PLANNING DIVISION
RECEIVED
City of Orange
chry FORPORATES
Community Development Department ...MAR 0 2 2023
300 E. Chapman Avenue CITY OF ORANGE
Orange, CA 92866
714-744-7220 APPEAL APPLICATION
0562-23 23 APPOS62
APPEAL APPLICATION NO.
This application must be filled out completely. Any appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Department Planning Division within fifteen (15) calendar days after the hearing or action from which the appeal is made (OMC Section 17.08.050 C). The $1000.00 filing fee (initial deposit - actual cost required) must accompany the appeal.
Name of Appellants) Adam Frankel
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Address of Appellants) Oakland, CA 94612
Phone No. (day) (510) 836-4200 (cell) (510) 836-4200
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Appeal of action on case number: PC 33-22
Project address: 840 S. The City Drive, Orange, CA
REASON FOR REQUEST: Please specify and explain WHY you are appealing the decision or determination and indicate specifically the error or abuse of discretion (OMC Section 17.08.050 C).
There is a "fair argument" that the Project may have significant unmitigated adverse environmental impacts.
Therefore, CEQA requires that the City of Orange ("City") prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. SAFER respectfully requests that you do not adopt the MND and instead undertake the necessary efforts to prepare anEIR, as required under CEQA. See Attached letter. 2/24/23
Signature of Appellant (or representative) Date
PLANNING DIVISION USE ONLY: Date of hearing or decision and hearing body Application checked by Date & Time Received 03/02/2023 2:40pmn N:ICDD\PLNG|Administrati on Forms & Templates\Appeal Form. DOC LOZEAU DRURYLe T 510.836.4200 1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150 www.lozeaudrury.com F 510.836.4205 Oakland, CA 94612 [email protected]
February 22, 2023
Via E-mail
David Vazquez, Chair Monique Schwartz, Associate Planner Ernest Glasgow, Vice Chair Community Development Department Davie Simpson, Commissioner City of Orange
Rick Martinez, Commissioner
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Jonathan Trapesonian, Commissioner Orange, CA 92866
Planning Commission
City of Orange [email protected]
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866 Pamela Coleman, City Clerk
[email protected] City of Orange
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
[email protected]
Re: Planning Commission, Regular Session of February 23, 2023, Agenda Item No. 6.2; 840 The City Drive Apartments; Conditional Use Permit No. 3138-21; Major Site Plan Review No. 1040-21; Design Review No. 5030-21; Administrative Adjustment No. 0051-21; Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1875-21 (City File No. 22-0718) Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND" or "MND"') prepared for the 840 The City Drive Apartments Project ("Project"), for Applicant SLR Orange Development, LLC (hereinafter the "Applicant"), including all actions related or referring to the demolition of an existing retail building and proposed construction of a new 225- unit mixed-use apartment development, open parking structure for the adjacent office complex use, related site improvements, and a reduction of 48 parking spaces and 670 square feet of open space, located at 840 The City Drive South.
SAFER is concerned that the MND prepared for the Project is legally inadequate.
SAFER's review of the Project has been assisted by air quality experts Patrick Sutton, PE and Yilin Tian, Ph.D. of Baseline Environmental Consulting ("Baseline"), and certified industrial hygienist Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH. The expert comments of Baseline and Mr.
Offermann are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively.
After reviewing the MND, it is evident that it is inadequate and fails as an informational document. Also, there is a "fair argument" that the Project may have unmitigated adverse Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023
environmental impacts. Therefore, CEQA requires that the City of Orange ("City") prepare an environmental impact report (EIR") for the Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. SAFER respectfully requests that you do not adopt the MND and instead undertake the necessary efforts to prepare an EIR, as required under CEQA.
LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held, "Filf no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR." (Communities for a Better Env't v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504-505).) "Significant environmental effect"' is defined very broadly as "a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment." (Pub. Res. Code ("PRC'") § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial." (No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal. 3d at 83.) "The "foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Communities for a Better Env't v. Cal. Res.
Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA).)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an "environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return." (Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a "document of accountability," intended to "demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action." (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process "protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An EIR is required if "there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a "fair argument" that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (PRC §§ 21100, 21064.) Since "It]he adoption of a negative declaration . .. has a terminal effect on the environmental review process," by allowing the agency "to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR]," negative declarations are allowed only in cases where "the proposed project will not affect the environment at all." (Citizens of Lake Murray v.
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023
San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.)
Under the "fair argument" standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
This 'fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in their decision making. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. (Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, §6.37 (2d ed. Cal.
CEB 2021).) The Courts have explained that "it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).) I. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument That the Project Will have Significant Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy, and Hazardous Waste Impacts.
Air quality experts Patrick Sutton, PE and Yilin Tian, Ph.D. of Baseline Environmental Consulting ("Baseline") reviewed the IS/MND and related documents for the Project. Baseline's comments are attached as Exhibit A. Baseline found that there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have significant air quality, greenhouse gas, energy, and hazardous waste impacts. Therefore, an EIR must be prepared to further evaluate and mitigate these impacts.
A. Air Quality.
According to the MND, project construction will produce emissions of toxic diesel particulate matter ("DPM") and will last approximately one and a half years. (Ex. A., p. 6.).
However, the MND failed to include a quantified health risk assessment for the Project. This is directly contrary to guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023
("ОЕННА"), which provides that a health risk assessment ("HRA") should be prepared for any project lasting substantially longer than two months.
Furthermore, any future HRA "should be conducted to calculate the incremental increase in cancer risk for sensitive receptors (e.g., single-family homes south of the southern project site boundary) exposed to diesel particulate matter emissions during project construction in accordance with the OEHHA guidance for sources with variable emission rates," including by accounting for age and pregnancy status (Id.)
Additionally, the MND suggests that "health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter would not be significant because the project would not exceed the SCAQMD's Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction-generated criteria pollutants." (Id., p. 7.) However, as Baseline explains, "LSTs only apply to criteria air pollutants and were not designed to evaluate localized health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter." (Id.) CEQA requires an analysis to determine whether a Project's toxic air contaminant ("TAC) emissions-including DPM emissions -will have potentially adverse impacts on human health. Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 518 (an EIR must make "a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences.") The failure to address potential health-related impacts resulting from the Project's likely air emissions is problematic because operation of construction equipment during construction, as well as truck trips during future operations, will release DPM emissions into the air, affecting local and regional air quality.
DPM is a known human carcinogen which poses unique health risks to nearby sensitive receptors.. DPM contains 40 toxic chemicals, including benzene, arsenic and lead. (www.p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/diesel-engine-exhaust.) DPM is also listed by the State of California as a toxic air contaminant known to cause cancer in humans. (https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-
65//p65chemicalslistsinglelisttable2021p.pdf.) According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Exposure to diesel exhaust can lead to serious health conditions like asthma and respiratory illnesses and can worsen existing heart and lung disease, especially in children and the elderly. These conditions can result in increased numbers of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, absences from work and school, and premature deaths." (https://www.epa.gov/dera/learn-about-impacts-diesel-exhaust-and-diesel-emissions-reduction- act-dera).
Without an HRA, the MND's conclusion that the Project will not have a significant impact on human health from the Project's construction-related and operational DPM emissions is not supported by substantial evidence. An EIR must be prepared to further address and mitigate these impacts.
B. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023
The MND states that the Project's greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions impact would be less than significant because the Project's estimated emissions rate is below the draft interim GHG threshold set by the South Coast Air Quality Management ("SCAQMD"). However, this finding is improper because SCAQMD has never formally adopted the interim threshold (Ex. A., p. 2.). Furthermore, the 3,000 MTCO2e annual GHG threshold fails to comply with the State's long term climate goals, as detailed by the 2022 California Air Resources Board ("CARB") Scoping Plan (Ld.)
In fact, neither the SCAQMD Governing Board, nor the California Air Resources Board or the California Air Pollution Control Officers' Association - nor any state or regional agency - has adopted the 3000 MTCO2e annual GHG threshold. (Id.) The City issued guidance recommending use of the threshold in 2020; but this, too, is improper because the threshold is not supported by substantial evidence. (Id). In contrast, local and regional agencies throughout California have adopted significantly lower GHG thresholds, ranging from 900 to 2,500 MTCO2e (ld., p. 3.)
In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Center for Biological Diversity v.
Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, a project's GHG emissions should be evaluated based on its effect on California's efforts to meet the State's long-term climate goals.
Pursuant to Executive Order B-55-18, California is committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. However, the City has failed to evaluate to what extent, if any, the Project will contribute its "fair share" in GHG reductions that will be necessary to meet this ambitious goal. (Id., p. 4.) For instance, the MND states that the project would be served with natural gas provided by Southern California Gas. However, the project "could replace natural gas with electric power which will support California's transition away from fossil fuel-based energy sources and will bring the project's GHG emissions associated with building energy use down to zero as the electric supply becomes 100 percent carbon free." (Id.) Similarly, the "project could be designed to provide sufficient electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure beyond the CalGreen mandatory level to support the shift to zero-emission vehicles (e.g., implement the voluntary CalGreen Tier 2 EV charging standards). The ISMND does not evaluate and incorporate the use of all-electric buildings or EV charging infrastructure into the project design." (Id.) Lastly, the MND fails to evaluate consistency with CARB's 2022 Carbon Neutrality Scoping Plan, and instead only evaluates compliance with the 2017 Scoping Plan. (Id., p. 5.) This is improper because the 2022 Scoping Plan is the agency's most current guidance.
Moreover, the 2022 Scoping Plan specifically identifies building decarbonization as a "key strategy for achieving California's climate change mitigation and air quality goals." (Id.) According to the 2022 Scoping Plan, "several studies estimate that the costs of constructing all- electric homes are lower than constructing mixed-fuel new homes, primarily due to the avoided costs of fossil gas infrastructure at the building site, with cost savings in the range of $2,000 to $10,000 per unit." (Id.)
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023
Accordingly, by "failing to evaluate building decarbonization methods such as an all- electric building design, the ISMND has not demonstrated consistency with the key GHG reduction strategies under the 2022 Scoping Plan." (Id.) Therefore, there is a fair argument that the Project may have a significant GHG emissions impact. As such, an EIR must be prepared to more accurately account for and mitigate this impact.
C. Energy Use.
CEQA provides that all Projects must include mitigation measures "to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy." (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3).) Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the "wise and efficient use of energy." (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The "wise and efficient use of energy" is achieved by "(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources." (Id.) Mere compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6 ("Title 24") does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. League to Save Lake Tahoe, 75 Cal. App. 5th at 165; Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 256, 264-65. Notably, in California Clean Energy v. City of Woodland, the court held unlawful an EIR's energy analysis which relied solely upon compliance with Title 24 to conclude that energy impacts would be less than significant. California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 209-13 (City of Woodland).
The courts have recently affirmed City of Woodland, explaining that even where "[an] EIR [has] determined the project's impacts on energy resources would be less than significant," a lead agency must still analyze implementation of all "renewable energy options that might have been available or appropriate for [a] project," including to achieve 100 percent on-site renewable power generation. (League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation v.
County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 166-67.) Furthermore, the court explained, a lead agency's failure to consider implementation of all feasible renewable energy proposals raised during the environmental review process constitutes a "prejudicial error." (Id. at 168.) Here, the MND "evaluates the local utility provider's energy mix, including the percentages of eligible renewable, but fails to adequately consider feasible design features or mitigation measures to reduce the project's fossil fuel consumption, such as eliminating natural gas heating and appliances, installing rooftop solar panels, or installing EV charging infrastructure that exceeds the minimum Title 24 requirements." (Ex. A., p. 6.) Therefore, the MND's energy impacts analysis is inadequate and its conclusion that the Project's energy impacts will be less than significant is unsupported. Stated otherwise, there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have a significant energy impact and an EIR is required.
D. Hazardous Materials.
Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023
According to the MND, a dry-cleaning business was located at the residential portion of the Project site from at least 1989 until 2012. Accordingly, a "release of tetrachloroethene (PCE) from the dry cleaning service has affected soil and soil gas at the project site." (Ex. A., p. 7).
Therefore, in 2017, "the current property owner entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTS) for assessing and remediating the PCE at the project site." (Id.) However, "according to the DTSC EnviroStor database, it does not appear that the Indoor Air Quality Assessment has been reviewed and approved by DTSC." (Id.) Finally, "It also appears that additional environmental investigation activities were performed at the project site in October and September 2022 to further evaluate the chemical quality of soil gas and groundwater, but the results of those investigation activities were not disclosed in the ISMND." (Id.)
The findings from the most recent environmental investigations at the project site should be disclosed in the ISMND for public review. In addition, DTSC should review and approve the findings of all investigative reports and issue a letter of No Further Action prior to the issuance of buildings permits. Accordingly, "To ensure that future residents, workers, and patrons are not exposed to substantial concentrations of hazardous chemicals from vapor intrusion, a mitigation measure should be prepared that requires the applicant to submit a copy of the DTSC letter of No Further Action to the City prior to the issuance of buildings permits." (Id.) Unless and until these corrective actions are taken, there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have significant hazardous waste impacts which may continue to affect the environment and the health of future residents. Therefore, an EIR must be prepared to further evaluate and more appropriately mitigate these impacts.
II. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument That the Project Will Have Significant Adverse Indoor Air Quality and Health Impacts.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, has reviewed the MND and all relevant documents regarding the Project's indoor air emissions. Based on this review, Mr. Offermann concludes that the Project will likely expose future residents living at the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann's CV and expert comments are attached as Exhibit B.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and is listed by the State of California as a Toxic Air Contaminant ("TAC'"). The South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), the agency responsible for regulating air quality within the South Coast Air Basin—which includes the City of Orange—-has established a cancer risk significance threshold from human exposure to carcinogenic TACs of 10 per million. (Ex. B., p. 2.) Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products routinely used in indoor building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, residences, and hotels contain Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023
formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over long periods of time. He states that "It]he primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard.
These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims." (Id., pp. 2-3.) Mr. Offermann concludes that future residents of the proposed Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, even assuming compliance with the California Air Resources Board's formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Id., p.
4.) This risk level is 12 times greater than the SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million.
The California Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of air district significance thresholds in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse environmental impact under CEQA. (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 ["As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District's established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact."].) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an "unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]" exists. (See, Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.)
Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant impacts should be further mitigated to reduce the significant health risks that will result from indoor formaldehyde emissions. (Id., pp. 12-14.) Mr. Offermann proposes various feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, including by imposing a requirement that the Project applicant install high-capacity air filters throughout the building and commit to using only composite wood materials that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, for all of the buildings' interior spaces.
Mr. Offermann's observations constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will likely produce potentially significant air quality and health impacts which the MND has failed to address. Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR to further evaluate and mitigate these impacts to the Project's future residents.
Il. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the MND for the proposed Project fails to comply with CEQA.
Namely, there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have significant impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, and hazardous materials.
Moreover, the MND failed to adequately mitigate the Project's likely impacts. SAFER therefore respectfully requests that you decline to adopt the MND and instead direct staff to undertake the Comments to the City of Orange Planning Commission
Re: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project
February 22, 2023
necessary efforts to prepare an EIR for the proposed Project. Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Adam Frankel
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP
EXHIBIT A
#BASELINE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
16 January 2023
22228-00
Adam Frankel
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Air Quality, and Hazardous Materials Impacts Analyzed in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 840 The City Drive Apartment Project Dear Mr. Frankel:
Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) has reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for 840 The City Drive Apartment Project (project) in the City of Orange (City), California to determine whether potential environmental impacts related to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, energy, air quality, and hazardous materials were appropriately evaluated. Based on our review, we have identified flaws in the ISMND analysis used to support the significance determinations, such as inadequate analysis to demonstrate the project's consistency with the State's long-term climate goals. The specific concerns identified in the ISMND analysis for potential environmental impacts related to GHG emissions, energy, air quality, and hazardous materials are described in detail below.
INVALID USE OF GHG SCREENING LEVEL THRESHOLD
In 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) released a draft guidance document prepared by the GHG Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group) that proposed an interim CEQA GHG significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) for residential/commercial projects. As stated on page 98 of the ISMND, the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold was used to determine whether the project would have a significant GHG emissions impact, as the City has not adopted its own GHG thresholds or Climate Action Plan. In Section 5.8.(a) of the ISMND, the project's net GHG emissions were estimated to be 2,318 MTCO2e per year, which would be less than significant because the emission rate is below the draft interim GHG threshold. This impact determination is not valid for the following three reasons:
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2008. Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEOA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October.
388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | P: (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com • BASELINE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023
1. Neither the lead agency nor any other state or regional agencies have adopted the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold.
2. The 3,000 MTC02e per year threshold is not supported by substantial evidence.
3. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold does not meet the State's long-term climate action goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.
Each of these concerns are discussed further, below.
Threshold Not Adopted
Regarding thresholds of significance, CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(a) states, "Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects." Subsection (b) of the same section states further, "Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency's environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence."
The SCAQMD Governing Board did not adopt the numerical threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year recommended by the Working Group for residential/commercial projects in 2008.
Similarly, neither the California Air Resources Board, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, the City (lead agency), nor any other state or regional agency has adopted the proposed significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for assessing GHG emissions impacts for land use projects.
In 2020, the City issued a Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis memorandum? (memo) to provide a local framework for analyzing GHG emissions in CEQA documents for non- exempt projects in which the City of Orange is the CEQA lead agency. While not formally adopting a GHG threshold for CEQA analysis, the memo recommends using a significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for residential/commercial projects because it is supported by substantial evidence in the SCAQMD's Interim Thresholds. As discussed below, this threshold is not supported by substantial evidence.
Lack of Substantial Evidence
In 2008, the Working Group recommended 3,000 MTCO2e per year as a bright-line threshold based on a 90-percent market capture approach. This approach is intended to take into account expected development and the amount of market capture necessary to support GHG reduction 2 Ashley Brodkin, 2020. Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis. March 24 22228-00 Baseline Comment Letter
FF BASELINE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023
efforts through further project-level evaluation and mitigation. Another common approach for developing a bright-line threshold for GHG emissions is a gap-based analysis, where the necessary reduction in GHG emissions from the land use sector to meet statewide climate action goals (i.e., the "gap") is evaluated after taking into account the GHG reductions from adopted Scoping Plan regulations. Examples of bright-line thresholds that have been adopted for the evaluation of GHG emissions from land use projects include:
• 900 MTCO2e: California Air Pollution Control Offices Association. • 1,100 MTCO2e: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. • 1,100 MTCO2e: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. • 1,150 MTCO2e: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. • 2,500 MTCO2e: County of San Diego.
The SCAQMD never adopted the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e that was recommended by the Working Group in 2008. This was because the Working Group could not come to a consensus on either the scientific approach or the estimated numerical values used for the proposed threshold, as documented in the minutes and presentations of numerous meetings held by the Working Group from 2008 until 2010 when the group became inactive. Some of the reasons the Working Group could not establish substantial evidence to support the 3,000 MTC02e threshold included the following:
• The 3,000 MTCO2e is substantially higher than the bright-line thresholds adopted by other agencies (see examples above).
• An efficiency-based threshold may be more appropriate than a bright-line threshold. • Separate land use sector thresholds may be more appropriate (e.g., 1,400 MTCO2e/year was recommended by the Working Group for commercial projects). • The 90-percent market capture rate approach is inadequate. • All projects should be subject to some kind of GHG reduction requirement or performance standard.
3 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2022. GHG Significance Thresholds webpage. Available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance- thresholds. Last updated 2022.
22228-00 Baseline Comment Letter
BASELINE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023
Furthermore, the approach used by the Working Group for developing the draft 3,000 MTCO2e threshold in 2008 is now outdated because it does not account for current projections in long- term market growth. As a result, the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold used in the ISMND is not supported by substantial evidence.
Inadequate Analysis of Carbon Neutrality by 2045
Based on the California Supreme Court findings for Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) (62 Cal.4th 204), a project's GHG emissions should be evaluated based on its effect on California's efforts to meet its long-term climate goals. As the Supreme Court held in that case, a project that would be consistent with meeting those goals can be found to have a less-than-significant impact on climate change under CEQA. If a project would contribute its "fair share" of what will be required to achieve those long-term climate goals, then a reviewing agency can find that the impact will not be significant because the project will help to solve the problem of global climate change (62 Cal.4th 220-223).
In accordance with Executive Order B-55-18, California is committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. The 3,000 MTCO2e threshold used in the ISMND has no correlation to the State's carbon neutrality goal for 2045. To determine an individual project's "fair share," the ISMND analysis should have focused on the design elements or performance standards that need to be incorporated into the project to support carbon neutrality by 2045. The primary sources of GHG emissions from the project would be from building energy use and transportation; therefore, the ISMND should have evaluated if the project can be designed to ensure it will achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
With respect to building energy use, as stated in the ISMND (page 88), the project would be served with gas provided by Southern California Gas. The project could replace natural gas with electric power which will support California's transition away from fossil fuel-based energy sources and will bring the project's GHG emissions associated with building energy use down to zero as the electric supply becomes 100 percent carbon free. With respect to transportation, the ISMND states that the project would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California's Energy Efficiency Standards. The project could be designed to provide sufficient electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure beyond the CalGreen mandatory level to support the shift to zero- emission vehicles (e.g., implement the voluntary CalGreen Tier 2 EV charging standards). The ISMND does not evaluate and incorporate the use of all-electric buildings or EV charging infrastructure into the project design. Therefore, the ISMND analysis of the project's impact on the environment from GHG emissions based on the numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e is inadequate because it fails to demonstrate how the project would meet the State's long-term climate action goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.
22228-00 Baseline Comment Letter
BONSA CONSULTING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023
FAILURE TO EVALUATE CONSISTENCY WITH 2022 SCOPING PLAN
The ISMND evaluates the project's consistency with the GHG reduction strategies described in the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) 2017 Scoping Plan Update. As stated on page 102 of the ISMND, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable strategies of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.
The ISMND fails to discuss the project's consistency with CARB's current 2022 Scoping Plan, 4 which lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. According to the 2022 Scoping Plan, decarbonization of California's buildings is a key strategy for achieving California's climate change mitigation and air quality goals. Building decarbonization refers to an umbrella of strategies to reduce residential and commercial building emissions. All-electric new construction is one of the most cost-effective near-term applications for building decarbonization efforts. As stated in the 2022 Scoping Plan, several studies estimate that the costs of constructing all-electric homes are lower than constructing mixed-fuel new homes, primarily due to the avoided costs of fossil gas infrastructure at the building site, with cost- savings in the range of $2,000 to $10,000 per unit.
As stated in the ISMND (page 88), the project would be served with gas provided by Southern California Gas. By failing to evaluate building decarbonization methods such as an all-electric building design, the ISMND has not demonstrated consistency with the key GHG reduction strategies under the 2022 Scoping Plan. By conflicting with the GHG reductions strategies of the 2022 Scoping Plan, the project could have a potentially significant impact related to GHG emissions.
INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF ENERGY IMPACTS
The ISMND provides quantitative estimates of the project's construction energy consumption and annual operational energy consumption (pages 87-88), and then states that the project would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as applicable. The ISMND then concludes that the proposed project's construction and operational energy use would result in a less-than- significant impact on the environment.
In both the California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173 (CCEC) and Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, the courts found that compliance with the Title 24 Building Code does not, by itself, constitute an adequate assessment of mitigation measures that can be taken to address the energy impacts during construction and operation of a project. As stated in CCEC, that is because Title 24 "does not extend beyond the buildings themselves" and "does not address many of the • California Air Resources Board, 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16. 22228-00 Baseline Comment Letter
BASELINE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023
considerations required under appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines." According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, energy conservation is defined as the "wise and efficient use of energy" which is achieved by "(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources." Therefore, the ISMND reliance on Title 24 does not adequately address potential energy impacts during project construction and operation.
The court recently affirmed in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63 that even where "[an] EIR [has] determined the project's impacts on energy resources would be less than significant," a lead agency must still analyze implementation of all "renewable energy options that might have been available or appropriate for [a] project," '. The ISMND states that "The proposed project would be served with gas provided by Southern California Gas (SoCalGas)" and "The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by SCE, which was required to meet California's renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of 33 percent by 2020." The ISMND evaluates the local utility provider's energy mix, including the percentages of eligible renewable, but fails to adequately consider feasible design features or mitigation measures to reduce the project's fossil fuel consumption, such as eliminating natural gas heating and appliances, installing rooftop solar panels, or installing EV charging infrastructure that exceeds the minimum Title 24 requirements. Therefore, the ISMND's analysis of energy impacts is inadequate and the conclusion that the project's energy impacts are less than significant is unsupported.
INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
matter emissions are short-term in nature. Moreover, the current methodological protocols required by the SCAQMD and ARB when studying the health risk posed by diesel particulate matter assume the following: (1) 24-hour constant exposure; (2) 350 days a year; (3) for a continuous period lasting 30 years. In addition, as shown in Impact 5.3(b), the proposed project would not exceed the LST for construction-generated criteria pollutants. " According to the ISMND (page 60), construction of the project would take approximately one and a half years. For health risk assessments, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (EHHA) does not recommend assessing cancer risk for projects lasting less than two months due to the uncertainty in assessing cancer risk from short-term exposures. Since the construction of the project would be substantially longer than two months, a health risk assessment should be conducted to calculate the incremental increase in cancer risk for sensitive receptors (e.g., single-family homes south of the southern project site boundary) exposed to diesel particulate matter emissions during project construction in accordance with the OEHHA guidance for sources with variable emission rates. 22228-00 Baseline Comment Letter
• BASELINE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023
Furthermore, it appears that the ISMND is suggesting on page 60 that the health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter would not be significant because the project would not exceed the SCAQMD's Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction-generated criteria pollutants. The LSTs only apply to criteria air pollutants and were not designed to evaluate localized health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter.
INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS
As stated on page 110 of the ISMND, a dry cleaning service called Cecilia's Cleaners was located at the residential portion of the project site from at least 1989 until 2012. A release of tetrachloroethene (PCE) from the dry cleaning service has affected soil and soil gas at the project site. In 2017, the current property owner entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for assessing and remediating the PCE at the project site.
An Indoor Air Quality Assessment was prepared by SCS Engineers on January 16, 2019. The Indoor Air Quality Assessment concluded that there is no significant risk to groundwater, that the former dry cleaning operation poses no significant risk of vapor intrusion, and that further investigation of soil, soil vapor, or groundwater at the project site is not recommended.
However, according to the DTSC EnviroStor database, it does not appear that the Indoor Air Quality Assessment has been reviewed and approved by DTSC. It also appears that additional environmental investigation activities were performed at the project site in October and September 2022 to further evaluate the chemical quality of soil gas and groundwater, but the results of those investigation activities were not disclosed in the ISMND.
The findings from the most recent environmental investigations at the project site should be disclosed in the ISMND for public review. In addition, the DTSC should review and approve the findings of all the investigation reports and issue a letter of No Further Action prior to the issuance of buildings permits. To ensure that future residents, workers, and patrons are not exposed to substantial concentrations of hazardous chemicals from vapor intrusion, a mitigation measure should be prepared that requires the applicant to submit a copy of the DTSC letter of No Further Action to the City prior to the issuance of buildings permits. 22228-00 Baseline Comment Letter
BASELINE
NVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Mr. Adam Frankel
16 January 2023
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the ISMND, there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environmental related to GHG emissions, energy, air quality, and hazardous materials. Therefore, Baseline recommends that the City of Orange prepare an Environmental Impact Report to address the environmental concerns described above.
Sincerely,
Patil Sette
Patrick Sutton, Yilin Tian, PhD
Principal Environmental Engineer Environmental Engineer 22228-00 Baseline Comment Letter
BASELINE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Patrick Sutton, P.E.
Principal Environmental Engineer
Patrick Sutton is an environmental engineer who specializes in the assessment of hazardous materials released into the environment.
Mr. Sutton prepares technical reports in support of environmental review, such as Phase I/ll Environmental Site Investigations, Air Quality Reports, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plans, and Health Risk Assessments. He has prepared numerous CEQA/NEPA
evaluations for air quality, GHGs, geology, hazardous materials, and water quality related to residential, commercial, and industrial projects, as well as large infrastructure developments. His proficiency in a wide range of modeling software (AERMOD, CalEEMod, RCEM, CT-EMFAC) as well as relational databases, GIS, and graphics design Areas of Expertise allows him to thoroughly and efficiently assess and mitigate Air Quality, GHGs, Noise, Hazardous environmental concerns.
Materials, Geology, and Hydrology
For mixed-use development projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared health Education risk assessments for sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air M.S., Civil and Environmental contaminants based on air dispersion modeling. He has also prepared Engineering, University of GHG Reduction Plans to demonstrate how projects can comply with California - Davis State and/or local GHG reduction goals. For large highway infrastructure improvement projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared air B.S., Environmental Science,
quality and hazardous materials technical reports in accordance with Dickinson College
Caltrans requirements. Air quality assessments include the evaluation Registration of criteria air pollutants, mobile source air toxics, and GHG emissions Professional Engineer No. 13609 (RI) to support environmental review of the project under CEQA/NEPA and to determine conformity with the State Implementation Plan.
Years of Experience
Hazardous materials investigations include sampling and statistically 19 Years
analysis of aerially-deposited lead adjacent to highway corridors.
Project Experience
Oakland Downtown Specific Plan EIR. Prepared a program- and project-level Air Quality and GH Emissions analysis. Developed a mitigation measure with performance standards to ensure GHG emissions from future projects comply with the Citywide 2030 GHG reduction target.
I-680 Express Lanes from SR 84 to Alcosta Boulevard Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Preliminary Site Investigation to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project's conformity to federal air quality regulations and to support environmental review of the project under CEQA and NEPA.
Altamont Corridor Expressway (ACE/Forward) Project EIR/EIS. Prepared a program- and project-level Hazardous Materials analysis for over 120 miles of railroad corridor from San Jose to Merced. Hazardous materials concerns, such as release sites, petroleum pipelines, agricultural pesticides, and nearby school sites were evaluated in GIS.
Stonegate Residential Subdivision EIR. Prepared a project-level Hydrology and Water Quality analysis for a residential development located within the 100-year floodplain. The proposed project included modifications to existing levees and flood channels.
BART Silicon Valley Extension Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Hazardous Materials EIS/EIR section for extending 6 miles of proposed BART service through the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.
BASELINE
Yilin Tian, Ph.D ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Environmental Engineer
Yilin Tian is an environmental engineer who specializes in the analysis of air quality and human exposure to toxic air contaminants. For CEQA environmental review, Yilin assists in the analysis of air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), noise and vibration, and energy impacts. She is also familiar with state/local environmental regulations and guidelines related to CEQA review. Yilin has worked on variety of land uses development projects, including large mixed-use infill, wetland restoration, levee improvement, and highway expansion projects. She is experienced with preparing health risk assessments for sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air contaminants during construction and operation. Yilin is proficient with air pollution models (e.g., CalEEMod Areas of Expertise and AERMOD), noise models (e.g., FHA TNM and SoundPLAN), Air Quality, GHGs, Noise, Energy, and geospatial data analysis, and database management.
Environmental Compliance Besides CEQA studies, Yilin has worked with the Bay Area Air Education Management District (BAAQMD) to improve existing emissions estimation techniques and update emission inventories related to Ph.D./M.S., Environmental Science wood-burning devises and ammonia emissions in the Bay Area. Her and Engineering, Clarkson University strong background in statistics and air pollutants emissions allows her B.S., Environmental Science, Beijing to process and analyze data properly and efficiently.
University of Technology
Yilin has assisted the City of Berkeley and the San Francisco Public Registrations/Certifications Utilities Commission (SFPUC) with environmental compliance and 40-hour HAZWOPER training mitigation monitoring, including reviewing submittals and performing environmental field inspections. Beyond that, Yilin has experience Engineer-In-Training, No. 167986 with Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, air monitoring, noise Years of Experience monitoring, and the state's Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund application.
10 Years
Project Experience
Belvedere Lagoon Levee Project. Prepared project-level Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Noise and Vibration analyses for construction of a coastal levee system for the City of Belvedere.
Metro Center Hotel Project. Prepared a project-level Air Quality and GHG Emissions analysis for the development of a new, seven-story hotel in central Foster City.
1-80/Ashby Avenue Interchange Improvement Project. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project's conformity to federal air quality regulations and to support environmental review of the project under CEQA and NEPA.
Residential Wood Combustion for San Francisco Bay Area. Updated the methodology and datasets used by the BAAQMD to quantify residential wood combustion emissions within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. This methodology will be used to update the BAAQMD's residential wood-burning emissions inventory and reduce uncertainties in the existing emission inventory.
Environmental Compliance Monitoring for the SFPUC. Managed three SFPUC projects including the Sunol Long Term Improvements Projects, Southeast Community Center Project, and the Force Main Rehabilitation at Embarcadero & Jackson Street.
EXHIBIT B
JEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING JEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: December 31, 2022
To: Adam Frankel
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: 840 The City Drive Apartments Project - City of Orange, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4664)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well- recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (ОЕННА, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 ug/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 ug is 2 ug/m?, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 ug/m?. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 ug/m?, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 ug/m?, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 ug/m NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 ug/m'. , is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).
Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 ug/m? to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 ug/m3.
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 2 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.
In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.
A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 ug/m (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 ug/m? found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 ug/m?, which is 33% lower than the 36 ug/m? found in the 2007 CNHS.
Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products.
This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).
With respect to the 840 The City Drive Apartments Project - City of Orange, CA, the buildings consist of residential and commercial spaces. 3 of 19
The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.
Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 ug/m? (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m? of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 ug/day for continuous exposure in the residences.
This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).
The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.
Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 ug/m? (Singer et. al., 2020)
4 of 19
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m? of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 ug/day.
Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 ug/day.
This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 ug/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report ("EIR"), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.
In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 ug/m, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.
Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.
Additionally, the SCAQMD's Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study ("MATES V") identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 446 per million due to the site's elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area's high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.
Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
5 of 19
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City's CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.
6 of 19
1. Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.
2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m' of material/m? floor area, units of furnishings/m? floor area from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).
3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (ugh) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (Mg/m'-h) and the area (m?) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (ug/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.
7 of 19
CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., Mg/m'-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 ug/m'-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 ug/m'-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.
If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.
Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 8 of 19
4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. g/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.
5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (ug/m') from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. 4g/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m'/h) for the IAQ Zone.
Gin = Etotal (Equation 1)
loa
where:
Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (ug/m?)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (4g/h) into the IAQ Zone.
Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m'/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section
3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017).
6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).
7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non- Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.
Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the 9 of 19
health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:
1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde
2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:
1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.
NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.
Further, we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre- Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a 10 of 19
result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.
Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.
The Project is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Garden Grove Freeway, I- 5, Garden Grove Boulevard, etc.), and thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.
According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - 840 The City Drive Apartments Project (FirstCarbon Solutions, 2022), the 2024 plus Project traffic noise levels reported in Table 19, range from 66.6 dBA to 68.3 dBA CNEL.
As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.
PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2s. According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - 840 The City Drive Apartments Project (FirstCarbon Solutions, 2022), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.
Additionally, the SCAQMD's MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 446 per million at the Project site due to the site's high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area's high levels of motor vehicle traffic. 11 of 19
An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.s in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.s sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 ug/m? , or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 ug/m?, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.s particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2s will exceed the California and National PM2.s annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.
Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene disocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
12 of 19
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.
It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.
PM25 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.s annual and 24-hour standards.
Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the 13 of 19
occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.
References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov > research › indoor › formaldg|08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.
California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.
California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. 14 of 19
California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.
California Department Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 - Activity Factors.
Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
FirstCarbon Solutions. 2022. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - 840 The City Drive Apartments Project - City of Orange, CA.
Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. Mcllvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242.
ОЕННА (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
ОЕННА (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf 15 of 19
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. AIl OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12" International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TA.
Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality- analysis-handbook
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
16 of 19
APPENDIX A
INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND THE
CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California". In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality", but rather "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products".
Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality" when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 Mg/m} (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.
Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ff'), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California Department of Public Health, 17 of 19
Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/
DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.
For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m/h) calculated for this model residence.
For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.
The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) - 15 ft (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board - 30 ft? (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood - 54 ft? (2.4% of the floor area, or
Thin MDF - 46 ft (2.0% of the floor area.
For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.
Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) - 3.6% (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board - 7.2% (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood - 13% (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF - 11 % (offices) and 14% (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA 18 of 19
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.
The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e.
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.
Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 19 of 19