 y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters. aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
1. Source of supply
2. Quantity of fuel
3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers. 16 - Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
i. Marked crosswalks
ii. Count-down signal timers
iii. Curb extensions iv. Speed tables
iv. Raised crosswalks
v. Raised intersections
vi. Median islands
vii. Tight corner radii
viii. Roundabouts or mini-circles
ix. On-street parking
x. Chicanes/chokers
- Create urban non-motorized zones
- Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects - Dedicate land for bike trails
- Limit parking supply through:
i. Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements ii. Creation of maximum parking requirements
iii. Provision of shared parking
- Require residential area parking permit.
- Provide ride-sharing programs
i. Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing v
ehicles
iii. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides iv. Permanent transportation management association membership and finding requirement.
Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. c) Include off-s ite measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i. Use energy and fuel-e fficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-e mitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; 17 xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride- matching services;
iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
18 v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
o) Implement p referential parking permit program
p) Implement school pool and bus programs
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduces emissions released during Project construction and operation.
Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero- carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. Until the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered, the Project should not be approved.
An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional 19 information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
M
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: Updated Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul Rosenfeld CV
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.06 Total DPM (lbs) 95.67123288 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.01 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.328767123 Total DPM (g) 43396.47123 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.054794521 Construction Duration (days) 284 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.0016468 Total DPM (lbs) 20 Total DPM (lbs) 93.36986301 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000287671 Total DPM (g) 42352.56986 Total Acreage 8 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 6/5/2023 Max Horizontal (meters) 254.46 Total Acreage 8 End Date 3/15/2024 Min Horizontal (meters) 127.23 Max Horizontal (meters) 254.46 Construction Days 284 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal (meters) 127.23 Setting Fresno Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.02 Population 544,510 Setting Fresno Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.109589041 Start Date 6/5/2023 Population 544,510 Construction Duration (days) 21 End Date 4/5/2024
Total DPM (lbs) 2.301369863 Total Construction Days 305 Total DPM (g) 1043.90137 Total Years of Construction 0.84 Start Date 3/15/2024 Total Years of Operation 29.16
End Date 4/5/2024
Construction Days 21
Construction Operation
2023 Total Emission Rate
2024
Attachment A
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 10/30/23
13:36:42
TITLE: Living Spaces, Operational
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.288E ‐03 g/s 0.228E‐02 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.889E‐08 g/(s‐m2) 0.705E ‐07 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 254.46 meters 834.84 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 127.23 meters 417.42 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 544510
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ *********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1‐HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1* 1.000 0.3172 0 125.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Attachment B
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 HT
REF TA HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10.0 310.0 2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES ********************** OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1‐HR CONC DIST 1‐HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐
1.00 0.2457 2525.00 0.5096E‐02
25.00 0.2635 2550.00 0.5028E‐02
50.00 0.2789 2575.00 0.4961E‐02
75.00 0.2921 2600.00 0.4896E‐02 100.00 0.3034 2625.00 0.4832E‐02 125.00 0.3172 2650.00 0.4770E‐02 150.00 0.2621 2675.00 0.4709E‐02 175.00 0.1875 2700.00 0.4649E‐02 200.00 0.1528 2725.00 0.4591E‐02 225.00 0.1309 2750.00 0.4534E‐02 250.00 0.1140 2775.00 0.4478E‐02 275.00 0.1005 2800.00 0.4424E‐02 300.00 0.8956E‐01 2825.00 0.4370E‐02 325.00 0.8050E‐01 2850.00 0.4318E‐02 350.00 0.7296E‐01 2875.00 0.4266E‐02 375.00 0.6653E‐01 2900.00 0.4216E‐02 400.00 0.6105E‐01 2925.00 0.4167E‐02 425.00 0.5627E‐01 2950.00 0.4119E‐02 450.00 0.5215E‐01 2975.00 0.4071E‐02 475.00 0.4850E‐01 3000.00 0.4025E‐02 500.00 0.4528E‐01 3025.00 0.3979E‐02 525.00 0.4242E‐01 3050.00 0.3935E‐02 550.00 0.3984E‐01 3075.00 0.3891E‐02 575.00 0.3752E‐01 3100.00 0.3848E‐02 600.00 0.3544E‐01 3125.00 0.3806E‐02 625.00 0.3356E‐01 3150.00 0.3765E‐02 650.00 0.3185E‐01 3175.00 0.3724E‐02 675.00 0.3026E‐01 3199.99 0.3685E‐02 700.00 0.2881E‐01 3225.00 0.3645E‐02 725.00 0.2747E‐01 3250.00 0.3607E‐02 750.00 0.2625E‐01 3275.00 0.3570E‐02 775.00 0.2511E‐01 3300.00 0.3533E‐02 800.00 0.2407E‐01 3325.00 0.3496E‐02 825.00 0.2309E‐01 3350.00 0.3461E‐02 850.00 0.2217E‐01 3375.00 0.3426E‐02 875.00 0.2132E‐01 3400.00 0.3391E‐02 900.00 0.2053E‐01 3425.00 0.3357E‐02 925.00 0.1978E‐01 3450.00 0.3324E‐02 950.00 0.1908E‐01 3475.00 0.3291E‐02 975.00 0.1842E‐01 3500.00 0.3259E‐02 1000.00 0.1780E‐01 3525.00 0.3228E‐02 1025.00 0.1722E‐01 3550.00 0.3197E‐02 1050.00 0.1667E‐01 3575.00 0.3166E‐02 1075.00 0.1615E‐01 3600.00 0.3136E‐02 1100.00 0.1565E‐01 3625.00 0.3106E‐02 1125.00 0.1518E‐01 3650.00 0.3077E‐02 1150.00 0.1473E‐01 3675.00 0.3049E‐02 1175.00 0.1431E‐01 3700.00 0.3021E‐02 1200.00 0.1391E‐01 3725.00 0.2993E‐02 1225.00 0.1352E‐01 3750.00 0.2966E‐02 1250.00 0.1316E‐01 3775.00 0.2939E‐02 1275.00 0.1281E‐01 3800.00 0.2912E‐02 1300.00 0.1247E‐01 3825.00 0.2886E‐02 1325.00 0.1216E‐01 3849.99 0.2861E‐02 1350.00 0.1185E‐01 3875.00 0.2835E‐02 1375.00 0.1156E‐01 3900.00 0.2811E‐02 1400.00 0.1128E‐01 3925.00 0.2786E‐02 1425.00 0.1102E‐01 3950.00 0.2762E‐02 1450.00 0.1076E‐01 3975.00 0.2738E‐02 1475.00 0.1052E‐01 4000.00 0.2715E‐02 1500.00 0.1028E‐01 4025.00 0.2692E‐02 1525.00 0.1005E‐01 4050.00 0.2669E‐02 1550.00 0.9831E‐02 4075.00 0.2647E‐02 1575.00 0.9620E‐02 4100.00 0.2625E‐02 1600.00 0.9417E‐02 4125.00 0.2603E‐02 1625.00 0.9220E‐02 4149.99 0.2582E‐02 1650.00 0.9030E‐02 4175.00 0.2560E‐02 1675.00 0.8847E‐02 4200.00 0.2540E‐02 1700.00 0.8670E‐02 4225.00 0.2519E‐02 1725.00 0.8499E‐02 4250.00 0.2499E‐02 1750.00 0.8334E‐02 4275.00 0.2479E‐02 1775.00 0.8174E‐02 4300.00 0.2459E‐02 1800.00 0.8020E‐02 4325.00 0.2440E‐02 1825.00 0.7871E‐02 4350.00 0.2421E‐02 1850.00 0.7727E‐02 4375.00 0.2402E‐02 1875.01 0.7587E‐02 4400.00 0.2383E‐02 1900.00 0.7451E‐02 4425.00 0.2365E‐02 1924.99 0.7320E‐02 4450.00 0.2346E‐02 1950.00 0.7193E‐02 4475.00 0.2329E‐02 1975.00 0.7069E‐02 4500.00 0.2311E‐02 2000.00 0.6949E‐02 4525.00 0.2293E‐02 2025.00 0.6833E‐02 4550.00 0.2276E‐02 2050.00 0.6720E‐02 4575.00 0.2259E‐02 2075.00 0.6610E‐02 4600.00 0.2242E‐02 2100.00 0.6503E‐02 4625.00 0.2226E‐02 2125.00 0.6400E‐02 4650.00 0.2209E‐02 2150.00 0.6299E‐02 4675.00 0.2193E‐02 2175.00 0.6201E‐02 4700.00 0.2177E‐02 2200.00 0.6105E‐02 4725.00 0.2162E‐02 2225.00 0.6012E‐02 4750.00 0.2146E‐02 2250.00 0.5922E‐02 4775.00 0.2131E‐02 2275.00 0.5834E‐02 4800.00 0.2116E‐02 2300.00 0.5748E‐02 4825.00 0.2101E‐02 2325.00 0.5664E‐02 4850.00 0.2086E‐02 2350.00 0.5582E‐02 4875.00 0.2071E‐02 2375.00 0.5542E‐02 4900.00 0.2057E‐02 2400.00 0.5463E‐02 4925.00 0.2042E‐02 2425.00 0.5386E‐02 4950.00 0.2028E‐02 2450.00 0.5311E‐02 4975.00 0.2014E‐02 2475.00 0.5238E‐02 5000.00 0.2001E‐02 2500.00 0.5166E‐02
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED 1‐HOUR 3‐HOUR 8‐HOUR 24‐HOUR ANNUAL
CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FLAT TERRAIN 0.3184 0.3184 0.3184 0.3184 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 128.00 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.2457 0.2457 0.2457 0.2457 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 10/30/23 13:02:48
TITLE: Living Spaces, Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.165E‐02 g/s 0.131E‐01 lb/hr AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.509E‐07 g/(s‐m2) 0.404E‐06 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 254.46 meters 834.84 feet AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 127.23 meters 417.42 feet INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 544510
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ *********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1‐HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1* 1.000 1.816 0 125.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 HT
REF TA HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10.0 310.0 2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES ********************** OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1‐HR CONC DIST 1‐HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐
1.00 1.407 2525.00 0.2917E‐01
25.00 1.508 2550.00 0.2878E‐01
50.00 1.597 2575.00 0.2840E‐01
75.00 1.672 2600.00 0.2803E‐01 100.00 1.737 2625.00 0.2766E‐01 125.00 1.816 2650.00 0.2731E‐01 150.00 1.501 2675.00 0.2696E‐01 175.00 1.074 2700.00 0.2662E‐01 200.00 0.8747 2725.00 0.2628E‐01 225.00 0.7496 2750.00 0.2596E‐01 250.00 0.6526 2775.00 0.2564E‐01 275.00 0.5753 2800.00 0.2532E‐01 300.00 0.5127 2825.00 0.2502E‐01 325.00 0.4609 2850.00 0.2472E‐01 350.00 0.4177 2875.00 0.2442E‐01 375.00 0.3809 2900.00 0.2414E‐01 400.00 0.3495 2925.00 0.2385E‐01 425.00 0.3221 2950.00 0.2358E‐01 450.00 0.2986 2975.00 0.2331E‐01 475.00 0.2776 3000.00 0.2304E‐01 500.00 0.2592 3025.00 0.2278E‐01 525.00 0.2428 3050.00 0.2253E‐01 550.00 0.2281 3075.00 0.2228E‐01 575.00 0.2148 3100.00 0.2203E‐01 600.00 0.2029 3125.00 0.2179E‐01 625.00 0.1921 3150.00 0.2155E‐01 650.00 0.1823 3175.00 0.2132E‐01 675.00 0.1732 3200.00 0.2109E‐01 700.00 0.1649 3225.00 0.2087E‐01 725.00 0.1573 3250.00 0.2065E‐01 750.00 0.1502 3275.00 0.2043E‐01 775.00 0.1438 3300.00 0.2022E‐01 800.00 0.1378 3325.00 0.2002E‐01 825.00 0.1322 3350.00 0.1981E‐01 850.00 0.1269 3375.00 0.1961E‐01 875.00 0.1221 3400.00 0.1941E‐01 900.00 0.1175 3425.00 0.1922E‐01 925.00 0.1133 3450.00 0.1903E‐01 950.00 0.1093 3475.00 0.1884E‐01 975.00 0.1055 3500.00 0.1866E‐01 1000.00 0.1019 3525.00 0.1848E‐01 1025.00 0.9858E‐01 3550.00 0.1830E‐01 1050.00 0.9542E‐01 3575.00 0.1812E‐01 1075.00 0.9244E‐01 3600.00 0.1795E‐01 1100.00 0.8961E‐01 3625.00 0.1778E‐01 1125.00 0.8691E‐01 3650.00 0.1762E‐01 1150.00 0.8435E‐01 3675.00 0.1745E‐01 1175.00 0.8192E‐01 3700.00 0.1729E‐01 1200.00 0.7961E‐01 3725.00 0.1713E‐01 1225.00 0.7741E‐01 3750.00 0.1698E‐01 1250.00 0.7532E‐01 3775.00 0.1682E‐01 1275.00 0.7332E‐01 3800.00 0.1667E‐01 1300.00 0.7142E‐01 3825.00 0.1652E‐01 1325.00 0.6960E‐01 3850.00 0.1638E‐01 1350.00 0.6786E‐01 3875.00 0.1623E‐01 1375.00 0.6619E‐01 3900.00 0.1609E‐01 1400.00 0.6460E‐01 3925.00 0.1595E‐01 1425.00 0.6307E‐01 3950.00 0.1581E‐01 1450.00 0.6161E‐01 3975.00 0.1568E‐01 1475.00 0.6020E‐01 4000.00 0.1554E‐01 1500.00 0.5884E‐01 4025.00 0.1541E‐01 1525.00 0.5753E‐01 4050.00 0.1528E‐01 1550.00 0.5628E‐01 4075.00 0.1515E‐01 1575.00 0.5507E‐01 4100.00 0.1503E‐01 1600.00 0.5391E‐01 4125.00 0.1490E‐01 1625.00 0.5278E‐01 4150.00 0.1478E‐01 1650.00 0.5169E‐01 4175.00 0.1466E‐01 1675.00 0.5064E‐01 4200.00 0.1454E‐01 1700.00 0.4963E‐01 4225.00 0.1442E‐01 1725.00 0.4865E‐01 4250.00 0.1431E‐01 1750.00 0.4771E‐01 4275.00 0.1419E‐01 1775.00 0.4679E‐01 4300.00 0.1408E‐01 1800.00 0.4591E‐01 4325.00 0.1397E‐01 1825.00 0.4506E‐01 4350.00 0.1386E‐01 1850.00 0.4423E‐01 4375.00 0.1375E‐01 1875.01 0.4343E‐01 4400.00 0.1364E‐01 1900.00 0.4266E‐01 4425.00 0.1354E‐01 1924.99 0.4191E‐01 4450.00 0.1343E‐01 1950.00 0.4118E‐01 4475.00 0.1333E‐01 1975.00 0.4047E‐01 4500.00 0.1323E‐01 2000.00 0.3978E‐01 4525.00 0.1313E‐01 2025.00 0.3912E‐01 4550.00 0.1303E‐01 2050.00 0.3847E‐01 4575.00 0.1293E‐01 2075.00 0.3784E‐01 4600.00 0.1284E‐01 2100.00 0.3723E‐01 4625.00 0.1274E‐01 2125.00 0.3664E‐01 4650.00 0.1265E‐01 2150.00 0.3606E‐01 4675.00 0.1256E‐01 2175.00 0.3550E‐01 4700.00 0.1247E‐01 2200.00 0.3495E‐01 4725.00 0.1237E‐01 2225.00 0.3442E‐01 4750.00 0.1229E‐01 2250.00 0.3390E‐01 4775.00 0.1220E‐01 2275.00 0.3340E‐01 4800.00 0.1211E‐01 2300.00 0.3290E‐01 4825.00 0.1203E‐01 2325.00 0.3242E‐01 4850.00 0.1194E‐01 2350.00 0.3196E‐01 4875.00 0.1186E‐01 2375.00 0.3173E‐01 4900.00 0.1177E‐01 2400.00 0.3127E‐01 4925.00 0.1169E‐01 2425.00 0.3083E‐01 4950.00 0.1161E‐01 2450.00 0.3040E‐01 4975.00 0.1153E‐01 2475.00 0.2998E‐01 5000.00 0.1145E‐01 2500.00 0.2957E‐01
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED 1‐HOUR 3‐HOUR 8‐HOUR 24‐HOUR ANNUAL
CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FLAT TERRAIN 1.823 1.823 1.823 1.823 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 128.00 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 1.407 1.407 1.407 1.407 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C
.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Char
acterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment C
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for l arge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern C alifornia drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of r eleases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations t hroughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by t he former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of M TBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of p erchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water tr eatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against p rovisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in C alifornia and New York.
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles t hat met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients an d regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring n etworks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at m ilitary bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development th rough work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater T echnical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the p rotection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through d esignation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
Attachment D
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.
Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.
Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.
Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.
Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a
AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.
Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.
Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009