By Thomas Cahill
Is the Nishi property in the running for the most polluted near-roadway site in the nation? It certainly is not that far behind a freeway site on Highway 60 in Ontario, which currently holds the title.
This startling fact is based on data in a long-awaited report on freeways from the California Air Resources Board and UCLA, and reported in a Dec. 30 Los Angeles Times article, “Freeway Pollution Travels Farther Than We Thought. Here’s How to Protect Yourself.”
The story proposes that one way to protect yourself is “avoid truck routes” and gives an example. “An air-monitoring station next to a truck-congested stretch of the Highway 60 freeway in Ontario had the highest levels of fine-particle pollution, or soot, of all near-roadway sites in the nation, according to 2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data. About 217,000 vehicles a day passed by in 2015, more than 29,000 of them trucks.”
So let’s compare the worst near-roadway site in the nation, Highway 60 at Grove Boulevard in Ontario, to Nishi, Interstate 80 looking west from the Solano/Yolo line:
The sites have several similarities. In terms of annual average PM2.5, Yolo County and Los Angeles County near Ontario (Glendora) are almost identical over the past decade, about 9.5 µg/m3, so the 
background fine mass cannot skew the comparison. They are both elevated east-west trending freeways with under-crossings, Grove Avenue in Ontario, Union Pacific Railroad tracks at Nishi, and both sites are based on California cars, trucks and fuels.
The annual average daily traffic data shows that Highway 60 exceeds Nishi: 217,000 (Highway 60) to 136,700 (Nishi) vehicles for total traffic, with 29,121 (Highway 60) to 11,989 (Nishi) being trucks. As a percentage of overall traffic, trucks on Highway 60 account for 13.4 percent to 8.8 percent for Nishi.
So Nishi is only 41 percent (trucks only) or 63 percent (trucks plus cars) as bad as the worst near-freeway site in the entire USA? That’s like looking to buy a house near a water body that the developer boasts is only 41 percent or 63 percent as bad as the Love Canal, the infamous Superfund site near Buffalo, N.Y., that sickened hundreds of people.
But before we sign off on Highway 60’s victory lap to infamy, there are three factors that impact Nishi that are absent from Highway 60 and propel Nishi closer to the “worst in the USA” leader:
* The narrowing of I-80 west of Nishi from six lanes to three forces heavy braking and stop-and-go traffic. Why is that important? The article states, “Ultrafine particles are suspected of causing some of the illnesses among people living near traffic …” These include “… dust from brake pads.” All that grinding to a stop upwind of Nishi is a recipe for several types of lung, heart and reproductive distress.
* Davis, like all Central Valley cities, has its worst air quality in winter stagnation events and very shallow pollution inversions. Why is that important? The winter inversions at Davis trap pollutants near the ground and near the sources, so all those diesel soot and ultra-fine metals will persist and build up to high levels until cleared out by the next rain storm or strong north winds, which could be days or even weeks away.
* Nishi has heavy train traffic on its north edge, with both idling and accelerating Amtrak trains, and heavy freight trains accelerating out of the Davis curve. This use is increasing. Why is that important? Because train diesel was shown to be six times more carcinogenic than truck diesel per unit mass by Region IX in the Roseville railyard.
Davis readers will find much more in the article that seems familiar, that even up to 1,000 feet away from freeways, health impacts include “asthma, cancer, heart attacks, strokes, reduced lung function, pre-term births and a growing list of other health problems.” This is a pretty good summary of information in the Davis Nishi draft environmental impact report and our summaries.
Allowing students to live in what is certainly one of the most polluted near-roadway sites in the nation is not a viable answer to UCD housing needs, even assuming the students are forced to live in hermetically sealed boxes with no patios, balconies or windows that open.
As always, my colleagues and I will provide full copies of this and other articles from the email account tacahill2718@gmail.com.
— Tom Cahill, a resident of Davis since 1967, is a UC Davis professor emeritus of physics and atmospheric sciences and head of the DELTA Group. His first work on Sacramento Valley air pollution was in 1973 and continues to the present.
I respect the work of Dr. Cahill. I would however like to point out that he deliberately and repetitively chooses to address only one aspect of a complicated issue. He does not mention the quality of evidence with regard to any of the potential medical risks which is highly variable. He further fails to mention the duration of exposure as a factor in risk analysis. He does not address the effects of mitigation factors nor the potential for change in this risk over time as we move to less polluting vehicles over the lifetime of this project. He does not mention potential risks associated with having to travel greater distances if adequate housing is not available in close proximity to the university.
When one is serving as an expert, I believe that it is fine to advocate and emphasize one’s own point of view. However, as an expert, when attempting to influence public policy, I believe it is also important to discuss the limitations of one’s own perspective and other factors that may contravene. Dr. Cahill has consistently declined to present any of the limitations of his own work and interpretation as is the convention in scientific publications, talks, posters, and really all informational material. This leads me to believe that Dr. Cahill is speaking purely as an advocate and not as a subject matter expert in this matter. That is of course his right, but in my view, limits the interpretation of his statement.
The learned author made comment of a previously reported statistical comparison between the recognized Worst Pollution Site and the proposed Nishi site. The comparison was flawed, notes the author, as the Ontario site has numbers and vehicle performance disparities compared to Davis that diminish the statistical comparison.
Then a supplemental comment is presented specific to the Nishi site on emissions created by trucks’ excessive breaking. A reduction of a traffic lane is the cause of more truck brakes being applied, which increases air pollution. We’ll await a future study with a count of trucks breaking as they pass Davis, and quantify the increase of overall air pollution from that phenomenon . Finally, note is made an inversion climatic condition exists here, but not in Ontario, which suppresses the disbursement of airborne pollutants. We readers would enjoy getting data on how this degrades the Davis air, and please note that this climatic condition is seasonal.
The story concludes with the recommendation we’d be better off not building Nishi, as occupants would be subjected to unacceptable levels of pollution that rank among the highest in the country. Pausing here and assessing, if that be the case–and the health risk is that acute–we should initiate mass evacuation of all residential and commercial sites presently situated Interstate 80 Pollution Strip.
Don’t despair, not yet. There’s another variable in play, which possibly will be offered in a future column by the Professor in the academic spirit of full presentation and discussion of all points of view on a controversy.
Let’s begin with the base study used in the entire argument being dated 2015.
Forbes Magazine noted there was a 5% decline in hybrid vehicles in Year 2014, assuredly a minor factor in the subsequent 2015 measurements. But then in 2016, again citing Forbes, there was a 37% increase in alternate fuel vehicles which has continued to the present, and beyond. Sierra Club noted dramatic sales of pollution-free cars by major auto makers following 2015: Ford (63%), Chevrolet (60%), BMW (44%). In the many published writings on this topic, adjectives such as “dramatic,” “amazing, and “phenomenal” are used freely.
Future Magazine saw the same thing and noted a 45% increase in alternate fuel vehicles in a 12-month span ending this past June. This publication projected of vehicle-caused pollution decreasing by ten to twenty percent with recent EV sales alone.
What this all means is simply this. Anybody opposed to the Nishi Project is entitled to be heard on points supporting the opposition. However, arguing that the site should not be developed because of current high rates of air pollution is not quite what it purports to be.
Dr. Cahill has very clearly stated in the past that the potential health risks of Nishi are quite different than the rest of the I-80 corridor through Davis due to the confluence of I-80 and that the railroad tracks as they border Nishi and how the vehicles are accelerating or braking as they pass by Nishi. Eastbound car and truck vehicular traffic is braking as they pass by Nishi generating fine metallic particles from brake pads which are of the type that embed most deeply in the lungs and are of great concern to both chronic and acute health as shown in both human epidemiological and animal exposure studies. Westbound train traffic accelerates out of the Davis curve right by Nishi which generates far more diesel emissions than constant velocity train operation. Also, a large portion of Nishi is below grade with respect to either the freeway or elevated tracks. This natural “bowl” will increase accumulations of particulate pollution (whether metallic in nature from automobile braking or hydrocarbon in nature from train diesel emissions) especially during inversion events during the winter.
Your ignorance of these obvious factors in your little missive diminishes the significance of your argument.
The only thing that Nishi has going in its favor from a respiratory health perspective is that it is student oriented so most residents are only expected to live there for 5 years or less and most will have fully developed, non-impaired lungs (unlike children or seniors). But I would certainly not live there is I had any respiratory condition such as asthma as do many students. Elevated levels of PM2.5 have been clearly associated with increased frequency of asthma attacks in susceptible populations.
The point Dr. Salocks was making in his report is that Nishi site is not, in fact, that different from other roadway-frontage sites. The wind direction is more dispersed than was being assumed before, the “worst case scenario” is in fact very infrequent, and “elevation of the freeway at Nishi enhances the dispersion of traffic pollutants.”
His conclusion: There is no basis for concluding that Nishi is subject to higher levels of traffic-related pollution than any other property along I-80.”
Larry Greene’s presentation illustrated the significant reduction in tailpipe emissions that is already underway in California.
Add to all of that the significant mitigation measures, including the tree buffer and landscaping interior to the project and the filtration measures for the buildings, and the short duration of residency, and the air quality issue is even less significant.
The train confluence issue never made a ton of sense to me. I just can’t imagine there is a high enough volume of train traffic to really impact things. Also, given wind patterns it would seem the winds would blow one thing away and the other thing towards, the winds aren’t going to converge on Nishi.
Is Nishi One of the Most Polluted Sites in the Nation?
No. Not even close. A so-called scientist who engages in such hyperbole does a great disservice to his profession and the community.
You are correct… not even close to being the ‘most polluted site’ in Davis…air, ground, water, you name it
Radioactive beagals
For those unfamiliar with scientific terms, a “beagal” is what you get when you breed a beagle with a bengal, feed it on bagels, and expose it to radiation in high doses. But very annoying, if you don’t cut the vocal cords… I remember the radioactive beagles where the UCD baseball field is. And the problems with the site where their carcasses were buried, near the Raptor Center.
Frontier Fertilizer site is in Davis, and is a “super-fund” site. Court Galvanizing. Lewis Cleaners. Can think of at least four others, in Davis, that have been determined “polluted”, by State and/or Feds, with toxins. Issue was raised re: Trackside.
That’s just in Davis…
John
Although I am also skeptical about the statement “one of the most polluted sites in the nation”, I would like to see the evidence for your assertion that it is not. Links ?
really hard to “prove” a negative… perhaps we should change the judicial system to “guilty, until PROVEN innocent?” The burden of proof is generally on the accuser… if at no charge to anyone, and a waiver of liability, why isn’t Dr Cahill, others, just asking for permission enter the site to do the monitoring?
Yeah, probably the $$$ thing. Not public interest….
https://www.thedailybeast.com/americas-28-most-polluted-places
Hit wrong button. Here’s a pretty good list. Air quality is but one component in determining “pollution” levels, but certainly the Rust Belt and the Gulf have many more mortally hazardous sites.
When “an expert” uses his authority to bolster a personal political position it bolsters the phony president’s assault on science.
Glad to see that Dr. Cahill has directly submitted an article to the Vanguard.
Seems like the next step should be to actually take the measurements at the site, itself. (As Dr. Cahill had previously recommended.)
The question I keep asking is whether is any level of exposure over two yes that is a true health issue.
Yes Ron, that would seem like the logical next step and would put this dispute to rest one way or another.
I doubt that some would EVER let the issue “rest”… some would appear to be ready to challenge ANY result that conflicts with their agenda…
Keith: did you see Dons presentation on Wednesday?
Wow. Just wow. Hyperbolic hyperbole on steroids.
It is highly offensive when someone uses their credentials as an “expert scientist” to make non-scientific arguments to further a political agenda.
How can you claim that non-scientific arguments are used when such a wealth of data is presented and analyzed? At worst, one may claim the data is subject to different interpretations.
I find it equally offensive when someone with no scientific credentials or qualifications criticizes scientific arguments without adding any scientific data or quantitative thought to the process to further their own political agenda. This comment is akin to the climate change deniers in the current Trump administration challenging climate change science to further the interests of the fossil fuel industry without providing any additional scientific data of their own.
I am a scientist, with a BS from UCD, and my first career was as an environmental consultant. I know scientific process, and I can smell BS from acorss the Nishi property, even when the prevailing winds are blowing toward the source. And I don’t mean Bachelor of Science.
we’re in agrement way too often, lately. Should I get the brain scan or shall you?http://www.everythingsg.com/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/cool.gif
Probably both. How does one know when one is losing their mind, if their mind tells them they are OK?
Also, there is evidence that the site is, indeed, toxic. At least one poster has said they lived on the site… could explain a lot…
I caught your drift, H.P. Coffee sprayed all over walls.
“I caught your drift, H.P. Coffee sprayed all over walls.”
Moi aussi.
“(W)e should initiate mass evacuation of all residential and commercial sites presently situated Interstate 80 Pollution Strip.”
I wondered the same thing when I read the article. Doesn’t that include the downtown we’re trying to preserve? Maybe we could have a ghost-town tourist destination.
Or our empty downtown could contain Davis’ message to the world:
“We were so P.C., that we voluntarily abandoned ourselves to show the world that we shouldn’t live in the same universe with toxic soup created by cars. We don’t live anywhere now. We only live in the spirit of our message.”
Like.
Might add, “We vaporized, so as not to leave a carbon footprint…”
Still curious about the objective and subjective effects of sound/vibrations of the 80 and 113 to the proposed project and all areas of Davis, if there are better alternatives to teeny tiny bloodstream entering metallic bits on the braking systems of electric vehicles, and what we – citizens of Davis and really anyone living within earshot of a major road – can do to progressively reduce the environmental harm caused by this type of infrastructure in addition to waiting for the slow phasing in of electric vehicles and increase of bus and carpool modal share.
I have a lot more to say about the air quality re: Nishi itself – including some improvements whose assessment would require a delay towards a November ballot – in comments to a Vanguard article from Thursday.
Just seeing this seeing this article and I find it interesting that there are a number of obvious questions:
1) If there are no air quality impacts on health at the Nishi site, why haven’t the Nishi developers simply provided the air quality studies needed to resolve this issue?
2) What are the Nishi developers afraid of if there is “no problem” and so why aren’t the Nishi developers doing the studies are still being asked for, and over the last few years, on Nishi?
3) Why aren’t the Nishi developers doing the needed air quality studies to protect the air, welfare, and safety of the UCD students who would live at Nishi?
4) Isn’t this a potential liability issue to both UCD and the City if UCD students get sick later because of the air quality issues at Nishi, since this that has been raised numerous times as an issue of great concern during the Nishi 1.0 and the Nishi 2.0 application process?
5) Have these Nishi 2.0 liability issues been discussed by the City and UCD yet?
6) Who will pay for liability insurance on the Nishi 2.0 project for these potential health impact issues to the UCD students to protect the City from any litigation later? (If anyone, it most certainly needs to be the Nishi developers.)
“If there are no air quality impacts on health at the Nishi site, why haven’t the Nishi developers simply provided the air quality studies needed to resolve this issue?”
I would argue because more air quality students won’t resolve this issue.
What we already have:
1. data on the wind directions that suggest that the worst case scenario only happens 5 percent of the time – we have ten year wind studies that won’t be impacted by more on-site study
2. research on mitigation measures such as air filtration – more on-site studies will not better inform that, a decade ago Dr. Cahill said filtration units could reduce particulate by matter by 70%, the EIR with more modern techniques has pushed that higher.
3. research on the impact of vegetation – including a decade old study from Dr. Cahill himself that concluded: “vegetation near very fine particle sources can be effective
in removing some of the most toxic particles in the air before they get mixed into the
regional air mass.”
4. Dr. Sallocks, “The health assessment in the EIR is based on an assumption of a residency of 70 years with no mitigations. (The) typical residency at Nishi will be 1-3 years, not 70. This alone reduces long-term health risk by at least 95%.”
Those are four factors, none of which can be tested now or on-site, none of them require further study.
So other than creating a delay tactic, what are we going to learn from more study?
David, how about Eileen’s questions 4, 5 and 6? I voted for Nishi I and plan on voting yes for Nishi II but I too have wondered about the possible liability since the air quality at the site has now been made into issue.
Someone addressed the issue of liability for the city in a previous discussion, I would have to search for the answer, but it was better than I could give and discounted it as a possibility. Think about this though, who would have the most direct liability? The developer/ land owner. And they are still push for the project, so what does that tell you? It tells me that’s its probably not a real possibility. The issue of liability is also addressed in the risk analysis. You’re talking about a low level risk to begin with and as Dr. Salocks points out the limited time people will live on that site, reduce the exposure time even further by 95% which in turn further reduces the risk. I just don’t see liability as a real concern.
Since the site is not uniquely polluted compared to other roadway-frontage development sites, it would not be uniquely susceptible to liability issues.
Plus (following up on Don’s most recent post), what minimal risks exist, have been disclosed. A simple disclosure at time of lease (or sale) defeats 99.0% of potential liability. For a public agency approving a project, and requiring such disclosures, that probably goes to 99.995%.
Caveat emptor.
Lots of commenters making rather nasty, personal comments regarding Dr. Cahill’s (and others’) motivations and recommendations. (Somehow, allowed on the Vanguard.)
Opinions from obvious supporters of the proposal, regarding air quality and legal issues at the site. (None of whom are experts in these subjects, and who have demonstrated a clear bias regarding the site.) All of which, unsurprisingly, downplay the evidence regarding air quality at the site.
A strong recommendation from the only air quality expert on this blog to conduct an air quality study, on-site.
Any air quality data, from the site itself.
The opinions that I have cited, such as those of Dr. Salocks and Larry Greene, are from clear experts on those subjects. The planning commission meeting video is here:
http://davis.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=798
Nishi begins a couple of hours in at about 1:48.
Was this the same Larry Greene who briefly served as Davis City Attorney before MHA?
Larry F. Greene is Former Executive Director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (2004–2017) and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (1995–2004).
I doubt it. Larry was the past executive director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Prior to that he was for ten years in the same position for YOlo-Solano.
K. Thx…
Dr. Salocks is not an air quality expert.
I may try to look at the video later. (No time, at the moment.) However, I understood that no measurements have actually been taken at the site. (Generally, the first step before discussing anything else.)
If I’m mistaken – and measurements have been taken, then let’s see the actual results. Otherwise, we’re just blowing smoke, here. (No pun, intended.)
I suggest you make the time.
Health Risk analysis:
Charles B. Salocks, Ph.D., Environmental Toxicology, UC Davis, 1982. Retired Senior Toxicologist, California EPA. UCD Lecturer.
Air Quality analysis:
Larry F. Greene, Former Executive Director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (2004–2017) and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (1995–2004).
Yes, exactly my point regarding Dr. Salocks. Not an expert, regarding taking measurements of air quality.
“Environmental Toxicology is the study of how chemicals move within the environment and affect biological systems.”
Ron… you clearly bolster my opinion, that no amount of additional studies/opinions will change certain folks’ arguments/opposition one scintilla… thank you…
Your profession/curricula vitae certainly qualifies you to judge the qualifications of Dr Salocks… you are indeed providing a valuable public service… thank you, again.
And that you can (as a qualified expert) verify Cahill’s expertise in public health/epidemiology…. thank you thrice.
Howard: There is no basis for your comment.
Kind of like there is no basis for your questioning the credentials of Salocks and Greene?
David: Not even close.
As a side note, I said nothing about Dr. Greene. First I heard of him, here.
I did not question anyone’s credentials. However, there is no “comparison” to be made between Dr. Cahill’s area of expertise, vs. Dr. Salock’s area of expertise. They are different fields, and are not “interchangeable”. (Yes, I realize there’s some overlap, e.g., regarding issues such as air quality and impact on human health.)
Ron: Opinions from obvious supporters of the proposal, regarding air quality and legal issues at the site. (None of whom are experts in these subjects, and who have demonstrated a clear bias regarding the site.) All of which, unsurprisingly, downplay the evidence regarding air quality at the site.
Don: The opinions that I have cited, such as those of Dr. Salocks and Larry Greene, are from clear experts on those subjects.
Ron: Dr. Salocks is not an air quality expert.
Don: Health Risk analysis:
Charles B. Salocks, Ph.D., Environmental Toxicology, UC Davis, 1982. Retired Senior Toxicologist, California EPA. UCD Lecturer.
Air Quality analysis:
Larry F. Greene, Former Executive Director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (2004-2017) and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (1995-2004).
Ron: Yes, exactly my point regarding Dr. Salocks. Not an expert, regarding taking measurements of air quality.
As a side note, I said nothing about Dr. Greene. First I heard of him, here.
I did not question anyone’s credentials. However, there is no “comparison” to be made between Dr. Cahill’s area of expertise, vs. Dr. Salock’s area of expertise. They are different fields, and are not “interchangeable”.
Conversations with you are sometimes a little frustrating.
Don: You actually haven’t made any point, or sense.
Regarding Dr. Cahill’s studies, I would think that he is also relying upon studies from other experts, regarding impact on human health for example.
The reason I’m responding is because I can clearly see an attempt by you, David, and others to purposefully downplay the air quality issue. (It is not the other-way around, here.)
Perhaps measurements could at least be taken at the site, before you, David and others start downplaying the results?
I suggest you watch the video.
I’d suggest that you review Dr. Cahill’s studies and recommendations. To my knowledge, he has no “agenda”, other than air quality.
I wonder what the impact might be for the city, if they purposefully disregard Dr. Cahill’s recommendations (to conduct a study at the site, itself).
A recommendation made a long time ago.
I have, as you will see if you watch the video.
Ron… have you even taken one (just one) course at a college level in either air quality, testing methods, or epidemiology? I have…
Am thinking your eyes are brown…
Howard: Your point, if any? You’ve taken a course in air quality, and feel that this qualifies you to dispute Dr. Cahill?
Don: If you have no argument to make, I’m not going to “search” for it. Again, you’ve demonstrated (time-and-again) that you have a strong bias.
If you watch the video, you will see discussion of the health risk by Dr. Salocks, discussion of the air quality issue by Larry F. Greene, and my explanation of how the vegetative barrier will be designed and implemented as one of the mitigations.
More than one, Ron, more than one… and you dodge my question…
I revise my guess… dark brown eyes… you from Texas, too? [old joke]
Oh, and Dr Cahill was one of my profs… can you say the same?
What really bothers me about David, Don, and some of the other commenters on here is that they acknowledge nothing, if it potentially stands in the way of their goals/agenda. Facts and warnings be damned.
Reminds me of someone that we all know.
And Howard: You have no point to make, as usual.
Don: You’re a nurseryman, not an air quality expert.
Correct. If you watch the video, you will see how we each addressed the issue from our own area of expertise. Then perhaps if you have questions or comments, the conversation can be more effective.
I would post the powerpoint slides if there was an easy way to do so, but there isn’t. The presentation to the planning commission used slides that are easy to understand.
Was Dr. Cahill there? Also, did the developer invite some of the folks you’re referring to?
Perhaps sort of like seeking out (only) Dan Carson / and the Vanguard, but not Ray Salomon (or the external fiscal analyses, conducted by EPS). (Regarding fiscal analyses.)
And then, stick to the playbook, and repeatedly deny anything that challenges the pro-development point of view.
I give up.
Will wait for the moderator to “release” my last comment.*
Howard: Whether or not you took a class has no bearing on the argument. I have not presented myself as someone with expertise, and this is not about me (or you).
*[moderator: done]
Until that’s done, arguments regarding vegetation barriers, sealed windows, filters, disputing opinions, or anything else is meaningless.
Study the conditions at the site itself, as recommended a long time ago.