Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 04/26/2005MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. APRIL 26, 2005 For Reference: Linda Stanley, Chair 493-7225 Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 224-6085 Board Members Present Kip Carrico, Dave Dietrich, Eric Levine, Ken Moore, Linda Stanley, Cherie Trine, Nancy York Board Members Absent Jassen Bowman, John Long Staff Present Natural Resources Department Lucinda Smith, Liz Skelton, Brian Woodruff Guests None The meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m. Minutes With the following changes, the minutes of the March 23, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved: • York (Page 4, 131h bullet, I" sentence, City Budget Discussion): Change to, "We need to validate that installers know what they are doing." Wood Smoke Discussion Lucinda Smith handed out a revised memo and discussed the Grand Junction project. • Stanley: Last time we were talking about wood smoke and I mentioned that I would like it to come back to the board for more discussion because I think we are lacking information and 1 don't feel like 1, myself, have settled on what should be recommended. Maybe there are other things out there that could be as effective but we don't know more about them. • Smith: It is a good question: what is the range of measures that the City could do to reduce wood smoke emissions? There may be information on EPA's website. • Stanley: Eric I know you may have information regarding health effects? • Levine: I have some handouts. Eric Levine handed out a CD and an article • Levine: There are some PDF files on the CD. • Stanley: Do you have a summary of it? • Levine: It is regarding the carcinogenicity of wood smoke. Wood smoke is about 12 times more carcinogenic than the same volume of tobacco smoke. They tested burning polyurethane and wood smoke is more toxic. It is the third largest source of dioxins. The emissions of certified vs. non -certified were different than I had thought — they seem to be all over the place. Air Quality Advisory Board 4/26/2005 Page 2 of 13 • Stanley: When you' say it is 12 times more carcinogenic, per volume, what's the volume of wood smoke vs. the volume of cigarette smoke? • Levine: I don't know. • Stanley: So somebody who smokes every day, like a pack a day, is that the same as somebody who bums a fire in their fireplace every night? • Levine: It depends on habits. Also, whether you are burning soft wood vs. burning hard wood. What kind of hard wood, what kind of soft wood, what kind of stove, and how airtight is it — there are probably so many variables. Smokers have variables too; how deeply they inhale and what brand they smoke. I don't have an answer. I have thought about those things though. • Stanley: So that we are not asking for a lot of information from staff, we should possibly have a subcommittee put data together, do some research on programs, identify issues, find successful programs, etc. • Smith: I appreciate that. Looking at ways to reduce wood smoke is in our purview. I did actually do some background searching on Grand Junction. I can provide that information today if that is helpful. • Levine: Grand Junction was in 1997, right? • Smith: Yes. • Levine (Re: Oregon Ordinance): I've heard of Bend, Oregon. Do you know the population? • Stanley: It used to be 10,000 when I lived there in 1988. I would bet 30,000. • Levine: So it's a lot smaller than Fort Collins. • Levine (Re: Revised memo): The 1998 survey was mailed to 2,800 residents, were the other ones mailed to that many? • Smith: No. The other, more recent ones were mailed to 1,500 residents but we did have a higher response rate. • Dietrich: When did the sale of certified stoves become mandatory? • Smith: In 1991 the City passed an ordinance prohibiting the installation of either any kind of masonry fireplace or a non -certified device. • Stanley: That's why you get the wood smoke so much in the Northern side of town. • Levine: An EPA certification program started in 1988. It's fairly recent. • Stanley: Almost every house in our neighborhood has a fireplace. I've been amazed at how many people have started burning wood over the last one to two years. Part of that is most of them are now student rentals. They think they are saving money by burning wood and not paying the heating bill. • York: I think the natural gas prices went up 75% last year. I think they are looking to go to the Public Utilities Commission for another increase. • Levine: Maybe we can find data to show us at what point citizens will change their behavior. • Smith: I wonder about the response to survey data versus the actual intent to act. You could survey it or do focus groups. Is that what you were thinking? • Levine: No, just data. At what point of natural gas prices will they start changing their behavior? I'm sure there is data like that. • Stanley: Price elasticity data. • Levine: We've seen that behavior change in the City streets where people take the long way around and add more VMT to their car to avoid several light cycles. I was going to Air Quality Advisory Board 4/26/2005 Page 3 of 12 • Levine: We've seen that behavior change in the City streets where people take the long way around and add more VMT to their car to avoid several light cycles. I was going to point out that the 1998 survey said there were at least 4,000 wood stoves and 14,400 wood burning fire places. 20% of the respondents said they planned to increase wood burning. • Stanley: In our neighborhood, everybody has fireplaces. Are they worse than a wood stove? I was thinking to myself, what if somebody said I had to put in a gas insert? What if I never use the fireplace? Can't I just have a cover on it? I'll sign an affidavit that I will not use it. • Smith: One of these cities in California had an option of just welding shut the damper on a fireplace. It would stay visually in place but be rendered inoperable. There is a relatively low cost for that. • Moore: I don't know if I am personally for mandatory replacement upon sale of a home. I think disclosure is a good idea. Then it could be a mutual agreement between buyer and seller. I know it doesn't help emissions -wise but I thinking as a consumer or person selling something, we've got a lot of this mandatory stuff. • Stanley: When you say disclose you mean they'll disclose that it is non -certified? • Moore: Yes. • Dietrich: Do home inspectors make that distinction? • Smith: I don't know; I'll find out. That is a good question. • Levine: This issue is the classic hot -spot problem, rather than a city-wide or even a greater -neighborhood problem. I smelled lots of wood smoke yesterday while riding my bike 6-8 blocks from here. It was probably just one person doing it. It wasn't even cold out. Several blocks were affected. • Stanley: As an economist, I always think about cost -benefit. I just don't feel like we've delved into this. I'd be willing to be on a subcommittee and look at the economic side of it. I'd also like to look at other possible programs to see what they offer. • Levine: I would be interested in that. My interest would be on health impacts and what solutions are out there already. • Stanley: I see the role of the subcommittee as reporting back to the board for discussion. If we have some volunteers is it OK with the rest of the board? • Dietrich: Ve already have four? • Stanley: Y s, me, Cherie, Nancy, and Eric. Are there other issues? • Dietrich: If you are only talking about wood stoves, it is only a percentage of the problem. It would be nice to know what that percentage is. • Smith: It's one issue to figure out the number of each type of unit, but it's more difficult to figure out the actual usage, and amount of wood smoke that results from each type of unit. Are you more interested in use? • Dietrich: I agree that you could weld it, which is quite a penalty. You could brick it up; but you really have to knock it out. Wood stove removal isn't that expensive. The issue comes when that stove is the only form of heat. • Levine: There are fireplace inserts that are perfectly legal. There are also catalytic stove retrofits. • Stanley: Because I observe my own behavior of never using it — I don't want someone to say you need to put in an insert. • Smith: If there is no gas line, it could easily be $3,500. Air Quality Advisory Board 4/26/2005 Page 4 of 12 • Stanley: I don't want somebody to say that I have to do it when I'm actually not doing any of the bad behavior. Is there some way to ensure that people who say they aren't using their fireplace really aren't? • Smith: Part of the consideration of the subcommittee could be education on how ineffective fireplaces are. • Dietrich: Education is one of the more viable options across the board. • Stanley: When we are asking folks in the wood smoke brochure to "please don't burn", they never get in the inside where it says why. It actually could be much scarier. • Dietrich: Education has come a long way. In 1985 everybody in this town burned wood. • Trine: Maybe we could target the group better too. • York: I like the idea of an educational program that highlights the inefficiency and consequences. • Moore: You get their attention with the economic aspect of it, and then you can tell them about the consequences. • Stanley: You might be able to find good, effective ways to target people. You could then be much more personal about it. I'd like to find out what other communities have done too. • Smith: That's always a good thing to do. • Dietrich: Almost every new home still has a wood burning appliance in it. • Smith: They're probably gas. • Dietrich: Yes of course, but that concept is still there. • Smith: I see; that's true. Emissions Testing Lucinda Smith provided an update on the Multi jurisdictional IIM Transition Committee (pp acg.arg). • Smith: Any recommendation they would make to the AQCC would have to be by September of this year. • Levine: How many meetings would be before then? • Smith: Well they meet monthly, so four. • Levine (Re: RAQC program enforcement option): They wouldn't get anything in the mail? If you had a high emitter they should tell you that in the interest of fairness and clean air. • Smith: I would think that is true. This is just a broad -brush level concept. No thought really has gone into enforcement. • Stanley (On -Board Diagnostics computer system): How does an OBD program work? • Smith: It consists of plugging in a scan device into the car and it downloads the codes. If there are codes that have to do with faulty emissions, the vehicle fails. • Stanley: So you have to take your car in for a test? • Smith: You do now. I think in the future the technology for automated drive -by OBD is out there. A sensor could contact your car and read its computer. Ken, do you know much about that drive -by OBD technology? • Moore: The OBD2 doesn't have that but there is talk about an OBD3. At the Clean Air Conference I went to two years ago, a lot of the people talked about an OBD testing program as something that you could have set up at your local 7-11. Air Quality Advisory Board 4/26/2005 Page 5 of 12 • Smith: So for now, the car and owner have to go to a shop to have the test done. • Stanley: Is there a way that we could start charging by mile? • Moore: A lot of manufacturers are coming out with their satellite communications. They could possibly look at your computer system. • Levine: With the GPS and all this other data they could tell you that you were speeding in this residential zone three weeks ago on Tuesday. • Levine: Lucinda, it is illegal to drive a vehicle that is putting out more than a certain amount of pollutants, correct? Under the Clean Air Act? • Smith: Locally, and at the state it is illegal to drive a gasoline smoking vehicle or diesel that has a certain level of opacity. The way the new cars are set up, they establish emissions standards and then test a few. If they pass it is deemed that all the cars of that make and model and year are in compliance. • Levine: Forever? • Smith: Yes. But that's where the OBD system comes into play; it gives a heads up and measures everything related to the engine functioning. If anything is out of whack such that potentially the emissions could go to 1.5 times the new car emissions standards it will tam on the light. • Levine: A presumption that this myriad of pollution control equipment is going to continue to work from now until the entire lifespan of the car seems to be a rather strange assumption. • Smith: That's why the emissions testing programs are in place, to catch that. So, without it... • Levine: Without it we are left with that assumption. • Smith: Or that people will respond to the check engine light of their own accord. Mostly it is the motorists who want to keep their vehicle maintained. • Levine: Talk about the remote sensing penalizing the poor — I think that ending the emissions program really penalizes the poor. • Moore: In our testing, anything 1996 or newer gets an OBD test. It used to be that certain codes returned meant that it failed, no matter what the tailpipe emissions was. Then there was a doctor that was on the Air Quality Control Commission who made a presentation to prove that all cars with the check engine light did not fail the test by 1.5. So their emissions were much lower than 1.5 times the standard. I question some of his measurements and methods. But now it is just an advisory failure. That's why we don't have a hard failure on the OBD test. • Levine: That's interesting. • Smith: I know that staff at the Health Department are generally are very skeptical of OBD. Colorado has been very hesitant to embrace OBD. There were some problems with OBD systems initially. Earlier studies indicated problems and so some OBD programs only apply to 2000 or newer because earlier systems are unreliable. • Levine: I could see why an actual emissions testing program is so much more empirical. • Smith: Another interesting point about OBD is that it is expected that it will increase the cost of repair. It is catching things sooner, but it is also catching more things. I've heard it said that as cars go out of their warranties, the public might get more up in arms about OBD because it appears to them that they are paying more for repairs on newer cars. Air Quality Advisory Board 4/26/2005 Page 6 of 12 • Levine: With all of these approaches it depends on how it is designed. • Smith: One of the ideas being considered is an OBD program that only fails for certain hard and fast codes — something that is clearly linked to some component of the emissions system. There is no program like that, that has just partial failures where certain codes trigger a failure. • Moore: There are about 260 codes that can cause a check engine light to come on. • Stanley: Did you say that there are 30 states that use that sort of program? • Smith: Areas within 30 states. 28 of them have mandatory fail. • Moore: A failing OBD car can probably pass the tailpipe test. If a car fails a tailpipe test, it's really in bad shape. They can have a component that is not working at all. The only economically possible way to check an OBD car and catch it when it isn't as good as it should be is through that OBD diagnostic test. • Stanley: Is the diagnostic test cheaper than running these? • Moore: I have scan tools that cost $7,000-$9,000 dollars. You could buy a cheaper version that just reads the codes out. • Smith: It is cheaper than the four gas analyzer. • Moore: Yes. • Levine: Lucinda - absent emissions testing. Would it be illegal to buy a car and disconnect the emissions controls? • Moore: You're not allowed to tamper. There is no enforcement though. • Levine: But if it just stops working that is perfectly legal? • Dietrich: The newer the vehicle the more difficult it is to tamper. • Moore: You can buy an oxygen sensor substitute. It will send a signal to the computer that will falsify an oxygen sensor signal and the computer won't know it. • Smith: It seems like the tampering is getting more high-tech too because of the chips. • Dietrich: What percentage of people do this? • Moore: John at the Tech Center sees a lot of cars coming through from out of state. They get referred to him for emissions equipment check. • Dietrich: For the RACQ program, on the cars that were repaired, did they have an average cost? • Smith: Yes, $300. But they did some of the repairs right there at the Emissions Tech Center. If you count the labor of the Tech Center, it jumps to $500. • Dietrich: Which is what the credit was? • Smith: Yes. • Moore (Re: Change in RVP fuel benefit): Maybe lower ethanol to Denver or continued ethanol in other areas? • Smith: They can continue adding ethanol in Denver - they still have that waiver. And we have it here too. So overall the volatility is still up. But as far as the base RVP; the north front range is getting lower RVP fuel now, but staff at the state health department think we may not get the benefits in the future. I don't know why they think that will happen. • Levine (Re: SmartSign): How much does it cost? • Smith: We haven't gotten a cost estimate. I honestly don't think that part will work out. I don't think the Health Department will agree to have the Smart Sign in proximity to their remote sensing van. They are two different systems. There is also the public perception. They want the public to think of the Rapid Screen van as a positive thing. Air Quality Advisory Board 4/26/2005 Page 7 of 12 If the public drives by and sees "poor", they will get a different message. That leaves us with the alternative of either just doing Rapid Screen data with no immediate read out, which is identical to the RAQC's, or we work with Don Stedman — he is providing us with a cost estimate. I think the data will be less reliable. There is not as rigorous QA and the license plate reader I don't think is up to par, so there are some problems with that. • Levine: Why not provide a free remote -sense testing that people can just drive past at any time and let people know about it. • Smith: And then use that to... • Levine: Not use the data. Just to let people know how their vehicle is doing. • Smith: As a CMAQ proposal? • Levine: Under the assumption that people would take advantage of that; would want to know how their vehicle is doing and would maybe fix it. • Stanley: As opposed to contacting these people afterwards? • Levine: Yes. Just like those speeding signs they put up in neighborhoods. • Stanley: But they don't require you to do anything but lay off the gas. They don't require you to take the initiative to take the car in. • Levine: No. • Smith: The voluntary Smart Sign approach was evaluated in the I/M Feasibility study. That was a report that was put together to look at alternatives in 2002 using CMAQ money. Based on actual data from the Spear Boulevard Smart Sign data, they were able to determine that 2% of people who got a poor reading actually took action. • Levine: The OBD programs were quoting figures that were worse than that. • Dietrich: Well that's 2% of people who rated poor. How many cars improved in general? • Smith: Probably 1-5%. • Levine: Oh, OK. • Smith: We got feedback from a focus group and our citizen survey that there wasn't as much support for voluntary programs. I think the public feels that it will be good for some people, but it wouldn't get at the majority of the high emitter problem. Those are the people who are avoiding the program or who can't repair their car. • Levine: What seems so strange to me is that if you are serious about air pollution you have voluntary and regulatory approaches. One or the other is needed. If the voluntary doesn't work, the mandatory is what is needed. If the regulatory approach is taken away, and the voluntary approach doesn't work - It seems like we are not in a good place. • Smith: I understand that concern. I feel a mandatory program is what is needed. That's why this project was designed to try to get some information about the feasibility of such a project either here in Fort Collins or in the Front Range. • Trine (Re: Budgeting for Outcomes): Whose idea was this? • Smith: It was the Budget Office and the City Manager and is supported by the City Council. • Trine: Did the City Manager or Budget Office think of it? • Smith: They were the ones who brought the idea up and the City Manager was the one who made the bold step of committing to this process this year. It has some merit, and obviously some great uncertainties associated with it. Air Quality Advisory Board 4/26/2005 Page 8 of 12 • Levine: A lot of educational programs can be the most effective things we do, yet it is not easily quantified. • Stanley: Apparently there are two cities and one county in Colorado that use this process. It is a fairly new thing, but it is something that is coming out of the idea that the budget is fairy flat and they don't expect it to go up. • Stanley (Re: CMAQ pilot high emitter project): Do you think that this is a necessary project in order to take the next step, which could be a high emitter program? • Smith: Yes. I think it would help move that forward more quickly. But my sense also is that the agencies in Denver are in the driver's seat. They are not going to move quickly towards a mandatory high emitter program. If we were to have the RAQ saying this is not ready for primetime yet, to anyone, doing this project would not help us have a mandatory program. It would be valuable for us to gain experience here. There is a lot you can do with the data as well. It does seem like there is a lot of work involved for a relatively small sample size. Everything has to be in place whether you repair 25 or 250 cars. I really wanted us to do this. I've said for years we would go forward with this high emitter pilot. Maybe we still will. If you have input either on the study design or this question I welcome it now or up until May 9`h, when the application is due. • Levine: Besides CO you're using HC as well? Wouldn't there be an ozone benefit? • Smith: We would realize that benefit, but it doesn't count for our CMAQ funding. • Trine: I can't get over how they are going to redo the budget from now on every year. It will be so political. You will never know which programs will be supported. • Smith: A comment has been made that a lot of times basic core services stay in place no matter what the politics are. I kind of share your concern though. That is the response that I have heard. • Levine: It seems like the quality of life programs would be more at risk than, say, streets and utilities. • Smith: I have some anxiety about this. I would say the state of Washington used this when they needed to cut their budget and they received the Ford Foundation award for innovative Government programming. • Stanley: I would imagine that we'll get another look at the budget? • Smith: Yes. I'm sure when the draft budget is put together for the citizens, that the board could provide another recommendation. • York: My initial thought was this would be a point where ClimateWise would need to support itself. • Smith: You mean start charging some sort of fee? That could be. That has come up in discussions about the business plan. To me it seems premature. We are just about to roll out the new model with the tiered approach. But I hear your point. • York: If the high -emitter proposal is delayed, will it delay everything? • Smith: I think that this is the only year that we could feasibly put in this proposal. It would be relying on the Rapid Screen Van which won't be hereafter the end of next year. The actual year for the CMAQ is October `05 to through September `06. • Stanley: The added information that you are getting versus Denver's information... • Smith: If we had the Smart Sign? • Stanley: Yes, so you would have data for Fort Collins. Au Quality Advisory Board 4/26/2005 Page 9 of 12 • Smith: We would still have data for Fort Collins if we didn't use the Smart Sign read out. By adding the Smart Sign we might be able to survey people about their reaction to the Smart Sign and would it motivate behavior change. We could also try to estimate, despite the small sample size, whether that feedback actually prompt them to participate in the program? The RAQC is having trouble getting people to participate. There is a high skepticism about if the government is really going to give them $500. People are saying "no thanks". If this validated it somehow - maybe there would be more participation. Of course there is the problem with false readings. • Stanley: This is something I was hoping the City could do. • Smith: I have invested a lot of time this year in developing this proposal and building support. • Stanley: If the Board has any input on what the money should be spent on, can we get you that by May 9a' at the latest? • Smith: A little before that, please. • Levine: My feeling is to go ahead with it. I wish I knew of more alternative options that would be effective to realize the goal that we are all trying to achieve. I wish it were for 2,500 cars instead of 25. Election of Officers The board elected the new officers. • Smith: Any board member can make a nomination and it just takes a simple vote of the members present. • Levine: I am interested in Chair. • Moore: I'll volunteer for vice -chair. The board unanimously approved Eric Levine as Chair and Ken Moore as Vice -Chair Radon Brian Woodruff presented information on the possibility and options for a radon effectiveness study. • Levine (Re: Cap -On, Cap -Off Study): The vapor barrier would have been put in as well? • Stanley: How much do those contribute to the reduction of radon? • Woodruff: I don't know, but it is not insignificant. • Stanley: One thing I worry about with that is that the Cap -On, Cap -Off does underestimate the effectiveness, which means policy makers take that reduction and compare it to cost and say it is not effective. • Woodruff. We expect to find 50% reduction with this kind of test. If we were able to test buildings without ripping out the entire system, we would get higher than 50%. Even with this underestimation, we expect to find 50% reduction. • Stanley: Does EPA have any estimates of the underestimation? • Woodruff: Not at this time. • Levine: If you had an estimate of the contribution of caulking and the sub -slab construction... • Woodruff. I haven't done a detailed literature search to see if anyone has disaggregated the contributions. • Levine: I haven't come across it. Air Quality Advisory Board 4/26/2005 Page 10 of 12 • York: The concerns I have is how well it is being installed. What are the possible mistakes an installer can make? • Woodruff: This type of a study will help with that for sure. If there is no difference between the cap -on and cap -off, a mistake was made. So this will catch it. • York: That's my major concern, mostly because of that housing energy study that found that they all failed. • Dietrich: Does the protocol for home inspection have a cursory look? • Woodruff: Yes, there is a check sheet. • Dietrich: So some of that might be noticed? • Woodruff: Yes. Of course you can't tell what's underneath the slab. • Dietrich: The inspection policy on the form, it exists — a glob on concrete should be caught? • Woodruff: Yes, they check before and after and then there is a third check for the stack. • Dietrich: In reading these three options here I leaned towards that one as well. There is a lot of variability on any one of these. • Woodruff: I've been leaning towards it because it is an easier question to answer. Is it working? We can tell that with a sample of 100 or even 50 houses. In the second one, there we are really trying to get at what people are exposed to (in homes with and without passive systems) and then resolve a very fine difference in the average of the two distributions. That uses log normal functions and requires a larger sample size. It is also long-term testing. It has some appeal. That is where we started out leaning towards. It is harder to do mostly because of the bigger sample size and you have to create the protocols. • Dietrich: With number one, what time of year would this be done? • Woodruff: It would be done during heating season. • Dietrich: How long would it take to conduct the testing? • Woodruff. We would expect to do it through fall and winter of the following year. • Dietrich: So about a 4-5 month period. • Carrico: The vapor barrier and sealing cracks, is that part of code? I mean, without a passive radon system would you be doing that anyways? • Woodruff: No. Right up until January this year, they wouldn't seal the joint between the foundation walls. Not necessarily, they could though. • York: I could see how capping would tell if it was plugged. But how much of an effect would it have if they had failed to do a good job caulking? Or if the vapor barrier wasn't valid? • Woodruff. I can't quantify that for you. The passive system works by drawing slight suction. If the caulking is absent, that damages the vacuum. Similarly, with any breaks in the seal between the aggregate and the house - you want the static effect to be creating slight suction - any mistakes would reduce effectiveness. • Dietrich: The test here is answering the question "is the radon mitigation doing something or not". If the system is installed incorrectly and has a different percentage than the average of houses, then that indicates a problem. The building inspection - that's a valuable piece. • Stanley: It seems like number one versus the other two are answering different questions. If you are trying to answer whether exposures are now within a safe level, Air Quality Advisory Board 4/26/2005 Page 11 of 12 then that's using number 2 or 3. If you are looking at whether or not radon has been reduced through this program, then that is number one. • Levine: I favor number four, which is what the County has. Before a certificate of occupancy is issued you must pass a radon test. If any tests are high, the home owner is notified by the County. We only had part of the minimum comprehensive program that I was in favor of. I agree with Brian on number one. I'm uncomfortable with all the confounding factors of the other two. • Dietrich: Yes, there are too many uncertainties. • Stanley: It's definitely the more controlled option. I'm interested in these other ones too. I know we can't do both. • Dietrich: Where does the protocol call that you test? • Woodruff: The lowest lived-in level. In this study I would move for the lowest level anyways, with the expectation that it will be finished some day. • York: The other thing that I would hope is that you would try to find a variety of builders or test all the builders. Perhaps we could identify who is doing it right and who isn't. • Levine: What do we do if we find 90% of them are not working? What is the next step? • Woodruff: I guess heads will roll! • Smith: It happened once with new homes study. • York: That was an embarrassment - there were no consequences. • Smith: I think there is more awareness now. • Woodruff: I guess we would cross that bridge when we got to it. If we could demonstrate that the system was bad - that there would be recourse to the builder to fix that. But if the building inspector signed off — I'm not sure. If you find a system that doesn't work, you can do a draw test to find out whether. it is plugged or not. I would want to make it an active system. • Dietrich: That's why you collect data. • Stanley: Does it matter how much radon is there to begin with in terms of what types of reduction you get? • Woodruff: I don't think so. • Stanley: So even if you have very little, you still expect 50% reduction. • Carrico: How do you do the measurements? And how accurate are they? • Woodruff: We would be using the short term test. They are accurate enough for these types of studies. We will do two tests so we have an idea of the variability. • Dietrich: How long will you leave the cap on? • Woodruff: Two to four days. We will do the first test, put the cap on and wait for a day and go back out and put in a new test. Then we would go out a fourth time and take off the cap and recover the test. The whole process takes four trips. • Stanley: How will you find people to participate? • Woodruff: We'll get all of the addresses from the Building Department. We have to find out who the occupants are through Utilities or Property tax records. • York: You could easily find it out on the web. • Woodruff: About 1000 houses are built every year. I want 100 to reply. • Dietrich: That depends on how good your letter is! Air Quality Advisory Board 4/26/2005 Page 12 of 12 • Woodruff. I thought we could throw in a long term test as a sweetener. The recruitment would be us, but we would outsource the actual test. • Dietrich: Can you give them a gift? Or rather than giving everybody a gift, how about getting into a lottery for something good? At 100 homes, that's pretty good odds. • Levine: Is this happening late fall, 2005? • Stanley: When did this ordinance take effect? • Woodruff: Yes, and January 1" 2005. Public Health Advisory Board • Dietrich: Why was the recommendation for this board dismissed? • Stanley: Partially budget, and also that there was already a County Board of Health. Our recommendation was to have a wider variety of opinion represented that would meet only as appropriate (as an issue comes up), not every month. • Moore: How many times have they said no? • Stanley: Just once. • Dietrich: Do they think it is already covered by other City boards? • Stanley: No, I do think it was more that there is already the Board of Health and the Poudre Health District. • Levine: With those two, the County is under no directive to provide us with any expertise. They left us in the hole before. • York: Every time they weigh in on an issue I don't trust their position. They don't look in-depth at studies. I just don't have confidence in their opinion. I would like to see us pursue it forever. • Stanley: So it should be on the agenda for discussion in the next month or two. We need to make sure Cherie is here for that since she wrote the memo and did the background research. • York: Right now in the Colorado legislature is a bill that says that if ten legislators request an impact study on the public health impact of a bill, then it will happen. Public health is a big deal. I wish we could be independent of our health department. • Stanley: It is one place our City is lacking expertise. • Smith: There have been a number of health -related issues that the City has grappled with: second-hand smoking, radon, fluoride, West Nile... • Levine: I thought the whole project of the West Nile task force was a process driven by the health effects of West Nile and the pesticides that had been sprayed? • Stanley: A drawback is that it is very issue -specific. Can we have a public health board that makes recommendations about a number of different things? • York: Where did we get the authority to put together the West Nile task force? • Smith: It was a joint task force committee with the natural resources board. • York: We could set up our own? • Carrico: It would have to do with air quality. Meeting adjourned 8:08 PM Submitted by Liz Skelton Administrative Secretary I