Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 05/23/2006MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 200 WEST MOUNTAIN AVE. May 23, 2006 For Reference: Eric Levine, Chair 493-6341 David Roy, Council Liaison 407-7393 Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 224-6085 Board Members Present Jeff Engell, Nancy York, Dale Adamy, Bruce MacDonald, Eric Levine, Gregory McMaster, Board Members Absent Kip Carrico, Cherie Trine, Dave Dietrich Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Lucinda Smith, Brian Woodruff, Tara McGibben, Guests None Public Comment No public present. The meeting was called to order at 5:39pm. Minutes With the following changes, the minutes of April 25, 2006 meeting were unanimously approved: • Adamy: Busses is mis-spelled in the minutes. Please check the entire document and change busses to buses. • York: Page 6 York bullet add don't to: Bus routes don't cost a lot to run. • Levine: Page 3 add: I'd like to see future surveys assessing the respondent's knowledge. • York: Page 5: 12`" York bullet add: From EIS With the following changes, the minutes of April 19 Special Meeting with the Transportation Board were unanimously approved: • York to Levine: Page 6 change: 800 million to read 8 million. • Levine: Asking for another Transportation Board meeting that is specific to the issues that we'd be working on. • York: Maybe we should have an on -going agenda and the Transportation Board meeting could be one of them. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 2 of 16 Agenda Item 1: RADON STUDY UPDATE Brian Woodruff gave an interim report on the radon study which found that the passive systems reduce radon by an average of — 50% and are more effective when initial radon levels are high. Some passive systems do not bring radon down to 4 pCi/l. Some builders may not be installing the systems correctly. • Levine: I'm concerned why the cap -off is higher. • Woodruff: There was quite a range in how effecting the systems were. The change in range is from -11.7 to .8+ so that was somewhat concerning when I say that. • Levine: But you said the higher ranges seem more variable in the higher ranges than the lower ranges; basically because of general trend. • Woodruff: The second page graph states the average of all the homes that started out in each range. For example the highest of the 6 houses that were above 10 picoCuries with the cap on; they average out 11 picoCuries. And when you take the cap off it drops to about 4 picoCuries. That's a substantial drop of 64%. So the higher you start, the more reduction you get out of the system. The last graph shows all the data and I found it useful to organize the data according to the cap on reading which is the level we think the house would have if it had no radon system at all. (Board refers to Brian's hand-out.) • York: There are three above .4 that got worse. • Woodruff: I don't have an explanation for that but I'm not concerned about that because there's a lot of variability in this data. Each test is taken with two tests side -by -side and when they take the cap off they put in another two tests side -by -side. And the tests taken at the same place and time can vary; and they are allowed to vary up to 25% without being thrown out under the EPA protocol that we're using. If it went up by 10 picoCuries I'd be concerned but 5, 6, 7 picoCuries I'm not too concerned about. • McMaster: Why didn't you do a Paired T test? • Woodruff: We did talk about that at the beginning of the program. We rejected that idea because it's a much more complicated design and would have required pairing different houses and then comparing the data. • McMaster: You have a cap on and cap off, that's your pair, that's your block. • Woodruff: How would that work? • McDonald: You end up analyzing the chain. • McMaster: You're blocking out the variability's; comparing the high picoCuries. It's going to be a more powerful test. • Woodruff: I'll look into that. It's called a Paired T Test? • McMaster: Any stat package will have that as an option. It basically calculates the same but it pairs up the data. It should be easy to find. The stats would become more solid. • Woodruff: The summary is that, even though the data are quite variable, the average is about 47% reduction. We estimated about half the radon is removed by the passive system on average, so that's consistent. Some of the houses have a dramatic reduction and some have much less. • Macdonald: The cap -off works if you start out with a very high natural level; and that as you have a lower natural level this mechanism doesn't make much of a difference. It might be more applicable to the homes with higher levels of radon. • McMaster: It's a diffusion process right. • Macdonald: At some point the ventilation process doesn't become useful. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 3 of 16 • McMaster: Exactly. And if the goal was to have the houses drop below 4, then it's clear for 33% of the houses, you need to go to the active or find some other way to bring that down. Those would simply be done at the lower levels houses. • Woodruff. The first thing I would recommend to the homes around 6 and below, is that they do a long term radon test for a whole year to find out what the levels are. The 4-7 day tests only give a snap -shot due to the natural variability of radon i.e., barometric pressure, wind, and so on. Another possible explanation of the results is that the first of the two tests is under one weather regime then you wait a week and have a second test under a different weather regime. That can throw you off, too. • Adamy: Are you doing more testing in the next few months? • Woodruff: Yes. • Adamy: What if those homes were in the heat -cycle instead of the cooling -cycle — that may change some of the results, if you were able to detect that. I was wondering if you'd repeat the testing of the homes during the heating -cycle just to get a correlation. • Macdonald: I would think, the seasonal impact, with people closing their windows in the winter and open in summer. • Woodruff: You're suggesting a test? Like picking one that we tested during the cold weather and try it again in the warm weather to see if the system reads. • Adamy: I'm not sure what they'd look for. • McMaster: You can take your sampling January through April and break them out by blocks of time. That would give you seasonality. • Adamy: One thing that interested me, it has to do with the visual aspects of the testing devices. I'm suspicious about the passive system at my home because the pipe is in the concrete 6 feet away from a gravel pit made for future pump and 4 feet away from a sump pit and probably 30 feet away from the edge of the building. I'm wondering how much of the radon seeps through that and disables the system. So if you're doing a cap on test to trap radon, do you cover any thing else like an open plate in the floor? • Woodruff: Yes, all penetrations of the slab are supposed to be sealed during construction. The testing people don't make any modifications in the house. They go through a check list and notate things like that as being errors. Things like a sump hole not covered or sometimes they forget to caulk the joints between the slab and the wall. • Adamy: I expect that to be common; to have a 1 foot square hole to be drilled out for an additional bathroom. I just wonder about the passive radon. • York: Can you conclude the people in construction are properly installing the passive radon systems? • Woodruff: I was hoping to come to you with some information this evening, but my colleague in the building department told me that he really didn't have a good feel yet as to what they're learning in this process and they have a bunch of inspection forms and they are going through them to see if there's a pattern. Yes, the builders are making mistakes and some of the builders nail it and some of the builders leave stuff out. The way we handle that with our volunteer homes is we tell them about errors that were noted during our testing process and we give them Mike Gebo's phone number. If they pursue this he will get the builder on the phone and tell them what they have to do to bring it into compliance. • Adamy: I want his phone number. Air Quality Advisory Board 1 /20/2005 Page 4 of 16 • Woodruff: Mike Geebo. When ever there's a change in the building code, I think it's fair to say there will be some mistakes by builders and inspectors. Part of what we were trying to do is look for the more common errors so those could be corrected and that's why Mike and his team are participating. • York: What is your recommendation for those homes that are greater than 6 PicoCuries? What do you tell those folks? • Woodruff: Are you talking about the folks with the cap off higher? I'm not finding what you mean. • York: (speaking to the graph on the hand-out) When you follow across at 6 there's still houses that are above 6 picoCuries. • Woodruff. Oh, I see. You mean if the cap off measurement wasn't below 4. I would urge them to do more testing. They are at a low enough level that I think they're okay to do a longer term test, like 3 months to 12 months. Find out more precisely what their long term radon level is; and if it's above 4 put in a fan. It doesn't hurt to put the fan in at the drop of a hat. That's the way the systems are made and a fan costs about $300 installed. There is a penalty in energy use because it's like a 60-watt light bulb that operates 24 hours a day; then it wears out in 5-10 years and you have to replace it. The costs add up over time. • Adamy: Does code require an outlet be put close to the location of the fan? • Woodruff: Yes, it's supposed to be accessible to a tradesperson or to you to put in. • Adamy: When you walk into a home its in a very stable state; and without testing you change that state by waiting for it to come to some sort of quiessence and you change the state again and let it come to another quiessence, when you've already walked into it and you've quiessed it. Is it EPA protocol that requires you to do that? • Woodruff: Yes, it its. There are 4 visits to the homes. The first test is for the cap -off test. And at that first visit we run through check list and inspect the home for being a good candidate for testing. They come back between 4-7 days later and remove the first test kits and climb on the roof and put the cap on. Then they wait a whole week for radon to achieve a steady state. The third visit they set out two more test devices and at the fourth visit they remove the cap, remove the test devices, and that's the end of it. • Adamy: Oh, ok, sounds good. • Woodruff: Other questions? • McMaster: If there was 33% that were above 4 picoCuries, well that's good. But, it's suggesting that of all 39 homes were still, even if it's just 33% of the time, we're still above the maximum suggested level. It would suggest to me that; maybe longer term tests would need to be done to be sure. But if all of the tests are suggesting that our measurement of radon levels is right -on, then it's hard to imagine we'd be off too much by doing long term testing. Would you agree? • Woodruff: Yes, I'd be interested to see how it bears out when we test the first 75, but I expect this result to hold. It would be about 33%. • McMaster: To me 33% is still a high number, keeping in mind it's relative to your perspective. That suggests the program isn't going far enough; especially if the cost of having to add on is going to be more; maybe not. • Woodruff. It turns out that last part isn't the case. The installation of a fan is going to cost... Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 5 of 16 • McMaster: In a sense it's sort of the same flavor. To me, arranging to have someone come out after the fact seems like it would cost more. • Woodruff: Perhaps the cost could be dropped by 1/3. The fan costs $150, and a few couplings and parts and you're talking about a skilled tradesperson to do the work. • McMaster: We don't know what to set the level at. I don't think anyone is suggesting 4 is good, no one is saying that. • Levine: Yes, the city is. • McMaster: You have to set a limit. My point is we're still 33% over 4. • Adamy: Yes, I'm always worried about my gravel pit at my house and if the tests results should still suggest working some of the installation guidelines to seal off that gravel pit. If everything flows underneath, it's not going to catch one little corner. Maybe guidelines can be enhanced based on some of the figures being above standards. • York: You share the results of the test with the home owners so they know to do the long term testing? • Woodruff: Yes, they get a letter from Radiation Technologies that summarizes the test results and advises them on how to mitigate it if it's beyond 4 and they're given all the inspection information that we get. • York: Are you identifying the home builder? If I was a home builder and I found a percentage of the homes that I built weren't up to code, I'd want to know about anything wrong with the passive mitigation system. I would hope they know and you look at that. Are you worried about that politically? • Woodruff. No, this is the part of the project that is meant to be of assistance to the building department and to improve the building inspections techniques. I'm not sure how they're going to do that. Correlating certain errors with certain builders seems intuitively the way to go. There's enough information in our survey to do that. We're keeping the data confidential from us. I can't connect any of these numbers with an address. Radiation Technologies has all the data and we can try to associate builders and home addresses. But I don't' think Mike is contemplating that. He's looking for a pattern of errors so he can take back the data to the inspectors and tell them they need to look through the house more closely and don't pass it if they see something that doesn't look up to code. • York: I hope that's looked at and I'm not sure if you can make that recommendation. It makes sense that you don't know who it is. • Macdonald: Do you have a spatial depiction of these results as where you might have higher readings? • McMaster: I think the analysis would be not just the builder, but there might be conditions where we can learn where the passive system may not work as well. It seems to me there could be some data mining. • Macdonald: It could depend on the type of soil. • Levine: Bill Alexander has large soil samples from over time. Not actually systems installed; he was trying to make geologic soil determinations. From what I remember the conclusion was he couldn't really pin it down; at least not in town yet. There's no good way to determine the soil/geology samples from one house to the other; it sounds though in the foothills they can make some predictions with some of the geology there. I'd like to reiterate what Greg and Nancy said. Some years ago this board had a very interesting presentation from utilities about the Ft. Collins energy code and the slide show showed Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 6 of 16 new homes with no insulation in the attic and ducts that went no where. It was one of the few comedic presentations. • Woodruff: I believe that was called Behind the Drywall. • Levine: Yes, we were rolling laughing. Some of the conclusions that we hope the city would continue learning from would be that if they had any new codes the time to correct the problem is right out of the box because that's when the mistakes are made and you need to put your resources to work as far as inspections, outreach and builders because that's where you're going to get the most bang for your buck. And as far as just for a preventative approach. I would hope this is early enough and it's not as serious as (I'm not crazy about the radon levels) the attics without insulation. If you have an attic without insulation your energy bills are going to be ridiculous. However, if you have very high levels of radon as well as being a smoker; that will bring you at a higher risk of lung cancer and not even know it. Also reiterating what Greg said, this board has always been strongly supportive of rigorous radon requirements. Historically, I think we've voted twice on recommending active radon mitigation systems. One of the board's big problems was that if the passive systems don't do it enough it would engender a false sense of security. It's a fairly reasonable assumption that most home owners would think it would be taken care of. If the problem's not taken care of, at least according to the EPA, in a third of the homes, that's something that we need to address. I read the city's radon brochure on the chart, it says at 4 pico-quires is an acceptable EPA level. The EPA says "no level of radon is safe or completely safe". Every level, they say carries some sort of risk. At 2-4 picoCuries they say to consider some sort of action and above 4 they recommend people initiate some type of action. If what we send to all of the new home buyers would reflect that, it would be good. I'm assuming that the 33% will probably be there after the 75 homes, probably? • Woodruff: I don't expect it to change much. You learn a lot from the first half of the data and the second half just tightens it up a little. • Levine: The sheet that we give the home buyers and the homes purchased after 2004 with the passive systems installed should reflect that about 1 /3 of the homes with your system has radon over the EPA recommended level of 4 pico Curies. That should not stop you from conducting a test and taking action depending on how you feel about this. • Adamy: Your approach is to protect the buyer. But I suggest these numbers reflect a fall out in the building process. And the passive systems could work better if you made some adjustments. For instance the slab that's built under a house doesn't have any shape to it that would be conducive to drawing diffusion toward the pipe. I don't know how tough it would be to make a concave slab. • McMaster: The cost of that is way more than the mitigation system. • Levine: The systems from years ago were active. A mitigator would not put a passive system in as they think it would possibly ruin their good name as far as being effective. The passive system came in as a compromise and meant to be active. The difference in pressure was enough to determine the same effect at lowering levels. If some of the passive systems are not as effective because there's some problems in the way that they are constructed. Are passive systems more sensitive? • Woodruff: If you put in a fan in the typical trade manner, a standard size 150 CFM [it doesn't actually draw 150 CFM unless there's a lot of porosity in the system],it creates so much suction underneath the slab the radon is definitely going out the pipe and typically knocks the indoor radon down to out -door background levels. Because that system is so Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 7 of 16 powerful, it can cover up a lot of passive system mistakes. The retro-fits of exciting buildings have to deal with the fact that the joint between the slab and foundation wall is not sealed. In a lot of cases they're drawing conditioned air from inside the building down through the cracks and out through the pipe and fan and that's the kind of error a continuously running fan can cover up. I offer that by way of explanation. • McMaster: If it's a good point then we don't necessarily want to stop it, but if we can learn how to do it better, that's the way to go. • Adamy: I have a good example. You raised a valid point in that consumers are thinking they are safer, and that's not a good idea. • McMaster: Not based on these numbers. • Levine: People don't realize 6% of the homes have high radon. The EPA and all the modeling is a linear low threshold dose. Is it on that sheet about smoking? It should be featured on that sheet. Smoking and radon is a high risk combination. • Adamy: I appreciate the passive system in a new home. The home we left behind, we had it retro-fit with an active system. • Levine: How much did it cost? • Adamy: I don't remember. It wasn't as bad as most. It wasn't a concrete floor so they just put plastic over it. I feel more comfortable with a passive system. You raise a real valid issue. • Levine: The active systems are very effective and have a non -expensive way to turn it into an active system. You need both of those pieces. • York: 11 homes were at 4 picoCuries even with a cap. That's pretty good, 11 out of 39. I'm so glad that we have the passive systems going in. • Levine: A friend of mine moved to Park View Towers and he got the radon sheet; and he's on the 5t' floor. I don't think he's going to need the test. That said, not many people in Ft. Collins live above the 5"' floor. • Macdonald: When will your study be done? • Woodruff. We'll be doing a final report during the month of August. So all the testing will be finished by then and compile the results. • Macdonald: What role do we play in reviewing? Is it being presented to council? • Woodruff: We're sharing this information with council. We don't have a game plan for rolling this out. I know the building inspection department will be using this information. The radon ordinance was adopted by Council with the idea that it would reduce radon levels by about half. We're trying to confirm that so the Council and the public could know that the program is working the way it was intended. That was the purpose behind the program. • McMaster: Was that the council's decision to just get to a standard? • Woodruff: Yes. We told council the passive systems would reduce the radon to about half and talked about the possibility of having an active system and decided to back away from that in our recommendation because that leaves part of the responsibility in the hands of the homeowners to activate the system. The basic system is there and you get about half reduction that's provided, already built it during construction, and if you want to go farther than that you can activate it. • McMaster: Do you see any opportunities that the board can pursue in that the board can pass any of this information on? • Woodruff. A press release? Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 8 of 16 • Levine: This is a recommendation of the board to council if I've ever seen one. • Macdonald: Sure if the report gives some information that we think the council should know about then we should make a recommendation based on that. • Levine: I think the council needs to know that 1/3 of the homes with the systems are over the EPA action level. EPA does have a level of "consider action" and the council should know what ever percentage of homes that we suspect... • McMaster: You're saying between 2 and 4? • Levine: Yes, but we don't know the percentage. • McMaster: Yes, but we can get it pretty quick. • Levine: Would the city consider modifying the sheet that goes to home buyers to put in these concerns. • Woodruff: I made notes about that. We have the administrative authority to revise the radon brochure as you mentioned, i.e, don't say that 4 pico-curies is acceptable, but rather use the language that the EPA actually uses. • Levine: Which is going to be a little bit more verbose. It's more accurate and I think it's more correct. Just say what the EPA says. • Woodruff: And you mentioned smoking and radon is a double jeopardy. I think that might actually be in there but if it's not we can certainly add it. And the final point the results of this study: new homes even with passive systems can have above -four levels of radon. Those are things we can consider putting in the text when we re -print them we can update them. • York: The press release is a good idea to alert people to your findings. • Woodruff: Sure. When a study like this is completed, the information goes to council and the public. I didn't have a sense of a big campaign around it. More of just information that's shared with the community. • Levine: The 2"d floor does have high levels of radon, but nothing higher than the 2"d floor. • Adamy: It does diffuse somewhere? • Levine: I can't say for sure but I know it goes as high as the 2"d floor. • Levine: How do you want to do the recommendation? When would be most appropriate? • Adamy: We can discuss it as an agenda item and it might be best to do after the final study. • McMaster: Or in conjunction with the final report. • Adamy: Prior to a press release. • Smith: When would you like to present a final summary. • Woodruff: We'll probably be completing our reporting during the month of September. However, the grant period goes through September, so September would be plausible but October would be better. • Levine: Most likely there will be homes built that fit the 1/3 homes over 4 pico-curies and council won't have the opportunity to consider those homes. • York: I want to point out the time. • Levine: It's well worth the time spent on it. Is there anything else for Brian on this issue? Thanks Brian for the presentation. September would probably be good if you have the information. • Woodruff: Okay. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 9 of 16 New Business: Grade Separated Buffer Presentation by Dale Adamy (hand-out) Adamy discussed his attempt to encourage some kind of change in the construction standards and asked the rest of the board for their input and comments. Adamy would ultimately like to see grade separated crossings "built-in" to the city plans for new construction sites therefore having the framework for the grade separated crossing incorporated into the plans. • Macdonald: Your aim then is to include these in the plans of major remodels and arterials? • Adamy: Yes, that's right. For instance between Prospect and Drake and Timberline where the new police station is going in. Before the concrete is laid, the plans should include a grade separated crossing built into the city street plan. And there's additional projects that would benefit from a GSB(grade separated buffer). • Macdonald: Do we really know if there's some less expensive way to do it than the way they did it under College? That was a huge arterial that was very nice and everything but do we know how if we can drill under so as not to disrupt traffic? • Adamy: I don't really know. • York: They put an underpass on Spring Creek Trail and they did that really fast and the bike trail along the Poudre too. • Adamy: All of them had crossings because there was already grade separated crossings. • York: I would have liked to see the cost of having those done. • Adamy: If the construction is already being done, and if the earthmovers are already there and if the traffic is already stopped, I would give an estimate of $100-200,000. Now if you think about the cost of expanding the road between Drake and Prospect I think it would be just a tiny bit. And, this is the exciting part, that if you put into the plans when you ask for the funds it could be off -set. If it's never in the plans and you ask for the funds to do it, then it's a special project. It seems to make sense to put in the plans. • Levine: Do you mean asking for funds or do you mean the development fee? • Adamy: I don't know the entire process. The project for Timberline, between Prospect and Drake, where those funds came from, some of it's being shared by the federal government. If a grade separated crossing was included in the plans then so would some of the federal funding which would off -set the cost of every grade separated crossing we built. • York: I think you have a valid point. They would be noted in the development review process that it would be identified by pedestrians and bicyclists and for everyone involved it makes sense. • Adamy: It's a two level approach in that it would keep traffic flowing and reduce pollution and keep children safe. • York: I think Poudre School District should be involved and incorporate that into their plans and be aware of traffic. • Adamy: Matt Baker first mentioned Timberline will be 6 lanes in the future. We're building in islands of safety for half the time you cross the street. But that doesn't work for me. I think the traffic flow will continue to grow and I think what we need to do is have a way to grow with it keeping safety in mind. • McMaster: When I was on the board of the West Central Neighborhoods Plans in the neighborhood cohesion group, I remember the concept of how do you create Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 10 of 16 neighborhoods. One of the biggest barriers was roads and fences with no way to cross it. These things become really critical to having a sense of community. • York: On June 6 council has a regular meeting on traffic and land use code amendments. You should get someone's ear on that subject. Is it too late? • Smith: Often times the land use code is updated every 6 months with whatever comes up that needs to be addressed. There will be other opportunities at least every 6 months. I wonder if the Planning and Zoning Board would be interested in this. • Adamy: It's a tough one to determine the correct home for graded separated crossings. • Engell: I think your approach at presenting this to new construction is feasible and makes sense. I think if you try to do this with existing infrastructure it won't be economically possible. • Adamy: The buffer concept too; meaning if there was this symbol (see hand-out) mid- way between every intersection all the way down College and in the plans the earth movers would make use of them and keep them city wide. • Engell: You mean doing it in conjunction with the utilities companies. If there's a utility passing underneath College you're going to tack on a passage way as well. I like that approach. • Adamy: That's exactly what I have in mind. I would like to have sky -lights put in. Thanks for your input. • Macdonald: I strongly support this, especially for new construction, near schools and shopping centers; it ought to be built in. • York: You should bring this to the P&Z Board. • Macdonald: There was some of these in England called round-abouts. I remember everything was moving and flowing. • Adamy: In Florence Italy there are stores underneath them that are open 24 hours. • McMaster: What can be done from the AQAB standpoint? We can easily justify it as it affects traffic flow and air -pollution. As you want to pursue this I would propose as a board it seems like a very good idea for a variety of reasons. • Macdonald: For new construction and major arterials we suggest these should be implemented in the projects. • Adamy: I'm thinking someone can assign this symbol to different locations in town and present that to the Planning & Zoning Board telling them where these are located and that it's supported by the AQAB. • McMaster: We can present this to other boards. Would the Transportation Board support this? • Adamy: I don't know because I didn't get a lot of feed -back from the Transportation Board. • York: I will give you feedback on your form. It's not communicated to me as thoroughly as it could be. • Levine: There's no English vernacular that is one or two paragraphs that describes the concept in simple English. • Adamy: I put it together for this feed -back. I have a 17-20 page document that was prepared for Karen Weitkunat in 2003 that had references to code and lots of things and I was tempted to bring the table of contents. In there it has good paragraphs. Air Quality Advisory Board 1 /20/2005 Page 11 of 16 • Adamy: The truth of the matter is that I've changed the concept to the buffer. I'm not sure how to play that. I think the buffer is the idea here. Crossing is dollar signs and the buffer is planning. I think that seems to work. • McMaster: That really needs to be explained; the buffer concept. I don't know what the buffer means. • Adamy: I asked a developer what the little circle meant off in the hills on the written plans and he said it was a fox den buffer if in the future this is ever developed. This is a way to watch out for a protected space. • McMaster: It's a wonderful idea and word it so it's for new construction. That's a way we can word it as a board. • Adamy: I can work on the wording for the next meeting. • Levine: That will be a motion for the next meeting. • McMaster: Dale, it'd be a good idea to send out the draft ahead of the meeting so we can edit it and be prepared for discussion. • Adamy: Thank you. I will do that. • Levine: Lucinda, you're up. Agenda Item 2: State of Colorado Mercury Recommendation: Presentation by Lucinda Smith Smith: Recently the EPA has come out with a national rule that's called the Clean Air Mercury Rule. It proposes to exclude electric generating units (EGUs) as a regulated hazardous source category. This is somewhat unprecedented for the EPA to do something like this. • McMaster: Why? • Macdonald: They did regulate it under the new source performance standards where they establish a cap and trade program rather than under the air toxic rule. • Smith: But there was a fairly specific justification that they used in their legal discussions about why. And maybe it was justification for the cap and trade program, but I don't want to guess. • Macdonald: The air toxics rule doesn't allow cap and trade. You have to meet that and can't trade with other people. • Smith: Right, because the concept is that toxics are not a suitable thing for trading. • Macdonald: Right. • Smith: Each state's mercury budget was developed by looking at the number of utility plants and summing up the heat out -put for them across the country. Then they apportioned mercury emissions to each state as a function of statewide heat output from electric utilities. The utilities estimate their emissions differently than as a function of heat out -put so the utilities estimated emissions didn't match what the heat out -put estimate by state of emissions was. That's the reason the EPA made as to why they assigned the state mercury budgets. • McMaster: Isn't this a good way of getting lower emissions? Presumably Colorado's not going to produce more mercury just because it's allowed to. • Macdonald: Mercury is a global pollutant more than a local pollutant and so this is a way to reduce it nationwide in a most cost effective way; so when the cap and trade is in place, people who can reduce it cheaply will reduce more and therefore have credits to sell. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 12 of 16 • Smith: Under the federal proposed rule, the states are required to distribute the mercury allowances to electric generating units and that must be done by the beginning of 2010. Colorado's electric generating unit mercury budget for the first phase is 1,412 pounds. And for the second phase it drops down to 558 pounds. Lucinda refers to the back of the handout listing all the electric generating units in Colorado; and the different ways in which the mercury emissions were estimated. In 2005 the total emissions was 895 pounds; and that gives you some relative perspective according to a recent estimate by the utilities of their emissions. We received a state budget through 2017 of 1,400 pounds. • McMaster: When it gets to 2018 then they're going to be in trouble. • Smith: It doesn't mean that Colorado will actually emit its full budget. I don't think that will happen under this rule. The idea is that the mercury control technology which exists now but may not be in full -line production will be more researched and more cost effective and more predictable in the future. And so that's one of the reasons the EPA has felt it's reasonable to delay a real quick drop in mercury emissions. More controls will clearly have to be put on by 2018. • Levine: Why are the numbers so different between 2003 and 2004 on the TRI? • Smith: I know that up to 2000 and including 2003 that they used emissions factor based estimates; and in 2004 I know most of the utilities changed their estimating methodology. There's still some variability in their estimates. • Levine: 20 % of Craig Plant is owned by Colorado. Between PRPA Rawhide and the Craig Plant, those are two of the highest mercury emitters that I've seen here. • Smith: Part of the rule requires that ultimately the mercury emissions be documented by actual continuous emissions monitors so it's not an emissions factor calculating approach. Those have to be certified and in place and running for a full year the year of 2009 and that will provide the most real base line upon which further actions will be based. States have a couple of options in terms of how they want to meet this federal clean air mercury rule. One option involves interstate trading program; and within that there are three approaches. The state can adopt just the verbatim model rule that was proposed by the EPA. They can make minor modifications as allowed in model rule; which has to do with frequency with which they allocate emissions and other relatively minor things. (In red because that's the approach the state is going to take.) They can propose and try to gain EPA approval for a different type of mercury trading program. I'm not aware of whether any states are actually doing that. Generally option A with some minor sub -options is Adopt the Interstate Trading Program. Or, the other approach is they adopt a state specific type of program which doesn't involve interstate trading that might set specific emissions limitations on units. Some of the states have already decided not to do trading and are moving ahead with Option B: A state specific program that doesn't involve trading; and more are looking at that. The only requirement in Option B is that at least the state is able to prove they are able to meet their mercury cap. States must submit a plan, to EPA by November of this year on what they propose to do. Colorado would like to adopt an inter -state trading program and they actually have to do these certain things. They have to notify the EPA of emissions allowances allocations by the end of October of this year, they have to issue the utilities their mercury budget permits and they have to review the actual monitoring systems certifications. Noted on the back of the handout are the facilities that are affected in Colorado. The only point is that the state has decided to go with and base their proposal on the owner emissions estimates in 2005. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 13 of 16 • Levine: These numbers are so far over (the owner estimate submitted for 2005) than for 2003 and 2004. Almost every series of numbers; we're looking at factors of 10 differences in some cases. • Smith: I know emissions estimations methodology is one thing, and another thing is if the plant takes a big generator off-line for modification or repair, those things come into play; because these are actual emissions estimates and not capacity.. I'm looking for notes on how they actually did the emissions estimates in 03/04. The health department's information only said that from 1999 to 2003 utilities used the emissions factor methodology and starting in 2004 they used a new method. I don't know the answer. Bruce, do you know? • Macdonald: Yes, it's the methods they used for coal supply data; they actually get more accurate data from their coal supply. Prior to 2003 utilities doesn't even need to report TRI. That was a new requirement. • Levine: But if the factors are off by 10; why should we not review every toxic emissions estimate that uses this same methodology. • Macdonald: The general public doesn't understand that and what goes into these emissions estimates. • Levine: So the public is relying on the regulatory agencies to look out for their interest and not accept estimates and methodologies that are not bogus. And the owner estimates submitted in 2005, one or two of them are reasonable but a lot of other ones don't jive with the numbers. • Smith: I can say that the health department views that the 2005 owner estimates are more accurate than the others because of the improvement in methodology so that's why they're choosing to rely on that, rather than a whole host of other ways they could look at this. • McMaster: Referring to the slide showing Platte River versus the Craig rates. • Levine: We own some of Craig. • Smith: I'd have to see how partial ownership is addressed in this process. According the health department, the Platte River is concerned about Rawhide and not so much about the others; because they're on their own. They don't have a number of different units that they can use internally to help them meet their cap; they can't trade internally because they just have one unit which suggests to me that Platte River isn't responsible for part ownership for Craig. Do you know Bruce? • Macdonald: They participate but they're not an operator. Operational decisions are made by TRI State. The operator's are responsible for compliance. • Smith: Okay, thanks. • McMaster: Who is the Colorado Utilities Coalition? Is that the utility company? I would hope not because why would they push their own estimates. • Smith: I think they represent the utility department legally. • Levine: I see two signatures that attend this meeting. What's PRPA's position? • Smith: I don't know exactly. PRPA is part of the Colorado Utility Coalition. Generally, the coalition opposes the state's approach. The PRPA has a special concern because they are an operator of just one unit, Rawhide, which gives them less flexibility and because they think their allocation isn't going to cover their needs. I believe they're concerned. • Levine: And Ft. Collins owns 52% of PRPA? • Smith: I'm not sure. I've asked our utilities department for their take. Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 14 of 16 • Levine: In the past, the official Fort Collins city position was that because of the methodology used that Colorado could actually see more pollution and was in favor of more rigorous standards. And at the same time PRPA opposed proposed standards. There's a real disconnect with the PRPA and what the management says. • Macdonald: PRPA is an animal onto itself. There is a board of directors that are appointed partially by the city and the members; they allocate their interests. And the board of directors hires the management much like the superintendent at schools, and he runs everything. • Levine: And we had a superintendent that was recently removed from office too. There's too much disconnect and I want to see some accountability. • Smith: I'm inquiring about that process. Our role is to make sure the city is on the same page and all the departments recommend to council that fits within our policies. Then I would think Mayor Hutchinson and Mike Smith, who sit on the PRPA board, might be directed to vote a certain way on PRPA. • Levine: PRPA it would seem that's where the city would have some weight. Whereas in the state, there would be cross purposes. We should engage and sort them out before the recommendation. • Smith: Yes. PRPA is ahead of its owner cities in that they've been engaged in the stake holder process; and we, the owner cities, have not. We will have an opportunity, potentially, to become a party through this rule making process. Again, the question of the relationship between owner cities and Platte River and whether they could be opposing each other in position as stake holders, I think, could certainly happen. • Levine: Could we at least find out before the deal is said and done because that's what's been done with the particulars standards. • Smith: I'm just now starting to learn more about this and next month we'll know exactly what the state proposal is. • Macdonald: They'll propose the standards formerly at some point, and then we can talk to it. • Smith: It will be proposed on June 15. That's the third Thursday, request for rule making hearing, and that's when they have to come out with their proposal. Then there will be one month in which anyone who wants to be a party to that ruling and hearing can sign up. And the actual hearing will be in September. • Levine: So the party status is a one month window. • Macdonald: My perspective is that really there are two issues here; whether you take the idea of this as a global issue or whether there are local hot spot issues. I think if we lived in Minnesota or Wisconsin or around that area I would say would it be more of a local issue because of the rain and fall -out create more of a local impact. Here, I don't think that's necessarily the case; we just don't see the kind of mercury precipitation; it just goes through the air. 100 pounds is really very small, when you start dealing with trillions of tons of atmosphere. We don't breathe that, it goes off to the east. We're adding to the global background. The US is about 3% world wide. • McMaster: But thinking of it, it's both; even if you take the global perspective you've got local issues. • Macdonald: You think both ways, globally and locally. There are a couple more things to it and that is that the controls on mercury aren't that well developed. And the whole purpose of this was to make an economic incentive for those controls to be developed. Air Quality Advisory Board 1 /20/2005 Page 15 of 16 That's why if you notice, by 2018 we have to be down below where we currently are and the thought is that technology will be developed. • Smith: There are different view points too. There are some that would hold that the mercury controls are relatively cost effective and can be developed now. • Macdonald: There are vendors who say that they can do that. • Smith: The Center for Air Toxic Metals had an interesting newsletter that talks in detail about the mercury issue and they cited a congressional review report that questioned the concept that EPA based their Cap and Trade program on and that the controls are not well developed. That report says the Western states they are more so. It seems fairly controversial. • Macdonald: The controls are being more developed more rapidly than people thought. Before, the thing that really seemed to make sense was activated carbon; you just blow this into the flu gases and it absorbs the mercury and captures it in a bag. Now there's more sophisticated sorbants that are increasing effectiveness. The whole idea is to develop these sorbants. • Smith: It would be interesting to see if there are any cost effective studies of these controls. I don't know if they exist or not. • Macdonald: I think the current estimate is something like $2000 an ounce, $40,000 a pound, and $4M a year to control it. And we would pay that on our rates. • Smith: And that's one of the operators are concerned. Do you want to revisit this issue? • York: Yes. • Smith: June really is the time for that because if you wait till July the stake holder window is closed. • Levine: June which is our next meeting. • Macdonald: So the proposal would come out and that's when we'd be able to comment on it and request the status. • McMaster: Is that how we become a party; to comment on the proposal? • Smith: The board wouldn't become a party. The board would recommend to City Council that the city would become a party. • York: Our next meeting is when? • Smith: June 27. • York: The 27? So city council is the same night, and it's the last meeting of council. • Smith: We would have until July 15. • York: Do we want to do that or do we read the report first before we recommend. • Smith: I would think you'd need to hear the details and specifics of it. • Levine: Obviously we need to know where we stand, but I also want to know where PRPA stands for sure. • Smith: We can have someone from utilities come answer questions. • Levine: I can understand PRPA as its own entity does something differently than what the city would want. I can understand that. But what I can't understand is the city's left arm and right arm working in cross purposes. • McMaster: It sounds like that's a major agenda item. • Smith: The other agenda item you had is the mobility management report. • McMaster: And we added the Grade Separated topic. • Levine: As a rule, I didn't want more than one large major time consuming issue per meeting because we've had as many as three sometimes. I know three doesn't work; that Air Quality Advisory Board 1/20/2005 Page 16 of 16 never works, we've tried. Two is a challenge and if we can't do one we might as well just extend the meeting. Adamy: The Grade Separated Buffer would only take 10 minutes. The bus capacity issue is something I want to add to the agenda. McMaster: I suggest we wait a meeting on that; or we wait until the end. Smith: You can decide. I suppose based on last time it sounded like you wanted a shorter presentation. You can have a mercury discussion first, it's up to you. Election of Officers: Dale Adamy nominated Eric Levine as Chair. Greg McMaster seconded the motion. York moved the board approve of the slate of Eric Levine as Chair and Greg McMaster as Vice Chair. All are in favor. York: City council last week I spoke on ways the city could cut cost on energy savings and Mayor Hutchinson spoke of Johnson Controls. We'd like a presentation on that. Smith: They're still finalizing the contract but maybe a summary of the audit report might be of interest and the final report can be presented once the audit report is reviewed by council. Levine: We can discuss the 6 month planning agenda at next meeting. All in favor of adjourning the meeting? Adamy: I have a bus capacity journal. Would it be appropriate to hand that out at this meeting? The board agreed on handing out the bus capacity journal and then adjourned the meeting. Meeting adjourned 8.16 PM Submitted by Tara McGibben Administrative Secretary I Approved by the Board on � , 2006 Signed Tara McGibben Date Administrative Secretary I Extension: 6600