Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 10/30/1996A ROB`', MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM -405 CANYON 30 OCTOBER 1996 For Reference: John Fooks, AQAB Chair 229-5225 Will Smith, Council Liaison 223-0425 Brian Woodruff, Staff Liaison 221-6604 Board Members Present John Fooks, Susan Bilo, Harry Edwards, Dave Gallup, Eric Levine, Raymond Sons, Nancy York Board Members Absent Pete Perkins, John Scanlon Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Brian Woodruff, Linda Devocelle, Susan Caplan, Lucinda Smith (recorder) Guests Sonja Bisbee (Coloradoan) Call to Order Meeting called to order at 4:35. Old Business 1. Radon Linda Devocelle presented the choices for board: to confirm previous decisions/recommendations or to make new recommendations. Brian suggests that Linda frame matter, and the Board could use Eric's material as a part of discussion. Radon Committee u m=: Linda said that after meeting for several months, the Radon Committee is split on testing issues but agrees 100% on requiring education. (This decision incorporates extensive public outreach). 1h group supports required testing, Ih don't because there is no QA and no certification for testers; testing is a PERSONAL decision. Those that support testing feel that it is a significant health problem. All believe that radon is a health problem to be dealt with. Radon mitigation standards would be need to be incorporated into building code standards by Nov 5th, via a technical committee. Standards will be specific. Committee split on requiring radon mitigation systems based on concerns of personal choice, lack of QA, etc. Linda asked for the board to either re -state their recommendations or come up w/ new recommendations. Staff still feels testing should not be required now because a) they have done nothing with radon yet except start an education program; they have not done an extensive education program which they feel is necessary before looking at an ordinance, and b) general public is still learning about radon. (NRD giving away free kits is helping with education.) Staff would like to evaluate the effectiveness of the education program after a year. Possibly, the public will ask for testing themselves. Environmental groups DO support testing, general public DOES NOT support testing. Concerning installation of mitigation systems, >50% of public (including environmental groups) DO support building mitigation systems in new homes. There is some resistance from building community. ("Some" is < 5 individuals.) They oppose due to increased costs/fees that have just been added to the system. The Building Review Board was resistant. Linda suggests that builders can be brought on board through education. Brian adds that TIMING is important (now vs next year). Linda did not mean/want to imply that this issue is Now or Never. Staff has proposed to do education for at least 1 year, evaluate responses, look at the testing issues again, evaluate effectiveness of education program. They will be looking at it in an on -going way. The Radon Committee has done as much as they can now, enough public outreach, and they want to take the issue to council by Jan.97 Eric did not see a strong discussion about health impacts of radon at the committee meetings. Eric provided a handout that modeled radon health impacts. Risks of death from radon in Fort Collins would be about 15 deaths/year (similar to vehicular deaths). He then modeled the city lung cancer deaths that would occur at various growth rates and estimated the effectiveness of mitigation. Line number 3 on this graph shows the most effective mitigation will come from new home mitigation (installation of passive systems). This is a function of a rapid growth rate. They way we are headed now, with no new homes mitigated, there will be more deaths. Eric explained the various model inputs he used. (Assumptions are stated on the front page). John asked about various inputs/assumptions such as "how can you assess the testing of new homes"? Eric said you need a lot of sophisticated tracking systems. John also asked about education systems. David offered a qualitative analysis, that the real estate industry components makes personal decisions. Linda restates the real estate community is against required testing. David commends Linda for including info in utility billing and suggests the most effective way to get the required testing passed is to continue to include info in the utility bill, and the consumer will come forwards and ask for it themselves. MONTHLY INFO is needed. Eric says the fact that vast majority of builders are not offering mitigation is a serious problem. Harry commends Eric for his extensive modeling, but supports mandatory education. Harry suggests that there was some manipulation in Eric's model and that radon death estimates are too severe. The way data are compiled is impressive, but it's unconvincing because the epidemiological data are not there to support it. Unclear link between radon and lung cancer deaths. Another statement of concern to Harry is that "most of the public agrees with IT." "IT" refers to requiring passive installation in homes. 4 John states that there may be another education/outreach option which is requiring builders to offer mitigation. Eric responds to Harry, no #'s are set in stone, numbers are taken from EPA and National Academy of Science , and they stand by them; this is the federal voice speaking. Harry could focus his quarrel on EPA, not Eric. Harry responds that the data are not there, that when you subtract known rates of lung cancer death FROM SMOKING from known rates of lung cancer deaths, the unaccounted for deaths are not clearly linked to radon. Eric responds that EPA does link unaccounted death to radon. Ray reminds everyone that there is a new national compilations of radon data coming out in mid to late 1997. Linda says this report will provide residential studies data, look at risk, confirm the linear no risk threshold theory (???), and likely will not be earth -shattering. Ray is a bit concerned that planning at the City, County, State level is lagging behind the problem. The need to plan seems to arise after the problem has exploded. If we do nothing, and done succumbs to radon during the period while we are studying the problem, this is not ideal. We should try to do something (like requiring mitigation to be offered as an option). Considering the explosive growth in the community, we (AQAB) along with City Council carry a responsibility to the public. Linda suggests looking at each option on the table and consider them individually. She points out that we are using basement level data (6 picocuries) and that not everyone uses their basement, that radon is a moving target, and she wants the Board to consider the options separately. Linda states that the required installation of systems must be looked at WITH the inclusion of design standards. Eric contests that 6 is a conservative #. Brian wants other AQAB members to have access to Eric's modeling data. Brian suggests that the long term data does not help this committee make a decision now. Brian feels the proposals on the table are the right ones to look at now, even if all Eric's data are right. Nancy says that human lives should be more important that $800 for radon mitigation. She feels that educations should be done, and that installations should be required in new homes. If the home buyer doesn't want mitigation then they can skip it. David asks how hard it to get the ZILCH adopted. Brain responded that it was an easy administrative matter, with no defaults over the 6 year period. David asks if a ZILCH type program could be developed. David points out that when seatbelts were required in cars, there was a large outcry, and it took about 12 years for states to require that seatbelts and for the public to feel they are okay, in spite of the fact that original data show that seat belts save lives. It takes a long time for public buy -in, and David suggest a similar approach with radon. Model passive systems, and move towards a mandatory system. David concurs with Harry that there are many unknown factors in lung cancer deaths, and they it's premature to say that radon is a killer. Nancy points out it's the same situation with tobacco smoke, it took years to acknowledge the risks. But that was caused by industry lobbying. Eric differentiates between scientific data and public policy. He is basing his points on public policy. Eric urges everyone to go through this data, and keep in mind that the city is growing rapidly. Following discussion, board members voted on separate components of the radon issue: * aggressive education program, (Agreed unanimously) * info should be supplied to buyer of all homes, not just new homes (Agreed unanimously) (These two items were also agreed with by Radon Committee) * Builders are required to offer mitigation option in Fort Collins area. The radon committee should look further at this and try to get stakeholder consensus. Linda suggests that this option can't be offered without the inclusion of standards. David points out again that this can be revisited again. Eric asks then why are we looking at this again. Brain answers that council has asked AQAB to clarify this issue. Harry feels that AQAB should not go forward with any recommendation if there is not full public consent. He wants to show council that the issue has been brought to stakeholders and that there is consensus on this. Linda points out that there is also an implementation/enforcement issue. * moved to require radon testing at point -of -sale. * seconded the motion. John points out that the board has discussed this several times and asked for any new info. Eric points out that AQAB came up with a "60 days after sale" requirement, vs before sale. The motion passed 3-2-2 Each Board member explained his/her vote on the motion: David opposed the motion because the National Academy of Sciences report is not out yet and it is not clear what the data mean. Harry opposed the motion because there is no standard test procedure. Eric favored the motion because the efficacy of testing and mitigation is enough to support mandatory testing. Ray favored the motion because, since we seem to believe that radon is a health issue, we should allow buyer to determine how much weight is given to the decision. The test result would be helpful information for the buyer. Nancy abstained from voting on the motion because she has run out of energy to deal with the issue. She recognizes that there are no uniform tests, and that there will be more information coming forth. She favors an aggressive information program that would provides a free radon test. Susan also abstained because she can see both sides, but is leaning toward opposition to the motion. Susan Caplan asks if the City would incur any liability from mandating testing without standard testing procedures. Linda responded that "let the buyer beware" would apply to the situation. * moved that installation of passive radon mitigation be required for all homes. * seconded the motion. Brian brings up the timing issue. Linda agrees that it will be at least 6 months to define a building code standard. The original AQAB vote was to require passive systems after the appropriate building codes had been adopted. Harry points out the variability of radon concentrations in homes, and perceives that it's not a majority of homes that have a high radon problem. He has a problem requiring mitigation for all homes when it's just a minority of homes. Bill Alexander's data shows that 3 of 4 existing homes have high radon. David points out that geology will be variable, and it's impossible to predict what NEW home levels will be. (It's also a function of how the homes are constructed). John points out that issue 2 (passive mitigation required) will be driven by issue 1 (required testing). Eric says he had the same strategy in mind over a year ago, and he still favors passive mitigation more that testing. Harry points out consensus does not exist on issue 2 (passive mitigation in all new homes). David feels there can be no parallels drawn between tobacco and radon. The motion fails 3-4-0 Vote: 3 in favor (Ray, Nancy, Eric), 4 opposed (John, Susan, Harry, David) Ray supported the motion because he felt it appropriate to be aggressive in this case in spite of technical pitfalls. Eric supported the motion because Bill Alexander's data show that 3 of 4 homes test high. The average of the high homes varies much (from 6 - 20 PC). These data show there are a preponderance of homes in Fort Collins that are above the EPA action level. Nancy supported the motion because she prefers to err on the side of saving lives. John opposed the motion because (1) although radon causes cancer, the market can drive this issue; an ordinance would be a burden on the market, and 2) builders should be allowed to decide to mitigate now or later. David, who has changed his opinion recently, opposed the motion. He tries to represent those he has canvassed. Although radon is a problem and causes of lung cancer, the extent is unknown. He wants to start with baby steps, with an aggressive education problem. The option is there for homeowners to insist in a test at POS Susan opposed the motion. She acknowledged that radon causes problems, but feels it should not be mandatory now. She prefers to let the education do the work at this point. Harry opposed the motion. Although the proposal was sent back to the Board by City Council, Board actions should reflect that there is not a consensus among the stakeholders. 2. Wood Stove Point -of -sale Ordinance Linda outlines that city council voted 5-2-0 to rescind the cottonwood ban, and 5-2-0 to pull the ordinance from the consent agenda Council's concern was due to the possibility of an future energy crisis leading to use of currently unused woodstoves. The Board's recommendation tonight will be passed on to Council. Nancy wants worst -case scenario. Brian says staff could provide that info. Linda says it's hard to evaluate that; many stoves today are certified; people have learned how much work it is to use a wood stove. There are about 5000 non -certified wood stoves. Brian points out that the AQPP considers this concern, non -certified stoves are being tracked, and efforts are being made to reduce this inventory. Council may be concerned that the inventory is not being reduced quickly enough. Harry asks what can now be done if there IS a smoky fireplace in town; staff responds that there is an ordinance with a 40% opacity limit. Linda says that all 70 complaints received over the past 4 years have been resolved. Nuisance complaints have dropped to 4% now. Nancy says she was not aware of the complaint line. Brian offers to work to resolve that problem in Nawy's neighborhood. To resolve wood smoke complaints, Linda starts with a phone call to complainant, sends out info to smokers, checks on permits for stoves, talks with those out of compliance, offers ZILCH. Offenders are not necessarily low income. Woodsmoke is a local problem; "if you can get to the people you can solve the problem." Nancy suggests that a requirement at the point of sale is a neutral, non-discriminatory approach. Linda says it would take 25 years to change out non -certified stoves at POS, given turn around time. Linda says that staff feels the existing program is working, although slowly, and staff tries to minimize ordinances whenever possible. Eric wonders about CO issues and contingency plan; Brian says woodstoves produce 10% of CO. Eric wants to know impacts to CO, sources of woodsmoke outside UGA, PM10/PM2.5 issue, and VMT issue. Eric's questions indicate the matter should be re -opened. Linda says if that occurs, some AQAB member will have to serve on a committee. Harry moved to endorse the continuing effective City education program. Ray seconded the motion. David asks if there is a half -way measure possible, such as the identification of certified units at Point -of -sale, with notification of the home purchaser. This would require someone who is able to certify. Nancy says citizens don't want government to interfere with their lives; but where do we stop with that? The motion passed 5-2-0 Nancy opposed the motion *. Eric opposed the motion because wood stove pollution represents an infringement of the right to clean air and it would be appropriate for tax - supported institutions to protect the 14 3. North Front Range Air Quality Study Susan Caplan reviews the fund-raising efforts to support a NFRAQS monitoring site at Fort Collins. Staff has worked on a funding consortium since the last AQAB meeting. Susan C. points out that this agenda item no longer calls for a recommendation from the Board, it is rather an information item. The consortium probably includes $12K so far (of 19K needed) from Natural Resources Department, Latimer County, US Forest Service, Loveland, and possible private sources. The NRD may also request the City Manager to contribute funds. She feels confident they will get the 19K. Susan distributed a handout that outline 5 tasks, and what contractors responsibilities will be. The site will provide 15 days of PM2.5 data to aid in source apportionment (PM 2.5 is main source of our visibility degradation). Harry asked 1) what do we get?" and 2) "What local issues will be resolved.?" What Fort Collins would get for the $19K is a PM-2.5 monitoring site, possibly located at Laurel and Mason, run for 15 forecast days for mass, elemental analysis, and absorption, our data added to regional data set thereby getting a better picture regionally how much pollution we are receiving and generating, and how we affect the overall brown cloud issue. Brian adds that what we want is a source apportionment of the Fort Collins brown cloud. We won't get that. There is no source testing component in the 19K package. We won't get NO3-, SO4--, and NH4+. Harry wants to know how these data will provide source profiling. Harry suggests it would be better to put $ towards Time -of -Flight Mass Spectrometry technique (see research paper), looking at each individual particle to identify size plus chemistry to answer the question of PM2.5 source/composition, and NOT put $ towards NRFAQS. John objects that this technique is not comparable with NRFAQS study. Brian and Susan feel that it's better to have some comparable sampling, locally to see how we fit into the regional picture. We will want to know how well the NFRAQS conclusions fit Fort Collins. Harry raises the question that Doug Lawson's data showed wide variations in crustal material. John reiterates that this is the "Self -Defense" mode. The issue is "What is our contribution?" Ray points out that the study objective is to provide data for policy development, and that we should participate. Harry suggests that the basis of our interest is not scientific, but rather political. Brian responds that it is an uncomfortable situation for us. Susan B asked Harry why he felt that this technique wasn't looked at. John felt sure this technique had been evaluated by DRI. Dave tries to clarify that some of Fort Collins' objectives lie outside the scope of NFRAQS, there may be more we want to do but we are here for discussing whether we should participate. Susan C. reminds the Board that this item is just for the Board's information. Dave suggests exploring a new testing program to answer Fort Collins questions in the AQAB shortly. Eric says this sounds like a good 1st step. Susan C. reiterates that we will be getting an estimated source apportionment. David asks, "Is the liability the we incur from not participating greater than the liability we would incur if we did participate?" Susan B felt it was valid of Harry to raise this issue. 4. Work Plan Items Susan C handed out explanations of various work plan items. John suggests setting goals by priority, and expect to complete 2 projects in '97. Eric and Dave felt more could be done. Brian suggests combining internal combustion engine, high emission autos, and I/M study group. Also, combining shared rail line and coordination with Transportation Board. Brian offers that staff will re -word combined tasks to be evaluated by Board in November John and Brian will work on this via e-mail (condensed tasks with goals) and will have a draft available in the November packet. David says his item should include a policy statement the City could endorse, and suggests that he and one other AOAB members work on "Citizens for a Tobacco Free Colorado".Harry volunteered to work on this. Linda feels that City Council will ask for a wood stove ordinance; Linda asked who would be willing to work with her in that event. Harry moves to adjourn, David seconds. Meeting adjourns at 7:20 p.m.