Opinion ID: 1199813
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cumulative Toxic Air Emissions Studies

Text: In considering the cumulative effect of project toxic emissions together with emissions attributable to other anticipated projects in the Laurel Heights area, the draft EIR states that there are no accepted methodologies or standards by which to quantitatively measure the cumulative toxic emission impacts of all potential sources of toxic air emissions in the Laurel Heights vicinity.... The draft EIR, therefore, concludes that the potential cumulative impacts of toxic air emissions are too speculative for evaluation. Such a conclusion is specifically authorized by Guidelines section 15145, which states: If, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. The final EIR adopts the same conclusion. Nevertheless, in response to public comments, and in an effort to provide as much information as possible, the final EIR discusses the health risks from background toxic air contaminant levels and presents two possible approaches to assessing impacts of cumulative toxic air emissions, based upon an experimental study. The study concludes that the maximum estimated cumulative cancer risk increase would be below the project significance standard, and that no non-carcinogenic health effects are expected to occur. The final EIR concludes that due to incomplete data and the lack of accepted means of conducting cumulative toxic air contaminant health risk analysis, for purposes of this EIR the cumulative impact of toxic air emissions is unknown as stated in the DEIR [draft EIR]. The Regents, however, treated the unknown impact for purposes of their required findings as if it were an unavoidable significant adverse impact and found that if the impacts were significant, specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible project alternatives in the FEIR [final EIR]. (10) Substantial evidence again supports the Regents' conclusion that the experimental study does not constitute significant new information. First, no new adverse environmental impact was shown by the study. To the extent the study can be credited, it reveals comforting news. Moreover, the studies are experimental; both the draft EIR and final EIR acknowledge that the conclusions are not based upon accepted scientific methodology. The information was merely provided at the request of the public in the interest of amplifying or clarifying the discussion of cumulative toxic air emissions contained in the draft EIR. The minimal value of the experimental study is fully disclosed in the final EIR. Finally, the Regents did not rely upon the study in deciding whether to approve the project; rather, they conservatively adopted a worst case approach to this unknown impact. Therefore, public comment on this study would not further the purposes of CEQA. [27]