Health Impact Assessment - Hermosa Beach - February 2014 - Draft

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT
E&B OIL DRILLING AND PRODUCTION PROJECT

DRAFT
February 2014

Prepared for:
Department of Community Development
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

Prepared by:
McDaniel Lambert, Inc.
1608 Pacific Avenue, Suite 201
Venice, CA 90291
310‐392‐6462

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

Notice Regarding Comment Period

This draft Health Impact Assessment has been prepared by McDaniel Lambert (an Intrinsik
Company) for the City of Hermosa Beach. It is being circulated to provide residents of
Hermosa Beach, and interested parties an opportunity to review the initial conclusions
contained herein, and provide feedback for consideration.

Currently, no laws require the use of a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to evaluate
potential public health consequences of proposed projects, changes in land use or policy
decisions. However, in an effort to provide the residents of Hermosa Beach with as much
information as possible on the health, as well as environmental, and economic impacts of
the proposed project, the City of Hermosa Beach commissioned this HIA. This document
was prepared in coordination with the Draft EIR and Cost Benefit Analysis. The Health
Impact Assessment supplements the analysis of health effects presented in the Draft EIR by
incorporating a broad review of public health evidence, which is not limited to regulatory
thresholds.

We welcome public review and comments on this document during the same timeframe as
the public comment period that is mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) process for the Draft EIR. Public comments received before April 14, 2014 will be
reviewed and incorporated into the final version of this document. Based on comments
and/or additional information received, revisions to this document may include:
 Modification of impact assessments, or additional data analysis
 Explanation of methods, assumptions and/or conclusions

The City of Hermosa Beach does not support nor oppose the proposed project. This report
presents a neutral and unbiased perspective on the potential health impacts of the
proposed project to the City.

Comments for consideration in the Final Health Impact Assessment can be submitted to:

E‐mail: oilproject@hermosabch.org

or via mail/in person to:
Attn: Ken Robertson
Community Development Director
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(310) 318‐0242

Please provide comments no later than April 14, 2014.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... i
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
1.1 City of Hermosa Beach ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Oil Development and Production Activities ................................................................................ 1
1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 HIA Process and Role ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.0 Screening .......................................................................................................................................7
3.0 Scoping ...........................................................................................................................................8
3.1 Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Pathways ................................................................................................................................................. 10
3.2.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 Water and Soil Quality .............................................................................................................. 15
3.2.3 Noise and Light ............................................................................................................................ 17
3.2.4 Traffic ............................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.5 Community Livability ............................................................................................................... 21
4.0 Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 23
4.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.1 Air Quality and Health .............................................................................................................. 26
4.1.2 Current Conditions .................................................................................................................... 32
.
4.1.3 Projected Impact ......................................................................................................................... 36
4.2 Water and Soil Quality ....................................................................................................................... 44
4.2.1 Water, Soil and Health .............................................................................................................. 44
.
4.3 Noise and Light ..................................................................................................................................... 48
4.3.1 Noise, Light and Health ............................................................................................................ 48
.
4.4 Traffic ....................................................................................................................................................... 57
.
4.4.1 Traffic and Health ....................................................................................................................... 57
.
4.5 Community Livability ........................................................................................................................ 66
4.5.1 Community Livability and Health ........................................................................................ 66
.
5.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 74
6.0 References ................................................................................................................................. 84


Figure 1‐1
Figure 3‐1
Figure 3‐2
Figure 3‐3
Figure 3‐4
Figure 3‐5
Figure 3‐6
Figure 3‐7
Figure 4‐1
Figure 4‐2
Figure 4‐3
Figure 4‐4
Figure 4‐5
Figure 4‐6

Table ES‐1
Table 1‐1
Table 4‐1
Table 4‐2
Table 4‐3
Table 4‐4
Table 4‐5
Table 4‐6
Table 4‐7
Table 4‐8
Table 4‐9
Table 5‐1

Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H

FIGURES
Proposed Project Site and Proximity to Schools
Distribution of Survey Participants by Place of Residence
Social‐Ecological Health Framework
Air Quality Pathway Diagram
Water and Soil Quality Pathway Diagram
Noise Pathway Diagram
Traffic Pathway Diagram
Community Livability Pathway Diagram
Local NOx Emission Sources
Local PM Emission Sources
Local NOx Emission Sources with Project
Safe Route to School
Pedestrian Sidewalk, Valley Dr./ 6th St.
Project Site Location and TIA Study Area
TABLES
Health Impact Assessment Summary
Ranking of Environmental and Health Areas of Concern
2008 LA Basin Emissions for Oil and Gas Development and Production
Activities (tons per day)
Summary of Current, Project‐related and Total NOx Emissions
Summary of Current, Project‐related and Total PM10 Emissions
Summary of Change in PM10 Concentrations and Mortality
Summary of Cancer Burden and Change in Hermosa Beach Incidence
Rates
Summary of Odor Assessment
Summary of Existing Noise Levels Around the Project Site (Overall
Average Leq)
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Roadway Segment Analysis, 6th St from Valley Dr to Hermosa Ave.
Health Impact Assessment Summary
APPENDICES
Summary of Los Angeles Urban Oil Drilling Sites
Scoping Checklist
Public Comments and Input to the HIA Process
Health Impact Assessment Community Survey
Baseline Health Assessment
Quality of Life Committee Presentation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ToxFAQs
CHAPIS Gridded Emissions Output


Glossary of Terms, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

Acronym or Term
ACS

Explanation
American Cancer Society

AERMOD

Air modeling program used in EIR

AES

AES Redondo Beach Power Plant

AML

Acute myelogenous leukemia, also called acute myeloid leukemia

BCHD

Beach Cities Health District, serving Manhattan, Hermosa, and Redondo
Beaches
Acronym for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes, compounds
commonly found in petroleum derivatives
California Environmental Protection Agency

BTEX
Cal/EPA
CBA

CEQA

Cost‐benefit analysis, a method of considering the advantages and
disadvantages of a project by converting all outcomes into monetary
values
California Environmental Quality Act, legally requires EIR

CHAPIS

Community Air Pollution Information System

City


Community
Dialogue
CUP
dB

A group of 15‐30 community members engaged in activities to help
define the quality of life and vision for the future of Hermosa
Conditional Use Permit approved on August 12, 1993, which the
proposed project must comply with
decibel

dBA

A‐weighted decibel, to approximate human sensitivity to sound

DDT

Pesticide banned by the USEPA in 1972 due to environmental effects

Determinants of
health
E&B

Factors that contribute to the health of individuals or communities

EIR

E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation

H2S

Environmental Impact Report, the analysis of the environmental effects
of a project and reasonable alternatives to it, mandated by CEQA
Hydrogen sulfide

HBEF

Hermosa Beach Education Foundation

HHRA

Human Health Risk Assessment

HIA

Health Impact Assessment, a combination of procedures, methods, and
tools by which a project can be judged as to its potential effects on the
health of a population
International Agency for Research on Cancer

IARC


Acronym or Term
Incidence rate
Leq
LOS

MTCO2e
NOx

Explanation
A measure of the new cases of illness during a specified time period
Equivalent sound level, or the average noise level over a period of time
Level of service, related to the degree of traffic congestion at
intersections
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III
Refers to the presence of disease in an individual or population
A measure of the frequency of disease in a defined population during a
specified time interval
A measure of the frequency of death in a defined population during a
specified time interval
Metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions
Oxides of Nitrogen

OEHHA

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

PAHs

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCE

Passenger car equivalence

PCB

Polychlorinated biphenyl, PCBs are no longer commercially produced in
the US due to toxicity
Pacific Coast Highway, the most trafficked roadway in Hermosa Beach

MATES III
Morbidity
Morbidity rate
Mortality rate

PCH
PM

ppb

Particulate matter, particles with a diameter smaller than 10 µg are
referred to as PM10, and particles with a diameter smaller than 2.5 µg
are known as PM2.5
Parts per billion

ppm

Parts per million

Proposed project
SCAQMD
SIR
Site
TMDL
TPH
TIA
USEPA
µg/m3
VOCs

Proposed E&B oil drilling and production project
Southern California Air Quality Monitoring District
Standardized incidence ratio, quotient of observed and expected
number of cases (e.g., cancer cases)
Proposed project site, at the current City Maintenance Yard
Total maximum daily load, a regulatory water quality requirement
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Traffic impact analysis
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Microgram per meter cubed
Volatile organic compounds

WSB
WHO

Walking school bus
World Health Organization


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To inform the Hermosa voters, this assessment focused on potential health impacts
associated with the Applicant’s proposed oil drilling and production project and the
Environmental Impact Report’s proposed mitigation measures. The benefit of this Health
Impact Assessment is that is an evaluation focused on how the proposed project could
affect health status, health behaviors and social and economic resources. The HIA
supplements the analysis of health effects presented in the Draft EIR by incorporating a
broad review of public health evidence, which is not limited to regulatory thresholds.

Health Impact Assessment consists of these five essential components: (1)screening –
deciding whether or not an HIA would be valuable and feasible, (2)scoping – determining
health issues for analysis, (3)assessment – using data, professional expertise, and scientific
research to assess the magnitude and likelihood of potential health impacts considering the
mitigations, (4)reporting – synthesizing the assessment findings into this HIA report and
communicating the results in public meetings, and (5)monitoring (if the proposed project
is approved) – tracking the potential impacts or benefits of project decisions on health
determinants and health status. In the scoping step, existing health and environmental
measures for the City of Hermosa Beach from regulatory agency monitoring and published
reports were documented in the Baseline Health Assessment (see Appendix E).

Based on community input, review of the project description, and available scientific
evidence, five areas of health focus were assessed: air quality, water and soil quality, noise
and light, traffic and community livability. Within each area of health focus, potential
health determinants and outcomes were identified and assessed through a review of the
scientific literature, consultation with an engineering expert, information collected in the
EIR process, and secondary data analysis. Each of the potential health impacts and benefits
were characterized with a numeric rank based on whether the proposed project may result
in a positive or negative effect, and based on the geographic extent, likelihood, vulnerable
populations, duration and frequency of exposure, and magnitude of the health impact. The
lowest possible rank is 6 and the highest possible rank is 15, with a negative (‐) number
representing negative health effects and a positive (+) number representing positive health
effects. The numeric ranks do not represent a quantitative estimate of risk, but are
provided for the purpose of describing the relative importance of each potential health
impact compared to the other potential health impacts in this HIA.

The health determinants that produced rankings on the higher end of the negative
spectrum (ranking from ‐16 to ‐11) include air emissions (oxides of nitrogen, particulate
matter, volatile organic compounds, and odor‐releasing compounds), noise and lighting
disturbances, traffic injury, access to green spaces, and social cohesion. The health
determinants that produced rankings on the lower end of the negative spectrum (ranking
Draft Health Impact Assessment - Proposed E&B Oil Drilling and Production Project

-i-

from ‐10 to ‐6) include greenhouse gas emissions, surface water, soil deposition, a
spill/blowout event, and property values. Mitigation measures proposed in the EIR slightly
decrease the ranking for odor, soil deposition, and traffic injury, but otherwise did not
change the relative importance of the potential health impacts. The health determinants
that produced positive rankings include lighting safety, community resources for
education, and political involvement. The characterization of each health determinant is
provided in Table ES‐1.

In summary, major findings from the HIA include:

Air Quality






Evidence in the literature suggests negative health impacts of priority
pollutant air emissions: Increases in nitrogen oxides and particulate matter in air
can increase mortality rates, and respiratory and cardiovascular disease rates.
Exposure to particulate matter air emissions from the proposed project activities
involving fuel combustion (during Phases 2 and 4) may lead to an increase in
mortality of 0 to 1.6 people per year. Increased NO2 emissions from microturbines
in Phase 4, may lead to an increase in childhood asthma cases of up to six additional
cases per year. The assessments of increased particulate matter and NO2 emissions
were health protective by assuming that all residents in Hermosa Beach will be
exposed to the pollution concentrations predicted for residences closest to the
proposed site.
Hydrogen sulfide odor emissions will likely have negative health impacts:
Odor sensitivity varies greatly from person to person. Potential health impacts from
odor emissions range from nausea and headaches to mental health effects.
Greenhouse gas emissions are not likely to directly impact health: Hermosa
has low susceptibility to the local effects of global change both due to current
climate conditions and the ability of the community to manage impacts from a
changing climate. Additionally, goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions suggest
that greenhouse gas emissions from the project could be offset by alternative
measures, which could be further explored.


-ii-

TABLE ES‐1. CHARACTERIZATION OF HEALTH IMPACTS

Impact
Direction
Air Quality
Oxides of Nitrogen
Negative
Particulate Matter
Negative
Volatile Organic Compounds Negative
Hydrogen Sulfide and Odor
Negative
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Negative
Water and Soil
Surface Water
Negative
Soil Deposition
Negative
Spill/Blowout Event
Negative
Noise, Vibration and Lighting
Noise Disturbances
Negative
Lighting Disturbances
Negative
Lighting Safety
Positive
Traffic

Traffic Injury
Negative
Physical Activity
Negative
Community Livability
Property values
Negative
Community Resources –
Negative
Green Space Access
Community Resources –
Positive
Education
Social Cohesion
Negative
Political involvement
Positive

Likelihood
of health
impact

Magnitude
of health
impact

Rank

EIR
Mitigated
Project
Rank

Geographic
extent

Vulnerable
populations

Duration

Frequency

Community‐wide
Community‐wide
Community‐wide
Community‐wide
Global

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Long
Long
Long
Long
Long

Possible
Likely
Possible
Likely
Unlikely

Moderate
Severe
Severe
Moderate
Low

‐13
‐15
‐14
‐14
‐10

Same
Same
Same
‐13*
Same

Community‐wide
Localized
Community‐wide

Yes
Yes
Yes

Short
Short
Short

Possible
Possible
Unlikely

Low
Moderate
Severe

‐9
‐9
‐10

Same
‐8**
Same

Community‐wide
Localized
Localized

Localized
Localized

Yes
Yes
No

Medium
Long
Long

Likely
Unlikely
Possible

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

‐13
‐11
+11

Same
Same
Same

Yes
Yes

Long
Long

Possible
Possible

Severe
Low

‐13
‐11

‐12***
Same

None
Yes

Long
Long

Frequent
Frequent
Frequent
Frequent
Frequent

Infrequent
Infrequent
Infrequent

Frequent
Frequent
Frequent

Frequent
Frequent

Frequent
Frequent

Possible
Possible

Low
Moderate

‐10
‐12

Same
Same

Community‐wide

Yes

Long

Infrequent

Likely

Low

+12

Same

Community‐wide
Community‐wide

Yes
None

Medium
Medium

Frequent
Frequent

Possible
Possible

Low
Low

‐11
+10

Same
Same

Localized
Localized

*Hydrogen sulfide and odor mitigation measures would decrease frequency to ‘infrequent’
**The health screening level proposed in the EIR and additional soil sampling decrease the potential negative health impact by changing the likelihood to ‘unlikely.’
***Mitigation measures proposed in the EIR (e.g. increased crossing‐guard presence, additional warning signs and lights) would reduce likelihood to ‘unlikely’.
Attribute Key ‐ each attribute is summed resulting in health rankings ranging from 6 to 15, with a direction of either positive (+) or negative (‐):
Geographic Extent: Classified as global (0 points), localized (close proximity to the project, 1 point) or community‐wide (across Hermosa Beach, 2 points).
Vulnerable Populations: Classified as no (affects all subpopulations evenly, 1 point) or yes (disproportionately sensitive populations impacts, 2 points).
Duration: Classified as short (less than a month, 1 point), medium (more than a month and less than a year, 2 points) or long (more than a year, 3 points).
Frequency: Classified as infrequent (periodically, or rarely, 1 point), or frequent (potential for constant or multiple exposures, 2 points).
Likelihood/Strength of Evidence: Classified as unlikely (little evidence that health impact or benefit could occur as a result of the proposed project, 1 point), possible
(logically plausible that health effects may occur, 2 points), or likely (evidence suggests health effects commonly occur in similar projects, 3 points).
Magnitude/Severity: Classified as low (health effects can be easily managed and do not require treatment, 1 point), moderate (health effects that require treatment or
medical attention and are reversible, 2 points), or severe (health effects that are chronic, irreversible or fatal, 3 points).

Water and Soil Quality


Containment strategy will likely eliminate health impact of hazardous
chemicals in surface water runoff: Walls and berms will contain storm water and
spills within the project site, therefore the public will not likely come into contact
with chemicals in surface water runoff.
 Insufficient data to quantify the contaminants currently present in surface
soil: Soil particulates containing hazardous chemicals can be transported through
the air to nearby residential areas and parks, especially during high winds and
construction activities. Lead in soil may pose a health risk, however additional
sampling is needed before site preparation occurs in the first phase of the project.
Additional soil sampling is to be conducted in Spring 2014 to fully characterize the
contaminants present in soil at the proposed project Site.
 Evidence from other crude oil spills and well blowout events indicate the low
likelihood of long‐term negative health impacts: Short‐term exposure to crude
oil can lead to headaches, eye/skin irritation, respiratory conditions, anxiety, and
depression. If a spill reaches the Pacific Ocean, local fishing would be negatively
impacted. Although a well blowout has a very low probability, such an event could
result in fatalities.

Noise and Light


Evidence in the literature suggests negative impacts of noise emissions: Noise
is strongly linked to sleep disturbance, cardiovascular disease, stress, and decreased
student achievement. Increases in nighttime noise during drilling, testing, and
production activities will likely change the quality of sleep of nearby residential
neighborhoods. Pipeline construction noise will reach levels above 70 dBA, which
can increase risk of hypertension and may impact schools in the vicinity of the
proposed pipeline route.
 Mitigation measures and uncertainties associated with nighttime lighting
plan: Light disturbances are associated with sleep disturbance and decreased
melatonin hormone production. The proposed project has a general description of
downcast lighting that is hooded and shielded, which would reduce the potential for
negative health impacts. Because the brightness of the lighting is not specified, the
possible level of glare into the surrounding area could not be predicted.
 Evidence in the literature suggests positive impacts of nighttime lighting:
Additional lighting may improve the perception of safety and contribute to more
physical activity in the immediate vicinity of the Site at nighttime.

Traffic


Insufficient data on pedestrian and bicyclist frequency to quantify the traffic
injury impacts from truck traffic: Children and elderly are more vulnerable to the


-iv-



increased risk of traffic injury. Although Valley is a highly traveled sidewalk, no data
are currently available to quantify the existing number of pedestrians and bicyclists
that frequently travel by Valley Drive and 6th Street. The mitigation measures in the
EIR will reduce the risk of traffic injury.
Traffic safety and perceived traffic safety can impact health by decreasing
physical activity levels: Residents may choose to avoid walking by areas affected
by truck traffic, because they feel their safety is compromised. Since the community
values a walkable environment, it is possible that residents will find an alternate
route to walk.

Community Livability







Property values and stress: An actual or perceived loss in property values may
cause stress among homeowners.
Evidence in the literature supports an association between access to
community resources, physical health, and mental health: Perceived hazards in
the natural environment may decrease green space use and lead to negative health
impacts, including higher rates of obesity, heart disease, and psychological distress.
Revenue for schools: Education is one of the most powerful predictors of health.
Quality of education has positive social and economic health impacts. Project
revenue that could be set aside for schools would be a small proportion of current
private donations made to schools on an annual basis. This suggests that alternative
avenues for offsetting state funding deficits could be explored.
Evidence in the literature suggests negative and positive impacts of the
opportunity for residents to vote on the oil and gas project: Community
participation in voting on the settlement has created negative health impacts of
stress and disruption in social cohesion. On the other hand, political engagement
may create positive health impacts, because individuals are able to exercise control
over decisions that affect their health and well‐being.

Based on these findings, the proposed oil drilling and production project could result in
negative health impacts ranging from localized to community‐wide, however the extent of
some of these impacts is uncertain and could not be quantified. Given the limited data
available and uncertainties in some instances, decision‐makers (Hermosa Beach voters)
may want to consider additional options such as:


Air monitoring to verify model assumptions: Air emissions were calculated using
conservative assumptions based on standard operations and regional ambient air
data. While the estimated project impact on air quality is likely to be conservative,
there are uncertainties associated with various model assumptions. Additional
upwind and downwind monitoring of dust and key contaminants would allow for
ongoing evaluation during construction and other project‐related activities. Upwind


-v-

and downwind monitoring would need to be done for a period of time of
approximately six months before any project activities to understand the normal
background variations.
 Follow‐up community health assessment: Hermosa Beach is recognized as a
healthy city with favorable demographic health indicators and mortality rates,
compared to other cities in California and Los Angeles County. If the project is
approved, health statistics reported in county and state‐wide databases could be
monitored to assess whether or not any changes from baseline occur. However,
there are limited data available to quantify potential health impacts of the project on
sleep disturbance, stress, social cohesion and other quality of life factors. A
community health survey could be used as a tool to establish current baseline
conditions, and to monitor whether health status changes during the project.
 Alternate funding sources: Oil revenue has the potential to positively impact
health through improving school programs, as well as other community resources
not addressed in this assessment. The financial working committee in the
Community Dialogue group identified numerous opportunities in Hermosa Beach to
raise additional revenue for desired projects in the City. Alternate opportunities for
revenue should be further explored.

Regardless of whether the proposed project moves forward, the City of Hermosa Beach
should continue to prioritize public health considerations during decision‐making
processes to ensure the well‐being of community members into the future.


-vi-

1.0

Introduction

Under the settlement agreement that ended litigation with Macpherson Oil Company, an
election will be held to allow the City of Hermosa Beach voters to decide whether to repeal
the existing ban on oil drilling in the city limits. The terms of the settlement agreement
provide that, if voters agree to lift the ban, the City will enter into a development agreement
with E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (E&B) to develop an oil drilling and
production facility at the City Maintenance Yard (the Site) and the City will owe E&B $3.5
million. If the voters do not lift the ban on oil, the City of Hermosa Beach (the City) would
owe E&B a total of $17.5 million.

In order to inform voters about the potential economic, social, environmental, and health
impacts and/or benefits of E&B’s proposed oil drilling and production project, the City is
conducting this Health Impact Assessment (HIA), in addition to a Cost‐Benefit Analysis
(CBA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), while the CBA and HIA are stand‐alone documents the
City elected to complete in order to provide community members with additional
information on the proposed oil project. The HIA also provides the opportunity for health
input into the economic and environmental assessments.

If the project is approved by Hermosa Beach voters, the oversight agencies that will
participate in environmental and safety reviews include the California Coastal Commission,
the State Lands Commission, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the State
Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources.

1.1 City of Hermosa Beach
Founded in 1907, Hermosa Beach is known as “The Best Little Beach City”. Hermosa Beach
has a population of approximately 20,000 people, with a high proportion of residents
between the age of 25 and 50 (US Census, 2013). The City is carrying out a Community
Dialogue process to identify the values and long‐term goals for Hermosa Beach. A series of
workshops has been conducted to engage local residents and business owners in
describing priorities and building a framework for decision‐making. The HIA team has
been participating in and coordinating with the Community Dialogue process in order to
incorporate key quality of life aspects, as identified by Hermosa Beach community
members, into the evaluation of overall community health and well‐being.

1.2 Oil Development and Production Activities
The current boom in domestic crude oil production is approaching the historical high
achieved in 1970 of 9.6 million barrels per day (EIA 2013). Projections and analysis
summarized in the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2014
Release Overview attribute the growth in domestic production to improvements in

-1-

advanced technologies for crude oil and natural gas production. Specifically for U.S.
production of crude oil, projections for higher production volumes result mainly from
increased onshore oil production, primarily from formations with low permeability.
California remains one to the top producers of crude oil in the nation, accounting for almost
one‐tenth of the total U.S. production (EIA 2013). Petroleum reservoirs are concentrated in
geologic basins along the Pacific Coast and in the Central Valley. Los Angeles is considered
the most urban oil field in the country, with a long history of the petroleum industry
operating in nonindustrial areas (CLUI 2010). Due to the high cost of land in the Los
Angeles basin, there has been economic incentive to develop modern drilling technology
that allows oil wells to be concentrated into smaller areas. Directional drilling techniques
decrease the industry’s surface footprint while increasing the subsurface drillable area.
Since industrial processes are generally not desired in densely populated areas due to
environmental and health concerns, many oil drilling sites in Los Angeles have
incorporated mitigation measures (e.g. noise muffling, visual barriers, closed‐loop systems)
to help reduce the potential impacts to surrounding communities.

There are 34 known active oil fields in the Los Angeles Basin spread out across the regions
of Inglewood, Westside and Downtown, Eastern Los Angeles and Inland, the Coast and
South Bay, Harbor and Long Beach, and the South Coast (see Appendix A). The active oil
fields vary greatly in size and in oil production volumes. Small fields like Chino‐Soquet
produce just over a thousand barrels of oil per year while Wilmington, the most productive
oil field in the Los Angeles Basin, produces about 3.5 million barrels per year from 1,300
active wells. Many of the wells operate in densely populated urban areas. For example, in
the Beverly Hills Field oil is accessed from three urban well sites, including one within
Beverly Hills High School and another on Pico Blvd hidden from view by a windowless
four‐walled structure that appears to be an office building to the passerby. Given the long
history of oil drilling in Los Angeles, the wells and pumpjacks were often present before
suburban housing developments encroached upon drilling leases.

Appendix A summarizes some of the known health concerns associated with urban drilling
sites. Various health and environmental concerns surround production at the Inglewood
oil field, which covers 950 acres in urbanized Los Angeles. In 2006, noxious gases
entrained in drilling muds were released and detected by neighbors more than 1,000 feet
from drilling activities. As a result of several investigations, a 2011 CEQA lawsuit
settlement required the operator to: reduce drilling of new wells, increase air quality
monitoring, and adhere to more stringent noise limits. Additionally, LA County was
required to perform mandatory health assessments with environmental justice
components. Other health concerns from urban oil drilling relate to surface methane seeps,
noise and odor, and land subsidence. Oil seeps from the Salt Lake oil field located beneath

-2-

the Fairfax district caused a 1985 methane explosion at a clothing store, injuring over 20
people. Concern about the potential for future fire and explosions led the City of Los
Angeles to impose requirements for methane venting and monitoring.

This HIA evaluates potential health impacts that could result from oil drilling and
production activities in the City of Hermosa Beach according to the site‐specific project
description, as summarized in Section 1.3 below.

1.3 Project Description
The proposed E&B Oil Development Project (proposed project) consists of 30 production
wells on a 1.3‐acre site located on the current City Maintenance Yard property (the Site) at
the corner of Valley Drive and 6th Street in the City of Hermosa Beach (the City). For
reference, Figure 1‐1 shows the Site location in relation to the public, private, and
preschools in the City.

E&B’s proposed project would also involve the installation of underground pipelines to
transport the processed oil and gas. The complete description of the proposed project is
provided in the Project Application and supporting documents (E&B 2012, 2013a,b).
Briefly, the proposed project consists of the following objectives:
 Develop the proposed project consistent with the 1993 Conditional Use Permit and
the March 2, 2012 Settlement Agreement, with the utilization of directional drilling
techniques from the Project site, which is the current City Maintenance Yard;
 Maximize oil and gas production from the Torrance Oil Field within the City’s
jurisdiction, thereby maximizing the economic benefits to the City;
 Provide an oil and gas development project on the Site that utilizes the latest
technology and operational advancements related to safety and production
efficiency in order to provide a project that would be safe and would meet the
applicable environmental requirements;
 Conduct construction and drilling activities on the project site incorporating
technological advancements, operational practices, and design features related to
air quality, odors, noise, hazards, and water quality to minimize the potential
impacts on the adjacent community and the environment;
 Provide landscaping, hardscaping, signage, lighting, and other design features to
minimize the visual effects of the proposed project on the adjacent community; and
 Implement operational practices and incorporate design features to provide safe
vehicular ingress and egress during temporary construction activities and the
ongoing operation of the proposed project.
To accomplish these objectives, the proposed project would occur in four phases, as
described below.


-3-

Figure 1‐1: Site Location and Proximity to Schools

Proposed
Project Site

Source: California Department of Public Health <http://gis.cdph.ca.gov/cnn2.0/cnn.html?mapid=4587189>

Phase 1 – Site Preparation and Construction (6 to 7 months): The primary purpose of
Phase 1 is to prepare the Site for drilling and testing, as well as the subsequent phases of
the proposed project. Construction activities include clearing and grading the Site,
constructing retaining walls and the well cellar, installing fencing and electrical equipment,
and placing existing overhead utilities underground. At this time, the City Maintenance
Yard would be relocated to a temporary or permanent location. The most disruptive
construction activities during this phase are expected to be demolition of existing
infrastructure on the Site and construction of the well cellar. Construction activities will
also require truck trips in order to deliver and remove construction equipment, which

-4-

would utilize designated truck routes in the cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and
Torrance.

Phase 2 – Drilling and Testing (10 to 13 months): This phase will involve drilling and
testing of wells in order to estimate the potential productivity and economic viability of the
proposed project. The primary construction and drilling activities include installing a
temporary trailer on the northeast corner of the site, setting up the drill rig and other
production equipment, drilling the test wells, and operation activities. The drill rig would
operate for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week for an estimated 120 days during this phase.
A 35‐foot‐high barrier wall would be constructed around the perimeter of the Site during
all drilling activities.

Phase 3 – Final Design and Construction (16 months): If Phase 2 determines that the
proposed project is economically feasible, Phase 3 would be carried out to prepare the Site
for permanent oil and gas production facilities and to construct offsite pipelines. After
removing the temporary production equipment from Phase 2 and preparing the Site for
earthmoving activities, the Remedial Action Plan would be implemented to address metal
and petroleum‐contaminated soil and groundwater at the Site. This phase would involve
extending and completing the construction of the cement well cellar (to be approximately 8
feet wide by 120 feet long by 12 feet deep), placing a small office building onsite, and
constructing sound barrier walls. The permanent oil production facility will include tanks,
vessels, piping, pumps, filters and corresponding metering equipment. The Site will be
paved and the facility will be designed in a manner to capture all liquids, including
rainwater, in designated containment areas. Street improvements (e.g. new curbs, gutters,
sidewalks) will be made along 6th Street and Valley Drive.

Phase 4 – Development and Operations (approximately 30 years): Phase 4 will
maximize oil and gas recovery through the construction of an 87‐foot high drill rig, the
drilling of an additional 30 wells and through the continuous operation of the proposed
project. It is estimated that it will take two weeks to set up the drill rig, and two and a half
years to drill the remaining 30 wells. Facility operations and maintenance will be
continuous for approximately 30 years, with five re‐drills occurring during any given year.
Over the life of the proposed project, active wells will require periodic maintenance, which
will be accomplished by utilizing a 110‐foot high “workover” rig (during weekdays 8:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. only).

1.4 HIA Process and Role
This report considers the potential health impacts of the four phases of this proposed
project by evaluating social, economic, and environmental factors specific to the local
community. As described above in the outline of Phase 1 (Section 1.3), accomplishing the

-5-

objectives of E&B’s proposed project necessitates relocating the City Maintenance Yard to a
temporary or permanent location. Any potential impacts of moving the City Maintenance
Yard are considered independent of the proposed project and are not addressed in this
HIA.

In accordance with the Guide for Health Impact Assessment (CDPH 2010) and the National
Research Council Committee Report on the Role of Health Impact Assessment (2011), the
HIA consists of these five essential components:
1. Screening – Deciding whether or not an HIA would be valuable and feasible.
2. Scoping – Determining health issues for analysis, the temporal and spatial
boundaries for analysis, and research methods to be employed.
3. Assessment – Using data, professional expertise, and scientific research to assess
the magnitude and likelihood of potential health impacts. This includes identifying
the significance, any appropriate mitigations and/or design alternatives.
4. Reporting – Synthesizing the assessment findings and communicating the results in
written reports, fact sheets, and public meetings.
5. Monitoring – Tracking the potential impacts or benefits of project decisions on
health determinants and health status.
Overall, this HIA is part of the City’s efforts to evaluate the various social, economic
environmental and health impacts of the proposed oil project. The objective of this HIA is
to inform community members of potential health impacts associated with the proposed
project.


-6-

2.0

Screening

The screening step determines whether to conduct an HIA and begins to define specific
objectives by considering potential project impacts to public health and defining
community vulnerabilities. Several factors are considered, including the value of the HIA,
the feasibility and capacity to conduct an HIA, and the openness of the decision‐making
process (CDPH 2010). The primary objective of this HIA is to identify and inform voters of
potential health impacts and/or benefits of the proposed project. A better understanding
of the likelihood, magnitude and extent of potential health impacts is needed, and the City
of Hermosa Beach is committed to communicating the findings of the HIA to facilitate the
decision‐making process. The availability of existing regulatory frameworks to evaluate
health impacts is also taken into consideration when determining the need for an HIA. The
proposed E&B oil drilling and production project is subject to regulation under CEQA,
which requires an EIR. While CEQA legally requires health‐based standards be addressed
in the EIR, traditionally EIRs are not designed to comprehensively address health impacts,
including social and economic determinants of health. The benefit of this HIA is that it is an
evaluation focused on how the proposed project could affect health status, health behaviors
and social and economic resources necessary for public health.

The proposal for oil and gas development in the City of Hermosa Beach has generated
considerable controversy. In an Open House in September 2013 and a public meeting in
October 2013, residents expressed a variety of concerns about the potential health impacts
of the proposed project. Health concerns associated with oil and gas facilities, raised by the
community, included:
 Physical – hazards resulting from accidents, malfunctions and emergencies
 Environmental – adverse impacts to the quality of air, water, soil or food
 Socioeconomic – impacts to community resources
 Psychological – mental health impacts
 Other – cumulative effects, political stress of the decision‐making process

The questions and comments received at the public meeting regarding these health topics
reinforced the City’s decision to conduct an HIA. Therefore, it was determined that
conducting an HIA on the proposed project would add value and serve to increase the
consideration of health in the decision‐making process. The residents of Hermosa Beach
will be voting on whether to lift the ban on oil drilling in November 2014, and will have
information from the HIA, EIR and CBA available to help make their decision. The HIA
process began more than a year before the vote in order to allow time for adequate
stakeholder engagement, review of scientific literature, and communication of results
before the election is held.

-7-

3.0

Scoping

The initial considerations raised in the screening step are further defined in the scoping
step, as the areas of focus and HIA objectives are more clearly identified. The scoping
process followed the Guide for Health Impact Assessment (CDPH 2010), which outlines the
process for identifying priority issues, research questions and methods. Additional
guidance documents were used in the development of this HIA, including the Technical
Guidance for Health Impact Assessment in Alaska (2011), because many of the HIAs in
Alaska have been conducted to evaluate potential impacts from proposed oil and gas
development projects. Lastly, tools and resources provided by Human Impact Partners, a
nationwide organization dedicated to building the capacity of HIAs, supplemented the
scoping process through its searchable database of scientific articles on social, economic
and environmental determinants of health.

Since the proposed project can impact a range of health outcomes in the community, a
comprehensive scoping checklist that considers the likelihood and magnitude of impacts
was used to begin this step (see Appendix B). Through stakeholder participation and
review of scientific evidence supporting potential health impacts, this list was further
refined in the scoping step.

3.1 Stakeholder Engagement
Broad participation by stakeholders in the community is a key component of HIA, and the
scoping step in particular. Community participation and expert consultations ensure that
the most important issues and best evidence are included in the analysis. Health
determinants were prioritized based on both key issues identified by community members,
health research and professional experience.

Community input following a public Open House and HIA scoping meeting were carefully
considered. The compilation of written‐feedback is included in Appendix C. In addition to
the Open House and public meeting to solicit public input, an online survey was conducted
to understand the key issues of concern among community members. The survey was
announced at the public input meeting, and posted on the City’s website. The survey
consisted of four multiple choice questions, and a copy of the survey is provided in
Appendix D. The questions asked where respondents live, whether there is concern about
health impacts of the proposed project, what potential health impacts are of most concern,
and if the level of concern depends on the various project phases. A total of 292
community members responded. The majority of the survey participants live in Hermosa
Beach near the Site of the proposed project (South of Pier Avenue and West of Pacific Coast
Highway, see Figure 3‐1).


-8-

Survey Question 1: Where do you live?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Hermosa Beach ‐ Hermosa Beach ‐ Hermosa Beach ‐ Hermosa Beach ‐
North of Pier
South of Pier
North of Pier
South of Pier
Ave and West of Ave and West of Ave and East of Ave and East of
the PCH
the PCH
the PCH
the PCH

Manhattan
Beach

FIGURE 3‐1. DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE

Redondo Beach

Of the 292 survey participants, nearly all community members (93%) are concerned about
the potential health impacts of the proposed project. The remaining 7% of survey
participants are either not concerned about potential health impacts or are not sure. For a
total of 18 topics, survey participants ranked their level of concern as “very concerned”,
“somewhat concerned”, “not concerned” or “no opinion”; participants were also given the
option to specify “other” concerns. Overall, survey respondents are very concerned about
all of the health and environmental topics (responses of “I am very concerned” ranged from
62% to 89% for individual topics). Table 3‐1 (presented below) ranks the concerns of
respondents in order of greatest concern. The issues of most concern include
explosions/spills, impacts to the ocean or beach, soil contamination, air quality, odor and
surface water contamination. Possible vibration impacts, parking problems and lights are
also priority issues, but overall concern is lower relative to other issues. A total of 73
survey participants also specified other areas of concern that are not listed in Table 3‐1.
Among the most common free response answers, concerns include hydrogen sulfide,
cancer, traffic accidents, and sensitivity of children to environmental exposures. The
complete list of survey responses is included in Appendix D.


-9-

TABLE 3‐1. RANKING OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH AREAS OF CONCERN
Answer Options
Explosions/Spills/Accidents
Potential impacts to the ocean
Soil contamination
Air quality issues
Odor
Surface water contamination
Truck traffic
Drinking water contamination
Property values
Noise
Land subsidence (sinking)
Less access to community spaces
Earthquakes
Image of the City
Vibration
Parking problems
Lights

Very
concerned
254
259
249
247
248
244
230
234
223
220
212
210
207
210
204
195
177

Somewhat
Not
No
concerned concerned opinion
23
6
1
16
10
1
27
8
1
26
9
1
25
8
2
22
11
3
45
6
2
30
15
4
33
19
4
39
21
3
43
16
6
51
16
5
55
20
2
41
24
4
47
25
6
58
23
6
63
32
6

Rating
Average
1.13
1.14
1.16
1.17
1.17
1.19
1.22
1.25
1.3
1.32
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.36
1.41
1.43
1.52

The last question of the survey asked if the level of concern differs based on the phase of
the proposed project. The responses reflected a higher level of concern associated with
both drilling phases – Phase 2 and Phase 4. Comparatively, the survey respondents are less
concerned with the construction phases, Phase 1 and 3. The assessment in Section 4 will
reference the corresponding project phase and/or duration of potential environmental
exposure.

3.2 Pathways
A complex interplay of factors determines the health of individuals and communities.
Environmental exposures can influence individual behaviors, social networks, living
conditions and culture in local and global communities. Therefore, determinants of health
include the social and economic environment, in addition to the physical environment and
an individual’s characteristics and behaviors. There are many models that have recognized
the social‐economic influences on health, and one example provided by the federal
government’s national health objective, Healthy People 2020, is shown in Figure 3‐2 below.


-10-

FIGURE 3‐2. SOCIAL‐ECOLOGICAL HEALTH FRAMEWORK

Source: Healthy People 2020 (USHHS 2008)

In the scoping process, pathway diagrams were created to understand the potential health
impacts and benefits of approving the proposed project on social, economic, physical,
psychological and other health‐related quality of life outcomes. Public input and a review
of other oil and gas development projects in the Los Angeles area were taken into
consideration to further refine the areas of health focus for this evaluation. Due to the large
variety in designs for oil and gas development projects, a professional engineer with over
15 years of experience in the oil and gas industry was consulted to identify specific
vulnerabilities of this proposed project as described in the E&B project application (2012,
2013a,b). Additionally, key case studies and review articles of health assessments related
to oil and/or gas development taken into consideration during the development of
pathways for this HIA, including:
1. Northeast National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska Final Supplement Integrated
Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2008)
2. Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County Colorado (UofC
2010)
3. Inglewood Oil Field Communities Health Assessment (LACDPH 2011a)
4. Health Impact Assessment of Shale Gas Extraction (NAP 2013)

-11-

In the process of identifying pathways to evaluate in this HIA, the data for baseline
conditions were established. While there are many important health impacts to evaluate,
the scope of the HIA is dependent on available data and methods to conduct the
assessment. HIA is an emerging field of study, in which the technical capacity to conduct
qualitative and qualitative analysis is continuing to evolve. In the scoping step, existing
health and environmental measures from regulatory agency monitoring and published
reports were documented in the Baseline Health Assessment (see Appendix E). Baseline
data collected for the purposes of the EIR were also incorporated into the Baseline Health
Assessment. Original data collection, such as health surveys or exposure assessment, is
beyond the scope of this HIA.
Based on public input, review of the project description, and available scientific evidence,
the following pathways through which health could be impacted by the proposed project
are presented in Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.5:
 Air Quality
 Water and Soil Quality
 Noise and Light
 Traffic
 Community Livability


-12-

3.2.1 Air Quality
In the project description, E&B stated that its proposed oil and gas development facility will
utilize the latest technology and operational advancements in order to reduce impacts on
air quality, especially considering the proximity of the adjacent neighborhood. The specific
measures proposed include an automatic drill rig powered by electricity (as opposed to
diesel), limiting the number of truck trips to and from the Site, and air monitoring
activities. This HIA identified and evaluated four primary sources of air quality impacts:
construction, truck traffic, and operations.
Unless completely mitigated, air emissions from project construction have the potential to
impact the surrounding community. Construction equipment and vehicles transporting
equipment can expose residents, commercial businesses, pedestrians and bicyclists to fine
particulate and diesel particulate matter emissions (see Figure 3‐3).
On‐road vehicles can also cause traffic congestion, and increase the risk of traffic injury to
motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists (see Section 4.4). In addition to emissions from the
internal combustion engines of construction equipment, soil excavation and movement
during construction activities can generate dust.
Emissions during oil production operations (including testing, drilling and production
phases) also have the potential to impact the air quality of the neighborhood. The emission
sources associated with operational activities include onsite microturbines used to
generate onsite electricity, routine and emergency flaring events, and volatile fugitive
emissions from valves, compressors, pumps and connections. Muds that contain
hydrocarbons can surface and release hydrocarbon vapors (referred to as “mud off‐
gassing”). Drilling muds may contain hydrogen sulfide, benzene and other volatile
contaminants, which can pose adverse short‐term and long‐term health effects to the
nearby community. Additionally, hydrogen sulfide and hydrocarbon vapors can leak into
ambient air and exceed odor thresholds. Due to the close proximity of the site to
neighbors, businesses and the public (within 100 feet of businesses, 160 feet of residences
and 20 feet of the public sidewalks), numerous other scenarios could cause odors offsite.
These could include various maintenance activities and small spills; equipment
components could also leak and cause odors.

There is a large amount of evidence in the public health literature that describes the
association between ambient air pollutants and health outcomes, specifically respiratory
and cardiovascular disease; however, there are inconsistencies and difficulties in
interpreting the abundance of the available information. The supporting evidence for
evaluating the air quality health determinants illustrated in Figure 3‐3 is summarized in
Section 4.1.1.

-13-

FIGURE 3‐3. AIR QUALITY PATHWAY DIAGRAM


-14-

3.2.2 Water and Soil Quality
Three primary sources of water and soil quality impacts were identified in the scoping
phase: (1) discharge of wastewater and surface water runoff during construction and
operations, (2) deposition of windblown soil particulates to offsite surface soil, and (3)
contamination from a crude oil spill or upset event. The primary water resource near the
Site and pipeline route is the Pacific Ocean. The ocean provides a potential exposure
pathway for recreational users to come into direct contact with contaminants from the Site,
or to ingest fish or seafood that may be impacted from site activities. There are no other
surface water bodies in the vicinity of the proposed project. Adjacent land uses that could
be impacted by soil particulates include residential, commercial and recreational areas.

There are other potential impacts in this area of focus that are not evaluated. Potential
storm water impacts have been addressed in the EIR, and a mitigation monitoring plan
would improve the existing sewer to allow for the capacity required to support the
proposed project. Therefore, storm water is not further evaluated in this assessment.

Additionally, groundwater is not evaluated as groundwater beneath the Site is not
currently used as a drinking water source.

The water and soil quality pathway diagram in Figure 3‐4 summarizes the potential project
impacts, health determinants and associated health outcomes.


-15-

FIGURE 3‐4. WATER AND SOIL QUALITY PATHWAY DIAGRAM


-16-

3.2.3 Noise and Light
Construction, operations and related activities such as truck traffic are major sources of
environmental noise for the proposed oil project. Health studies have documented that
noise exposure is associated with increased blood pressure (hypertension), cardiovascular
disease, sleep disturbance, annoyance, and children’s learning abilities. Construction and
operation activities also have the potential to cause vibration disturbances. Ground
vibration produced by the drilling and production activities would be below the 0.01
inches/second threshold when it reaches the closest sensitive business, a sound recording
studio, it was determined to be less than significant in the EIR (MRS 2014). Vibration was
excluded from this assessment due to this low magnitude of potential impact combined
with the low ranking vibration received in the survey of health concerns (Table 1‐1).

Road vehicle traffic is a significant source of noise in urban areas, and has been well studied
in the public health literature. Noise generated by vehicle traffic depends on the traffic
volume, traffic speed, and vehicle type. To comply with Site safety plans, many times
equipment is fitted with loud back‐up warning systems.

In addition to potential noise impacts, disturbances associated with nighttime lighting have
been identified as a health determinant. The proposed project will require lighting to
maintain a safe working environment for employees at night. Key lighting features of the
proposed project include downcast lights on the Site entrance, the construction trailers
and/or office buildings, and the drill rig equipment. All light fixtures would be shielded and
downcast, and would be located behind the 35‐foot sound attenuation wall to minimize
light spill or glare beyond the Site perimeter.

The noise and light pathway diagram in Figure 3‐5 summarizes the potential project
impacts, health determinants, and associated health outcomes.


-17-

FIGURE 3‐5. NOISE AND LIGHT PATHWAY DIAGRAM


-18-

3.2.4 Traffic
The construction phases and permanent operations of the proposed project will cause
increases in a variety of traffic, especially large truck traffic. The influx of new truck traffic
and the impact on safety is one of the primary concerns among community members.
Increases in transportation and traffic can impact the health and safety of a community by
increasing the risk of motor vehicle accidents, increasing release of hazardous air
pollutants (see Section 4.4.1) and increasing road traffic noise (see Section 4.3.1).
Increased perception of traffic safety hazards can also impact physical activity levels of
community members (recreation and personal commuting).

The traffic pathway diagram in Figure 3‐6 summarizes the potential project impacts, health
determinants, and associated health outcomes.


-19-

FIGURE 3‐6. TRAFFIC PATHWAY DIAGRAM


-20-

3.2.5 Community Livability
During the scoping phase, many community members commented that the presence of oil
and gas industry in the City of Hermosa Beach has the potential to change the identity of
Hermosa Beach as “The Best Little Beach City.” Regardless of whether the proposed
project would impose an increase in environmental hazards or health risks, neighbors have
expressed concern that the introduction of industry could alter the city’s image. While the
proposed Site is small in size (1.3 acre), the current lack of industrial sites in Hermosa
Beach brings this issue to the forefront.

Why do people live in Hermosa Beach? As part of the Community Dialogue process, a
community‐led committee was assembled to define important quality of life factors. This
committee found common themes that describe the identity of Hermosa Beach (see
Appendix F):
 City streets are clean and the beach environment is regularly maintained
 Reputation for being a small scenic town and friendly beach community
 Bars that attract party crowds at night
 Health conscious community that enjoys exercising and spending time outdoors
 Accessible city government with active citizens involvement
 Safe environment with low crime rate
 Known for green/sustainable activities and carbon neutral goal
 Schools have a high reputation and benefit from community involvement
This area of health focus incorporates the quality of life values into an evaluation of three
key project impacts that could result from actual or perceived changes in environmental
exposures: potential change in city identify, city revenue from oil and gas production, and
access to neighborhood resources (e.g. Greenbelt, Farmer’s Market, and beach).

In addition to impacts from the proposed project, this section also identifies impacts and
benefits from the opportunity to vote on the proposed project. Community members have
expressed concern that letting voters decide whether the proposed project is approved has
created political divisions and stress. Residents who are in favor are divided from those
who are against the proposed project. While the debate over the proposed project has the
potential to disrupt social cohesion, involving the community in the political process can be
beneficial to health and well‐being. The community livability pathway diagram in Figure 3‐
7 summarizes the potential project impacts, health determinants, and associated health
outcomes.


-21-

FIGURE 3‐7. COMMUNITY LIVABILITY PATHWAY DIAGRAM


-22-

4.0

Assessment

Five areas of health focus were identified and assessed in this report: air quality, soil and
water quality, traffic, noise and community livability. Within these assessment areas,
health determinants were identified through the pathway diagrams (Figures 3‐3 through
3‐7). For example, health determinants identified for air quality are nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hydrogen sulfide, odor, and
greenhouse gases.

The impact assessment takes into account the proposed project as described by E&B in its
project application, as well as mitigation controls set forth in the EIR (MRS 2014). EIR
mitigation measures are intended to reduce significant impacts where feasible. Mitigation
measures identified in the EIR are conditions which must be met if the proposed project is
approved by Hermosa voters. Section 8.0 of the EIR contains a listing of all mitigation
measures that will be included as conditions of approval for the proposed project.

Assessment Methods
Several methods were used to assess potential health impacts of the proposed project:
1. Literature review using PubMed and Google Scholar to search the public health
evidence for each health determinant and health outcome combination. For
example to assess the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and heat‐
related illness, the following search terms were used: greenhouse gas OR climate
change AND heat‐related illness OR physical health OR psychological health. To be
included in the analysis, sources had to be peer‐reviewed or published in the grey
literature (informally published literature) by a credible source.
2. Consistent with the scoping phase, a professional engineer with over 15 years of
experience in the oil and gas industry was consulted to identify industry standards
and specific vulnerabilities relevant to the proposed project design.
3. Information collected in the EIR process was used to carry out analyses of health
outcomes. For example, the projected concentration of odorous materials is
incorporated into the health assessment of odor and the predicted number of truck
traffic trips from the Traffic Impact Analysis is incorporated into the health
assessment of traffic safety.
4. Data analysis of existing health conditions and potential health effect estimates was
conducted, as the availability of data allowed. For example, if baseline
mortality/morbidity rates were available and increase in mortality/morbidities
rates could be estimated for the proposed project impact, then the resulting change
in mortality/morbidity was calculated in this assessment. This type of calculation
was possible for estimating change in cancer mortality and asthma morbidity as a
result of inhalation exposure to air emissions.

-23-

Lastly, a qualitative ranking scale was used in order to characterize health impacts and/or
benefits of the proposed project according to public health considerations: direction of
health effect, geographic extent, likelihood, vulnerable populations, duration and frequency
of exposure, and magnitude/severity1. For each category of health consideration,
consistent definitions were identified and assigned numerical values. Numeric rankings
are summed for each health impact to create a relative rank. The lowest possible rank is 6
and the highest possible rank is 15, with a negative (‐) number representing negative
health effects and a positive (+) number representing positive health effects. The numeric
ranks do not represent a quantitative estimate of risk and are not intended to be compared
to health standards, nor are the numeric ranks meaningful outside the context of this HIA.
They are provided for the purpose of describing the relative importance of each potential
health impact compared to the other potential health impacts in this HIA. Two
independent reviewers assigned rankings to ensure objectivity and consistency.

1. Direction: Depending on whether the predicted change may either improve (+) or
adversely impact (‐) the community, the health determinant is assigned either a
negative or positive value.
2. Geographic Extent: Classified as localized (may occur in close proximity to the
proposed project activities, i.e., within a few blocks, 1 point) or community‐wide
(may occur across Hermosa Beach, 2 points). If the geographic extent is global
(there are no geographic boundaries), then geographic extent is weighted as 0
points.
3. Presence of Vulnerable Populations: Classified as no (affects all subpopulations
evenly, 1 point) or yes (disproportionately affects subpopulations that are more
sensitive to potential health impacts, 2 points).
4. Duration of Exposure: Classified as short (less than a month, 1 point), medium
(more than a month and less than a year, 2 points) or long (more than a year, 3
points).
5. Frequency of Exposure: Classified as infrequent (periodically, or rarely, 1 point), or
frequent (potential for constant or multiple exposures, 2 points).
6. Likelihood/Strength of Evidence: Classified as unlikely (little evidence that health
impact or benefit could occur as a result of the proposed project, 1 point), possible
(logically plausible that health effects may occur, 2 points), and likely (evidence
suggests health effects commonly occur in similar projects, 3 points).

1 The qualitative ranking scale chosen for this assessment is a tool developed by the Colorado School of Public

Health for an evaluation of oil and gas development near a community (UofC 2010).

-24-

7. Magnitude/Severity: Classified as low (health effects can be easily managed and do
not require treatment, 1 point), moderate (health effects that require treatment or
medical attention and are reversible, 2 points), and severe (health effects that are
chronic, irreversible or fatal, 3 points).

Relationship to the EIR
As discussed in Section 2.0, the proposed project is subject to regulation under CEQA,
which requires an EIR. CEQA also requires the identification and analysis of health effects
when the EIR is conducted. However, the significance of a health impact evaluated in the
EIR relates to comparison to quantitative thresholds from regulatory standards. The
established environmental thresholds may not reflect the breadth of impacts considered by
the HIA. For instance, air emissions that meet regulatory criteria (and therefore
considered insignificant in the EIR) may still increase adverse human health outcomes in a
population.

Further, while CEQA legally requires that health‐based standards be addressed in the EIR,
traditionally EIRs are not designed to comprehensively address health impacts, including
social and economic determinants of health. Public health agencies acknowledge that the
EIR process has traditionally included at most a cursory analysis of health effects. HIA is
becoming the preferred method to evaluate health impacts of proposed projects and
policies in many local governments, academic institutions, public health agencies and
nonprofit organizations across the country (CDPH 2010, NRC 2011).


-25-

4.1 Air Quality
The E&B proposed oil and gas production facility could affect air quality because of the air
emissions from construction and operations, notably criteria pollutants (CO, NOx, SOx, and
PM), as well as volatile organic compounds and hydrogen sulfide. Air emissions and/or
ambient concentrations were estimated in the EIR (MRS 2014). While a comprehensive list
of emissions was identified and modeled in the EIR, this HIA focuses on four air pollutants
that could have the most adverse health impacts:
 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
 Particulate Matter (PM)
 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), specifically benzene and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)
 Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and other odors
This HIA also addresses potential health impacts associated with the emission of
greenhouse gases.
4.1.1 Air Quality and Health
There are a substantial number of studies evaluating the potential associations between
health outcomes and exposures to air pollutants, which have been important in identifying
susceptible subgroups and associated risk factors.

Oxides of Nitrogen
Recent studies provide scientific evidence that NO2 is associated with a range of respiratory
effects, and there is sufficient evidence to suggest a likely causal relationship between even
short‐term exposure to NO2 and respiratory disease rates (USEPA 2008). Following short‐
term NO2 exposure, there is an increased risk of susceptibility to both viral and bacterial
infections. Among asthmatic children, multicity studies show support for associations
between respiratory symptoms and childhood asthma at ambient levels of NO2 (24‐hr
average ranging from 18 to 32 ppb) (Schildcrout et al. 2006, Mortimer et al. 2000). In a
systematic meta‐analysis of single‐ and multi‐city studies investigating ambient NO2 levels,
the combined odds ratio (OR) for asthma symptoms was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.05 – 1.24) (USEPA
2008). Positive associations have been reported between short‐term ambient NO2
concentrations and increased number of emergency department visits and hospital
admissions for respiratory disease, primarily asthma. The positive association between
hospital admissions and NO2 exposure is consistent among children, older adults and
asthma patients of all ages. A recent study concluded infants are more susceptible to
asthma when exposed to NO2 during the first year of life – an increase in average NO2 of 9.4
µg/m3 during the first year of life was associated with an odds ratio of 1.17 for physician‐
diagnosed asthma (95% CI: 1.04–1.31) (Nishimura et al. 2013). Long‐term exposure
studies have not provided conclusive evidence that NO2 acts as a carcinogen.

-26-

Evidence that NO2 has a role in the development of cardiovascular disease is lacking in
short‐term and long‐term studies (USEPA 2011). The effects of NO2 on cardiovascular
health in animal studies are also inconsistent and provide little plausibility for the effects of
NO2 on the cardiovascular system (USEPA 2011). Positive associations between ambient
NO2 concentrations and hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease are diminished
when carbon monoxide and particulate matter are also included in the model; thereby
indicating the studies of NO2 exposure and cardiovascular disease are confounded by co‐
pollutants.

Results from several large US and European mortality studies indicate a positive
association between short‐term ambient NO2 concentrations and the risk of all‐cause
mortality, with the effect estimates ranging from 0.5 to 3.6% excess risk in mortality per
10.6 µg/m3 incremental change in daily 24‐hour average NO22. Increases in short term NO2
exposure were associated with increases in mortality rates of between 0.05% and 1.72%
(per 10 µg/m3 NO2) (Anderson et al. 2007). A widely reported American Cancer Society
(ACS) study reports an increase in NO2 exposure is associated with an increase of up to 5%
in mortality rate from all‐causes (per 11.2 µg/m3) (Pope et al. 2002). While most of the
public health literature focuses on cardiovascular and respiratory‐related health outcomes,
recent studies of urban air pollution have also linked nitrogen dioxide to preterm birth and
low birth weight.

Both short‐term and long‐term studies support the conclusion that people with preexisting
pulmonary conditions are likely at greater risk from ambient NO2 exposures than the
general public. Specifically, older adults (>65 years of age) are at an increased risk of
mortality and hospitalizations, while children (<18 years of age) more frequently
experience adverse respiratory health disease outcomes such as asthma than adults.
People with occupations that require them to be outdoors close to sources of NO2 and other
traffic pollutants (e.g. crossing guards, highway patrol officers, taxi drivers) may also be
more vulnerable to NO2 exposure.
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter is a widespread air pollutant composed of a mixture of solid and liquid
particles, and its effects on health are well documented. Particles with a diameter of 10
micrometers or smaller are referred to as PM10, and particles with a diameter of 2.5
micrometers or smaller are known as PM2.5. Both PM10 and PM2.5 include inhalable
particles that are small enough to enter the lungs, and both short‐term (hours, days) and

2 Excess risk estimates are standardized to a 20‐ppb incremental change in daily 24‐h average NO2 or a 30

ppb incremental change in daily 1‐h max NO2.

-27-

long‐term (months, years) exposure can result in increased respiratory and cardiovascular
disease. Specifically, PM exposure is associated with exacerbation of asthma and an
increase in hospital admissions. In addition, increased mortality rates from cardiovascular
and respiratory diseases such as lung cancer are well documented. The most susceptible
groups include people with pre‐existing lung or heart disease, older adults and children.

Long‐term exposure to PM2.5 is a stronger risk factor for morbidity and mortality than the
larger PM10. Long‐term exposure to PM2.5 is associated with an increase in the long‐term
risk of cardiopulmonary mortality by 6–13% per 10 µg/m3 of PM2.5 (Beelen et al. 2008,
Krewski et al. 2009), and is associated with a 2 to 11% increase in all‐cause mortality per
10 µg/m3 of PM2.5 (Pope et al. 2002). In a sensitivity analysis of the ACS study, the
Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution (2009) estimated that the all‐cause mortality
has an overall range of plausibility of 0 to 15%. All‐cause daily mortality is estimated to
increase by 0.2–0.6% per 10 µg/m3 of PM10 (WHO 2005, Samoli et al. 2008). The scientific
evidence for health impacts from combustion‐related PM is more consistent than that of
PM from other sources. In a Southern California Air Basin (SoCAB) Study, infants exposed
to elevated levels of PM10 were at higher risk of death from respiratory illnesses. The
SoCAB Study also found that mothers exposed to PM10 during pregnancy are at higher risk
of reproductive health outcomes, such as preterm delivery, delivering a low birth weight
infant and congenital heart defects (Ritz and Wilhelm 2008).

Volatile Organic Compounds
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) primarily associated with oil and gas emission sources
and health effects include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). This evaluation focuses on the VOCs identified in the EIR air toxics
risk assessment as having the most carcinogenic potential – benzene and PAHs (MRS
2014).

Benzene is classified as a carcinogen according to the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), USEPA and California EPA (Cal/EPA). The major effect of long‐term
exposure to benzene is on the blood – it can cause a decrease in red blood cells and
adversely impact the immune system. Exposure to high levels of benzene in air over long
periods of time can cause leukemia, specifically acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), which
is a cancer of the blood‐forming organs (ATSDR 2007, see Appendix G). It is not known
whether children are more sensitive to benzene exposure than adults, however animal
studies have shown that developmental effects such as low birth weight and delayed bone
formation are possible.


-28-

PAHs are a group of over 100 different chemicals that are formed as a result of incomplete
combustion. In addition to being found in crude oil, some PAHs are used in medicines,
plastics and pesticides (ATSDR 1996, see Appendix G). Some PAHs are also known
carcinogens. The types of cancer reported in carcinogenic PAH exposure studies are
dependent on the route of exposure (Cal/EPA 2005). In the case of inhalation of
carcinogenic PAHs, the cancers of concern are related to the lung and respiratory system.
Benzo(a)pyrene, which is classified as a carcinogen by IARC, USEPA and Cal/EPA, is
considered to be the most carcinogenic PAH.

The epidemiological evidence for the carcinogenicity of benzene and benzo(a)pyrene are
from studies of workers exposed to these chemicals for long periods of time in occupational
settings. Conclusions from studies of potential community‐wide exposure to benzene,
benzo(a)pyrene and other petroleum‐related chemicals vary widely. Associations between
oil and gas activity and community cancer rates have been the focus of some health studies.
The literature examining this relationship is summarized below.
 A population‐wide leukemia incidence study carried out from 1986 to 1988 in China
using leukemia case data was collected from hospitals, clinics, and factory doctors.
The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of leukemia in oil fields was significantly
higher (1.46, p<0.01) than other industrial areas such as coal mines (SIR = 1.18) and
steel factories (SIR = 1.04), as well as urban (SIR = 1.16) and rural areas (SIR =
0.89). A limitation of the study was that the authors did not account for any
potential confounders such as age and sex (Chongli and Xiaobo 1991).
 Several studies in Ecuador have been conducted to examine cancer rates in a village
located near oil fields. San Sebastian et al (2001) reported the overall cancer rate
was 2.3 times higher than a reference population, though the difference was
statistically insignificant (95% CI: 0.97, 4.46), and leukemia incidence among
children living in proximity to oil fields was significantly higher (relative risk = 2.56;
95% CI: 1.35, 4.86). However, this study has been criticized for exposure
misclassification and Kelsh et al. (2009) found that overall cancer and site‐specific
cancer rates were similar or lower among the village residents.
 A Croatian study examined blood cancer incidence rates between populations living
near oil and gas fields compared with those living in areas free from oil and gas
development. The authors reported an association between oil and gas
development activities and relative risk of chronic myeloid leukemia and multiple
myeloma. Incidence of chronic myeloid leukemia was 3.4 times that in the reference
area (95% CI: 1.65, 6.87), and multiple myeloma was 1.6 times that in the reference
area (95% CI: 1.01, 2.63) (Gazdek and Mustajbegovic 2007).
 One available biomonitoring study was conducted in response to citizen concerns in
DISH, Texas. The Texas Department of State Health Services (TxDSHS) collected

-29-

blood and urine samples from 28 people who lived in and near DISH. DISH is one of
the largest onshore natural gas fields in North America. Overall, VOCs in blood were
consistent with exposure to household products and drinking water, and the
investigation did not indicate that community‐wide exposures from gas wells or
compressor stations were occurring in the sample population
 In another study (Mokry 2010), the Texas Department of State Health Services
responded to local citizens’ concern that benzene from gas drilling could be causing
cancer in Flower Mound, Texas. Standardized incidence ratios were calculated to
evaluate if there was a higher incidence of cancer in the potentially exposed
population, with a focus on cancers associated with benzene ‐ leukemia and non‐
Hodgkin's lymphoma. There was no evidence of excess cancer, with the exception of
female breast cancer, a cancer not known to be associated with exposure to
benzene.

The majority of these studies are ecological studies, which means that aggregated
characteristics of populations are used instead of individual‐level information. Many of the
studies have group‐level data on exposure status, and do not measure individual exposure
to contaminants. Overall, ecological studies and exposures must be interpreted cautiously
and without concluding that causative relationships exist on the individual level.

Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide is naturally occurring in crude oil and natural gas. It can be extremely
toxic and irritating, and its primary health effect is respiratory failure. Acute exposure to
high levels of H2S can result in loss of consciousness and death. A single loss of
consciousness event can result in permanent neurobehavioral damage (Skrtic 2006).
Several community studies investigated whether there is an association between chronic
H2S exposure and neurological effects. Environmental sources of H2S were associated with
nausea, headaches and eye irritation at levels as low as 7‐10 ppb (Jaakola 1990 and
Marttila 1995).
Odor
The human nose is very sensitive and can detect odors at low levels (often in the part per
billion, or ppb, range). Several compounds associated with oil and gas development can
produce odors. Sulfur compounds, found in oil and gas, have very low odor threshold
levels, such as the rotten eggs smell from hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Many volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) found in oil and gas typically have a “gas station” like odor. The effects
of these odors are related to the frequency, duration, concentration, and the individuals’
level of sensitivity.


-30-

Health Impact Assessment - Hermosa Beach - February 2014 - Draft

Health Impact Assessment - Hermosa Beach - February 2014 - Draft

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (19)

Similar a Health Impact Assessment - Hermosa Beach - February 2014 - Draft

Similar a Health Impact Assessment - Hermosa Beach - February 2014 - Draft (20)

Más de StopHermosaBeachOil

Más de StopHermosaBeachOil (18)

Último

Último (20)

Health Impact Assessment - Hermosa Beach - February 2014 - Draft