The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-07-16 CC Agenda Packet - Public Communications related to Item #9 - BeachCitiesFEIR CC ComLtrT 510.836.4200 1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150 www.lozeaudrury.com F 510.836.4205 Oakland, CA 94612 Achard@lozeaudrury.com BY E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL July 12, 2019 Mayor Drew Boyles, dbovles(a)elseaundo.ora. Mayor Pro Tem Carol Pirsztuk, coirsztuka.elseaundo.ora. Council Member Don Brann, dbran n(abelseaundo.orq Council Member Scot Nicol, snicol(a)elseaundo.ora. Council Member Chris Pimentel, coimenteln-elseaundo.ora, c/o City Clerk Tracy Sherrill Weaver, tweaver(a)elseaundo.orq allcouncilandclerksn-elseaundo.ora 350 Main Street EI Segundo, California 90245 Ethan Edwards, AICP, Contract Planner City of EI Segundo Planning and Building Safety Department, Planning Division 350 Main Street EI Segundo, California 90245 eedwards(a-)elseaundo.ora RE: Final EIR for Proposed Beach Cities Media Campus Project SCN 2017121035 Mayor Boyles and Members of the City Council: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared for the Project known as Beach Cities Media Center Project aka EA -1201 and State Clearinghouse #2017121035, including all actions related or referring to the proposed development of an approximately five -story, 240,000 square foot office building, a one- story, 66,000 square foot studio and production facilities building, and 7,000 square foot of retail uses in two, one-story structures with parking provided in a seven story parking structure with above grade and below grade parking containing 980 parking spaces, one level below grade parking in the office building containing 120 parking spaces, in addition to a limited amount of surface parking located at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 4138-015-064. After reviewing the Project and the FEIR, it is evident that the FEIR contains numerous errors and omissions that preclude accurate analysis of the Project. As a result of these inadequacies, the FEIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce the Project's impacts. Commenters request that the City of EI Segundo ("City") address these shortcomings in a Beach Cities Media Campus July 12, 2019 Page 2 of 8 revised draft environmental impact report ("RDEIR") and recirculate the document prior to considering approvals for the Project. This letter supplements our letter dated May 21, 2019. I. LEGAL STANDARDS CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report ("EIR") (except in certain limited circumstances). See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21100. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Dunn -Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.AppAth 644, 652. "The `foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Comm. for a Better Env't v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109. CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 Cal. Code Regs. ("CEQA Guidelines") § 15002(a)(1). "Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR `protects not only the environment but also informed self-government."' Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as "an environmental `alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return." Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm'rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 ("Berkeley Jets"); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when "feasible" by requiring "environmentally superior" alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." CEQA Guidelines §15002(a)(2). If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." Pub.Res.Code ("PRC") § 21081; CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B). The lead agency must evaluate comment on the draft EIR and prepare written responses in the final EIR. (PRC §21091(d)) The FEIR must include a "detailed" written response to all "significant environmental issues" raised by commenters. As the court stated in City of Long Beach v. LA USD (2009) 176 Cal.AppAth 889, 904: The requirement of a detailed written response to comments helps to ensure that the lead agency will fully consider the environmental consequences of Beach Cities Media Campus July 12, 2019 Page 3 of 8 a decision before it is made, that the decision is well informed and open to public scrutiny, and that public participation in the environmental review process is meaningful. The FEIR's responses to comments must be detailed and must provide a reasoned, good faith analysis. (14 CCR §15088(c )) Failure to provide a substantive response to comment render the EIR legally inadequate. (Rural Land Owners Assoc. v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020). The responses to comments on a draft EIR must state reasons for rejecting suggested mitigation measures and comments on significant environmental issues. "Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information" are not an adequate response. (14 CCR §15088(b, c); Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 348) The need for substantive, detailed response is particularly appropriate when comments have been raised by experts or other agencies. (Berkeley Keep Jets v. Bd. of Port Commis (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 1344, 1367; People v. Kern (1976) 72 Cal.app.3d 761) A reasoned analysis of the issue and references to supporting evidence are required for substantive comments raised. (Calif. Oak Found. v. Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.AppAth 1219) The FEIR abjectly fails to meet these legal standards, as it is riddled with conclusory statements lacking any factual support or analysis. II. THE CITY HAS PROVIDED INADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW THE FEIR. On January 10, 2018, this firm requested written notice of all CEQA documents related to the Project, pursuant to CEQA section 21092.2. Despite this request, we did not receive the complete FEIR until May 20, 2019 — only three days prior to the Planning Commission hearing. We received an incomplete copy of the FEIR on Friday, May 17, 2019, but that document did not include the public comments or responses to comments which are the heart of the FEIR. CEQA requires the lead agency to provide the FEIR to all public entities that commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days before certifying the EIR. PRC §21092.5. Many public agencies, as well as SAFER, commented on the DEIR, including CalTrans, South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC"), and others. The City was required to provide these entities with the FEIR at least 10 days prior to the May 23, 2019 Planning Commission hearing — May 13, 2019. When the City provided the FEIR to the public agencies, it became a public record. At that time, since this firm requested all CEQA documents pursuant to CEQA section 21092.2, we should have been provided with the FEIR. However, we did not receive the document until May 20, 2019 — one week later. Thus, SAFER had only three days to review the FEIR rather than the required ten days. Beach Cities Media Campus July 12, 2019 Page 4 of 8 III. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIR. A. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The SCAQMD and DTSC raised serious concerns about toxic chemical soil contamination at the Project site. Yet, these concerns are largely ignored in the FEIR. The DEIR largely ignores soil contamination and the SCAQMD Rules governing soil contamination, Rules 1166 and 1466. (DEIR, IV.A.10-12). Due to the historical Air Products and Chemicals operations, Southern California Edison ("SCE") conducted a limited subsurface investigation in preparation for demolition and the sale of the Project Site. According to the Phase I ESA, several subsurface investigations were conducted to assess potential contaminants of concern in the soil and soil vapor at the Project Site. The majority of these site investigation activities were conducted between March 2015 and September 2016. Based on these investigations, soil was found to be impacted with total petroleum hydrocarbons ("TPH"), lead, and PCBs. In addition, volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") were detected in the shallow soil on the Project Site. An investigation report and remedial action workplan was prepared on behalf of Air Products and Chemicals and submitted to the Los Angeles Area Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB"). The RWQCB conditionally approved the workplan on June 29, 2017 with additional excavation areas and sampling requirements. In June 2017, 504 cubic yards of impacted soil was reportedly excavated and disposed off-site as non- hazardous waste at Azusa Land Reclamation, Azusa, California as documented in the Remedial Completion Report. Five sets of soil gas probes were then installed in July 2017. Confirmation soil and soil vapor samples were collected after excavation activities were completed per the RWQCB requirements. These results were documented in the Remedial Completion Report and in the Additional Soil and Soil Vapor Sampling Report. The analytical results of the soil samples were non-detected for TPH, lead, and PCBs; and VOCs were detected in soil vapor. Based on the data collected and work performed by Air Products and Chemicals, the RWQCB issued a No Further Action ("NFA"). The NFA referenced a recorded Covenant and Environmental Restriction that restricted the future use of the Project Site to commercial and/or industrial and specifically did not restrict the Project Site use for commercial purposes. DEIR: (IV.E-3). Despite the known presence of toxic chemicals in the soil at the Project site, the DEIR and FEIR largely gloss over this issue. SCAQMD submitted written comments on the DEIR, pointing out that the EIR fails entirely to mention compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1166 (Volatile Organic Compounds from soil) and SCAQMD Rule 1466 (Particulate Matter from soil with Toxic Air Contaminants). These rules are the primary way that SCAMQD protects construction workers and future users of the Project from exposure to toxic chemicals. In response, the FEIR adds a new section on Rules 1166 and 1466. (FEIR, II -12) However, the City failed to recirculate the FEIR. Recirculation is require when new mitigation measures are added to a project so the public can assess the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. Gentry v. Murrieta, 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1392, 1411, Beach Cities Media Campus July 12, 2019 Page 5 of 8 1417. As a leading treatise explains, "in Perley v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 424, the court held that the public has a right to review a project described in a negative declaration in its final form and suggested that a negative declaration must be recirculated if mitigation measures are added." Kostka & Zishcke, Guide to CEQA at §7.19. DTSC filed written comments raising concerns about site contamination. DTSC recommended a preliminary endangerment assessment and voluntary clean-up plan, but FEIR rejects both mitigation measures without analysis. (FEIR, II -35). CEQA requires implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. These measures are clearly feasible, and the FEIR provides no reason that the measures would be infeasible. A Recirculated DEIR is required to analyze soil contamination and propose all feasible mitigation measures to safeguard construction workers and future uses of the Project site. B. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT Neither the Draft nor Final EIR contain any health risk assessment (HRA). The DEIR states that no HRA is required because construction will "only" take place over 18 months. (DEIR IV.A.21.) California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") guidance makes clear that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. OEHHA also recommends a health risk assessment of a project's operational emissions for projects that will be in place for more than 6 months. (Id.) Projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident. (Id.) The Project would last at least 30 years and certainly much longer than six months. Therefore an HRA is required. We submit herewith the comments of environmental consulting firm, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE). (Exhibit A). SWAPE conducts a detailed health risk assessment using the methodology specified by OEHHA and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). (Exhibit B). SWAPE concludes that construction and operation of the project will create a cancer risk at residential receptors located 300 meters from the Project of 38 per million. (Exhibit A, p. 7). This is almost four times the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million. This health risk must be analyzed and mitigated in a revised draft EIR. Health risks can often be mitigated by requiring low -emission construction equipment, such as CARB Tier 4 equipment, limiting idling times, limiting opacity, and other measures. A RDEIR should be prepared to analyze HRA and to proposed feasible mitigation measures. Beach Cities Media Campus July 12, 2019 Page 6 of 8 [@Wr] N 4 4 k I:1911RI41r7_FVI'I The EIR admits that the Project will have significant greenhouse gas ("GHG") impacts. (FEIR 1-17, 18). The DEIR states, "Proposed Project's unmitigated emissions are 6,007.71 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year resulting in 5.82 MTCO2e/SP/year." (DEIR IV.D-31). This is far above the SCAQMD significance threshold for GHGs of 3,000 MT/year. SWAPE calculates that even with mitigation, the Project's GHG impacts will exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds. (Exhibit A, p. 11). SWAPE calculates: Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Efficiency Parameter Project Unit Emissions Amortized Construction + Operational Emissions 3,665 MT CO2e/year Maximum Service Population 1,033 Per Service Population Annual Emissions 3.5 MT CO2e/SP/year 2035 SCAQMD Project Level Efficiency MT Threshold 3'0 CO2e/SP/year Exceed? Yes - As shown in the table above, when we compare the per service population emissions estimated by the AQ/GHG Analysis to the SCAQMD threshold of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year for 2035, we find that the Project's emissions would exceed the threshold, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact that was not addressed or identified by the FEIR. As a result, the Applicant must prepare an updated EIR to include an updated analysis of the proposed Project's GHG emissions impacts and implement additional mitigation to the extent necessary. Despite this admission, the EIR fails to propose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHGs. The only mitigation measures proposed are: (1) sidewalks, (2) energy Star applicances, (3) LED lighting, and (4) low -flow fixtures. Despite having hundreds of parking spaces, the EIR proposes only 1 electric vehicle charger. (DEIR IV.D-35). The EIR fails to propose clearly feasible GHG mitigation measures such as roof -top solar panels, large numbers of electric vehicle charging stations, exceedance of Title 24 energy requirements, LEED certification, and many other measures. The California Attorney General has published a list of feasible GHG mitigation measures. (Exhibit A). These measures are presumptively feasible. A Revised DEIR should be prepared to analyze these feasible mitigation measures. Beach Cities Media Campus July 12, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Ielm IC7_1aaLei CalTrans submitted a comment concerning the Project's significant traffic impacts. In response the Final EIR proposes a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) plan, but provides no detail for the TDM plan. (FEIR III -2). Feasible mitigation measures for significant environmental effects must be set forth in an EIR for consideration by the lead agency's decision makers and the public before certification of the EIR and approval of a project. The formulation of mitigation measures generally cannot be deferred until after certification of the EIR and approval of a project. Guidelines, section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) states: "Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way." "A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decisionmaking. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA." (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) "[R]eliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmaking; and[,] consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment." (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.AppAth 70, 92 (Communities).) The FEIR's TDM plan is deferred mitigation prohibited by CEQA. A Revised DEIR is required to identify the particular measures that will be implemented as part of the TDM to reduce the Project's traffic impact, and to calculate the amount that those measures will reduce traffic impacts of the Project. E. INDOOR AIR QUALITY. The EIR fails entirely to analyze impacts related to indoor air quality. Such impacts may be related to soil -vapor intrusion that may result from toxic soil contamination. Indoor air quality may also be affected by formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Many composite wood products typically used in residential and office building construction contain formaldehyde -based glues which off -gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential and office building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. Given the prominence of materials with formaldehyde -based resins that are likely to be used in constructing the Project, there is a significant likelihood that the Project's emissions of formaldehyde to air will result in very significant cancer risks to future workers in the buildings. Even if the materials used within the buildings comply with the Airborne Toxic Beach Cities Media Campus July 12, 2019 Page 8 of 8 Control Measures (ATCM) of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), significant emissions of formaldehyde may still occur. The Project's buildings may have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that may expose workers to cancer risks in excess of SCAQMD's threshold of significance. A 2018 study by Chan et al. (attached as Exhibit B) measured formaldehyde levels in new structures constructed after the 2009 CARB rules went into effect. Even though new buildings conforming to CARB's ATCM had a 30% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk than buildings built prior to the enactment of the ATCM, the levels of formaldehyde may still pose cancer risks greater than 100 in a million, well above the 10 in one million significance threshold established by the SCAQMD. We submit herewith the expert comments of Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, C.I.H, one of the world's leading experts on indoor air quality. (Exhibit C). Mr. Offermann concludes that the Project is likely to expose future workers to a cancer risk from indoor air pollution of 18.4 per million. Id. p. 4. This is almost twice the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million. The EIR fails to analyze this impact entirely. A revised draft EIR is required to analyze and mitigate this impact. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project's potential environmental impacts. (See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.AppAth 1544, 1597-98. ["[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts."].) "If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences." (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.) Given the lack of study conducted by the City on the health risks posed by emissions of formaldehyde, a fair argument exists that such emissions from the Project may pose significant health risks. As a result, the City must prepare an EIR which calculates the health risks that the formaldehyde emissions may have on future workers and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the EIR fails to meet the requirements of CEQA. We urge the City to require preparation of a Revised Draft EIR that addresses the deficiencies identified in this and other comment letters. Thank you for considering our comments and please include this letter in the administrative record for this matter. Sincerely, Richard Drury EXHIBIT A SWAP I Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment 26562 91h Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com July 10, 2019 Richard Drury Lozeau Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Comments on the Beach Cities Media Campus Project Dear Mr. Drury, We have reviewed the March 2019 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Beach Cities Media Campus Project ("Project") located in the City of EI Segundo ("City"). The Project proposes to construct a 240,000 square foot office building, a 66,000 square foot studio and production facilities building, 7,000 square feet of retail uses, a 980 -space parking structure, and a 120 -space parking structure on the 6.39 - acre site. Our review concludes that the FEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project's Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas impacts. As a result, health risk and greenhouse gas impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential impacts the Project may have on the surrounding environment. Air Quality Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Inadequately Evaluated The FEIR concludes that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on the health of sensitive receptors near the Project site without conducting a quantitative health risk assessment (HRA) for construction or operation (p. IV.A-34). The FEIR fails to conduct a quantified HRA and instead relies upon a Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis, which found that Project emissions would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) LSTs, as well as relies upon qualitative reasoning (p. IV.A-31, p. IV.A-34 — IV.A-35). Regarding construction -related health risk impacts, the FEIR attempts to justify its significance determination by stating, "Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the short-term construction schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. Furthermore, construction -based particulate matter ("PM") emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the Proposed Project" (p. IV.A- 31). Regarding operational health risk impacts, the FEIR states, "The Project operational -source emissions would not exceed applicable regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. Project operational -source emissions would not result in or cause a significant localized air quality impact as discussed in the Operations -Related Local Air Quality Impacts section of this report. Additionally, Project -related trips will not cause or result in CO concentrations exceeding applicable state and/or federal standards (CO "hotspots). Project operational -source emissions would therefore not adversely affect sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the Project" (p. IV.A-34 — IV.A-35). The excerpts above demonstrate that the Project Applicant claims a less than significant health risk impact without conducting a quantitative HRA. The failure to quantify the health risk posed to nearby sensitive receptors from exposure to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions released during Project activities, and instead rely upon an LST analysis, is incorrect for several reasons. First, the FEIR states that the Project's health risk impacts are less than significant because construction and operational emissions would not exceed local or regional thresholds, which include LSTs (p. IV.A-31, p. IV.A-34 — IV.A-35). The use of the LST method, as well as the subsequent significance determination, are entirely incorrect. While the LST method assesses the impact of pollutants at a local level, it only evaluates impacts from criteria air pollutants. As a result, health impacts from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as diesel particulate matter (DPM), were not analyzed, thus leaving a gap within the FEIR's analysis. According to the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document prepared by the SCAQMD, the LST analysis is only applicable to NOX, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5emissions, which are collectively referred to as criteria air pollutants.' Because the LST method can only be applied to criteria air pollutants, this method cannot be used to determine whether emissions from diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known human carcinogen, will result in a significant health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors. By failing to prepare an HRA in addition to the LST analysis, the FEIR fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the sensitive receptor impacts that may occur as a result of exposure to substantial air pollutant emissions. Furthermore, the SCAQMD provides a specific numerical threshold of 10 in one million for determining a project's health risk impact, which supports the necessity of a construction and operational HRA in addition to the LST analysis? Therefore, in order to determine the proposed Project's health-related impact, the FEIR should have conducted an assessment that compares 1 "Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology." SCAQMD, Revised July 2008, available at: http://www.agmd.xov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-Ist- methodolosv-document.odf. 2 httr)://www.acimd.gov/docs/default-source/cepa/handbook/scacimd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.i)df 2 the Project's construction and operational health risk to the SCAQMD's specific numerical threshold of 10 in one million. The assertion that the FEIR should have prepared an HRA that evaluates the Project's construction - related emissions is further supported by additional SCAQMD guidance. The FEIR's claim that the "short- term" construction schedule will not result in a significant health risk impact is incorrect. According to the SCAQMD's June 5, 2015 Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212, it is recommended that health risk impacts from short-term projects, such as Project construction, also be assessed. The guidance document states, "Since these short-term calculations are only meant for projects with limits on the operating duration, these short-term cancer risk assessments can be thought of as being the equivalent to a 30 -year cancer risk estimate and the appropriate thresholds would still apply (i.e. for a 5 -year project, the maximum emissions during the 5 -year period would be assessed on the more sensitive population, from the third trimester to age 5, after which the project's emissions would drop to 0 for the remaining 25 years to get the 30 -year equivalent cancer risk estimate)."' As the above excerpt demonstrates, SCAQMD requires an HRA to determine whether Project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutants. As such, the Project Applicant should have prepared an HRA for construction. Second, the FEIR attempts to further justify the omission of an operational HRA by stating that "Project - related trips will not cause or result in CO concentrations exceeding applicable state and/or federal standards" (p. IV.A-34). This justification is entirely incorrect and unsubstantiated. The SCAQMD recommends performing a health risk assessment for any project that is expected to generate mobile emissions from diesel powered equipment and trucks. According to SCAQMD's Mobile Source Toxics Analysis page on AQMD's website (emphasis added), "In August 2002, the SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee approved the 'Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions.' This document provided guidance for analyzing cancer risks from diesel particulate matter from mobile sources at facilities such as truck stops and warehouse distribution centers. Subsequently, SCAQMD staff revised the aforementioned document to expand the analysis to provide technical guidance for analyzing cancer risks from potential diesel particulate emissions impacts from truck idling and movement (such as, but not limited to, truck stops, warehouse and distribution centers, or transit centers), ship hotelling at ports, and train idling. This revised guidance document titled, 'Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis' was presented to and approved by the SCAQMD's Mobile Source Committee at its March 28, 2003 committee 3 "Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1 and 212." SCAQMD, June 2015, available at: htto://www.aamd.gov/docs/default-source/Dlanning/risk-assessment/riskassr)rociunel5.Ddf?sfvrsn=2. p. IX -2 meeting. It is suggested that proiects with diesel powered mobile sources use the following guidance document to civantifv potential cancer risks from the diesel particulate emission."' As you can see in the excerpt above, the SCAQMD explicitly states that if the proposed Project generates or attracts vehicular trips, a mobile source health risk assessment should be prepared. The SCAQMD does not state that the preparation of an HRA is restricted to activities that will result in excessive carbon monoxide concentrations. Rather, the SCAQMD simply states that "it is suggested that projects with diesel powered mobile sources" use the SCAQMD's Health Risk Assessment Guidance "to quantify potential cancer risks from the diesel particulate emission."' Seeing as Project construction is expected to occur over an 18 -month period, it is reasonable to assume that a significant amount of DPM, a known human carcinogen, will be emitted from the exhaust stacks of equipment required for Project construction (p. IV.K-26). Similarly, the Transportation Impact Analysis determines that operational activities will include approximately 2,833 daily vehicle trips, thus generating large amounts of diesel exhaust over the duration of Project operation (p. IV.K-27; Appendices, pp. 1639). As such, the FEIR should have conducted a construction and operational health risk assessment, as long-term exposure to DPM and other TACs may result in a significant health risk impact and therefore must be properly assessed. Third, the omission of a quantified HRA is inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California. In February of 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015.6 This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Construction of the Project will produce emissions of DPM through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a construction period of approximately 18 months (p. IV.K-26). The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors.' Therefore, per OEHHA guidelines, health risk impacts from Project construction should have been evaluated by the FEIR. Furthermore, once construction of the Project is complete, the Project will operate for a long period of time. As previously stated, Project operation will generate approximately 2,833 vehicle trips, which will generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions. The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate 4 "Mobile Source Toxics Analysis." SCAQMD, available at: http://www.aclmd.gov/home/regulations/cega/air- quality-analvsis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analvsis I "Mobile Source Toxics Analysis." SCAQMD, available at: http://www.aamd.gov/home/regulations/cega/air- quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analvsis 6 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/hotspots2015.html ' "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-18 4 individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR).$ Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, health risks from Project operation should have also been evaluated by the FEIR, as a 30 -year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 2 -month and 6 - month requirements set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent health risk policy, and as such, an updated assessment of health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from Project construction and operation should be included in an updated EIR. In an effort to demonstrate the potential risk posed by the Project to nearby sensitive residential receptors, we prepared a simple screening -level HRA for nearby residential receptors. The results of our assessment, as described below, demonstrate that construction and operational DPM emissions may result in a potentially significant health risk impact that was not previously identified or evaluated by the FEIR. In order to conduct our screening -level risk assessment, we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening -level air quality dispersion model.9The model replaced SCREEN3, which is included in OEHHA10 and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)11 guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments ("HRSAs"). 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, it is suggested that a more refined air model be conducted to analyze the link between air emissions and health risk. We prepared a preliminary health risk screening assessment of the Project's construction and operational impacts to sensitive residential receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust emissions estimates from the FEIR's air model. The FEIR states that residential receptors are located approximately 0.18 miles, or approximately 290 meters, from the Project site (p. 1-11, p. IV.A-34). Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we used a residential exposure duration of 30 years, starting from the third trimester of pregnancy. We also assumed that construction and operation of the Project would occur sequentially, with no gaps between each Project phase. The FEIR's calculated annual emissions indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 274.8 pounds of DPM over a 533 -day construction period. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downwind concentrations from point, area, and volume emissions sources. To account for the variability in construction equipment usage over the many phases of Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate for construction by the following equation. 8 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf, p. 8-6, 8-15 9 "AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model." USEPA, April 11, 2011, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.pdf 10 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.Rov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.13df " "Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects." CAPCOA, July 2009, available at: http://www.cai)coa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8-6-09.0f grams 274 .8 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour / Emission Rate (second) = x x x � 0.002707 9 s second 533 days lb 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.002707 grams per second (g/s). Subtracting the 533 -day construction duration from the total residential exposure duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the MEIR would be exposed to the Project's operational DPM emissions for an additional 28.54 years approximately. The mitigated, operational CalEEMod model's annual emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 49 pounds of DPM per year. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM emission rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation. grams 49 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour / Emission Rate (second) = x x x � 0.000705 9 s second 365 days lb 24 hours 3,600 seconds Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000705 g/s. Construction and operational activity was simulated as a 6.39 -acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with dimensions of 190 meters by 136 meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of exhaust stacks on construction 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 AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single -hour DPM concentrations from the Project site. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single -hour concentration by 10%.12 The single -hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 1.095 11g/m3 DPM at approximately 300 meters downwind. Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1095 11g/m3 for construction. For Project operation, the single -hour concentration in AERSCREEN is approximately 0.2851 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 300 meters downwind. Again, multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.0285 µg/m3 for operation. We calculated the excess construction and operation -related cancer risk to the residential receptor located closest to the Project site using applicable health risk assessment methodologies prescribed by OEHHA and the SCAQMD. Consistent with the construction schedule utilized in the Applicant's air model, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the first trimester of life (0.25 years), and the first 1.21 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 rest of the infantile stage of life, the entirety of the child stage of life (2 to 16 years), and the entirety of the adult stage of life (16 to 30 years). Consistent with OEHHA guidance, we used Age 12 "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised." EPA, 1992, available at: http://www.ei)a.Rov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf: see also "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.sov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.i)df, p. 4-36 0 Sensitivity Factors (ASFs) to account for the heightened susceptibility of young children to the carcinogenic toxicity of air pollution.13 According to the updated guidance, quantified cancer risk should be multiplied by a factor of ten during the third trimester and during first two years of life (infant) and should be multiplied by a factor of three during the child stage of life (2 to 16 years). Furthermore, in accordance with guidance set forth by OEHHA, we used 95th percentile breathing rates for infants.14 Finally, according to SCAQMD guidance, we used a Fraction of Time At Home (FAH) Value of 1 for the 3rd trimester, infant, and child receptors and we used a FAH Value of 0.73 for the adult receptors. 15 We used a cancer potency factor of 1.1 (mg/kg -day) -1 and an averaging time of 25,550 days. The results of our calculations are shown below. The Maximum Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor (MEIR) As demonstrated above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and 3rd trimester gestations at a sensitive receptor located approximately 300 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 1.1, 10, 25, and 1.5 in one million, respectively. Furthermore, the excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 38 in one million. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure was assumed to begin in the 3rd trimester stage of pregnancy to provide the most conservative estimates of air quality hazards. The infant, child, and lifetime cancer risk meet or exceed the SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the FEIR. An agency must prepare an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening -level HRA, which is known to 13 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.r)df 14 "Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics 'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act," June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.aclmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19 " "Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212." SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: htto://www.acimd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed- Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.pdf, p. 7 7 Duration Concentration Breathing Rate Cancer Activity (years) (µg/m3) (L/kg-day) ASF Risk Construction 0.25 0.1095 361 10 1.5E-06 3rd Trimester Duration 0.25 3rd Trimester Exposure 1.5E-06 Construction 1.21 0.1095 1090 10 2.2E-05 Operation 0.79 0.0285 1090 10 3.7E-06 Infant Exposure Duration 2.00 Infant Exposure 2.5E-05 Operation 14.00 0.0285 572 3 1.0E-05 Child Exposure Duration 14.00 Child Exposure 1.0E-05 Operation 14.00 0.0285 261 1 1.1E-06 Adult Exposure Duration 14.00 Adult Exposure 1.1E-06 Lifetime Exposure Duration 30.00 Lifetime Exposure 3.8E-05 As demonstrated above, the excess cancer risk to adults, children, infants, and 3rd trimester gestations at a sensitive receptor located approximately 300 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 1.1, 10, 25, and 1.5 in one million, respectively. Furthermore, the excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 38 in one million. Consistent with OEHHA guidance, exposure was assumed to begin in the 3rd trimester stage of pregnancy to provide the most conservative estimates of air quality hazards. The infant, child, and lifetime cancer risk meet or exceed the SCAQMD's threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the FEIR. An agency must prepare an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. Our analysis represents a screening -level HRA, which is known to 13 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.r)df 14 "Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics 'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act," June 5, 2015, available at: http://www.aclmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588-risk-assessment-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 19 " "Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212." SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: htto://www.acimd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed- Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.pdf, p. 7 7 be more conservative, and tends to err on the side of health protection.16 The purpose of the screening - level HRA shown above is to demonstrate this link between the proposed Project's emissions and the resulting health risk potential. Our screening -level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used. Therefore, because our screening -level HRA demonstrates a potentially significant impact, the Project Applicant should put forth a reasonable effort to connect the Project's air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors. This may include the preparation of a refined HRA using site-specific meteorology. An updated EIR should be prepared to include an adequate evaluation of the Project's health risk impacts and should include additional mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less -than -significant level. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Assess the Project's Greenhouse Gas Impacts " "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: htti)s://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.i)df, p. 1-5 W The FEIR determines that the Project would result in a mitigated per service population greenhouse gas (GHG) efficiency of 3.55 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per service population per year (MT CO2e/SP/year) after the implementation of mitigation (p. IV.D-33). The Applicant compares this GHG efficiency estimate to the SCAQMD's 2020 screening threshold of 4.8 MT CO2e/SP/year to determine that the Project's GHG emissions will be less than significant (see excerpt below) (Table IV.D-4, p. IV.D- 33). Table IV.D-4 Mitigated Project -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions" Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year) CO2e Emissions in Emission Source Metric Tons per Year Area Sources" 0.64 Energy Usage` 1,923.85 Mobile Sources' 1318.66 Waste' 36.79 Water' 352.29 Construction' 33.73 Total Emissions 3,665.35 SCAQMD Draft Threshold 3,a00 Exceeds Threshold? Yes SCAQMD 2020 Target Service Population Threshold 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects 3.55 Exceeds Threshold? No Notes: Source: CaIEEMod Version 201CL3.2 for Opening Year 202a " Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment, Energy usage consist of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. ° Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. f Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of 4 Construction GHG emissions CO2e based on a 30 year amortization rate, Source: Ganddini Group Inc. February, 2019. Based on the per service population GHG efficiency analysis, the Applicant claims that the Project would result in a less than significant GHG impact. This conclusion, however, is incorrect and unsubstantiated. The 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year SCAQMD efficiency threshold is only applicable through the year 2020.17 17'Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Working Group # 15." SCAQMD, September 2008, available at: htti)://www.acimd.gov/docs/default-sou rce/cepa/hand book/green house-gases-(ghg)-cecia-sign ifica nce- thresholds/vear-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.r)df, p. 2. 17 Review of the FEIR and the Project's CaIEEMod output files demonstrates that the Applicant anticipates an approximately 18 -month construction duration and assumes that the Project will be fully operational by the year 2020 (Appendices, pp. 216, pp. 244, pp. 439). However, given that the Applicant's anticipated construction schedule concludes on December 15, 2020, it is highly unlikely that the Project will actually be fully operation by the end of 2020 (Appendices, pp. 221, pp. 249, pp. 445). Thus, it can reasonably be assumed that the proposed Project will be fully operational at some point after 2020. Therefore, the FEIR should assess the Project's GHG emissions using metrics applicable to the most likely period of operation. The SCAQMD provides efficiency thresholds for the years 2020 and 2035.18 The FEIR should have compared Project emissions to the 2035 threshold, as it is unlikely that the Project would be operational by 2020 or reconstructed prior to 2035. Because the Applicant evaluates GHG emissions using an efficiency threshold only applicable to 2020 reduction goals, the FEIR fails to prepare an adequate assessment of the Project's GHG emissions impact and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Updated Analysis Indicates Significant Greenhouse Gas Impact In an effort to adequately assess the Project's GHG impact, we prepared an updated quantitative evaluation of the anticipated GHG emissions. In order to evaluate the Project's GHG emissions impact beyond the year 2020, we compared emissions to the SCAQMD's applicable efficiency threshold for the year 2035. The Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impact Analysis ("AQ/GHG Analysis"), provided as Appendix B.1 to the FEIR, determined that the mitigated Project would result in GHG emissions totaling approximately 3,665 MTCO2e/year (Table 12, Appendix B.1, p. 58). Dividing the Project's total GHG emissions by a service population of 1,033 people, the AQ/GHG Analysis calculated that the Project would emit approximately 3.55 MTCO2e/sp/year (Table 12, Appendix B.1, p. 58).19 As discussed above, it is likely that all Project operational activity will occur post -2020. Therefore, we utilized the SCAQMD's more applicable 2035 GHG efficiency threshold to adequately evaluate Project significance. SCAQMD created the 2035 efficiency threshold by reducing the 2020 thresholds by 40 percent, resulting in an efficiency threshold at the project level of 3.0 MTCO2e/sp/yr.20 Therefore, per SCAQMD guidance, the Project's GHG emissions efficiency should be compared to the 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/sp/yr, as the Project is not anticipated to be redeveloped prior to 2035. When we compare the Project's per service population GHG emissions to the 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/sp/yr, we find that the Project would result in a significant GHG impact (see table below). 11 "Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Working Group # 15." SCAQMD, September 2008, available at: http://www.acimd.gov/docs/default-sou rce/cega/hand book/green house-gases-(ghg)-cepa-sign ifica nce- thresholds/vear-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/aha-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 19 Per Service Population Efficiency = Total Emissions / Service Population = (3,665 MTCO2e/year) / (1,003 service population) _ (3.5 MTCO2e/SP/year) 20 "Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Working Group # 15." SCAQMD, September 2008, available at: http://www.acimd.gov/docs/default-sou rce/cega/hand book/green house-gases-(ghg)-cega-sign ifica nce- thresholds/vear-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 10 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Efficiency Parameter Project Emissions Unit Amortized Construction + Operational Emissions 3,665 MT COze/year Maximum Service Population 1,033 Per Service Population Annual Emissions 3.5 MT COze/SP/year 2035 SCAQMD Project Level Efficiency Threshold 1 3.0 1 MT COze/SP/year Exceed? I Yes I - As you can see in the table above, when we compare the per service population emissions estimated by the AQ/GHG Analysis to the SCAQMD threshold of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year for 2035, we find that the Project's emissions would exceed the threshold, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact that was not addressed or identified by the FEIR. As a result, the Applicant must prepare an updated EIR to include an updated analysis of the proposed Project's GHG emissions impacts and implement additional mitigation to the extent necessary. 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 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, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. ,J� a-,C� AZ� Kaitlyn Heck 11 BeachCities Const AERSCREEN 16216 / AERMOD 16216r TITLE: Beach Cities, Construction 06/24/19 11:15:53 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE EMISSION RATE: AREA EMISSION RATE: AREA HEIGHT: AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: RURAL OR URBAN: POPULATION: INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 0.271E-02 g/s 0.105E-06 g/(s-m2) 3.00 meters 190.00 meters 136.00 meters 1.50 meters URBAN 16853 5000. meters 0.215E-01 lb/hr 0.831E-06 lb/(hr-m2) 9.84 feet 623.36 feet 446.19 feet 4.92 feet 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 3.904 20 100.0 WIN * = worst case diagonal Page 1 BeachCities Const ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE MINIMUM WIND SPEED: ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 250.0 / 310.0 (K) 0.5 m/s 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 HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO 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 Page 2 MAXIMUM BeachCities_Const DIST 1 -HR CONC DIST 1 -HR CONC (m) --------------------- (ug/m3) (m) --------------------- (ug/m3) 1.00 2.868 2525.00 0.7388E-01 25.00 3.152 2550.00 0.7289E-01 50.00 3.430 2575.00 0.7192E-01 75.00 3.686 2600.00 0.7098E-01 100.00 3.904 2625.00 0.7005E-01 125.00 3.495 2650.00 0.6915E-01 150.00 2.575 2675.00 0.6827E-01 175.00 2.055 2700.00 0.6740E-01 200.00 1.732 2725.00 0.6656E-01 225.00 1.502 2750.00 0.6573E-01 250.00 1.333 2775.00 0.6492E-01 275.00 1.204 2800.00 0.6413E-01 300.00 1.095 2825.00 0.6336E-01 325.00 1.001 2850.00 0.6260E-01 350.00 0.9208 2875.00 0.6185E-01 375.00 0.8504 2900.00 0.6112E-01 400.00 0.7889 2925.00 0.6041E-01 425.00 0.7339 2950.00 0.5971E-01 450.00 0.6857 2975.00 0.5903E-01 475.00 0.6423 3000.00 0.5835E-01 500.00 0.6033 3025.00 0.5769E-01 525.00 0.5682 3050.00 0.5705E-01 550.00 0.5365 3075.00 0.5641E-01 575.00 0.5079 3100.00 0.5579E-01 600.00 0.4814 3125.00 0.5518E-01 625.00 0.4574 3150.00 0.5458E-01 650.00 0.4353 3174.99 0.5400E-01 675.00 0.4152 3199.99 0.5342E-01 700.00 0.3964 3225.00 0.5286E-01 725.00 0.3789 3250.00 0.5230E-01 750.00 0.3628 3275.00 0.5175E-01 775.00 0.3479 3300.00 0.5122E-01 800.00 0.3341 3325.00 0.5069E-01 825.00 0.3211 3350.00 0.5018E-01 850.00 0.3089 3375.00 0.4967E-01 875.00 0.2976 3400.00 0.4917E-01 900.00 0.2869 3425.00 0.4868E-01 925.00 0.2769 3450.00 0.4820E-01 950.00 0.2674 3475.00 0.4772E-01 975.00 0.2585 3500.00 0.4726E-01 1000.00 0.2502 3525.00 0.4680E-01 1025.00 0.2422 3550.00 0.4635E-01 1050.00 0.2346 3575.00 0.4591E-01 1075.00 0.2275 3600.00 0.4547E-01 1100.00 0.2207 3625.00 0.4504E-01 Page 3 BeachCities_Const 1125.00 0.2143 3650.00 0.4462E-01 1150.00 0.2082 3675.00 0.4421E-01 1175.00 0.2024 3700.00 0.4380E-01 1200.00 0.1969 3725.00 0.4340E-01 1225.00 0.1916 3750.00 0.4300E-01 1250.00 0.1865 3775.00 0.4261E-01 1275.00 0.1817 3800.00 0.4223E-01 1300.00 0.1771 3825.00 0.4185E-01 1325.00 0.1727 3850.00 0.4148E-01 1350.00 0.1684 3875.00 0.4112E-01 1375.00 0.1644 3900.00 0.4075E-01 1400.00 0.1605 3925.00 0.4040E-01 1425.00 0.1567 3950.00 0.4005E-01 1450.00 0.1532 3975.00 0.3971E-01 1475.00 0.1497 4000.00 0.3937E-01 1500.00 0.1464 4025.00 0.3903E-01 1525.00 0.1432 4050.00 0.3870E-01 1550.00 0.1402 4075.00 0.3838E-01 1575.00 0.1372 4100.00 0.3806E-01 1600.00 0.1344 4125.00 0.3775E-01 1625.00 0.1317 4149.99 0.3743E-01 1650.00 0.1290 4175.00 0.3713E-01 1675.00 0.1264 4200.00 0.3683E-01 1700.00 0.1240 4225.00 0.3653E-01 1725.00 0.1216 4250.00 0.3624E-01 1750.00 0.1192 4275.00 0.3595E-01 1775.00 0.1170 4300.00 0.3566E-01 1800.00 0.1148 4325.00 0.3538E-01 1825.00 0.1127 4350.00 0.3510E-01 1850.00 0.1106 4375.00 0.3483E-01 1875.01 0.1086 4400.00 0.3456E-01 1900.00 0.1067 4425.00 0.3429E-01 1924.99 0.1049 4450.00 0.3403E-01 1950.00 0.1031 4475.00 0.3377E-01 1975.01 0.1013 4499.99 0.3351E-01 2000.01 0.9962E-01 4525.00 0.3326E-01 2025.00 0.9798E-01 4550.00 0.3301E-01 2050.00 0.9637E-01 4575.00 0.3276E-01 2075.00 0.9481E-01 4600.00 0.3252E-01 2100.00 0.9328E-01 4625.00 0.3228E-01 2125.00 0.9181E-01 4650.00 0.3204E-01 2150.00 0.9038E-01 4675.00 0.3181E-01 2175.00 0.8898E-01 4700.00 0.3158E-01 2200.00 0.8763E-01 4725.00 0.3135E-01 2225.00 0.8630E-01 4750.00 0.3112E-01 2250.00 0.8502E-01 4775.00 0.3090E-01 2275.00 0.8376E-01 4800.00 0.3068E-01 2300.00 0.8254E-01 4825.00 0.3046E-01 Page 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************** 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 CALCULATION PROCEDURE --------------- FLAT TERRAIN DISTANCE FROM SOURCE IMPACT AT THE AMBIENT BOUNDARY DISTANCE FROM SOURCE MAXIMUM 1 -HOUR CONC (ug/m3) 3.913 SCALED 3 -HOUR CONC (ug/m3) 3.913 101.00 meters 1.00 meters SCALED SCALED BeachCities_Const 8 -HOUR 2325.00 0.8135E-01 4850.00 0.3025E-01 2350.00 0.8019E-01 4875.00 0.3004E-01 2375.00 0.7906E-01 4900.00 0.2983E-01 2400.00 0.7920E-01 4924.99 0.2962E-01 2425.00 0.7808E-01 4950.00 0.2942E-01 2450.00 0.7699E-01 4975.00 0.2921E-01 2475.00 0.7593E-01 5000.00 0.2901E-01 2500.00 0.7489E-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 CALCULATION PROCEDURE --------------- FLAT TERRAIN DISTANCE FROM SOURCE IMPACT AT THE AMBIENT BOUNDARY DISTANCE FROM SOURCE MAXIMUM 1 -HOUR CONC (ug/m3) 3.913 SCALED 3 -HOUR CONC (ug/m3) 3.913 101.00 meters 1.00 meters SCALED SCALED SCALED 8 -HOUR 24-HOUR ANNUAL CONC CONC CONC (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) 3.913 3.913 N/A Page 5 2.868 2.868 N/A BeachCities Const max conc distance Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.28681E+01 1.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31521E+01 25.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34304E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36860E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39040E+01 100.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.39125E+01 101.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34951E+01 125.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25750E+01 150.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20550E+01 175.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17319E+01 200.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15024E+01 225.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13326E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12038E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10951E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10015E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 1 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.92084E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85043E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78891E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73387E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68565E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64229E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60334E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56820E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53648E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50793E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48145E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45737E+00 625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43525E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41516E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39644E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37895E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 2 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.36281E+00 750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34790E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33408E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32112E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30895E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29760E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28692E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27686E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26741E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25854E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25017E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24217E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23461E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22747E+00 1075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22070E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21429E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 3 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.20821E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20241E+00 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19686E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19158E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18654E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18173E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17709E+00 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17265E+00 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16840E+00 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16436E+00 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16048E+00 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15675E+00 1425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15317E+00 1450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14971E+00 1475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14640E+00 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14322E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 4 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.14016E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13722E+00 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13439E+00 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13166E+00 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12900E+00 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12644E+00 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12396E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12157E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11924E+00 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11698E+00 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11479E+00 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11268E+00 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11063E+00 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10865E+00 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10673E+00 1900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10487E+00 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 5 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.10307E+00 1950.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10132E+00 1975.01 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99625E-01 2000.01 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97979E-01 2025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96373E-01 2050.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94807E-01 2075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93283E-01 2100.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.91809E-01 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90376E-01 2150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88983E-01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87627E-01 2200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86305E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85015E-01 2250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83760E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82536E-01 2300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81346E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 6 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.80187E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79056E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79197E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78082E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76993E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75930E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74893E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73880E-01 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72890E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71923E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70978E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70054E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69151E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68268E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67405E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66560E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 7 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.65733E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64924E-01 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64132E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63356E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62597E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61853E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61125E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60411E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59711E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59026E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58354E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57695E-01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57048E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56415E-01 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55793E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55183E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 8 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.54585E-01 3150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53998E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53421E-01 3199.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52855E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52300E-01 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51755E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51219E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50693E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50176E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49668E-01 3375.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49169E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48679E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48197E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47723E-01 3475.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47257E-01 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46799E-01 3525.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 9 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.46349E-01 3550.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45906E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45471E-01 3600.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45042E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44621E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44206E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43798E-01 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43396E-01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43001E-01 3750.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42612E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42229E-01 3800.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41852E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41481E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41115E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40755E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40400E-01 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 10 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.40051E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39707E-01 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39368E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39034E-01 4025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38704E-01 4050.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38380E-01 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38060E-01 4100.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37745E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37435E-01 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37128E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36826E-01 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36529E-01 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36235E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35946E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35660E-01 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35379E-01 4325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 11 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.35101E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34827E-01 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34556E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34290E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34026E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33767E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33510E-01 4499.99 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33257E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33008E-01 4550.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32761E-01 4575.00 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32518E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32278E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32041E-01 4650.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31807E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31576E-01 4700.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31347E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 12 BeachCities Const max conc distance 0.31122E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30900E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30680E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30462E-01 4825.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30248E-01 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30036E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29827E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29620E-01 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29415E-01 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29213E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29014E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 13 BeachCities_Operation AERSCREEN 16216 / AERMOD 16216r 06/24/19 11:22:18 TITLE: BeachCities_Operation.out ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE EMISSION RATE: AREA EMISSION RATE: AREA HEIGHT: AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: RURAL OR URBAN: POPULATION: INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 0.705E-03 g/s 0.273E-07 g/(s-m2) 3.00 meters 190.00 meters 136.00 meters 1.50 meters URBAN 16853 5000. meters 0.560E-02 lb/hr 0.217E-06 lb/(hr-m2) 9.84 feet 623.36 feet 446.19 feet 4.92 feet 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 1.016 20 100.0 WIN * = worst case diagonal Page 1 BeachCities_Operation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE MINIMUM WIND SPEED: ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 250.0 / 310.0 (K) 0.5 m/s 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 HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO 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 Page 2 MAXIMUM BeachCities_Operation DIST 1 -HR CONC DIST 1 -HR CONC (m) --------------------- (ug/m3) (m) --------------------- (ug/m3) 1.00 0.7466 2525.00 0.1923E-01 25.00 0.8205 2550.00 0.1897E-01 50.00 0.8930 2575.00 0.1872E-01 75.00 0.9595 2600.00 0.1848E-01 100.00 1.016 2625.00 0.1824E-01 125.00 0.9098 2650.00 0.1800E-01 150.00 0.6703 2675.00 0.1777E-01 175.00 0.5349 2700.00 0.1755E-01 200.00 0.4508 2725.00 0.1733E-01 225.00 0.3911 2750.00 0.1711E-01 250.00 0.3469 2775.00 0.1690E-01 275.00 0.3134 2800.00 0.1669E-01 300.00 0.2851 2825.00 0.1649E-01 325.00 0.2607 2850.00 0.1629E-01 350.00 0.2397 2875.00 0.1610E-01 375.00 0.2214 2900.00 0.1591E-01 400.00 0.2054 2925.00 0.1573E-01 425.00 0.1910 2950.00 0.1554E-01 450.00 0.1785 2975.00 0.1536E-01 475.00 0.1672 3000.00 0.1519E-01 500.00 0.1571 3025.00 0.1502E-01 525.00 0.1479 3050.00 0.1485E-01 550.00 0.1396 3075.00 0.1469E-01 575.00 0.1322 3100.00 0.1452E-01 600.00 0.1253 3125.00 0.1436E-01 625.00 0.1191 3150.00 0.1421E-01 650.00 0.1133 3175.00 0.1406E-01 675.00 0.1081 3200.00 0.1391E-01 700.00 0.1032 3225.00 0.1376E-01 725.00 0.9864E-01 3250.00 0.1361E-01 750.00 0.9444E-01 3275.00 0.1347E-01 775.00 0.9056E-01 3300.00 0.1333E-01 800.00 0.8696E-01 3325.00 0.1320E-01 825.00 0.8359E-01 3350.00 0.1306E-01 850.00 0.8042E-01 3375.00 0.1293E-01 875.00 0.7747E-01 3400.00 0.1280E-01 900.00 0.7469E-01 3425.00 0.1267E-01 925.00 0.7207E-01 3450.00 0.1255E-01 950.00 0.6961E-01 3475.00 0.1242E-01 975.00 0.6730E-01 3500.00 0.1230E-01 1000.00 0.6512E-01 3525.00 0.1218E-01 1025.00 0.6304E-01 3550.00 0.1206E-01 1050.00 0.6107E-01 3575.00 0.1195E-01 1075.00 0.5921E-01 3600.00 0.1184E-01 1100.00 0.5745E-01 3625.00 0.1172E-01 Page 3 BeachCities_Operation 1125.00 0.5578E-01 3650.00 0.1161E-01 1150.00 0.5420E-01 3675.00 0.1151E-01 1175.00 0.5269E-01 3700.00 0.1140E-01 1200.00 0.5124E-01 3725.00 0.1130E-01 1225.00 0.4987E-01 3750.00 0.1119E-01 1250.00 0.4856E-01 3775.00 0.1109E-01 1275.00 0.4731E-01 3800.00 0.1099E-01 1300.00 0.4610E-01 3825.00 0.1089E-01 1325.00 0.4494E-01 3850.00 0.1080E-01 1350.00 0.4384E-01 3875.00 0.1070E-01 1375.00 0.4278E-01 3900.00 0.1061E-01 1400.00 0.4177E-01 3925.00 0.1052E-01 1425.00 0.4080E-01 3950.00 0.1043E-01 1450.00 0.3987E-01 3975.00 0.1034E-01 1475.00 0.3897E-01 4000.00 0.1025E-01 1500.00 0.3811E-01 4025.00 0.1016E-01 1525.00 0.3728E-01 4050.00 0.1008E-01 1550.00 0.3649E-01 4075.00 0.9991E-02 1575.00 0.3572E-01 4100.00 0.9907E-02 1600.00 0.3498E-01 4125.00 0.9825E-02 1625.00 0.3427E-01 4149.99 0.9744E-02 1650.00 0.3358E-01 4175.00 0.9665E-02 1675.00 0.3291E-01 4200.00 0.9586E-02 1700.00 0.3227E-01 4225.00 0.9509E-02 1725.00 0.3164E-01 4250.00 0.9432E-02 1750.00 0.3104E-01 4275.00 0.9357E-02 1775.00 0.3045E-01 4300.00 0.9283E-02 1800.00 0.2988E-01 4325.00 0.9209E-02 1825.00 0.2933E-01 4350.00 0.9137E-02 1850.00 0.2880E-01 4375.00 0.9066E-02 1875.01 0.2828E-01 4400.00 0.8995E-02 1900.00 0.2778E-01 4425.00 0.8926E-02 1924.99 0.2730E-01 4449.99 0.8857E-02 1950.00 0.2683E-01 4475.00 0.8790E-02 1975.01 0.2637E-01 4500.00 0.8723E-02 2000.01 0.2593E-01 4525.00 0.8657E-02 2025.00 0.2550E-01 4550.00 0.8592E-02 2050.00 0.2509E-01 4575.00 0.8528E-02 2075.00 0.2468E-01 4599.99 0.8465E-02 2100.00 0.2428E-01 4625.00 0.8402E-02 2125.00 0.2390E-01 4650.00 0.8340E-02 2150.00 0.2353E-01 4675.00 0.8279E-02 2175.00 0.2316E-01 4700.00 0.8219E-02 2200.00 0.2281E-01 4725.00 0.8160E-02 2225.00 0.2247E-01 4750.00 0.8101E-02 2250.00 0.2213E-01 4775.00 0.8043E-02 2275.00 0.2180E-01 4800.00 0.7986E-02 2300.00 0.2148E-01 4825.00 0.7930E-02 Page 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************** 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/scramOOl/guidance_permit.htm under Screening Guidance CALCULATION PROCEDURE --------------- FLAT TERRAIN DISTANCE FROM SOURCE MAXIMUM 1 -HOUR CONC (ug/m3) 1.018 IMPACT AT THE AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.7466 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE SCALED 3 -HOUR CONC (ug/m3) 1.018 101.00 meters 1.00 meters SCALED BeachCities_Operation SCALED 8 -HOUR 2325.00 0.2117E-01 4850.00 0.7874E-02 2350.00 0.2087E-01 4875.00 0.7819E-02 2375.00 0.2058E-01 4900.00 0.7764E-02 2400.00 0.2062E-01 4924.99 0.7710E-02 2425.00 0.2033E-01 4950.00 0.7657E-02 2450.00 0.2004E-01 4975.00 0.7604E-02 2475.00 0.1977E-01 5000.00 0.7552E-02 2500.00 0.1949E-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/scramOOl/guidance_permit.htm under Screening Guidance CALCULATION PROCEDURE --------------- FLAT TERRAIN DISTANCE FROM SOURCE MAXIMUM 1 -HOUR CONC (ug/m3) 1.018 IMPACT AT THE AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.7466 DISTANCE FROM SOURCE SCALED 3 -HOUR CONC (ug/m3) 1.018 101.00 meters 1.00 meters SCALED SCALED SCALED 8 -HOUR 24-HOUR ANNUAL CONC CONC CONC (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) 1.018 1.018 N/A 0.7466 0.7466 N/A Page 5 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.74659E+00 1.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82050E+00 25.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89297E+00 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95949E+00 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10162E+01 100.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.10185E+01 101.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90979E+00 125.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67029E+00 150.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53494E+00 175.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45082E+00 200.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39108E+00 225.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34687E+00 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31336E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28506E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26069E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 1 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.23970E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22137E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20536E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19103E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17848E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16719E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15705E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14791E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13965E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13222E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12532E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11906E+00 625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11330E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10807E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10319E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98642E-01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 2 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.94443E-01 750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90560E-01 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86962E-01 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83589E-01 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80421E-01 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77466E-01 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74688E-01 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72068E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69610E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67300E-01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65122E-01 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63037E-01 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61069E-01 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59211E-01 1075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57449E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55781E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 3 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.54198E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52690E-01 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51244E-01 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49868E-01 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48557E-01 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47306E-01 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46098E-01 1300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44942E-01 1325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43837E-01 1350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42784E-01 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41775E-01 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40803E-01 1425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39870E-01 1450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38971E-01 1475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38107E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37280E-01 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 4 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.36485E-01 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35719E-01 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34982E-01 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34271E-01 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33580E-01 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32912E-01 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32267E-01 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31644E-01 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31039E-01 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30450E-01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29881E-01 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29330E-01 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28797E-01 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28282E-01 1875.01 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27784E-01 1900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27299E-01 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 5 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.26829E-01 1950.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26374E-01 1975.01 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25933E-01 2000.01 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25504E-01 2025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25086E-01 2050.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24679E-01 2075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24282E-01 2100.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23898E-01 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23526E-01 2150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23163E-01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22810E-01 2200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22466E-01 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22130E-01 2250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21803E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21484E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21175E-01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 6 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.20873E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20579E-01 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20615E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20325E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20042E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19765E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19495E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19231E-01 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18974E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18722E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18476E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18236E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18000E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17771E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17546E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17326E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 7 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.17111E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16900E-01 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16694E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16492E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16294E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16101E-01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15911E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15725E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15543E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15365E-01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15190E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15018E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14850E-01 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14685E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14523E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14364E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 8 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.14209E-01 3150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14056E-01 3175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13906E-01 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13759E-01 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13614E-01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13472E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13333E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13196E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13061E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12929E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12799E-01 3400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12671E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12546E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12423E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12301E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12182E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 9 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.12065E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11950E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11836E-01 3600.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11725E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11615E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11507E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11401E-01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11296E-01 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11193E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11092E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10992E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10894E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10798E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10703E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10609E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10516E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 10 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.10425E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10336E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10248E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10161E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10075E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99905E-02 4075.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99073E-02 4100.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98253E-02 4125.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97444E-02 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.96647E-02 4175.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95861E-02 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95086E-02 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94322E-02 4250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93568E-02 4275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.92825E-02 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.92092E-02 4325.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 11 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.91369E-02 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90656E-02 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89952E-02 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.89258E-02 4425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88573E-02 4449.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87897E-02 4475.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87229E-02 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86571E-02 4525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85921E-02 4550.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.85280E-02 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84647E-02 4599.99 0.00 40.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84022E-02 4625.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.83404E-02 4650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82795E-02 4675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82193E-02 4700.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.81599E-02 4725.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 12 BeachCities_Operation_max_conc_distance 0.81013E-02 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80433E-02 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79861E-02 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79295E-02 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78737E-02 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78185E-02 4875.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77640E-02 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.77102E-02 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76570E-02 4950.00 0.00 35.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76044E-02 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75525E-02 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Page 13 PSWAE Technical Consunatlan, Data Analysis and G MgakionSupportfor thoEnxiromsent 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: mhagQmann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Exuerience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: • Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 — present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 — 2014; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001- 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 - 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 - 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 -1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 -1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 -1986). Senior Resulatory and Litigation Suvvort Analvst: With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hvdrozeolozy: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote "part B" 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 EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. Conducted aquifer tests. Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching; From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimonv. Revorts. Pavers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 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 Characterization and Cleanup at 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. 9 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 Exverience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011. z KAITLYN MARIE HECK Su�� I Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and ■� Litigation Support for the Environment SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Mobile: (714) 287-8462 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: kaitivn@swape.com EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES B.S. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES & ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS AND SOCIETY JUNE2017 PROJECT EXPERIENCE SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: CEQA ANALYSIS & MODELING SANTA MONICA, CA • Calculated roadway, stationary source, and cumulative impacts for risk and hazard analyses at proposed land use projects. • Quantified criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) released during construction and operational activities of proposed land use projects using CalEEMod and EMFAC2014 emission factors. • Utilized AERSCREEN, a screening dispersion model, to determine the ambient air concentrations at sensitive receptor locations. • Organized reports containing figures and tables that compare the results of criteria air pollutant analyses to CEQA thresholds and that discus results of the health risk analyses conducted for several land use redevelopment projects. SENIOR PROJECT ANALYST: GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE • Quantified GHG emissions of a "business as usual" scenario for proposed land use projects using CalEEMod. • Determined compliance of proposed projects with AB 32, Executive Order S-3-05, and SB 32 GHG reduction targets, with measures described in CARB's Scoping Plan for each land use sector, and with GHG significance thresholds recommended by various Air Quality Management Districts in California. • Produced tables and figures that compare the results of the GHG analyses to applicable CEQA thresholds and reduction targets. PROJECT ANALYST: HUMAN HEALTH EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF WORKER EXPOSED TO SILICA EMITTED DURING CEMENT SANDING • Participated in interviews with subject to discuss working conditions and work history. Prepared Memorandum of subject's responses for client's use. • Calculated the level of worker exposure to cement dust and silica in accordance with the U.S. EPA's Exposure Factor Handbook. • Compiled and organized witness testimony and peer reviewed data on human health effects from exposure to cement dust and silica. • Prepared a final analytical report and organized supporting data for use as Expert testimony in environmental litigation. PROJECT MANAGER: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF ACRYLAMID PRODUCTS FOR PROPOSITION 65 COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION • Calculated the lifetime human exposure to acrylamide for approximately fifteen Proposition 65 cases. • Analyzed laboratory testing data to determine the level of consumption required to meet the No Significant Risk Level (NSRL). • Compared consumption levels to public dietary trends to determine if the average person's consumption would exceed the NSRL. • Prepared final analytical exposure assessment and produced data tables for use in environmental enforcement statute of Proposition 65 cases. PROJECT ANALYST: MODELING OF UNCOMBUSTEDHYDROCARBONS AND PARTICULATE MATTER BY INDUSTRIAL FIRE • Prepared AERSCREEN modeling of uncombusted hydrocarbons and particulate matter under different exposure scenarios. Produced tables and figures that compare the results of the AERSCREEN models. • Organized Memorandums to discuss methodology and results for use as Export testimony in environmental litigation. EXHIBIT B (::Letter 2:) South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: March 1, 2019 BNortona,riversideca. 2ov Brian Norton, Senior Planner City of Riverside, Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division 3900 Main Street, 3' Floor Riverside, CA 92522 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed The Exchange (SCH No. 2018071058) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final EIR. SCAOMD Staff's Summary of Protect Description The Lead Agency proposes to construct 482 residential units, 229 hotel guest rooms, a gasoline service station with 12 pumps, and 49,000 square feet of retail space on 35.4 acres (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is located on the northeast corner of Oakley Avenue and North Orange Street. Based on a review of Figure 2-1, Project Site Location, in the DEIR and aerial photographs, SCAQMD staff found that the Proposed Project is located within 500 feet of State Route 60 (SR -60) and Interstate 215 (1-215). Construction of the Proposed Project is expected to occur over approximately 21 months and become operational in 2023'. SCAOMD Staff's Summary of Air Oualitv and Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Analvses In the Air Quality Analysis section, the Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project's construction and operational emissions and compared those emissions to SCAQMD's recommended regional and localized air quality CEQA significance thresholds. The Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project's construction -related air quality impacts would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measure (MM) AQ -1 and MM AQ -2. MM AQ -1 requires the use of "super -compliant" low VOC paints (<10 grams/liter), and MM AQ -2 requires all actively graded areas to be watered in two-hour intervals (four times per day)2. The Lead Agency also found that operational emissions from NOx [ 183.7 pounds per day (lbs/day)] would exceed SCAQMD's recommended regional air quality CEQA significance threshold of 55 lbs/day for operation, after implementation of MM AQ -3 and MM AQ -4, resulting in significant and unavoidable regional air quality impacts. Additionally, the Lead Agency performed a health risk assessment (HRA) analysis to determine the reasonable maximum exposure of on-site sensitive receptors from mobile sources moving along the adjacent freeways and found that the maximum individual cancer risk would be 8.06 in one million, which would not exceed SCAQMD's significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk'. 1 DEIR. Section 4.2, Environmental Impact Analysis: Air Quality. Page 4.2-10. 2 Ibid. Page 4.2-26. 1 Ibid. Page 4.2-10. Brian Norton March 1, 2019 SCAQMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan On March 3, 2017, SCAQMD's Governing Board adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP)', which was later approved by the California Air Resources Board on March 23, 2017. Built upon the progress in implementing the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs, the 2016 AQMP provides a regional perspective on air quality and the challenges facing the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The most significant air quality challenge in the Basin is to achieve an additional 45 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in 2023 and an additional 55 percent NOx reduction beyond 2031 levels for ozone attainment. Therefore, the Lead agency should use it best efforts to incorporate this NOx reduction goal into the project design in the Final EIR. SCAQMD Staff's General Comments The Lead Agency performed a mobile source HRA analysis and found that the potential cancer risk to future residents living at the Proposed Project would be 8.06 in one million. Based on Appendix E, Air Toxic and Criteria Pollutant Health Risk Assessment, for the Proposed Project, it appeared that the Lead Agency used the 2003 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance to calculate cancer risks and did not take in account age groups specific modeling parameters. This would likely underestimate the health risks to children living at the Proposed Project. Please see the attachment for more details'. Since the Proposed Project includes residential units in close proximity to SR -60 and I-215, future residents living at the Proposed Project will be exposed to toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel particulate matter (DPM) being emitted from heavy-duty trucks traveling on SR -60 and I-215. While the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project would not expose future residents to significant cancer risk, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require installation of enhanced filtration at the Proposed Project and make this requirement a project design feature for the Proposed Project in the Final EIR to further reduce the potential health risks for future residents living at the Proposed Project. Please see the attachment for additional details. As stated above, the Proposed Project would involve, among others, operation of a gasoline service station with 12 pumps. A permit from SCAQMD is required, and SCAQMD is a Responsible Agency for the air permit. Upon a review of the operational air quality analysis for the Proposed Project in the DEIR and the supporting technical appendices, SCAQMD staff found that the Lead Agency did not include operational emissions resulting from the servicing or fueling process (e.g. storage tanks, fueling equipment, etc.), or perform a HRA analysis. Please see the attachment for additional details. Finally, as described in the 2016 AQMP, to achieve NOx emissions reductions in a timely manner is critical to attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone before the 2023 and 2031 deadlines. SCAQMD is committed to attain the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. The Proposed Project plays an important role in contributing to the Basin's NOx emissions. To further reduce NOx emissions during operation, SCAQMD staff recommends additional mitigation measures that the Lead Agency should consider to incorporate in the Final EIR. Conclusion Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide SCAQMD staff with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final EIR. In addition, issues raised in the comments should be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are South Coast Air Quality Management District. March 3, 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Accessed at: httD://www. aomd. eov/home/library/clean-air-Dlans/air-quality-met-Dian. DEIR. Appendix E. Pages 21 and 28. Brian Norton March 1, 2019 not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c)). Conclusory statements do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Robert Dalbeck, Assistant Air Quality Specialist, at RDalbeck(a,aamd.2ov or (909) 396-2139, should you have any questions. Sincerely, .0 Cl. 7" ,$cs�2 Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment LS:RD RVC 190115-03 Control Number Brian Norton ATTACHMENT March 1, 2019 SCAOMD Staff Comments for the Proposed Proiect's Residential Component The Lead Agency is proposing construction of 482 residential units within 500 feet of SR -60 and I-215. SCAQMD staff found that the freeway interchange located adjacent to the Proposed Project had an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 140,000 vehicles, including an AADT of 14,700 heavy-duty trucks on Route 60 East at Post Mile 12.212 in 20166. Heavy-duty trucks emit DPM, which has been identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on its carcinogenic effects'. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends the Lead Agency consider and implement the following comments and strategies in the Final EIR, such as requiring installation of enhanced air filtration systems with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 or better. Health Risk Assessment from Mobile Sources The most recent 2015 revised Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance' acknowledges that children are more susceptible to the exposure to air toxics and have revised the way cancer risks are estimated to take this into account. Since the trucks, vehicles, and equipment generally get cleaner with time due to existing regulations and technologies, it would not be appropriate to use a combined exposure factor to streamline age group specific variables which was done in the DEIR. This would likely underestimate the health risks to children who would be exposed to higher emission (DPM) concentrations during the early years of Project operation. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the DPM emissions for each year of operation be applied to each of the corresponding age bins (i.e. emissions from Year 1 of Project operation (2022) should be used to estimate cancer risks to the third trimester to 0 year age bin; Year 1 and 2 of Project operation should be used to estimate the cancer risks to the 0 to 2 years age bins; and so on). Guidance on Siting Sensitive Receptors Near Sources of Air Pollution 2. SCAQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when making local planning and land use decisions. To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead Agencies and SCAQMD to reduce community exposure to source -specific and cumulative air pollution impacts, SCAQMD adopted the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning in 20059. This Guidance document provides recommended policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing homes near freeways) can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which can be found at: http://www.arb.ca.2ov/ch/handbook.12df. CARB's Land Use Handbook is a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision-making process. 6 California Department of Transportation. Caltrans Traffic Volume Data for 2016. Route 60, Post mile 12.212. Accessed at: httD://www.dot.ca.E!ov/trafficoDs/census/. ' California Air Resources Board. August 27, 1998. Resolution 98-35. Accessed at: httD://www.arb.ca.2ov/regact/diesltac/diesltac.htm. $ Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. March 6, 2016. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments 2015. Available at: https:Hoehha.ca.2ov/air/cmr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-snots- pro Bram-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0. 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District. May 2005. "Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning" Accessed at: httD://www.aamd.2ov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/comDlete- guidance-document.Ddf. 4 10 Brian Norton Enhanced Filtration Units March 1, 2019 3. Many strategies are available to reduce exposure, including, but not limited to, building filtration systems with MERV 13 or better, or in some cases, MERV 15 or better is recommended; building design, orientation, location; vegetation barriers or landscaping screening, etc. Because of the potential adverse health risks involved with siting sensitive receptors near SR -60 and I-215, it is essential that any proposed strategy must be carefully evaluated before implementation. In the HRA technical report for the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency stated that "the Project applicant has agreed to installing and maintaining air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 as defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2. (1)1 in the proposed apartment complex.10" Because residents living at the Proposed Project would be exposed to DPM emissions from nearby heavy-duty trucks (14,700 truck AADT, 140,000 total AADT) traveling on SR -60 and I-215, and to ensure consistency in the recommendation throughout the environmental analysis, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require the installation of MERV 16 filters at the Proposed Project in the Final EIR. SCAQMD staff also recommends that the Lead Agency consider the limitations of the enhanced filtration. For example, in a study that SCAQMD conducted to investigate filters", a cost burden is expected to be within the range of $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. The initial start-up cost could substantially increase if an HVAC system needs to be installed. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the residents. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors, and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. Moreover, these filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to DPM emissions. Enforceability of Enhanced Filtration Units 4. If enhanced filtration units are required for the Proposed Project, and to ensure that they are enforceable throughout the lifetime of the Proposed Project and effective in reducing exposures to DPM emissions, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency make the installation of enhanced filtration units a project design feature and provide additional details regarding the ongoing, regular maintenance, and monitoring of filters in the Final EIR. To facilitate a good -faith effort at full disclosure and provide useful information to future residents at the Proposed Project, at a minimum, the Final EIR should include the following information: a) Disclose the potential health impacts to prospective residents from living in a close proximity to sources of air pollution [e.g., heavy-duty trucks traveling on nearby freeways and the gasoline service station (see Comment No. 6 below)] and the reduced effectiveness of the air filtration system when windows are open and/or when residents are outdoors (e.g., in the common usable open space areas); b) Identify the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency to ensure that enhanced filtration units are installed on-site at the Proposed Project before a permit of occupancy is issued; io DEIR. Appendix E, Air Toxic and Criteria Pollutant Health Risk Assessment, Page 5. ii This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better. Accessed at: http://www.aamd.2ov/docs/default- source/cepa/handbook/aamdt)ilotstudvfinalreport.pd£ Also see 2012 Peer Review Journal article by SCAQMD: httDs://onlinelibrarv.wilev.com/doi/10.1111/ina.12013. 11 Brian Norton March 1, 2019 c) Identify the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead Agency to ensure that enhanced filtration units are inspected and maintained regularly; d) Disclose the potential increase in energy costs for running the HVAC system to prospective residents; e) Provide information to residents on where the MERV filters can be purchased; f) Provide recommended schedules (e.g., every year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units; g) Identify the responsible entity such as the residents themselves, Homeowner's Association, or property management for ensuring enhanced filtration units are replaced on time, if appropriate and feasible (if residents should be responsible for the periodic and regular purchase and replacement of the enhanced filtration units, the Lead Agency should include this information in the disclosure form); h) Identify, provide, and disclose ongoing cost sharing strategies, if any, for replacing the enhanced filtration units; i) Set City-wide or Proposed Project -specific criteria for assessing progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and j) Develop a City-wide or Proposed Project -specific process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units. SCAOMD Staffs Comments for the Commercial Component of Gasoline Service Station As stated above, the Lead Agency proposes to construct a gasoline service station with 12 pumps as part of the Proposed Project. SCAQMD staff's comments on the air quality and HRA analyses for the gasoline service station are provided below that the Lead Agency should incorporate in the Final EIR. Operational Emissions from the Fueling Process 5. The Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project's operational emissions in CaIEEMod. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operation from a variety of land use projects 12. For air quality modeling purposes, in the "land use" field in CaIEEMod, the Lead Agency modeled emissions for a convenience store with 16 gas pumps13,14It is important to note that while CalEEMod quantifies energy, water, and mobile source emissions (e.g., trip visits by patrons) associated with operating a gasoline service station, CalEEMod does not quantify the operational stationary source emissions (e.g. storage tanks and fueling equipment). Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency clarify if the Proposed Project's operational ROG emissions from storage tanks and the fueling process have been included in the Air Quality Analysis, or use its best efforts to quantify and disclose the operational emissions from the fueling process in the Final EIR Health Risk Assessment from the Gasoline Servicing and Fueling Process 6. Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptors include schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, elderly care facilities, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. As stated above, the Proposed Project includes, 1z CalEEmod incorporates up-to-date state and locally approved emission factors and methodologies for estimating pollutant emissions from typical land use development. CalEEMod is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and is available free of charge at: www.caleemod.com. 13 DEIR. Appendix B, Air Quality Impact Analysis, Page 63. 14 The Proposed Project description includes a 12 -pump gasoline service station. The Lead agency estimated emissions in CalEEMod resulting from a 16 -pump gasoline service station in each run. 6 12 Brian Norton March 1, 2019 among others, the operation of a gasoline service station. Therefore, the Proposed Project has the potential to expose nearby residents to TACs, such as benzene, which is a known carcinogen. SCAQMD staff has concerns about the potential health impacts to sensitive receptors (e.g., future residents living at the Proposed Project) from the exposure to TACs during the operation of the gasoline service station. Therefore, the Lead Agency should prepare a HRA analysis to disclose the health impacts in the Final EIR. Guidance for performing a gasoline dispensing station health risk assessment can be found in the SCAQMD's Emission Inventory and Risk Assessment Guidelines for Gasoline Dispensing Station's Permits and Compliance with SCAQMD Rules 7. Since the Proposed Project includes operation of a gasoline service station with 12 pumps, a permit from the SCAQMD would be required. SCAQMD should be identified as a Responsible Agency under CEQA for the Proposed Project in the Air Quality Section of the Final EIR. The Final EIR should also include a discussion of compliance with applicable SCAQMD Rules, including, but not limited to, Rule 201 — Permit to Construct 16, Rule 203 — Permit to Operate", Rule 461 — Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing18, and Rule 1401 — New Source Review of Toxic Air Containments" It should be noted that any assumptions used in the Air Quality and HRA analyses in the Final EIR will be used as the basis for permit conditions and limits. For example, in the Air Quality Section of the DEIR, the Lead Agency assumed that the Proposed Project would be considered a typical gasoline facility with less than 3.6 million gallons per year throughput20. It should be also noted that the 2015 revised OEHHA HRA methodology is being used by SCAQMD for determining operational health impacts for permitting applications and also for all CEQA projects where SCAQMD is the Lead Agency. Should there be any questions on permits and applicable SCAQMD rules, please contact the SCAQMD's Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385. For more general information on permits, please visit SCAQMD's webpage at: httD://www.aamd.aov/home/Hermits. Additional Recommended Mitigation Measures 8. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse environmental impacts. The Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts from regional NOx emissions. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following mitigation measures in the Final EIR to further reduce NOx emissions and promote the use of cleaner vehicles during operation. Additional information on potential mitigation measures as guidance to the Lead Agency is available on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook website21. a) Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at the residential and commercial components. Vehicles that can operate at least partially on electricity have the ability to substantially reduce 15 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Emission Inventory and Risk Assessment Guidelines for Gasoline Dispensing Stations. Accessed at: httt)://www.aamd.eov/home/Hermits/risk-assessment. 16 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 201 — Permit to Construct. Accessed at: httD://www.aamd. eov/docs/default-source/rule-book/re2-ii/rule-201.1)df. 11 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 203 — Permit to Operate. Accessed at: httD://www.aamd. eov/docs/default-source/rule-book/re2-ii/rule-203.Ddf 16 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 461 — Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing. Accessed at: httD://www. as md. eov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-46 l .Ddf 19 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 1401 — New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants. Accessed at: httD://www.aamd.2ov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule- 140 I.Ddf 20 DEIR. Section 4.2. Page 4.2-25. 21 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Accessed at: httD://www.aamd. eovihome/resulations/cea a/air-quality-analvsis-handbook. 13 Brian Norton March 1, 2019 the significant NOx impacts from this project. It is important to make this electrical infrastructure available when the Proposed Project is built so that it is ready when this technology becomes commercially available. b) For the commercial component of the Proposed Project, implement an anti -idling program. Vendors should be instructed to advise drivers that trucks and other equipment shall not be left idling for more than five minutes. Signs informing truck drivers of the anti -idling policy should be posted in the loading docks of the Project. c) For the commercial component of the Proposed Project, establish a purchasing policy to purchase electric vehicles for use. d) For the commercial component of the Proposed Project, establish a policy to select and use vendors that use clean vehicles and trucks to service and deliver materials to the 229 -room hotel. Include this policy in the vendor contracts and business agreement. e) Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. f) Require use of electric or alternatively fueled street -sweepers with HEPA filters. g) Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. 14 EXHIBIT C HEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING HEE 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700 E-mail: offermannaIEE-SF.com httn://www.iee-sf com Date: July 11, 2019 To: Richard Drury Lozeau I Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Beach Cities Media Campus Project— El Segundo, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4268) Pages: 15 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 Formaldehvde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 gg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 gg is 2 jig/m3 , assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 gg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 gg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 gg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 gg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 gg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015). Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non -cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 gg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 gg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 2 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 (ATOM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below cancer and non -cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Chan et. al., 2018), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after the 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 25 µg/m3 as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 30% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 125 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products, which is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a). With respect to this project, the buildings at the Beach Cities Media Campus Project in El Segundo, CA include office, retail, and studio/production spaces. The employees in these buildings are expected to experience work -day exposures (e.g. 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). This exposure for employees is anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in commercial and office buildings. 3 Because these commercial and office buildings will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor retail building formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 25 gg/m3. Assuming that the employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work -day is 167 gg/day. Assuming that the 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 73.6 µg/day. This is 1.84 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 18.4 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report ("EIR" ), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. While measurements of the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials (Chan et. al., 2018), indicate that indoor formaldehyde concentrations in buildings built with similar materials (e.g. hotels, residences, offices, warehouses, schools) will pose cancer risks in excess of the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million, a determination of the cancer risk that is specific to this project and the materials used to construct these buildings can and should be conducted prior to completion of the environmental review. The following describes a method that should be used prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of the specific building materials/furnishings selected for the building exceed cancer and non -cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City's M 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. 1.) Define Indoor Air Oualitv Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well -mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea -formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard). 5 3.) Calculate the Formaldehvde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (gg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit -specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area -specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 gg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area -specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. IN 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://berkelevanalvtical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehvde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehvde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. gg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. Cin = Etotal (Equation 1) Qoa where: Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m) Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (gg/h) into the IAQ Zone. Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (in 3/h) 7 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 Formaldehvde Exposures of exceeding the CEOA Cancer and/or Non - Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non -cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health risks. Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include: 1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde 2.) substituting a different material with a lower area -specific emission rate of formaldehyde Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include: 1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone. NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems. N. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated air contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 ach, with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. The Beach Cities Media Campus Project in El Segundo, CA is surrounded by roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g. I-405, Rosecrans Avenue, N. Sepulveda Boulevard), and is close to Los Angeles International Airport and the BNSF Railroad. As a result of the outdoor traffic noise, this has been determined to be a sound impacted site according to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EcoTierra Consulting, 2019), with modeled existing plus project traffic noise levels ranging from 66.75 — 79.46 dBA CNEL, as reported in Table IV.H-5, Change in Existing Noise Levels Along Roadways as a Result of Project (dBA CNEL). As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require the need for mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation air to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors X to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within residential interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EcoTierra Consulting, 2019), this development is located in El Segundo in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non - attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 gg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 gg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: - indoor formaldehyde concentrations 10 - outdoor air ventilation - PM2.5 outdoor air concentrations Indoor Formaldehvde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra- low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins (CARB, 2009). Other projects such as the AC by Marriott Hotel — West San Jose Project (Asset Gas SC Inc.) and 2525 North Main Street, Santa Ana (AC 2525 Main LLC, 2019) have entered into settlement agreements stipulating the use of composite wood materials only containing NAF or ULEF resins. Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non -cancer health risks. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder to "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre -Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use 11 exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. References AC 2525 Main LLC. 2019. Environmental Settlement Agreement with Laborers' International Union of North America Local 652. Asset Gas SC. Inc. 2019. Settlement Agreement and Release with Jose Mexicano, Alejandro Martinez, and Laborers' International Union of North America Local 652. BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifina.orR/-DaRe/standardsoverview California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. httDs://www.arb.ca.Dov/reszact/2007/comDwoodO7/fro-final.Ddf 12 California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. httDs://www.arb-ca.2ov/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 httD://www.bsc.ca.2ov/Home/CALGreen.asDx. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. httD://www.ener2v.ca. aov/20151)ublications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.vdf CDPH.2017. StandardMethodfor the Testing andEvaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. Chan, W., Kim, Y., and Singer, B. 2018. Indoor Air Quality in New California Homes with Mechanical Ventilation, Proceedings of Indoor Air 2018, Philadelphia, PA. EcoTierra Consulting. 2019. Proposed beach Cities Media Campus Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse no. 2017121035. 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. 13 Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: htti)://www.oehha.ca.2ov/DroD65/pdf/safeharborO8l5l3.Ddf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8 -hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: httD:Hoehha.ca.2ov/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. httDs://www.arb.ca.2ov/research/aDr/Dast/04-3 10.Ddf Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson (2011). Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011). June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX USA. Price, Phillip P., Max Sherman, Robert H. Lee, and Thomas Piazza. 2007. Study of Ventilation Practices and Household Characteristics in New California Homes. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03- 326. Available at: www.arb.ca.2ov/research/aDr/hast/03-326.Ddf. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 14 Diamond Bar, CA,http://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/cepa/air-quality-analysis- handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. httD://www.us2bc.or2/credits/homes/v4 15 EXHIBIT D Indoor Air Quality in New California Homes with Mechanical Ventilation Wanyu Chan',*, Yang-Seon Kim', Brett Singer', Iain Walker' ' Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, USA *Corresponding email: wrchan@lbl.gov SUMMARY The Healthy Efficient New Gas Homes (HENGH) study measured indoor air quality and mechanical ventilation use in 70 new California homes. This paper summarizes preliminary results collected from 42 homes. In addition to measurements of formaldehyde, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and PM2.5 that are discussed here, HENGH also monitored other indoor environmental parameters (e.g., CO2) and indoor activities (e.g., cooking, fan use) using sensors and occupant logs. Each home was monitored for one week. Diagnostic tests were performed to characterize building envelope and duct leakage, and mechanical system airflow. Comparisons of indoor formaldehyde, NO2, and PM2.5 with a prior California New Home Study (CNHS) (Offermann, 2009) suggest that contaminant levels are lower than measured from about 10 years ago. The role of mechanical ventilation on indoor contaminant levels will be evaluated. KEYWORDS Formaldehyde; nitrogen dioxide; particles; home performance; field study 1 INTRODUCTION The HENGH field study (2016-2018) aimed to measure indoor air quality in 70 new California homes that have mechanical ventilation. Eligible houses were built in 2011 or later; had an operable whole -dwelling mechanical ventilation system; used natural gas for space heating, water heating, and/or cooking; and had no smoking in the home. Study participants were asked to rely on mechanical ventilation and avoid window use during the one-week monitoring period. All homes had a venting kitchen range hood or over the range microwave and bathroom exhaust fans. This paper presents summary results of formaldehyde, NO2, and PM2.5 measurements in 42 homes. The full dataset is expected to be available in summer 2018. 2 METHODS Integrated one-week concentrations of formaldehyde and NOX were measured using SKC UMEx-100 and Ogawa passive samplers. Formaldehyde samplers were deployed in the main living space, master bedroom, and outdoors. PM2.5 were measured using a pair of photometers (ES-642/BT-645, MetOne Instruments) indoor in the main living space and outdoors. PM2.5 filter samples were collected using a co -located pDR-1500 (ThermoFisher) in a subset of the homes and time -resolved photometer data were adjusted using the gravimetric measurements. Results are compared with a prior field study CNHS (2007-2008) (Offermann, 2009) that monitored for contaminant concentrations over a 24-hour period in 108 homes built between 2002 and 2004, including a subset of 26 homes with whole -dwelling mechanical ventilation. 3 RESULTS Figure 1 compares the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde, NO2, and PM2.5 measured by the two studies. Results of HENGH are one-week averaged concentrations, whereas CHNS are 24-hour averages. HENGH measured lower indoor concentrations of formaldehyde and PM2.5, compared to CNHS. For NO2, the indoor concentrations measured by the two studies are similar. Summary statistics of indoor and outdoor contaminant concentrations (mean and median concentrations; N=number of homes with available data) are presented in Table 1. 0 0 0 . 0 - -- ----- - 0 0 N Median Mean �_ _._ T �_.r- ________ _______o�-_-__-------------�_� Formaldehyde (ppb) 39 20.0 20.6 104 29.5 36.3 38 2.0 2.0 43 1.8 2.8 NO2 (ppb) 40 3.7 4.4 29 _�- _-_-_,_ �________ ______-lLLL 40 3.0 3.1 11 3.1 3.5 PM2.5 (ug/m3) 41 4.7 5.8 - 10.4 13.3 42 5.9 7.7 11 8.7 7.9 . . LL________ ______E N_______ _ E N_ -_-_;_----_---_-_---_:_ N_ __ ____________-_ o HENGHCANH o- o- - o- ------------- 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 5 10 15 0 10 20 30 Formaldehyde (ppb) NO2 (ppb) PM2.5 (ug/m3) Figure 1. Comparisons of indoor contaminant concentrations measured by two studies. Table 1. Summary statistics of indoor and outdoor contaminant concentrations. HENGH - Indoor CNHS - Indoor HENGH - Outdoor CNHS - Outdoor N Median Mean N Median Mean N Median Mean N Median Mean Formaldehyde (ppb) 39 20.0 20.6 104 29.5 36.3 38 2.0 2.0 43 1.8 2.8 NO2 (ppb) 40 3.7 4.4 29 3.2 5.4 40 3.0 3.1 11 3.1 3.5 PM2.5 (ug/m3) 41 4.7 5.8 28 10.4 13.3 42 5.9 7.7 11 8.7 7.9 4 DISCUSSION The lower formaldehyde concentrations measured by HENGH in comparison to CNHS may be attributable to California's regulation to limit formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products that came into effect between the two studies. Gas cooking is a significant source of indoor NO2 (Mullen et al., 2016). Even though NO2 concentrations measured by HENGH are similar to levels found in CNHS, the two studies differed in that HENGH homes all use gas for cooking, whereas almost all homes (98%) from the prior study used electric ranges. More analysis is needed to determine the effectiveness of source control, such as range hood use during cooking, on indoor concentrations of cooking emissions such as NO2 and PM2.5. Lower PM2.5 indoors measured by HENGH compared to CNHS may be explained from a combination of lower outdoor PM2.5 levels, reduced particle penetration due to tighter building envelopes (Stephens and Siegel, 2012) combined with exhaust ventilation, and use of medium efficiency air filter (MERV 11 or better) in some HENGH homes. Further analysis of the data will evaluate the role of mechanical ventilation, including local exhaust and whole - dwelling ventilation system, on measured indoor contaminant levels. 5 CONCLUSIONS New California homes now have lower indoor formaldehyde levels than previously measured, likely as a result of California's formaldehyde emission standards. Indoor concentrations of NO2 and PM2.5 measured are also low compared to a prior study of new homes in California. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LBNL work on the project was supported by the California Energy Commission. Field data collection was performed by the Gas Technology Institute. Support for field teams was provided by Pacific Gas & Electric and the Southern California Gas Company. 6REFERENCES Mullen NA et al. 2016 Indoor Air 26(2):231-245. Offermann FJ. 2009. California Air Resource Board and California Energy Commission Report CEC-500-2009-085. Stephens B, Siegel JA. 2012 Indoor Air 22(6):501-513.