HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-4201 - PSA for Air Quality Testing Study Relating to John Wayne Airport Jet Aircraft Emissions4)-oi
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
DR. KARLEEN SUDOL-BOYLE and
ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY SPECIALISTS, INC.
FOR AIR QUALITY TESTING STUDY RELATING TO
JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT JET AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, is
entered into as of this day of D°(A'.0W 2009, by and between the CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation and Charter City ( "CITY"), and DR.
KARLEEN SUDOL- BOYLE, an individual, and ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY
SPECIALISTS, INC. ( "EARSI" or "CONSULTANT ") a California Corporation whose
address is 223 62nd Street, Newport Beach, California, 92663, and is made with
reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. On April 1, 2009 City and Dr. Kadeen Sudol -Boyle entered into a Professional
Services Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Agreement," to design and
conduct a field monitoring study for airport- associated polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals, hereinafter referred to as "Project."
B. City desires to enter into this Amendment No. 1 to reflect a transfer in the
contractual parties from Dr. Karleen Sudol - Boyle, an individual, to
Environmental Regulatory Specialists, Inc., a Califomia Corporation, with Dr.
Kareleen Sudol -Boyle remaining as the City's main point of contact and Project
Manager.
C. City further desires to enter into this Amendment No. 1 to further specify the
scope of services and project costs.
D. City and Consultant mutually desire to amend agreement, hereinafter referred to
as "Amendment No. 1," as provided here below.
Now, therefore, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
TRANSFER OF CONTRACTUAL PARTIES
The contractual obligations of Dr. Karleen Sudol -Boyle under the Agreement
shall be transferred from Dr. Karleen Sudol - Boyle, as an individual, to
Environmental Regulatory Specialists, Inc., a California Corporation. The City
and Consultant further agree that Dr. Karleen Sudol -Boyle shall remain as the
City's main point of contact and Project Manager for the term of the Contract.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of
Services attached to the Agreement and as further specified in Exhibit A, "Scope
of Services & Budget" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole
discretion.
3. NOTICES
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms of the
Agreement and all amendments thereto shall be given in writing, and
conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third
business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid,
first -class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands,
requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at:
Attn: David A. Kiff
Office of the City Manager
City of Newport Beach
PO Box 1768
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Phone: (949) 6443000
Fax: (949) 644 -3020
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall be
addressed to Consultant at:
With a copy to:
Attn: Kadeen A. Boyle, Ph.D.
8007 Pyracantha Ct.
Springfield, CA 22153
Phone: (202) 270 -6979
Email: kboylesudol @verizon.net
Attn: David J. Tanner
EARSI
223 62n° Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone: (949) 646 -8958
Fax: (949) 646 -5496
3. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants
set forth in Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and
effect.
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 1
on the date first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
By:
rssi
ette . Beauc p
stant City Attor ey
ATTEST:
By: �
Leilani I. Brown,
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A Municipal Corporation
By: - G)
Davt6A. Kiff,
City Manager
CONSULTANT: ENVIRONMENTAL
AND REGULATORY SPECIALISTS,
INC. /1
David J. T
President (/
By: '
(F n ial Officer)
Title:
Print Name t)/
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services & Budget
BUDGET
TABLE 1 - PROJECT COSTS BY TASK
1 Project Initiation Karleen Boyle 3,000.00
2 Field Data Collection �m BoByle le & 8,840.00
3 Data Analysis and Interpretation Karleen Boyle 1,500.00
4 Preparation of Final Report Karleen Boyle 1,500.00
Sub -Total EARS1 Staffing 514,840.00
Sub -Total — Travel and Field Work Expenses (Sec Table 2) $1,180.00
Total "Not to Exceed" Project Cost
Environmental and Regulatory Specialists, Ina • 223 62n° Street • Newport Beach, Ca- 92663
phone: 949- 646 -8958 # fax., 949646.5496 • Web site: www. earsi.com • &anal: earsl@earsl. coin
TABLE 2: TRAVEL COSTS
Round trip flight VA-CA
(. tt tt
trip flight CA -NV (DR] meetings) 1 $400.00
car - 10 days
$280.00
$],180.00
Environmental and Regulatory Specialists, lnc.. 223 6e Sheet . Newport Beach, Co. 92663
phone: 949646 -6966 • lax: 9496465496 . web sKe: www.earsl.corn • e -mail: earsi @!Owsi.com
• • �y�Gj
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
DR. KARLEEN SUDOL -BOYLE
FOR AIR QUALITY TESTING STUDY RELATING TO JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT JET
AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this 151 day of April, 2009, by and
between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "City"), and DR.
KARLEEN SUDOL -BOYLE an individual whose address is 8007 Pyracantha Ct.,
Springfield, CA 22153 ( "Consultant'), and is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws
of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now
being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of
City.
B. City is planning to conduct an air quality testing study relating to John Wayne
Airport jet aircraft emissions.
C. City desires to engage Consultant to collect detailed air sampling to test for
airport- associated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals
( "Project ").
D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement.
E. The principal memberfs) of Consultant for purposes of Project, shall be Dr.
Karleen Sudol - Boyle.
F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the
previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to
retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions
set forth in this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall
terminate on the 15' day of February, 2010, unless terminated earlier as set forth
herein.
0 0
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of
Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The
City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole
discretion.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this Agreement and
the services shall be performed to completion in a diligent and timely manner.
The failure by Consultant to perform the services in a diligent and timely manner
may result in termination of this Agreement by City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays
due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of
any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby
agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed.
3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for
performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10)
calendar days after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a
delay. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may
grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays that are
beyond Consultant's control.
3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall
respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the
circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand - delivery or mail.
4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT
City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to- exceed
basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of
Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this
Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not
exceed Seventeen Thousand Twenty Dollars and no /100 ($17,020.00) without
prior written authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made
during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City.
4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work
performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name
of the person who performed the work, a brief description of the services
performed and /or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it
relates, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent
on all work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any
reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty
(30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.
P4
0 0
4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses
specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing
in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be
limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by
Consultant:
A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the
services that Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this
Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and
awarded in accordance with this Agreement.
B. Approved reproduction charges.
C. Actual costs and/or other costs and /or payments specifically
authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the
performance of this Agreement.
4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed
without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra
Work" means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the
proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the
Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate
would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation
for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the
Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B.
5. PROJECT MANAGER
Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all
phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at
all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has
designated DR. KARLEEN SUDOL -BOYLE to be its Project Manager.
Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any
personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel
to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or
assignment of non -key personnel.
Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project
any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written
request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the
necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as
contemplated by this Agreement.
3
0 0
6. ADMINISTRATION
This Agreement will be administered by the Office of the City Manager. THE
CITY MANAGER shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority
to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his /her
authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the
services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES
In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this
Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable:
A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all
existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such
materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in
Consultant's work schedule.
B. Provide blueprinting and other services through City's reproduction
company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to
coordinate the required bid documents with City's reproduction
company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of
Consultant and as defined above.
C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards
to new facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated.
8. STANDARD OF CARE
8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's
supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and
technical personnel required to perform the services required by this
Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner
commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall
be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not
employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. By
delivery of completed work, Consultant certifies that the work conforms to
the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state and
local laws and the professional standard of care.
8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and
shall keep in full force in effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and
expense, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of
whatsoever nature that is legally required of Consultant to practice its
profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business
license during the term of this Agreement.
4
0 0
8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be
responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by
reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City
to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's
work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or
governmental agencies.
9. HOLD HARMLESS
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and
hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents,
volunteers, and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties ") from and
against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury,
death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes
of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and
expenses (including, without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court
costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively,
"Claims "), which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to
any breach of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, any work performed
or services provided under this Agreement including, without limitation, defects in
workmanship or materials or Consultant's presence or activities conducted on
the Project (including the negligent and/or willful acts, errors and/or omissions of
Consultant, its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors, suppliers,
consultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of
them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of them).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require
Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this
indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any
action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply
to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are
applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of
indemnification to be provided by the Consultant.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis
and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of
conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent
they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this
Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval
for Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or
employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over
the means of performing the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with
the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give
City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to
exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant
shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the services.
5
0
11. COOPERATION
•
Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated
Project Administrator and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or
interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the
Consultant on the Project.
12. CITY POLICY
Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project
direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points
in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals
and policies.
13. PROGRESS
Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and /or his /her
duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and
progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that
have been scheduled or are desired.
14. INSURANCE
Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement
of work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during
the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type
and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
A. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of
insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance
coverage required herein. Insurance certificates must be approved by
City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance or issuance
of any permit. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with
City at all times during the term of this Agreement.
B. Signature. A person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf shall sign certification of all required policies.
C. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an
insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner
to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size
Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of
Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk
Manager.
V M1
0 0
D. Coverage Requirements.
i. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall
maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's
Liability Insurance for his or her employees in accordance with the
laws of the State of California. In addition, Consultant shall require
each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation
Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with
the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's
employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all
Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least
thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non-
payment of premium) prior to such change. The insurer shall agree
to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents,
employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed
by Consultant for City.
ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain
commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than
one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation,
contractual liability. If commercial general liability insurance or
other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed
under this Agreement, or the general aggregate limit shall be at
least twice the required occurrence limit. Liability coverage will be
provided by EARSI.
iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain
automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage
for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for
any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not
less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for
each occurrence.
iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. Consultant
shall maintain professional errors and omissions insurance, which
covers the services to be performed in connection with this
Agreement in the minimum amount of one million dollars
($1,000,000). E & O coverage will be provided by EARSI.
E. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance
policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees,
agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with
respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of
the Consultant.
0
ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to
City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents
and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses, or liability arising
directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services
provided to City. Any insurance maintained by City, including any
self- insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess
insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided
hereunder.
iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as
though a separate policy had been written for each, except with
respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.
iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected
or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.
V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall
not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed
officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
vi. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended,
voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, by either
party except after thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days
written notice of non - payment of premium) written notice has been
received by City.
F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or resulting from
Consultant's performance under this Agreement.
G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own
judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of
the work.
15. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS
Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services to be
provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or
subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following
shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other
disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of
the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or
cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint- venture or syndicate or cotenancy,
which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty
percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty-five percent (25 %) or more
of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint- venture.
I:i
0 •
16. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing
produced (hereinafter "Documents "), prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of
implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and
City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further
compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's
expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request.
Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant
pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for
reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents
for other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without speck written
authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to
Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to
Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than
Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for
such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received
from Consultant written consent for such changes.
17. CONFIDENTIALITY
All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and
communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept
confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information.
18. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY
The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers,
representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for
infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright
infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and
specifications provided under this Agreement.
19. RECORDS
Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be
performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and
accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and
any services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum
period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date
of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and
invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of
City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and
invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all
work, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a
period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this
Agreement.
• •
20. WITHHOLDINGS
City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction
of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be
deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement.
Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant
shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his/her designee
with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive
interest on any withheld sums at the rate of return that City earned on its
investments during the time period, from the date of withholding of any amounts
found to have been improperly withheld.
21. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional
inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what
would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work
accomplished by Consultant, the additional design, construction and /or
restoration expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is
intended to limit City's rights under the law or any other sections of this
Agreement.
22. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS
City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the
Project.
23. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the
California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act "), which (1) requires such
persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially
affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such
persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably
financially affect such interest.
If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act.
Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate
termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold
harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's
violation of this Section.
24. NOTICES
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms of this
Agreement shall be given in writing, and conclusively shall be deemed served
when delivered personally, or on the third business day after the deposit thereof
in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first -class mail, addressed as
10
• •
hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from
Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at:
Attn: Homer Bludau
Office of the City Manager
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA, 92663
Phone: 949- 644 -3000
Fax: 949 - 644 -3020
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be
addressed to Consultant at:
Attention: Karleen A. Boyle, Ph.D.
8007 Pyracantha Ct.
Springfield, CA 22153
Phone: 202 - 270 -6979
Email: kboylesudol @verizon.net
25. TERMINATION
In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of
this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be
deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not
cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar
days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to
give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after
receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the
steps necessary to cure such default, and thereafter diligently take steps to cure
the default, the non - defaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by
giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole
discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by giving
seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the event of
termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for services
satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective date of termination
for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of
termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other
information developed or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement,
whether in draft or final form.
26. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS
Consultant shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes,
ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities, including
federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacted.
11
0 0
In addition, all work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable City,
county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be
subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City.
27. WAIVER
A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition
contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach
of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether
of the same or a different character.
28. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or
nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations
and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal
agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein.
29. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES
In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement
and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms
of this Agreement shall govern.
30. INTERPRETATION
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning
of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by
reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of construction
which might otherwise apply.
31. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document
executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
32. SEVERABILITY
If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of
this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
33. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE
The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters
relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be
adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange.
12
34. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT
Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not
discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment
because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on
the day and year first written above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
OFFICE. OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: A Municipal Corporation
By:
David R. Hunt 1,forner L. Bludagd
City Attorney City Manager
ATT: 2)��ry
CM
Y: EST
Cc--w<
ani rown, _
City Clerk
o
U�
Cg11 FOlk
CONSULTANT:
(Corporate Officer)
Title: MGivtc� V� '5 \e ,n
Print Name:
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services
Exhibit B — Schedule of Billing Rates
13
0 41
Timeline for Field Air Quality Study at John Wayne Airport
Orange County, California
Karleen A. Boyle, Ph.D.
May 2009
The following timeline is a conservative estimate, building in time for
complications in field conditions, laboratory turn- around times and equipment
availability that are typical in research. It is likely that the project can be
completed earlier if few problems arise.
July 15-17, 2009 Meet with researchers at Desert Research Institute, Reno,
NV to discuss sample quality assurance/ quality control measures (QAQC), chain
of custody for samples and to calibrate air sampling equipment.
July 20 -24, 2009 — Site visits to establish field sampling stations and construct
sampling platforms.
July 27- August 21, 2009 — Active field air sampling.
End of August — Mid- October 2009 — Air samples analyzed for heavy metals
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at Desert Research Institute. DRI
estimates a 6 week turn around time.
Mid- October - December 2009 — Data analysis and report preparation.
January 2010 — Final report submitted
0
To: Homer Bludau
From: Thomas C. Edwards
Re: Dr. Boyle's Proposal
Date: 4/27/09
The following is an updated outline regarding the current proposal by Dr. Karleen Boyle -
Sudol and the City's monitor of the potential environmental impacts of aircraft emissions
at John Wayne Airport, Orange County, California. Hopefully it will serve as a basis to
respond to continuing questions and concerns that the City may face as regards the study.
History
Initially, various components of the City have continually raised the question of what and
if any emissions are generated by aircraft that pass overhead at the rate of approximately
150 per day. Numerous comments through out the City confirmed that people felt they
were being inundated with black soot that collected on patio furniture, pool covers, air
filters and the like. It was with that in mind that the City began to investigate the
possibility of conducting its own study to monitor the potential impacts of aircraft
emissions. Independently through one source at the City and through my own
investigation the person most likely to conduct such a study was determined to be Dr.
Karleen Boyle- Sudol. I
Rather than accept anything at face value the City asked Dr. Boyle to make a proposal
but unlike most proposals it was to include and did include a complete survey of
literature to support the type of project that Dr. Boyle was proposing. The proposal
substantiated that the scientific community was able to demonstrate that "fingerprinting"
of ambient emissions to demonstrate their source was possible.
Proposal
With the foregoing in mind Dr. Boyle proposed a variety of research approaches for
evaluating the potential impacts of aircraft emissions. Included in the proposal and the
one that the City decided to pursue was a Detailed Air Sampling, which included the
measure of ambient particulate air pollution and associated polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons ( "PAHs ") and heavy metals near the airport, including areas used for
residential and recreational purposes. The current proposal's approximate cost is $52,000.
' The staff person at the City located and passed on almost simultaneously the study conducted by Dr.
Boyle: "Evaluating Particulate Emissions From lot Engines: Analysis of Chemical and Physical
Characteristics and Potential Impacts on Coastal Environments and Human Ilealth" which appeared in
Transportation Research Record.
0 0
The proposal includes the use of Minivols, which are air samplers placed in certain
locations around the airport and therefore utilizing the field methodology and sample
design would be able to compare or create a signature of airport vs. urban background; in
light of outstanding studies such as the one conducted at LAX which demonstrated that
particle associated concentrations of Copper and Vanadium were statistically
significantly elevated in air samples.
Essentially what testing determined was that in terms of associating the elevated Copper
and Vanadium levels with aircraft, the best hypotheses is that the copper particles are due
to brake wear as the planes land. Also, vanadium is used as an additive in jet fuel. These
facts coupled with the lack of elevations in these metals in freeway sampling sites have
led so far to the conclusion that they are aircraft - associated. The City's proposed testing
would compare therefore the amount and type of particulate emissions associated with
the airport and testing and whether they are distinguishable from urban background and
freeway emissions. Assuming that the tests move forward it appears that the science
supports the ability to distinguish between the two, because of the heavy metal and PAH
fingerprinting of airport associated impacts versus other normal urban background.
Questions
Q: Is there science to support distinguishing airport versus urban background?
A: Yes. Numerous Studies, including the supporting literature and studies,
numbering 56 as cited in the City's proposal.
Q: What about the question of diesel fuel versus jet fuel?
A: Because of the testing which has demonstrated the ability to distinguish heavy
metals and PAH fingerprints from sampling, while difficult it is obtainable. Moreover,
the sample design and field methodology were designed with the objective of
distinguishing airport- associated emissions from other urban background sources. Since
substantial diesel emissions are associated with airport activities, including baggage
transport vehicles, aircraft support vehicles, public transit vehicles, etc.; these emissions
should be included in assessing overall airport impacts to air quality. That is the purpose
of having multiple field sampling stations, to allow us to measure airbome particulates
(and associated PAHs and heavy metals) in proximity to the airport in comparison to
"clean" coastal control sites, airport- adjacent residential areas, and non - airport adjacent
urban sampling stations. Dr. Boyle's study at LAX used a similar design and did find
statistically significant differences between the amount of particle -bound heavy metals in
air samples near the airport vs. samples adjacent to a freeway with a high volume of
diesel truck traffic. Airport air samples had significantly higher levels of particulate
copper (possibly from brake wear on landings) and vanadium than control and freeway
stations, while freeway stations had significantly higher levels of particulate lead than
airport or control stations.
Simply put testing has demonstrated elevated levels of lead at freeway sites which is
associated with diesel whereas airport samples show elevated levels of copper and
vanadium which are associated with jet fuel - not diesel in any significant respect.
0 0
In addition one of the peer- reviewers specifically addressed this question and concluded
that that there is sufficient data available that supports that there are differences between
emission profiles of diesel and jet engines. In particular, a clear difference exists between
the ratio of organic carbon to elemental carbon (OC /EC) found in the two emission types.
Q: What is a MiniVol?
A: It is the type of air sampler Dr. Boyle is proposing for use. It is an integrated
sample over time. Dr. Boyle selected a standard EPA - approved air sampler (MiniVol)
which means that both the sampling machine and sampling protocols have been
extensively and scientifically reviewed before being approved by the EPA. The other
benefit to using an EPA- approved methodology is that it allows her to make meaningful
comparison of the City's data set with other data sets collected using these same methods.
This makes the data scientifically defensible and provides a broader context for use when
interpreting the results.
Q: What about the costs?
A: The costs quoted, which appear as an exhibit on her proposal were merely
duplicated verbatim from the testing lab DRI. While it has been approximately six (6)
months from the date of the proposal and the longer the time before actual testing begins
as best as can be determined the quotes remain accurate.
Also because Newport Beach is a public agency, they obtain a break on costs and
expenses from the Lab.
Q: What about review of the proposal by stakeholders?
A: From a scientific standpoint it is not normal for stakeholders to be involved in a
scientific proposal at this stage. What is standard from a scientific standpoint is for peer -
review by peers in the field for evaluation of sample design and field methodology. From
the beginning Dr. Boyle has never opposed this and in fact had suggested a number of
possibilities.
Q: Will the proposal receive peer - review?
A: Yes. Currently Dr. Boyle has oral commitments and has exchanged information
with Dr. Gertler at DRI; Dr. Fine at AQMD and Dr. Weiner at UCLA. She is waiting for
all of the comments back and then if necessary will refine the proposal to incorporate
their suggestions. If there are additional costs or expenses associated with the proposal
she will make the City aware of those as soon as possible.
As an example Dr. Gertler made certain suggested changes and comments
including but not limited to his recommendation to change the proposed 24 hour
MiniVol sampling period to a shorter sampling interval. He pointed out that airflow in the
study area is typically onshore during daylight hours, switching to offshore flow in the
evenings as temperatures drop. Sampling during both periods would include emissions
from both upwind and downwind of our sampling locations, making our source profiles
less concentrated and specific. The recommendation was incorporated.
Q: Why do the testing?
0 0
A: There are a variety of reasons. However the City obviously must decide what they
determine to be in their best interests. Initially the citizens in the city have repeatedly
raised the issue. Irrespective of the results the testing would establish some type of base
line for treasuring the future, including but not limited potential increases in the future. In
addition it may prove to be a negotiating tool for the future.
Also, contrary to what other may say, what the data will provide is a measurement
of the amounts of heavy metals and PAHs at sampling stations in varying proximity to
potential urban emission sources, including heavy auto traffic (freeway) and the airport.
That information can be used by planners to determine whether airport- associated
emissions make up a significant portion of the overall air pollution load of the region. Or
if automotive sources are so substantial that any airport effect is undetectable. Air
quality data collected at the sites of concern allows city officials and regulators to use
their limited resources to address real, rather than imagined environmental impacts. The
data set can indicate whether mitigation measures should be explored, and if needed, how
they can be most effectively focused. A frequently suggested strategy for mitigating
airport air quality impacts is to switch from diesel - fueled support vehicles to less -
polluting options such as electric or hybrid vehicles. This approach is usually more cost -
effective and feasible than reducing emissions from jet engines themselves.
Q: What type of questions will be addressed in the study?
A: How many fine airborne particles are present in the ambient air?
What concentrates of PAHs, trace metals and nitrogen species are associated with
these particles?
Does the particle load and/or chemical signature vary between sampling
locations?
How do the levels of fine particles and/or PAHs and heavy metals measured near
John Wayne Airport compare to field measurements of other sites from the scientific
literature?
How do these levels compare to standards set by air quality regulations?
Q: But isn't LA doing a study?
A: They are doing a variety of studies, all of which are related to environmental
impacts 45 miles away. ;Moreover Dr. Boyle's report will compliment the LAX report,
however it is much more chemically detailed as it will be able to distinguish in particular,
between the ratios of organic carbon to elemental carbon (OC/EC) found in the different
emission types.
Q: Is there a guarantee that the results will support people's beliefs regarding the
effects of the airport on air quality?
A: No. We are talking a scientific study; the science is what it is.
Q: Is there a risk of doing the study'?
A: Yes, if people have a preconceived notion of the outcome. The results could be
Inconclusive; conclusive but show no negative effects from the airport; or
0 0
Conclusive and show negative effects of the airport. In all cases a baseline of
information will be established.
Q: If the study demonstrates that there are significant environmental impacts as a
result of let Fuel Emissions will it shut down the airport?
A: No. However the County will have to deal with the issue of future expansion and
its impacts as well as incorporating certain mitigating measures to deal with the
impacts.
Bludau, Homer
From: Bludau, Homer
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 2:41 PM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: FW: Revised timeline and budget options for JWA sampling
Attachments: Revised timeline for JWA project.doc, Newport budget from DRI.xls
From: Karleen Sudol [ mailto:kboylesudol @verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:16 AM
To: Bludau, Homer; Thomas Edwards
Subject: Revised timeline and budget options for JWA sampling
Hello Homer and Tom.
I've attached a revised timeline and budget for the proposed sampling at John Wayne Airport. I spoke with the DRI lab
today to confirm their sample tum- around time in August and their 5 week estimate is factored in to the new timeline. As
Homer requested, I kept the timeline conservative, but if we need to make the deadline before January 2010 let me know
and I can revise our estimates.
In terms of the budget. Homer asked me to prioritize scientific rigor of the study, so I've re- worked the numbers
accordingly. The limiting factor changing our costs is the number of samplers we deploy. Our costs for time and analysis
will remain constant with either approach, but adding samplers to the budget would improve the scientific rigor of our
data. This is because we will be sampling at 6 different locations (control, upwind of airport, downwind of airport, 2 sites
of interest adjacent to the airport (to be determined in consultation with you both), and a site removed from the airport but
adjacent to a freeway (as our automotive emission sample). In any sampling design involving different locations, the
"normal /background" variability between locations and over time must be considered. If we are able to have a sampler
running simultaneously at all 6 locations, that allows us to get a statistical estimate of normal spatial variability between
these sites (we are getting a snapshot of how different they are from each other during the same 12 hour period). This
makes it easier to determine whether any differences in emissions detected between sites are "real" or a function of
variability over space and time.
So, the bottom line is - the more samples we have, the better our statistics work and the more likely any differences we
detect are "real ". This is always the case in science and there is always a trade -off between statistical rigor and the
realities of budgets. After consulting with several colleagues at DRI and UCLA, the consensus is that a scientifically
rigorous approach would be to run 6 Minivol samplers simultaneously (1 at each sampling location during the same 12
hour period). This basic sampling method would be repeated on 3 different days to give us a sample size of 3 (the
minimum number needed to run statistics) for each location. Our minivols give us data on particle concentrations and the
heavy metals associated with those samples. To get our PAH data we need to run the XAD filter samplers alongside the
minivols so that we can measure the types and concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, the agents of
most concern when evaluating toxic /carcinogenic effects). The XAD samplers are the most expensive piece of the
sampler budget. ideally we would run 6 XADs alongside our Minivols, but that is prohibitively expensive. If we could use
3 XADs sampling simultaneously with the 6 Minivols and rotate the XADs between locations on the 3 different sampling
days, we would be in good shape. If that is not in the realm of budget reality, we should run at least 2 XADs
simultaneously, rotating through the locations.
These options give us the following budget numbers:
Most rigorous 6 Minivol samplers + 3 XAD samplers = $16,307.73 in sampler rental So, Total DRI costs
($41,873.61) + My budget ($17,020) = Total budget: $58,893.61
6 Minivol samplers + 2 XAD samplers= $13,059.26 in sampler rental Total DRI costs ($38,625.14) +
My budget ($17,020) = Total budget: $55,645.14
s •
Less rigorous 3 Minivol samplers + 2 XAD samplers= $9,778.10 in sampler rental Total DRI costs ($35,343.98) +
My budget ($17,020) = Total budget 52,363.98
(but still scientifically defensible)
This is probably more information than you really wanted, but I want you to have enough background to explain it in the
meeting.
9
0
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MJWMUUJ
0oI
Agenda Item No. S19
May 12, 2009
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Homer Bludau, City Manager
949/644 -3000 or hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Council Approval of Scope of Work for Air Quality Testing Study
Relating to John Wayne Airport Jet Aircraft Emissions and
Authorization to Enter Into a Standard Professional Services Agreement
with Dr. Karleen Sudol -Boyle for the Study
ISSUE:
Does the City Council approve the scope of work submitted Karleen A. Boyle, Ph.D., to
• conduct air quality testing relating to John Wayne Airport (JWA) jet aircraft emissions and
authorize the City Manager to enter into a standard professional contract, which will have
been approved by the City Attorney with Dr. Boyle?
Approve the scope of work for the air quality study.
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Dr. Boyle for the Option Two
study proposal (most rigorous option) at a not -to- exceed amount of $62,000; and
approve a budget amendment (09BA -056) in the amount of $62,000 from
unallocated General Fund reserves to account #0123 -8080.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
At its February 10, 2009 meeting, the City Council adopted its priorities and action steps for
2009, including the following priority: "Continue to seek and implement measures to
minimize the adverse impacts of John Wayne Airport through the implementation of the City
Council's Airport Policy." One of the action steps identified to implement this priority was to
"Conduct an air quality study seeking to determine effects of JWA jet aircraft on Newport
Beach's air quality."
•
Air Quality Testing Study Relating to John One Airport Jet Aircraft Emissions
May 12, 2009
Page 2
Fat/ maliyyWirs, Newport Beach residents have expressed concerns to City officials about
the fine black grit particulates that appears to be emitted from jet aircraft flying overhead.
The concern has not been limited to the residue that seems to result, but also includes the
potential health impacts to humans from ingesting these jet engine fine particulate
emissions. Until now, there has not been the sophistication of testing equipment nor the
methodology to differentiate between diesel and jet engine fine particulate emissions;
however, we have good reason to believe the science does now exist to identify the quantity
of jet fuel emissions being emitted by jet aircraft from JWA and from any other airport.
STUDY PROPOSAL: The air quality proposal on your agenda is from Karleen A. Boyle,
Ph.D. I have previously engaged her to conduct a literature review of testing methodologies
relating to aircraft emissions in order to familiarize herself with recent papers and testing
procedures performed on aircraft emissions to determine if the science does exist; it is her
opinion that it does. Her literature study is included as a staff report attachment. Her
background references are excellent.
Dr. Boyle's proposal outlines three alternative testing methodologies for JWA aircraft
emissions. Option One is what she calls "basic air sampling." This sampling would be
limited to testing for the chemical fingerprint associated with airport jet engine emissions.
The estimated cost is $31,500.
Option Two would provide "detailed air sampling' data to determine whether health issues
exist. The air samples would test for airport- associated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons •
(PAH's) and metals and would predict the impact on human exposure. Six sampling stations
are being proposed with lab tests. This study would cost an estimated $58,900.
Option Three could be added to option two and would involve laboratory testing to
determine jet aircraft emission accumulations in sediment in the Upper Newport Bay, the
Impacts to Upper Newport Bay° option. The additional cost of this option is estimated at
$40,000.
The City Manager believes there are two good reasons to proceed with the Option Two air
quality study. First, our residents have long been concerned whether health impacts exist
from their being exposed to jet aircraft emissions. Second, the science appears to now exist
to test for quantities of jet aircraft emissions, and that information could prove valuable in
future EIR's required of the airport. Of course, the study could come to the conclusion that
jet aircraft emissions are not cause for health concerns, but that information would be good
to know and share with our residents.
It is the City Manager's recommendation that the City engage Dr. Boyle to conduct the
"detailed air sampling testing" (Option Two, the most rigorous) at a cost of approximately
$58,900; however, he is asking for not -to- exceed authority for $62,000, as the testing costs
will not be completely known until the air samples have been collected and he believes
there should be some flexibility to react to the unknown as the study is being conducted.
The study results should be available in early 2010. The proposal included in this staff
report was received in February and our current price has been updated and refined, so it •
does not match the initial proposal figures. A professional peer review was conducted to
Air Quality Testing Study Relating to John Sne Airport Jet Aircraft Emissions
May 12, 2009
Page 3
• ensure the proposed methodology was appropriate, and the City Manager is satisfied with
the changes made in the proposal by Dr. Boyle based on the peer review feedback.
The City Manager proposes the City and Dr. Boyle enter into a standard professional
services agreement, to be approved by the City Attorney, with the City Manager being
authorized to sign.
FUNDING: The City Manager is asking for a budget appropriation amendment of $62,000
from unallocated General Fund reserves to fund this study.
Environmental Review: The City Council's approval of this Agenda Item does not require
environmental review.
Public Notice: This agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in
advance of the meeting at which the Council considers the item).
Submitted by:
HOMER L. BLU D U
• City Manager
Attachment
u
L
0
Timeline for Field Air Quality Study at John Wayne Airport •
Orange County, California
Karleen A. Boyle, Ph.D.
May 2009
The following timeline is a conservative estimate, building in time for
complications in field conditions, laboratory turn - around times and equipment
availability that are typical in research. It is likely that the project can be
completed earlier if few problems arise.
July 15 -17, 2009 Meet with researchers at Desert Research Institute, Reno,
NV to discuss sample quality assurance/ quality control measures (QAQC), chain
of custody for samples and to calibrate air sampling equipment.
July 20 -24, 2009 — Site visits to establish field sampling stations and construct
sampling platforms.
July 27- August 21, 2009 —Active field air sampling.
End of August — Mid - October 2009 — Air samples analyzed for heavy metals
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at Desert Research Institute. DRI •
estimates a 6 week turn around time.
Mid- October - December 2009 — Data analysis and report preparation.
January 2010 — Final report submitted
•
0 9
• Karleen A. Boyle, Ph.D.
8007 Pyracantha Ct.
Springfield, VA 22153
Phone: 202- 270 -6979
E -mail: kboylesudol @verizon.net
Education
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Ph.D. in Organismic
Biology, Ecology and Evolution, June 2002. Dissertation research focused on the
effects of anthropogenic disturbances including eutrophication and heavy metal
deposition on the structure and function of esuarine communities. Coursework included:
Applied Ecology, Coastal Ecotoxicology, Biostatistics, Phycology, and Coastal
Geomorphology. Research has included quantifying trace metal and hydrocarbon
deposition associated with aircraft emissions and assessing its effects on estuarine and
coastal dune habitats; evaluating the effects of eutrophication on estuarine nutrient
dynamics and macroalgal communities; and examining the effects of tropical macroalgal
community diversity on nutrient dynamics.
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA., Bachelor of Arts degree in
English. June, 1992. Specialization in marine biology. Participated in Marine Biology
Field Quarter, USC Marine Science Center, Catalina Island. Field courses included:
• Marine Ecology, Biological Oceanography, Phycology and Marine Invertebrate Zoology.
Conducted independent research on behavioral interactions of two species of goby.
Skills
Designing and conducting large -scale ecological field sampling programs. Sampling
experience in both temperate and tropical systems including: rocky, coral and soft -bottom
subtidal habitats; high- energy intertidal, estuarine, mangrove, riparian and coastal dune
habitats. Experience with stratified, random sampling techniques. Designed and
conducted laboratory, microcosm and field experiments to assess environmental impacts
of nutrients, heavy metals and hydrocarbons in both aquatic and terrestrial environments.
Research experience includes designing and conducting:
• Seasonal field monitoring of sediment, water column and algal tissue
nutrients and macroalgal biomass in Upper Newport Bay estuary.
• Laboratory microcosm experiments testing the effects of different nitrogen
and phosphorous loads on macroalgal biomass, sediment, water column
and algal tissue nutrients.
• Laboratory microcosm experiments testing the fate and effects of heavy
metals associated with particulate air pollutants in estuarine environments.
• Regional air sampling in the Los Angeles basin to quantify both ambient
atmospheric particle levels (PMI0 and PM2.5) and particulate deposition
associated with Los Angeles International Airport.
• Experience presenting data to and fielding questions from audiences including
international scientific conferences, federal and state regulatory agencies (EPA,
9 0
Transportation Research Board, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board), and •
public hearings.
Employment History
Marine ecology specialist, Environmental and Regulatory Specialists, Inc. (EARSI)
Newport Beach, CA. 1999- present. Serve as staff marine biology specialist consulting
on marine, wetland and mitigation issues. Projects include assisting with data collection
and preparation of EIR/EIS for Dana Point Headlands development (Dana Point, CA) and
consulting on site assessment and habitat impacts and mitigation for a proposed
development of the Stauffer Chemical Superfund site (Tarpon Springs, FL).
Lead scientist for portion of LAX/El Segundo Dunes Environmental Impact
Assessment. Los Angeles, CA. 1998 -1999. Led all aspects of experimental design, field
sampling, data analysis and presentation for study evaluating the impacts of air traffic -
derived trace metal deposition on the El Segundo Dunes Reserve, habitat of the
endangered El Segundo Blue Butterfly. Results of this study were incorporated into the
EIR/EIS for the proposed expansion of the Los Angeles International Airport. Duties
included field deployment and maintenance of a network of 15 Minivol air samplers, data
analysis, evaluating biological impacts of exposure data and communicating results to
policy-makers, resource agencies, technical audiences and the general public.
UC Toxic Substances Research and Training Program, 1998 -2000. Graduate
research fellow. Attended courses and symposia on ecotoxicological research techniques •
and data interpretation.
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Organismic Biology, Ecology and
Evolution, UCLA, 1996 -1999. Led experimental design of multi -year field monitoring
program in Upper Newport Bay. Served as principal researcher for field data collection.
Parameters monitored included water column, sediment and macroalgal tissue nutrients,
macroalgal biomass, and epibenthic fauna. Served as lead scientist for data analysis,
preparing results for publication in the scientific literature and reporting results to
policymakers, resource agencies and the public. Assisted in presenting results to the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and EPA representatives at public
hearing regarding establishment of a nutrient TMDL for San Diego Creek.
Committees and Panels
National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board's Task Force on the
Environmental Impacts of Aviation. 1996 -2000. Panel of researchers, resource
agencies, private consulting firms, and airport and natural resource managers which
reports to the Transportation Research Board on current and emerging issues regarding
the environmental impacts of aviation activities.
Technical Advisory Committee, Upper Newport Bay, California, 1997 -1999. Served
as a scientific advisor to this panel comprised of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department •
of Fish and Game, Orange County Environmental Management, City of Newport Beach,
0 0
• Irvine Ranch Water District, academic researchers and citizen activists. Evaluated
environmental impacts and made policy recommendations for one of the largest coastal
wetlands in southern California.
Publications
Boyle, K.A., K. Kamer and P. Fong. 2004. Spatial and temporal patterns in sediment
and water column nutrients in a eutrophic southern California estuary. Estuaries 27(3),
PP• 378 -388.
Fong, P., K.E. Boyer, K. Kamer. and K.A. Boyle. 2003. Influence of initial tissue
nutrient status of tropical marine algae on response to nitrogen and phosphorus
additions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 262, pp. 111 -123.
Fong, P., K.E. Boyer, K. Kamer. and K.A. Boyle., 2001. Nutrient content of mcroalgae
with differing morphologies may indicate sources of nutrients for tropical marine
systems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 220, pp. 137 -152.
Kamer, K, K.A. Boyle and P. Fong. 2001. Macroalgal bloom dynamics in a highly
eutrophic southern California estuary. Estuaries 24(4), pp. 623 -635.
Fong, P., K.A. Boyle and K. Kamer. 1998. Will releasing treated wastewater stimulate
algal blooms in southern California estuaries? Technical Completion Report, University
• of California Water Resources Center. Project Number: UCAL -WRC -W -871.
Boyle, K.A. 1 996. Evaluating particulate emissions from jet engines: Analysis of
chemical and physical characteristics and potential impacts on coastal environments and
human health. Transportation Research Record 1517.
Invited Talks
Assessing Airport Air Quality Impacts: Measuring particulate emissions near a large
urban airport. Karleen A. Boyle and Peggy Fong. Presented at: The 79`h Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, January 2000, Washington, D.C.
Macroalgal bloom dynamics in a highly eutrophic southern California estuary. Karleen
A. Boyle, Krista Kamer and Peggy Fong. Presented at: Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute (MBARI), August 1999, Moss Landing, CA.
Physical and chemical characteristics and environmental effects ofjet engine particulate
emissions. Presented at: The 75h Annual National Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, January 1996, Washington, D.C.
Assessing the environmental impacts ofjet engine particulate emissions. Karleen A.
Boyle and Peggy Fong. Presented at: The Annual Meeting of the Association of
Environmental Professionals, May 1996, Los Angeles, CA.
0 0
The effects of air traffic on wetland environments. Karleen A. Boyle and Peggy Fong. •
Presented to Women in Philanthropy at UCLA. April 1996, UCLA Ocean Discovery
Center, Santa Monica, CA
Presentations
Evaluating impacts of heavy metal and nitrogen deposition from aircraft overflights of
coastal wetlands. Karleen A. Boyle, Michelle Anghera, Richard Ambrose, and Peggy
Fong. Oral presentation at the 16a' Biennial Conference of the Estuarine Research
Federation. November 2001, St. Pete Beach, Florida.
Nutrient content of macroalgae with differing morphology may indicate nutrient
availability. Peggy Fong, Krista Kamer, Katharyn E. Boyer and Karleen A. Boyle.
Presented at the 9` International Coral Reef Symposium, 2001.
Evaluating Potential Impacts of Heavy Metal Deposition from Aircraft Overflights in
Coastal Wetlands. Karleen A. Boyle, Peggy Fong and Richard Ambrose. Poster
presented at: UC Toxic Substances Research and Teaching Program 13v' Annual
Research Symposium. May 2000. San Diego, CA.
A microcosm experiment testing whether nitrogen or phosphorous limits macroalgal
blooms in a highly eutrophic southern California estuary. Karleen A. Boyle, Krista
Kamer and Peggy Fong. Poster presented at: The Land -Water Interface: Science for a
sustainable biosphere; Joint meeting of the American Society of Limnology and •
Oceanography and the Ecological Society of America, June 1998, St. Louis, Missouri.
Nutrient dynamics in a heavily modified southern California estuary- Responses of the
algal community to treated wastewater release. Karleen A. Boyle, Krista Kamer and
Peggy Fong. Oral presentation at: The 14ei International Meeting of the Estuarine
Research Federation, October 1997, Providence, Rhode Island.
Awards and Honors
Outstanding Student Poster Award, 1998 Joint Meeting of American Society of
Limnology and Oceanography and Ecological Society of America. Award amount:
$250.00
Charles A. and Anne Morrow Lindbergh Foundation Fellowship 1997 -98. Award
amount: $10,500.00.
UCLA Departmental Fellowship, Winter 1997 and Spring 1998. Award amount:
$1,200.00.
National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board, Grad IX Award, 1995-
96. Award amount: $5,000.00.
Switzer Environmental Fellowship Recipient, 1994 -95. Award amount $10,000.00. •
• To: Homer Bludau
From: Thomas C. Edwards
Re: Dr. Boyle's Proposal
Date: 4/27/09
The following is an updated outline regarding the current proposal by Dr. Karleen Boyle -
Sudol and the City's monitor of the potential environmental impacts of aircraft emissions
at John Wayne Airport, Orange County, California. Hopefully it will serve as a basis to
respond to continuing questions and concerns that the City may face as regards the study.
Flistory
Initially, various components of the City have continually raised the question of what and
if any emissions are generated by aircraft that pass overhead at the rate of approximately
150 per day. Numerous comments through out the City confirmed that people felt they
were being inundated with black soot that collected on patio furniture, pool covers, air
filters and the like. It was with that in mind that the City began to investigate the
• possibility of conducting its own study to monitor the potential impacts of aircraft
emissions. Independently through one source at the City and through my own
investigation the person most likely to conduct such a study was determined to be Dr.
Karleen Boyle - Sudol. 1
Rather than accept anything at face value the City asked Dr. Boyle to make a proposal
but unlike most proposals it was to include and did include a complete survey of
literature to support the type of project that Dr. Boyle was proposing. The proposal
substantiated that the scientific community was able to demonstrate that "fingerprinting"
of ambient emissions to demonstrate their source was possible.
Proposal
With the foregoing in mind Dr. Boyle proposed a variety of research approaches for
evaluating the potential impacts of aircraft emissions. Included in the proposal and the
one that the City decided to pursue was a Detailed Air Sampling, which included the
measure of ambient particulate air pollution and associated polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons ( "PAHs ") and heavy metals near the airport, including areas used for
residential and recreational purposes. The current proposal's approximate cost is $52,000.
The staff person at the City located and passed on almost simultaneously the study conducted by Dr.
Boyle: 'Evaluating Particulate Emissions From Jet Engines: Analysis of Chemical and Physical
• Characteristics and Potential Impacts on Coastal Environments and Human Health" which appeared in
Transportation Research Record.
0
The proposal includes the use of Minivols, which are air samplers placed in certain •
locations around the airport and therefore utilizing the field methodology and sample
design would be able to compare or create a signature of airport vs. urban background; in
light of outstanding studies such as the one conducted at LAX which demonstrated that
particle associated concentrations of Copper and Vanadium were statistically
significantly elevated in air samples.
Essentially what testing determined was that in terms of associating the elevated Copper
and Vanadium levels with aircraft, the best hypotheses is that the copper particles are due
to brake wear as the planes land. Also, vanadium is used as an additive in jet fuel. These
facts coupled with the lack of elevations in these metals in freeway sampling sites have
led so far to the conclusion that they are aircraft - associated. The City's proposed testing
would compare therefore the amount and type of particulate emissions associated with
the airport and testing and whether they are distinguishable from urban background and
freeway emissions. Assuming that the tests move forward it appears that the science
supports the ability to distinguish between the two, because of the heavy metal and PAH
fingerprinting of airport associated impacts versus other normal urban background.
Questions
Q: Is there science to support distinguishing airport versus urban background?
A: Yes. Numerous Studies, including the supporting literature and studies,
numbering 56 as cited in the City's proposal. •
Q: What about the question of diesel fuel versus jet fuel?
A: Because of the testing which has demonstrated the ability to distinguish heavy
metals and PAH fingerprints from sampling, while difficult it is obtainable. Moreover,
the sample design and field methodology were designed with the objective of
distinguishing airport- associated emissions from other urban background sources. Since
substantial diesel emissions are associated with airport activities, including baggage
transport vehicles, aircraft support vehicles, public transit vehicles, etc.; these emissions
should be included in assessing overall airport impacts to air quality. That is the purpose
of having multiple field sampling stations, to allow us to measure airborne particulates
(and associated PAHs and heavy metals) in proximity to the airport in comparison to
"clean" coastal control sites, airport- adjacent residential areas, and non - airport adjacent
urban sampling stations. Dr. Boyle's study at LAX used a similar design and did find
statistically significant differences between the amount of particle -bound heavy metals in
air samples near the airport vs. samples adjacent to a freeway with a high volume of
diesel truck traffic. Airport air samples had significantly higher levels of particulate
copper (possibly from brake wear on landings) and vanadium than control and freeway
stations, while freeway stations had significantly higher levels of particulate lead than
airport or control stations.
Simply put testing has demonstrated elevated levels of lead at freeway sites which is
associated with diesel whereas airport samples show elevated levels of copper and
vanadium which are associated with jet fuel - not diesel in any significant respect.
L
0 0
• In addition one of the peer- reviewers specifically addressed this question and concluded
that that there is sufficient data available that supports that there are differences between
emission profiles of diesel and jet engines. In particular, a clear difference exists between
the ratio of organic carbon to elemental carbon (OC/EC) found in the two emission types.
Q: What is a MiniVol?
A: It is the type of air sampler Dr. Boyle is proposing for use. It is an integrated
sample over time. Dr. Boyle selected a standard EPA - approved air sampler (MiniVol)
which means that both the sampling machine and sampling protocols have been
extensively and scientifically reviewed before being approved by the EPA. The other
benefit to using an EPA - approved methodology is that it allows her to make meaningful
comparison of the City's data set with other data sets collected using these same methods.
This makes the data scientifically defensible and provides a broader context for use when
interpreting the results.
Q: What about the costs?
A: The costs quoted, which appear as an exhibit on her proposal were merely
duplicated verbatim from the testing lab DRl. While it has been approximately six (6)
months from the date of the proposal and the longer the time before actual testing begins
as best as can be determined the quotes remain accurate.
Also because Newport Beach is a public agency, they obtain a break on costs and
expenses from the Lab.
• Q: What about review of the proposal by stakeholders?
A: From a scientific standpoint it is not normal for stakeholders to be involved in a
scientific proposal at this stage. What is standard from a scientific standpoint is for peer -
review by peers in the field for evaluation of sample design and field methodology. From
the beginning Dr. Boyle has never opposed this and in fact had suggested a number of
possibilities.
Q: Will the proposal receive peer- review?
A: Yes. Currently Dr. Boyle has oral commitments and has exchanged information
with Dr. Gertler at DRI; Dr. Fine at AQMD and Dr. Weiner at UCLA. She is waiting for
all of the comments back and then if necessary will refine the proposal to incorporate
their suggestions. If there are additional costs or expenses associated with the proposal
she will make the City aware of those as soon as possible.
As an example Dr. Gender made certain suggested changes and comments
including but not limited to his recommendation to change the proposed 24 hour
MiniVol sampling period to a shorter sampling interval. He pointed out that airflow in the
study area is typically onshore during daylight hours, switching to offshore flow in the
evenings as temperatures drop. Sampling during both periods would include emissions
from both upwind and downwind of our sampling locations, making our source profiles
less concentrated and specific. The recommendation was incorporated.
• Q: Why do the testing?
0 0
A: There are a variety of reasons. However the City obviously must decide what they •
determine to be in their best interests. Initially the citizens in the city have repeatedly
raised the issue. Irrespective of the results the testing would establish some type of base
line for measuring the future, including but not limited potential increases in the future. In
addition it may prove to be a negotiating tool for the future.
Also, contrary to what other may say, what the data will provide is a measurement
of the amounts of heavy metals and PAHs at sampling stations in varying proximity to
potential urban emission sources, including heavy auto traffic (freeway) and the airport.
That information can be used by planners to determine whether airport- associated
emissions make up a significant portion of the overall air pollution load of the region. Or
if automotive sources are so substantial that any airport effect is undetectable. Air
quality data collected at the sites of concern allows city officials and regulators to use
their limited resources to address real, rather than imagined environmental impacts. The
data set can indicate whether mitigation measures should be explored, and if needed, how
they can be most effectively focused. A frequently suggested strategy for mitigating
airport air quality impacts is to switch from diesel - fueled support vehicles to less -
polluting options such as electric or hybrid vehicles. This approach is usually more cost -
effective and feasible than reducing emissions from jet engines themselves.
Q: What type of questions will be addressed in the study?
A: How many fine airborne particles are present in the ambient air?
What concentrates of PAHs, trace metals and nitrogen species are associated with
these particles? •
Does the particle load and/or chemical signature vary between sampling
locations?
How do the levels of fine particles and/or PAHs and heavy metals measured near
John Wayne Airport compare to field measurements of other sites from the scientific
literature?
How do these levels compare to standards set by air quality regulations?
Q: But isn't LA doing a study?
A: They are doing a variety of studies, all of which are related to environmental
impacts 45 miles away. Moreover Dr. Boyle's report will compliment the LAX report,
however it is much more chemically detailed as it will be able to distinguish in particular,
between the ratios of organic carbon to elemental carbon (OC/EC) found in the different
emission types.
Q: Is there a guarantee that the results will support people's beliefs regarding the
effects of the airport on air quality?
A: No. We are talking a scientific study; the science is what it is.
Q: Is there a risk of doing the study?
A: Yes, if people have a preconceived notion of the outcome. The results could be
Inconclusive; conclusive but show no negative effects from the airport; or
is
E
0
• Conclusive and show negative effects of the airport. In all cases a baseline of
information will be established.
Q: If the study demonstrates that there are significant environmental impacts as a
result of Jet Fuel Emissions will it shut down the airport?
A: No. However the County will have to deal with the issue of future expansion and
its impacts as well as incorporating certain mitigating measures to deal with the
impacts.
40
LITERATURE REVIEW AND MONITORING PROPOSALS TO ASSESS
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS AT
JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Karleen A. Boyle, Ph.D.
February 2009
11
•
•
•
•
Table
1 Estimated costs of research protocols 16
Appendices
1 Annotated bibliography CD
2 Budget worksheets CD
1
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Pages
1
Executive Summary
2-4
2
Review of Scientific Literature and Relevance
4-6
to Proposed Project
3
Summary of Proposed Sampling Options
6-10
4
References
11 -16
•
•
Table
1 Estimated costs of research protocols 16
Appendices
1 Annotated bibliography CD
2 Budget worksheets CD
1
• •
Section 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •
Background
The purpose of this report is to provide a review of the scientific literature
as well as a series of proposals to monitor the potential environmental impacts of
aircraft emissions at John Wayne Airport, Orange County, California.
Residents near airports frequently complain about "soot" depositing on
their property, and sampling near runways confirms the presence of high
concentrations of fine particles in the air and in dry deposition on land and water
in the vicinity of airports. Moreover, a survey of recent scientific publications
demonstrates that field sampling at airports worldwide has in fad detected
elevated levels of fine particulates (defined as 10 microns or less, i.e., PM10 and
below), heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ( "PAHs7) in air, soil
and water near airports. These three components of aircraft emissions have the
potential to adversely impact Moth human and environmental health.'
Scientific Support to Ju"& Relld Data Collection at JWA
The scientific community has demonstrated that "fingerprinting" of ambient
emissions to identify their source is possible and has been done in other systems
using both heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) th
distinguish between various anthropogenic emissions, including automobile
traffic, aircraft emissions, and urban background air pollution. •
Accordingly, it is in fad possible to test for and distinguish between the
various type of omissions. Therefore there is substantial support in the scientific
literature to justify field data collection to measure current levels of particulates,
heavy metals and PAHs in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport, and to evaluate the
potential of environmental impacts associated with increasing levels of air traffic.
Research approaches for evaluating potential Impacts:
• Measure ambient particulate air pollution and associated PAHs and heavy
metals near the airport, including areas used for residential and
recreational purposes.
• Measure heavy metals, PAHs and particleissociated nitrogen in dry
atmospheric deposition or runoff water in vicinity of runways. Nitrogen is
of particular concern because Upper Newport Bay is already eutrophic
and subject to nuisance blooms of macroaigae.
• Measure the effects of these airport associated pollutants on estuarine
habitats and organisms using laboratory micro osm eVertments.
•
11e wwati@c lAwatuce auppof ft the foregoing is set forth in Section 2 of fl& Report.
2
• •
• Research Options
Options for field air sampling are presented in detail in Section 3 (pp. 6-10).
Laboratory microcosm experiments designed to measure airport- associated
impacts to estuarine habitats are also discussed. The proposed approaches can
be matched to research priorities:
Research priority Recommended protocol Estimated Cost
Basic air sampling Air 1 $27,5222
Detailed air sampling Air 2 $45,900
Impacts to Upper Newport Bay Lab microcosms Range:$930- $38,0703
Summary of Research Options
Several options are presented for measuring levels of chemicals of concern
near the airport and testing whether airport- associated impacts can be
• distinguished from urban background pollutants (fingerprinting). Selecting the
best protocol to meet your research needs and budget constraints depends on
which potential impacts are of highest priority to identity.
Protocol 1- Basic Air Sampling
Basic air sampling will yield measurements of PAHs and metals in air
samples taken near the airport. These will be compared to air samples from a
clean coastal control site and a site subject to high automobile emissions to
attempt to identify a chemical fingerprint associated with airport emissions.
Protocol 2 - DetaiW Air Sampling; Assessing Residential Exposure
If human health impacts are of primary concern, air sampling protocol 2 will
give the most robust data set for that assessment by including additional
sampling stations at residential and recreational areas near the airport. These
data will allow us to test whether airport- associated PAFIs and metals are
detected in these areas and will allow estimates of human exposure to be made.
This protocol will also improve our ability to fingerprint airport emissions by
adding data from additional camp" sites.
• 2 Cnt estimates for all of the research aptiow are broken down and explained in detail in the budget
wottsheeft on the ammipanying CD.
' Cost eshum"sfor the micaocosm experiments are presented in make detail m Table I (p.16Wthis Taunt
0 0
Detailed Chemical Fingerprinting •
If establishing a detailed chemical fingerprint is a high priority, air sampling
protocol 2 can be combined with laboratory experiments that expose microcosms
to doses of aircraft or automobile emissions collected at air sampling sites and
measure the resulting PAH and metal concentrations in microcosm sediments,
water, animal and plant tissue. Comparing chemical signatures from air traffic
and automotive traffic in the largest variety of media maximizes the chances of
isolating an airport- associated chemical fingerprint and evaluating potential
habitat impacts.
Lab Microcosms- Human HeaM Impacts and Impacts to the Estuary
If both human health impacts and impacts to the estuary at Upper Newport
Bay are prioritized, a combination of air sampling and laboratory microcosm
experiments is the best choice. This approach allows the fate and effects of the
air contaminants measured in the field to be tracked in an estuarine environment.
My recommendation for a baseline data set would be to combine basic air
sampling with experimental microcosms osms besting: toxicity, invertebrate
bioaccumulation and environmental fate. Additional testing could be added as
funding allows, or to pursue findings of interest in the baseline data set
The budget worksheet on the accompanying CD allows detailed cost is
comparisons of the various approaches.
Section 2. REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND RELEVANCE TO
PROPOSED PROJECT
Airport Associated Environmental impacts
A search of the recent scientific literature shows that field sampling at
airports worldwide has detected elevated levels of fine particulates (particles
I Opm and smaller), polycycic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals and
particle- associated nitrogen in air (Westerdahl et al. 2008, Fang et al. 2007,
Boyle 2001, Tsani- Bazaca et al. 1984) °, soil (Romic and Romic 2003, Shannila et
al. 2008), and water (Golomb et al. 2001) near airports These airport -associated
emissions have the potential to adversely impact both human health and habitat
quality.
Fine particulate air pollutants have been associated with increased risks of
cell mutation (Hopke 2008, McCartney et al. 1988), asthma attacks (DeLeon et
al. 2004), and human mortality due to cardiovascular and repiratory causes
Those reterenw the science and titMOM cftd in Section a and moss paidcalmiy dw ibad in the •
Annotated Bilffiography found on the CD acoompmWing this repmt-
C]
0 9
• (Klemm et al. 2001, Kinney and Oezkaynak 1991, Schwartz 1991). In addition to
their negative effects on human health, chemicals associated with these
particles, especially heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, can
adversely impact habitats subject to their deposition.
Both heavy metals (Horai et al. 2007, Franca et al. 2005, Kut et al. 2000)
and PAHs (Lee et al. 1999, Woodhead et al. 1999, Walker et al. 2004) have
been shown to accumulate in sediments and organisms, where they can have
toxic effects at various life stages (Greco et al. 2001, Geffard et al. 2002).
Because of their frequent proximity to human development, estuaries are often
subject to such adverse environmental impacts.
Particle- associated nitrogen species are another potential environmental
impact Atmospheric nitrogen deposition associated with air pollution has been
documented worldwide (Liu at al. 2008, Ayars and Gaob 2007, Whitall at al.
2003) and has been shown to alter habitats by altering plant physiology (Skinner
et al. 2006, Gidman et al. 2005) and changing vegetation communities (Solga et
al. 2006). Many estuarine habitats worldwide are adversely impacted by
excessive nutrient inputs (eutrophication) due to human activities (Kedong and
Harrison 2008, Dolbeth et al. 2007, Ellegaard et ad. 2006). Atmospheric nitrogen
deposition represents another source of nutrient enrichment to these systems
(Nakamura et al. 2005). This is of particular concern for Upper Newport Bay,
since the estuary is already highly eutrophic and subject to nuisance blooms of
macroalgae (Boyle et al. 2004, Kamer et al. 2001).
• Isolating the Source of Chemical Inputs
A persistent challenge in environmental impact sampling is isolating and
quantifying the various sources of chemical inputs against urban background
contaminants. Sediment profiles of heavy metals and PAHs have been found to
reflect adjacent land uses (Kimbrough and Dic khut 2006) and are frequently used
to identify "fingerprints' of anthropogenic inputs to a watershed (Walker et al.
2005, Bixian et al. 2003, Cal -Prieto et al. 2001).
Similarly, heavy metals and PAHs associated with particulate air pollutants
can be used to "fingerprint" ambient emissions (Chuersawan 2008, Ninga et al.
2008, Mastral et al. 2000, Zheng and Fang 2000, Rasmussen 1998).
Increasingly stringent air quality regulations have spurred the development of
analytical techniques to identify sources and distinguish between various types of
anthropogenic emissions including automobile vs. background urban vs. refinery
(Ravindra at al. 2008, Walker st al. 2005).
Scientific Support for This Study
There is substantial support in the scientific literature to justify field data
collection to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with increasing
air traffic at John Wayne Airport. Studies of airports worldwide have documented
• increased levels of fine particulates, heavy metals, PAHs and nitrogen species.
All of these compounds have been documented to have the potential to
9 0
adversely impact human and environmental health. The sampling technology •
and analytical techniques are well developed to measure these contaminants in
the field, near areas of concern (Cooney 2008, Yu et al. 2004). Areas at high risk
for environmental impacts exist in proximity to John Wayne Airport, including
residential and recreational land, as well as protected wetland habitat in Upper
Newport Bay, which is already threatened by numerous anthropogenic impacts.
In addition, chemical fingerprinting techniques are developed that give a good
probability of isolating an airport- associated emission signature from general
urban background pollution. The approach described in this report combines
these research methods to obtain quantitative field data on which to base
evaluations of potential air quality and habitat impacts associated with John
Wayne Airport.
Section 3• RESEARCH OPTIONS FOR ASSESSING POTENTIAL.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AIR TRAFFIC AT JOHN
WAYNE AIRPORT
Two Air Sampling Opdons aniWor ConWhation with Microcosm
Experiments
The following options are arranged from least to most complicated. As
complexity and sampling increase, so does the cost of the project The major
expenses associated with these sampling options will be the rental of sampling •
equipment and the cost of chemical analyses of the samples. Two air sampling
protocols are presented to measure air quality impacts near the airport and to
attempt to differentiate airport emissions from urban background inputs. If
desired, air sampling can be supplemented with laboratory microcosm
experiments examining the fate and effects of particle doses and/or runoff
collected at the airport on estuarine habitats. Ten experimental options are
described.
I recommend focusing on particle- associated PAHs and heavy metals as
chemicals of interest because there is a well - developed scientific literature to
support their use, they have been documented to have the potential to adversely
impact environmental and human health, and levels of concern for most have
been established by regulatory agendes.
If habitat impacts are a concern, analyses for nitrogen can be included.
These analyses are substantially less expensive than PAH and metal analyses.
Sampling in many systems worldwide has demonstrated that nitrogen species
associated with atmospheric particulates can lead to increased nutrient ceding at
sites in proximity to, or downwind of, air pollution sources. In several cases, the
effects of this increased nutrient loading are measurable in changes in vegetation
patterns or species distributions in the impacted area.
The issue of increased nutrient deposition associated with particulate air
pollution near the airport is addressed through laboratory microcosms. This is of •
particular concern for Upper Newport Bay since previous research has
3
0 0
• demonstrated high anthropogenic nutrient loading to the Bay (Boyle et al., 2004),
and documented its role in facilitating nuisance blooms of macroalgae in this
estuary (Kamer et al., 2001). Acceptable levels of water column nitrogen are
regulated under the Clean Water Act.
For each protocol below, baseline sampling has been set at the minimum
number of locations and replicates (samples per location) which will allow
statistical analyses of the data set. If budget allows, increases in sampling
location or replicates will increase the ability of the statistical tests to detect
whether trends in the data are statistically significant. Sampling locations in
urban, high traffic areas have been included to attempt to discriminate between
airport - associated and other urban background emissions ("fingerprinting "). If
fingerprinting air traffic associated emissions is not a high priority, these sampling
locations can be omitted.
All budget estimates are approximate. There is potential for reducing the
cost of chemical analyses by partnering with other researchers in exchange for
co- authorship of results, or by running large numbers of samples which will
qualify for a reduced rate at most commercial labs.
General Sampling Structure
Field air monitoring would be conducted at the following general locations.
Different protocols increase the number of sampling locations to obtain
• progressively more detailed data sets.
Proposed sampling locations: 6
• 2 at airport, 1 upwind and 1 downwind of runway
• 2 potential impact sites
- airport- adjacent residentialfrecreationall habitat areas to assess
potential human health and environmental impacts.
• 1 site with high automobile emissions and minimal air traffic exposure
to obtain background urban emission values for fingerprinting
is
purposes.
• 1 clean control site sampling coastal air subject to minimal pollution.
Recommended minimum replicates per location: S
Measuring particulate
heavy metals
Research questions addressed:
and
How many fine (2.5 lam and smaller) airborne particles are present in the
ambient air?
7
What concentrations of PAHs, trace metals and nitrogen species are •
associated with these particles?
Does•the particle load and/or chemical signature vary between sampling
locations?
How do the levels of fine particles and /or PAHs and heavy metals
measured near John Wayne Airport compare to field measurements of
other sites from the scientific literature?
How do these levels compare to standards set by air quality regulations?
Both air sampling protocols are designed to provide quantitative data on
levels of particle- associated PAHs and trace metals at sampling sites. These
values can then be compared to values associated with human health impacts in
the scientific literature and to acceptable levels stated in air quality regulations.
Statistical analyses will be conducted to test whether a significant difference in
PAH and metal concentrations is detected between locations in varying proximity
to the airport. Data will also be analyzed to attempt to differentiate between
airport- associated emissions and urban background emissions. Both protocols
employ air sampling machines to actively sample ambient particles in a known
volume of air. The Air 1 protocol samples three locations: downwind of the
runway, the high -auto emission control, and the dean coastal control. The Air 2 •
protocol increases the spatial resolution of the data collected in Air 1 by adding
three more sampling sites: upwind of the runway, airport adjacent residential and
airport adjacent habitat.
Bay: Testing the fate and effects of PAHs, heavy meta
estuarine habitats exposed lo airport derived particles.
Research questions addressed and methods: See Table 1 (p.16) for
summary.
Are jet exhaust particles (JEPs) toxic? 96 -hour dose- response toxicity tests
will be conducted. Larval fish will be exposed to W easing.doses of JEPs
collected at the runway sampling station and impairment or mortality will be
measured.
Do JEP-assocWW dmmcals bioaccumulate In estuarine habitats?
Bioac cumulation potential will be assessed through laboratory microcosm
exposure tests in which organisms from "dean' reference sites are exposed to
JEP doses from the runway sampling station. After exposure, tissues are
analyzed for PAHs and Navy metals. Algal tissue is also analyzed for nitrogen. 41
0
• Bioaccumulation can be tested for using:
Macroalgae (Ulva sp.)
Invertebrates (mollusk)
Vertebrates (larval fish)
Do JEP- associated nutrients increase macroalgal biomass (blooms)?
Biomass of macroalgae in laboratory microcosm test is measured throughout
exposure and compared to controls.
Where are JEPs stored in the environment (fate)? Laboratory microcosms
containing "clean" seawater, sediment, macroalgae and reference invertebrates
and vertebrates are exposed to JEP doses from the runway sampling station.
After exposure, all media are analyzed for PAHs and heavy metals.
Do JEPs increase water column and sediment nutrient levels
(eutrophicadon)? Laboratory microcosms containing "clean" seawater,
sediment, macroalgae and reference invertebrates and vertebrates are exposed
to JEP doses from the runway sampling station. After exposure, all media are
analyzed for nitrogen species.
Do automotive emissions demonstrate a different chemical signature in
estuarine habitats? A third experimental treatment exposing microcosms to
• doses collected at the automotive emission sampling station is added to the Fate
protocol.
Conclusion
As previously stated, there is substantial support in the scientific literature to
justify field data collection to measure current levels of particulates, heavy metals
and PAHs in the vicinity of John Wayne Airport, and thereby evaluate the
potential of environmental Impacts associated with increasing levels of air traffic.
The determination that the City must make is what types of impacts it wishes
to tit for and which potential Impacts are of the highest priority to identify.
A cornbinafion of air sampling and laboratory experanents will allow potential
impacts to both human health and habitat in Upper Newport Bay to be
investigated. The minimum data set necessary to accomplish this is the
combination of Air protocol 1 with select laboratory toxicity tests. My
recommendation for a baseline data set would be to combine basic air sampling
with experimental microcosms testing: toxicity, invertebrate bioaccumulation and
environmental fate. Additional testing could be added as funding allows, or to
pursue findings of interest in the baseline data set.
If fingerprinting emissions is a priority, the Air 2 protocol would provide the
most robust data set for those purposes. For detailed fingerprinting, laboratory
• microcosms could be exposed to doses from both the airport and freeway
sampling sites. The chemical signatures of each in sedirnents and water could
G
L-1
be compared to controls to attempts to isolate an airport- specific pollutant •
signature. The budget worksheet accompanying the executive summary allows
cost comparisons of various approaches. This is an interesting research
question, and any data that is collected will be a useful addition to the body of
scientific knowledge on these topics. k will also provide planners, the public and
the regulatory community with relevant decision - making information.
•
•
10
0 0
• Section 4: Literature Cited
Ayars, Jennifer and Yuan Gaob. 2007. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition to the
Mullica River -Great Bay Estuary. Marine Environmental Research 64(5):590-600.
Bixian, Mai, Q. Shihua, Zeng, E.Y., Y. Qingshu, Z. Gan, F. Jiamo, S. Guoying, P.
Pingan and W. Zhishi. 2003. Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in
the coastal region off Macao, China: Assessment of input sources and transport
pathways using compositional analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37: 4855 -4163.
Boyle, KA. 2001. LAX Master Plan EIS/EIR. Potential biological impacts to El
Segundo Dune habitat.
C.M. Cooney. Characterizing airplane plumes on the runway. March 15, 2008 /
Environmental Science & Technology p.1815
Carslaw, David E., K. Ropkins, D. Laxen, S. Moorcroft, B. Mamer and M.L.
Williams. 2008. Near -Field Commercial Aircraft Contribution to Nitrogen Oxides
by Engine, Aircraft Type, and Airline by Individual Plume Sampling. Environ. Sci.
Tech nol. 42:1871 -1876.
De Leon, Samantha, K Ito, Hsien -Wen Hsu, J. Reibman, G. Thurston. 2004.
The association between ambient PM2.5 and biomarkers of airway inflammation
is in patients with asthma. Epidemiology 15(4):S24 -25.
Dolbeth, M., P.G. Cardoso, S.M. Ferreiraa, T. Verdelhosa, D. RaffaeNib and M.A.
Pardala. 2007. Anthropogenic and natural disturbance effects on a macrobenthic
estuarine community over a 10 year period. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54(5):576-
585.
Eltegaard, Marianne, A.L. Clarke, N. Reuss, S. Drew, K. Weckstram, S. Juggins,
N.J. Anderson and D. J. Conley. 2006. Muni -proxy evidence of long -term
changes in ecosystem structure in a Danish marine estuary, linked to increased
nutrient loading. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Spence 68(30:567 -578.
Fang, Guor- Cheng, Yuh -Shen Wu, Wen -Jhy Lee,Te -Yen Choua, and I-Chen Lin.
2007. Study of ambient air particulates pollutants near Taichung airport sampling
site in central Taiwan. Journal of Hazardous Materials 144:492-498.
Franca, Susana, C. Vinagre, 1. Cacador and H.N. Cabral. 2005. Heavy metal
concentrations in sediment, benthic invertebrates and fish in three salt marsh
areas subjected to different pollution loads in the Tagus Estuary (Portugal).
Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 993 -1018.
• Geffard, O; Budzinski, H; His, E. The Effects of Elutriates from PAH and Heavy
Metal Polluted Sedlnents on Crassostrea gigas (fhunberg) Embryogenesis,
11
0 0
Larval Growth and Bio- accumulation by the Larvae of Pollutants from •
Sedimentary Origin. Ecotoxicology [Ecotoxicology]. Vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 403 -416.
Dec 2002.
Gidman, Ed; Goodacre, Royston; Emmett, Bridget; Sheppard, Lucy J;Leith, Ian
D; Gwynn- Jones, Dylan*. Applying metabolic fingerprinting to ecology. The use
of Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy for the rapid screening of plant
responses to N deposition.Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus (Water, Air,
Soil Pollut. Focus]. Vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 251 -258. Jan 2005.
Golomb, D., E. Barry, G. Fisher, P. Varanusupakul, M. Koleda and T. Rooney.
2001. Atmospheric deposition of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons near New
England coastal waters Atmospheric Environment 35: 6245 -6258.
Greco, LS; Sanchez, MV; Nicoloso, GL; Medesani, DA; Rodriguez, EM. Toxicity
of Cadmium and Copper on Larval and Juvenile Stages of the Estuarine Crab
Chasmagnathus granulata (Brachyura, Grapsidae). Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology Vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 333-338. Oct 2001
Hemdon, Scott C., J.T. Jayne, P. Lobo, T.B. Onasch, G. Fleming, D. Hagen, P.D.
Whiteefield and R.C. Miake -Lye. 2008. Commercial Aircraft Engine Emissions
Characterization of in-Use Aircraft at Hartsfield- Jackson Atlanta International
Airport. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:1877 -1683. •
Hopke, Philip K. 2008. New Directions: Reactive Particles as a Source of
Human Health Effects. Atmospheric Environment 42: 3192 -3194.
Horai, Sawako; Watanabe, Izumi; Takada, Hideshige; Iwamizu, Yoshikazu;
Hayashi, Tenrtake; Tanabe, Shinsuke; Kuno, Katsuji. Trace element
accumulations in 13 avian species collected from the Kanto area, Japan. Science
of the Total Environment [Sci. Total Environ.]. Vol. 373, no. 2-3, pp. 512 -525. Feb
2007.
Hughes, L.S., J.O. Allen, P. Bhave, M.J. Kleeman, G.R. Cass and Liu, D.Y., D.P.
Fergenson, B.D. Monical and K.A. Prather. 2000. Evolution of atrrwspheric
particles along trajectories crossing the Los Angeles Basin. Environmental
Science and Technology 34(15): 3058 -3088.
Jazcilevich, Aron D., A.R. Garcia and Luis Gerardo Ruiz - Suarez. 2003. An air
pollution modeling study using three surface coverings near the new International
Airport of Mexico City. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 53:1280 -1287.
K.N. Yua, Y.P. Cheunga, T. Cheunga, Ronald C. Henryb *IdenWng the impact
of large urban airports on local air quality by nonparametric regression.
Atmospheric Environment 38 (2004) 4501 -4507. 0
12
0 0
• Kado, Norman Y., R. Okamoto, J. Karim and P. Kuzmicky. 2000. Airborne
particle emissions from 2-and 4- stroke outboard marine engines: Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon and bioassay analyses. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34: 2714-
2720.
Kamer, Krista, K.A. Boyle and P. Fong. 2001. Macroalgal Bloom Dynamics in a
Highly Eutrophic Southern California Estuary. Estuaries 24(4):623 -635.
Kimbrough, K.L. and R.M. Dickhut. 2006. Assessment of po{ycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon input to urban wetlands in relation to adjacent land use. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 52: 1355 -1363.
Kinney, PL; Oezkaynak, H. 1991. Associations of daily mortality and air pollution
in Los Angeles County. Environmental Research 54(2): 99 -120.
Klemm, R J; Lipfert, F W; Wyzga, R E; Gust, C. Daily Mortality and Air Pollution
in Atlanta: Two Years of Data from ARIES. Inhalation Toxicology [Inhalation
Toxicol.]. Vol. 16, suppl. 1, pp.131 -141. Jan 2001.
Kut, D., S. Topcuog -, N. Lu, R. Esen, R. Kucukoezzar and K.C. Guven. 2000.
Trace metals in marine algae and sediment samples from the Bosphorus. Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution 118:27-33.
• Lee, K; Nagler, JJ; Fournier, M; Lebeuf, M; Cyr, DG. Toxicological
characterization of sediments from Baie des Anglais on the St. Lawrence Estuary
Chemosphere [ Chemosphere]. Vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1019 -1035. Sep 1999.
Lonati, G., M. Giugliano and S. Ozgen. 2008. Primary and secondary
components of PM2.5 in Milan (Italy). Environment International 34:665 -670.
M. J. Cal- Prieto, A. Cartosena, J. M. Andrade, M. L. Martinez, S. Muniategui, P.
Lopez -Mahia and D. Prada. 2001. Antimony as a tracer of the anthropogenic
influence on soils and estuarine sediments. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 129:
333 -348.
Mastral, Ana M. and M.S. Callen. 2000. A review on polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions from energy generation. Environmental Science
and Technology 34(15): 3051 -3057.
McCartney, MA; Chatterjee, BF; McCoy, EC; Mortimer, EA Jr; Rosenkranz, HS.
Airplane emissions: A source of mutagenic nitrated polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. Mutation Research. Vol. 171, no. 2 -3, pp. 99-104.1986.
N. Chuersuwan, S: Nimrat, S. Lekphet and T. Kerdkumrai. 2008. Levels and
• major sources of PM2.5 and PM10 in Bangkok Metropolitan Region.
Environment International 34: 671 -577.
13
0
Nakamura, Tokuhiro, K. Matsumoto and M. Uematsu. 2005. Chemical •
characteristics of aerosols transported from Asia to the East China Sea: an
evaluation of anthropogenic combined nitrogen deposition in autumn.
Atmospheric Environment 39(9):1749 -1758.
Ninga, Zhi, A. Polidoria, J.J. Schauerb, C. Sioutas. 2008. Emission factors of PM
species based on freeway measurements and comparison with tunnel and
dynamometer studies. Atmospheric Environment 42: 3099 -3114.
Noltea, Christopher G., P.V. Bhavea, J.R. Arnold, R. L. Dennis, K. M. Zhang and
A.S. Wexler. 2008. Modeling urban and regional aerosols— Application of the
CMAQ -UCD Aerosol Model to Tampa, a coastal urban site. Atmospheric
Environment 42: 3179 -3191.
Ozden, 0., T. Dd§erogtu and S. Kara. 2008. Assessment of ambient air quality
in Eski§ehir, Turkey. Environment International 34: 678-687.
Rasmussen, 1998. Long -range atmospheric transport of trace metals: the need
for geoscience perspectives. Environmental Geology 33(213): 96 -108.
Rauch, Sebastian, G.M. Morrison, M. Motefica- Heino, O.F X. Donard and M.
Muris. 2000. Elemental Association and Fingerprinting of Traffic-Related Metals •
in Road Sediments. Environ. Sci, Technol. 34:3119 -3123.
Ravindra, Khalwal, R. Sokhi and R. Van Grieken. 2008. Atmospheric polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons: Source attribution, mission factors and regulation.
Atmospheric Environment 42: 2895-2921.
Romic, Marga and Davor Romic. 2003. Heavy metals distribution in agricultural
topsoils in urban area. Environmental Geology 43:795 -8U5.
Schwartz, J. 1991. Particulate air pollution and daily mortality in
Detroit.Environmental Research [ENVIRON. RES.j. Vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 204213.
Shamtila, Ray, P.S. Khillare, T. Agarwal and V. Shridhar. 2008. Assessment of
PAHs in soil around the International Airport in Delhi, India. Journal of
Hazardous Materials 156: 9-16
$iiiovi6 A., I. BeW, K. $ega and V. Vadji6. 2008. PAH mass concentrations
measured in PM10 particle fraction. Environment International 34: 580 -584.
Skinner, R.A., P. Ineson, H. Jones, D. Sleep,l.D. Leith and L.J. Sheppard. 2006.
Heartland vegetation as a bio- monitor for nitrogen deposition and source
attribution using 615N values. Atmospheric Environment 40(3) :498 -507. •
14
0 0
• Solga, A., T. Eichert and J.P. Frahm. 2006. Historical alteration in the nitrogen
concentration and 15N natural abundance of mosses in Germany: Indication for
regionally varying changes in atmospheric nitrogen deposition within the last 140
years. Atmospheric Environment 40(40):8044 -8055.
Tsani- Bazaca, E; McIntyre, AE; Lester, JN; Perry, R. Air pollution associated
with airports. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 361-
377. 1984.
Walker, Shelby E., R.M. Dickhut and C. Chisholm - Brause. 2004. Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in a highly industrialized urban estuary: inventories and
trends. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23(11): 2655 -2664.
Walker, Shelby E., R.M. Dickhut, C. Chisholm- Brause, S. Sylva and C.M. Reddy.
2005. Molecular and isotopic identification of PAH sources in a highly
industrialized urban estuary. Organic Geochemistry 36: 619 -632.
Westerdahl, D., S.A. Fruin, P.L. Fine, C. Sioutas. 2008. The Los Angeles
International Airport as a source of ultrafine particles and other pollutants to
nearby communities. Atmospheric Environment 42: 3143 -3155.
Whitall, David, B. Hendrickson and H. Paerl. 2003. Importance of atmospherically
• deposited nitrogen to the annual nitrogen budget of the Neuse River estuary,
North Carolina. Environment International 29:(2 - 3)393-399.
Wood, Ezra C., S.C. Hemdon, M.T. Timko, P.E. Yelvington and R.C. Miake -Lye.
2008. Speciation and Chemical Evolution of Nitrogen Oxides in Aircraft Exhaust
near Airports. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:1884 -1891.
Woodhead, R.J., R. J. Law and P.Matthiessen. 1999. Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in surface sediments around England and Wales, and their
possible biological significance. Marine Pollution BuNetin 38( 9): 773 -790.
Xue -Yan Liu, Hue -Yun Xiao, Cong -4iang Liu, You-Yi Li, and Hong -Wei Xiao.
2008. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes of the moss Hapkx:ladium
microphyllum in an urban and a background area (SW China): The role of
environmental conditions and atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Atmospheric
Environment 42(21):5413 -5423.
Yin, Kedong, and P.J. Harrison. 2008. Nitrogen over enrichment in subtropical
Pearl River estuarine coastal waters: Possible causes and consequences.
Continental Shelf Research 28(12):1435 -1442.
Zheng, M. and M. Fang. 2000. Correlations between Organic and Inorganic
• Species in Atmospheric Aerosols. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:2721 -2726.
t5
0 0
Bludau, Homer
From: Bludau, Homer .
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 2:41 PM
To: Bludau, Homer
Subject: FW: Revised timeline and budget options for JWA sampling
Attachments: Revised timeline for JWA projectdoc; Newport budget from DRI.xls
_... .._ .._ -._.. _.._..._. .... - -..__ ._ ... .......
From: Karleen Sudol [mailto:kboylesudol @verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:16 AM
To: Bludau, Homer; Thomas Edwards
Subject: Revised timeline and budget options for JWA sampling
Hello Homer and Tom,
I've attached a revised timeline and budget for the proposed sampling at John Wayne Airport. I spoke with the DRI lab
today to confirm their sample turn - around time in August and their 6 week estimate is factored in to the new timeline. As
Homer requested, I kept the timeline conservative, but if we need to make the deadline before January 2010 let me know
and I can revise our estimates.
In terms of the budget, Homer asked me to prioritize scientific rigor of the study, so I've re- worked the numbers
accordingly. The limiting factor changing our costs is the number of samplers we deploy. Our costs for time and analysis
will remain constant with either approach, but adding samplers to the budget would improve the scientific rigor of our
data. This is because we will be sampling at 6 different locations (control, upwind of airport, downwind of airport, 2 sites
of interest adjacent to the airport (to be determined in consultation with you both), and a site removed from the airport bu�
adjacent to a freeway (as our automotive emission sample). In any sampling design involving different locations, the
"normal/background" variability between locations and over time must be considered. If we are able to have a sampler
running simultaneously at all 6 locations, that allows us to get a statistical estimate of normal spatial variability between
these sites (we are getting a snapshot of how different they are from each other during the same 12 hour period). This
makes it easier to determine whether any differences in emissions detected between sites are "real" or a function of
variability over space and time.
So, the bottom line is - the more samples we have, the better our statistics work and the more likely any differences we
detect are "real ". This is always the case in science and there is always a trade -off between statistical rigor and the
realities of budgets. After consulting with several colleagues at DRI and UCLA, the consensus is that a scientifically
rigorous approach would be to run 6 Minivol samplers simultaneously (1 at each sampling location during the same 12
hour period). This basic sampling method would be repeated on 3 different days to give us a sample size of 3 (the
minimum number needed to run statistics) for each location. Our minivols give us data on particle concentrations and the
heavy metals associated with those samples. To get our PAH data we need to run the XAD filter samplers alongside the
minivols so that we can measure the types and concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, the agents of
most concern when evaluating toxic /carcinogenic effects). The XAD samplers are the most expensive piece of the
sampler budget. Ideally we would run 6 XADs alongside our Minivols, but that is prohibitively expensive. If we could use
3 XADs sampling simultaneously with the 6 Minivols and rotate the XADs between locations on the 3 different sampling
days, we would be in good shape. If that is not in the realm of budget reality, we should run at least 2 XADs
simultaneously, rotating through the locations.
These options give us the following budget numbers:
Most rigorous 6 Minivol samplers + 3 XAD samplers = $16,307.73 in sampler rental So, Total DRI costs
($41,873.61) + My budget ($17,020) = Total budget: $58,883.61
6 Minivol samplers + 2 XAD samplers= $13,059.26 in sampler rental Total DRI costs ($38,625.14) + is
My budget ($17,020) = Total budget: $55,645.14
0 9
Less rigorous 3 Minivol samplers + 2 XAD samplers= $9,778.10 in sampler rental Total DRI costs ($35,343.98) +
budget ($17,020) = Total budget 52,363.98
ut still scientifically defensible)
This is probably more information than you really wanted, but I want you to have enough background to explain it in the
meeting.
r 1
LJ
r 1
LJ
0
0
n
U
February 9, 2009
RE: Literature review and monitoring proposals to assess potential environmental
impacts of aircraft emissions at John Wayne Airport
Orange County, California
Dear Mr. Bludau:
I am pleased to submit the final drafl of my report "Literature review and monitoring
proposals to assess potential environmental impacts of aircraft emissions at John Wayne
Airport Orange County, California ".
This document provides research options for investigating the effects of aircraft
emissions on environmental and human health near John Wayne Airport, and summarizes
scientific literature relevant to this question.
The report and accompanying budget worksheet provide enough detail for the City of
Newport Beach to select individual sampling or experimental protocols which best meet •
their research priorities. My recommendation for a baseline data set would be to combine
basic air sampling with experimental microcosms testing: toxicity, invertebrate
bioaccumulation and environmental fate. Additional testing could be added as funding
allows, or to pursue findings of interest in the baseline data set. Depending upon when
the City decides to commence monitoring and the option(s) that it chooses, the
anticipated time line for completion of the project and analysis of the data is
approximately six (6) to nine (9) months.
If you would like assistance to modify the scope of research to meet a specific budgeted
amount or to focus on different research questions, I will be happy to tailor it to your
needs. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.
Respectfully Submitted,
Karleen A. Boyle, Ph.D.
703-455- 8646(h)
202 - 270 -6979 (cell)
sudola,cox.net
•
f �A
CtBUDGETAMENDMENT
of Newport Beach •
2008 -09
CT ON BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE:
Increase Revenue Estimates
X Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND X
Transfer Budget Appropriations
SOURCE:
from existing budget appropriations
from additional estimated revenues
PX from unappropriated fund balance
EXPLANATION:
This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following:
NO. BA- 09BA -056
AMOUNT: $62,000.00
Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance
Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance
No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance
To increase expenditure appropriations from General Fund unappropriated fund balance to enter into a contract with
Karen A. Boyle, Ph.D for an air quality study relating to JWA jet aircraft emissions.
ACCOUNTING ENTRY:
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Amount
Fund Account Description Debit Credit
010 3605 General Fund - Fund Balance $62,000.00
RUE ESTIMATES (3601)
Fund /Division Account Description
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603)
Division Number
Account Number
Signed:
Signed:
Sig
Services Director
manager
City Council Approval: City Clerk
' Automatic System Entry.
3 = d O'S
Date
.:;- �o
D
Date
Description
Division
Number
0123 Spheres Issues Management
Account
Number
8080 Services: Professional & Technical NOC $62,000.00
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division Number
Account Number
Signed:
Signed:
Sig
Services Director
manager
City Council Approval: City Clerk
' Automatic System Entry.
3 = d O'S
Date
.:;- �o
D
Date