HomeMy WebLinkAbout20221480.tiffOFFICE OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PHONE: 970-336-7204
FAX: 970-336-7233
1150 O STREET
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
May 24, 2022
The Honorable Jared Polis
Governor of Colorado
State Capitol Building
200 E. Colfax Ave., Room 136
Denver, Colorado 80203
Re: Request for Veto of HB 22-1244
Governor Polis:
I write to you concerning House Bill 22-1244 ("HB 1244") on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County, which I currently Chair. My fellow Commissioners and I urge
you to use your executive authority to veto HB 1244 for several important reasons, including its
flawed approach to air toxics monitoring and standard setting, the lack of resources to properly
implement the bill, and the undeniable exposure of the State to repeated deadline suits and other
challenges to regulation of air toxics on the basis of HB 1244. The subject of air toxics
regulation is too important to do poorly, but that is what will happen if you sign this bill into law.
Weld County followed this bill closely and engaged its consultants with Ramboll US Consulting
to testify on the bill's shortcomings. And while the amended bill recently sent to you is not as
bad as when originally proposed, it still suffers from a flawed approach to air toxics monitoring
and standard setting. In fact, Ramboll prepared the enclosed fact sheets for Weld County
specifically to dispel the assertions of the sponsors and their supporters that (1) Colorado does
not monitor for air toxics, and (2) that the Federal Clean Air Act leaves a gap in air toxics
regulation requiring this bill. Neither assertion is correct, and Colorado already monitors for air
toxics more than any state in the country. Moreover, this bill would duplicate the prior 32 years
of federal EPA work under Clean Air Act Section 112, but would try to do so with a fraction of
the resources necessary and without the transparency and scientific rigor required.
Additionally, EPA is routinely sued by environmental groups for failure to timely review and
update its ambient air quality standards and its MACT standards for reducing emissions of
hazardous air pollutants. And while EPA does miss deadlines, it devotes very significant
resources to reviewing these standards under the Clean Air Act. HB 1244 seeks to have
Colorado try to duplicate EPA's decades of past work, but with very limited resources and a lack
of transparent procedures required for the selection of pollutants for standard setting. This is a
recipe for litigation by the very groups that supported the flawed bill as originally proposed.
CoRKun;ca+;onS
06/06/22
2022-1480
Letter, Governor Jared Polis
Re: Request for Veto of HB 22-1244
May 24, 2022
Page 2
Weld County is committed to the protection of air quality through the passage of legislation and
promulgation of cost-effective regulations supported by robust, high -quality data, and by
complementing the prior and ongoing work of EPA with respect to regulating air toxics.
Unfortunately, HB 1244 is fundamentally flawed, will not accomplish what its sponsors intend,
and will create huge implementation problems for CDPHE, interfering with its other important
work on ozone attainment and climate action goals, to name just two.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Weld County Board of Commissioners urges you to veto HB
1244. We thank you in advance for your attention to this important request.
Please contact me at (970) 400-4200, if you have any questions rgarding this letter.
Sin • rely,
K. James, Chair
Weld County Commissioner
Enc.
Pc: Board of County Commissioners
RAMB LL
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
WORK PERFORMED AT DIRECTION OF COUNSEL
COLORADO HAP MONITORING
FACT SHEET
ENVIRONMENT
& HEALTH
2022
Colorado Hazardous Air Pollutant Monitoring
Colorado has one of the most comprehensive and robust hazardous air pollutant (HAPs)1 monitoring
programs in the United States. Through a combination of federal, state, and local government
monitoring efforts, there are currently 40 stationary monitoring sites and several mobile monitoring labs
that measure selected HAPs. Current programs include United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(USEPA) National Air Toxics Trends Sites (NATTS) and Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program (UATMP)z,
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's (CDPHE) ozone precursor monitoring and
Colorado Air Monitoring Mobile Lab (CAMML)3, City and County of Broomfield Air Quality Monitoring
Program (AQM)4, Boulder County and the city of Longmont air monitoring programs, and the town of
Erie's monitoring program6. Importantly, several of these monitoring sites on the western slope of
Colorado are part of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) air toxics monitoring
programs, including the National Air Toxics Trends Sites (NATTS), which establishes the analysis
methods that would be required for the six HAPs monitoring sites proposed in Colorado House Bill 22-
1244. The vast majority of HAPs monitoring stations are located in Denver and northern Colorado and
the remainder are located on the western slope. Some monitoring locations are in communities defined
as disproportionately impacted communities. Altogether, Colorado monitors ambient HAP air
concentrations more than any other state in the United States' and HAPs monitoring is already
anticipated to become more extensive even absent passage of House Bill 22-1244.
The USEPA's NATTS and UTAMP currently monitor HAPs at seven (7) sites in Colorado, as shown in
Figure 1. CPDHE monitors speciated VOCs and carbonyls at four (4) stationary monitoring sites in
Denver, Platteville, Brighton, and Missile Site Park shown in Figures 1 and 2. Since 2017, CDPHE's
mobile monitoring van, referred to as the CAMML, has been deployed to 10 site investigations
throughout the Denver area, 3 of which are currently on -going. Broomfield AQM includes joints efforts
between the City and County of Broomfield, Ajax Analytics, Colorado State University, and CDPHE. The
program includes 12 current air quality monitoring stations in the Broomfield area that continuously
The Clean Air Act currently defines .3 compounds as Ha, dons Air Pollutants 42 USC §7412(b) Currently, there is not a monitoring program that
monitors all identified HAPs The most comprehensive HAPs monitoring program is the USEPA National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS) program that
typically monitors 100 different HAPs at a given monitoring station
2 US Environmental Protection Agency's National Air Toxic Trends Sites and Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program.
httos://www.epa,govlamtic/air-toxics-ambient-monitoring.
3 Colorado Air Monitoring Mobile Lab (CAMML). https:/(www.colorado.gov/airaualitvitech doc reoositarv,aspx.
" Broomfield Air Quality Monitoring Program. tittos://www.broomfield.oro/3004/Air-Quality-Monitoring.
5 Boulder A.I.R. Itto://b0uldair.cam/ttmonitoring.
' City of Erie Air Quality Data hktos://www.erteco,go al69/Air-Qualt(y
' Other states, such as Oregon, ale in the process of implementing ambient HAPs monitoring pmgrarns and, when fully implemented, these states ,"ail!
typically have 5 to 6 monitoring sites throughout the state Othei states, such as California, require source -oriented HAPs monitoring at the fenceline of
ndustrial facilities, such as refineries Colorado is in the process of implementing a fenceline HAPs monitoring program as directed by Colorado House Bill
21-1189 Once this program is implemented, t is anticipated that this information will supplement the extensive existing HAPs information in Colorado
Further, reports from the NATTS program provide an oveiview of HAPs rnonitonng by sta.e conducted as part of the program All states except Colorado
have five or fewer HAPs monitors as pact of the NATTS and UATh1P programs The most recent comprehensive HAFTS report is fei 2015 2016, which is
accessible nere: 1)1tQ5;.,t,(yw�,44/SY'St@In/1i4E51.d4C:il1�'41�..3oI6-nmo-tetxirt='+8 odt.
RAMS LL
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
WORK PERFORMED AT DIRECTION OF COUNSEL
measure pollutant indicator data and can trigger collection of speciated VOCs, which include select
HAPs. Boulder A.I.R. has eight (8) air quality monitoring sites throughout north Denver and north front
range, seven (7) of which are stationary air monitoring sites that measure select HAPs. The Erie air
monitoring program has ten (10) monitoring sites that continuously measure total VOCs and can trigger
collection of speciated VOCs, which include select HAPs. These monitoring sites are shown in Figure 2.
In addition to government -led HAPs monitoring, oil and gas companies are also conducting HAPs
monitoring during pre -production and early production operations to comply with the range of
monitoring options allowed by Colorado Regulation 7, Part D, Section VI.C.
The initial list of toxic air contaminants that would be required by HB 22-1244 includes HAPs monitored
by NATTS, as well as hydrogen cyanide, and hydrogen sulfide. In addition, the Commission can select
other chemicals. This collection includes a very diverse set of pollutants, some of which will require
specialized monitoring equipment. The specific HAP compounds that are currently monitored in Colorado
varies by location. The USEPA NATTS program monitors 20 HAPs at Grand ]unction. The full list of HAPs
measured in the western slope is available in most current NATTS monitoring report.• A majority of the
HAPs compounds that are monitored in Colorado are a subset of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
CDPHE monitors dozens of HAPs including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, n -hexane, and
carbonyls. The HAPs monitoring proposed in Colorado Senate Bill 22-1244 would be required to conduct
monitoring in accordance with the USEPA NATTS monitoring methods, so NATTS data analysis and
interpretation is particularly informative to consider.
Looking forward, next year four facilities in Colorado are required by Colorado House Bill 21-1189 to
conduct source -oriented (i.e., fenceline) HAPs monitoring.9 Furthermore, CDPHE has recently requested
proposals from qualified contractors to monitor select HAPs at ten sites in Weld County during periods in
spring and summer in 2022.
Importantly, there is an abundance of HAPs monitoring data being collected in Colorado and an
appreciable lack of substantive information that interprets and contextualizes monitored HAPs
concentrations. The most recent analysis of health risk for the HAPs monitoring sites in the western
slope that monitor data as part of the EPA air toxics program was for 2015 and 2O16.10 There is no
other identified recent analysis of monitored Colorado HAPs concentrations. Prior to undertaking
additional HAPs monitoring, it is recommended that: 1) existing HAPs monitoring data be reviewed and
analyzed, and 2) a HAPs monitoring network assessment be conducted for the existing and known
future HAPs monitoring network to identify if monitoring gaps exist.
bttos://www.sLta.SSriJ".eYtS'91L1`ilS�iLSiSKt m ntsl Q2,Z-04tm grand rL: cd.:. 202107j{f
ht ns: lintarorado.gOlsites/default[Otestdocwnents/2021M4illSC2Q23s111$9 mr.odl
h1tridd_www.e gusvI grinffilealdosument.02L.07/2015-2016-nnv-renort-506.adf
RAMB LL
FACT SHEET
Federal Air Toxics Regulation
Air Toxics under the Federal Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 established the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) to protect public health and environment from toxic or hazardous air pollutants (HAP, also
known as air toxics or toxic air contaminants). The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 rewrote
Section 112 to establish federal programs to implement technology -based standards to reduce Air Toxics
to maximum extent practicable for large sources and small, numerous sources deemed significant to
public health. Moreover, this section required the establishment of health -based standards for HAP and
routine risk analyses to evaluate residual risk to human health. Finally, this section requires sources of
HAP to prevent, detect, and prepare for catastrophic releases of HAP.
Air Toxics are chemical or metal pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious
health effects (including reproductive effects or birth defects), or to cause adverse environmental effects.
The 1990 CAAA instructed the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to work with state, local, and
tribal governments to reduce air emissions of 189 HAPs as specified in the CAA. This list was initially drawn
up by Congress and has been minimally amended over the years to the current list of 188 HAPs'. Section
112 presumes in favor of regulation for designated chemicals unless USEPA or a petitioner determines
that there is "adequate data on health."
Technology -Based Standards
The CAA requires that USEPA regulate HAPs in two phases. USEPA first establishes technology -based
standards for controlling the emissions of air toxics from sources in an industry group or (or "source
categories") to the maximum extent possible taking into account cost and other non -air quality factors.
These Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for new sources must be no less
stringent than the most stringent emissions level that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
source, and no less stringent than the top -performing 12°x6 of similar sources for existing sources that is
already being achieved by the controlled and low -emitting sources in an industry. Further, the CAA
requires USEPA to conduct a risk and technology review (RTR) to evaluate and revise the standards every
8 years, if necessary, to account for improvements in air pollution controls or revisions to health -based
standards. Under this rule, the USEPA has also established standards for small or "area sources" of HAP
(such as gas stations, dry cleaners, and asphalt plants) that collectively present a threat to public health or
environment'. USEPA can impose less stringent "generally available" standards instead of "maximum
extent" standards for these sources. There are 164 MACT standards for major and area sources
promulgated under 40 CFR Part 63, and more are under development.
Grounding Health -Based Standards in Scientific Methods
The CAA directed USEPA to employ the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and its National Research
Council (N RC) to establish a risk assessment methodology and created a Risk Assessment and
Management Commission to investigate and report on appropriate use of risk assessment frameworks
and their implications on policy. The NRC 1994 publication"', along with its more recent 2009 and 2017
RAMB LL
publications''" on risk assessment and 2012 publication"' on exposure science, provide basic and advanced
methods for performing risk assessment, which should be the foundation of any health -based standards.
The CAA further charged USEPA to set standards to protect health and environment as well as investigate
and report to Congress on methods of calculating the risk to public health remaining after emission
standards are set. This report, the Residual Risk report," outlines scientifically defensible methods for
performing human health risk assessments, the health significance of the residual risk to nearby residents
(to the extent that the studies inform this), technologically and commercially available methods and the
cost of reducing those residual risks, risks presented by background concentrations of HAPs, any negative
health or environmental consequences of efforts to reduce residual risk, and recommendations to
Congress about legislation regarding that residual risk. Importantly, the health standards are to be
grounded in scientifically acceptable risk assessment, which include assessment of (1) hazards
identification, (2) exposure assessment, (3) dose -response assessment, and (4) risk assessment.
The Residual Risk report outlines impacts of residual risks and recommends legislation to address them.
Barring such legislation, USEPA is then required to issue standards for subject source categories to protect
public health and environment with an ample margin of safety to prevent adverse health or
environmental impacts. A residual risk standard is required for any source emitting a cancer -causing
pollutant that poses an added risk greater than 1 in one million. Residual risk standards are due eight
years after promulgation of a MACT standard, and implementation is required within 90 days.
Catastrophic Releases
Finally, Section 112(r) addresses the prevention and mitigation of sudden, catastrophic releases of HAP
from facilities that contain over threshold quantities of HAP or other materials deemed a risk to public
health or environment. The ensuing regulation". requires subject facilities to develop and implement a
Risk Management Plan (RMP) that identifies release scenarios, implements prevention and mitigation for
those scenarios, and provides for emergency notification and response. Compliance with these plans is
inspected annually by USEPA or states with delegated authority, and facility operators are required to
audit and update their plans every 3 years.
USEPA Air Toxics Policy, Strategy and Risk Framework"
The USEPA air toxics strategy'" lays out how the federal and state/local efforts can coordinate. Although
this strategy is not required, the framework of 1) identification and prioritization of air toxics issues, 2) air
toxics data analytics, 3) management and mitigation of air toxics, and 4) outreach and implementation
may serve as a useful background for how other states approach HAP regulation. Importantly, this
strategy is intended to provide a framework for delegated state authorities to implement air toxics
programs that augment, not supplant, the CAA's NESHAP program.
References
' 42 USC §7412(b)
"The complete list of area source standards is available at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-
pollution/national-emissions-standards-hazardous-ai r -pollutants -area -source
"' National Research Council. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. National Academy Press. 1994.
RAMB LL
'" National Research Council. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. National Academy Press.
2009.
"National Research Council. Using 21' Century Science to Improve Risk -Related Evaluations. National
Academy Press. 2017.
National Research Council. Exposure Science in the 215` Century. National Academy Press. 2012.
"" USEPA. Residual Risk Report to Congress. EPA -452/R-99-001. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS). 1999. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/risk_rep.pdf
""' 40 CFR §68 Chemical Accident Prevention
x https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2O21-
04/documents/oagps air toxics strategy public facing document final.ndf
Hello