May 2016 - Parks & Recreation - 34

L AW R E V I E W

In this particular instance, the court found the EIR
had cited, discussed and summarized studies of
cancer risk associated with SBR infill in turf fields and
concluded for each study " the health impacts related
to SBR infill would be less than significant. "
Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires
in Playground and Track Products.
This particular study " evaluated
health risks associated with children's exposure to chemicals in the
play surfaces via ingestion of loose
tire shreds, ingestion as a result of
hand-to-surface-to-mouth exposure,
and skin sensitization as a result of
dermal contact. " The study concluded " ingestion of 10 grams of loose
tire shreds did not represent a serious non-cancer risk and posed a de
minimis cancer risk. " Other studies
cited in the EIR found the cancer
risk associated with SBR infill in
turf fields to be acceptable.
32	 Parks & Recreation

Significant Cancer Risk?
As noted by the appeals court, the
" final step of the risk evaluation "
was to determine whether a particular environmental impact was
" significant " within the meaning of
the CEQA, specifically " the hazards
associated with the use of SBR infill
on the athletic fields. " In this particular instance, the court found the EIR
had cited, discussed and summarized
studies of cancer risk associated with
SBR infill in turf fields and concluded for each study " the health impacts
related to SBR infill would be less
than significant. "
Based on studies and expert re-

| M AY 2 0 1 6 | W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G

ports postdating the EIR, Sierra challenged the conclusion that " the cancer risks posed by SBR are less than
significant. " According to Sierra, this
more recent information established
" the carbon black, dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
contained in the SBR infill present a
significant risk of cancer. "
In reviewing Sierra's argument
that evidence of significant cancer
risk existed and had been effectively
ignored, the court would " determine
whether the EIR discussion of these
chemicals reflects a good faith effort
to inform decisionmakers and the
public on this issue. " As noted by the
appeals court, the " CEQA requires
an EIR to reflect a good faith effort
at full disclosure; it does not mandate perfection, nor does it require an
analysis to be exhaustive. " Further,
the court acknowledged that an EIR
would be considered adequate and
upheld " if it reasonably sets forth sufficient information to foster informed
public participation and to enable the
decisionmakers to consider the environmental factors necessary to make
a reasoned decision. "
Carbon Black Risk
In this particular instance, Sierra
claimed the public had " provided the
city with extensive evidence of the
cancer risk posed by carbon black "
contained in SBR. Specifically, Sierra
cited the fact that OEHHA (the state
office of environmental health hazard assessment) " lists carbon black
as a carcinogen and that it comprises approximately 20 percent of the
content of SBR. " (Carbon black is
an industrial chemical composed of
nanoparticles that is used in the manufacturing of automobile tires and
other plastic materials.)
The court noted that the EIR had
May 2016 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of May 2016 - Parks & Recreation
