1 of 56

Proposed Air Quality Regulations Updates

Amber Stowell and Beth Pilson

Air Pollution Control Division

November/December 2023

2 of 56

Rule Being Discussed

5 CCR 1001-11: Regulation 9

Focus: Open Burning, Prescribed Fire, and Permitting.

Adopted: 05/21/20

Effective: 07/15/20

Outlines who needs a burn permit, when, and for what.
Outlines different types of burn permits.
Outlines permit fees, requirements, and application process.

3 of 56

APCD’s Open Burning Program

General open burning permits

Permits are typically only issued for the burning of yard waste and slash (natural materials)
Permits are issued for small burns (piles that do not exceed 8’x8’x8’)
Permits are for private users for non-commercial burning
The General Open Burning Program is separate from the Division’s Smoke Management Program (larger burns) that Regulation Number 9 also encompasses

4 of 56

General Open Burning Program’s proposed revision

Clarification that the Division can issue burn permits for matter outside of natural materials on a case-by-case basis:

Regulation Number 9 currently outlines only natural wood, leaves, dry prairie grass, slash and weeds are permissible to be burned
Occasional situations exist in which it is appropriate and necessary for the Division to approve applications proposing the burning of other materials

5 of 56

Proposed rule language

The language being proposed at this time has been added to the end of the sentence in Section IV.B.3 of Regulation 9:

Only natural wood, leaves, dry prairie grass, slash and weeds may be burned, unless approved by the Division or an authorized local agency as specified in the relevant permit

6 of 56

Examples of other materials

United States flags for proper disposal by burning per 4 U.S. Code 8.k

Some examples of entities that utilize this code are Boy Scout troops and American Legions

Animal carcasses that result from an all-hazards event (blizzard, flood or tornado) or that result from any disease-related mass deaths of livestock
Open-air cremations

7 of 56

Get Involved

On Nov. 16, 2023, the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) granted the Division’s request to hold a rulemaking hearing on the proposed change to Regulation Number 9. The hearing is slated to be in February 2024.

Submit written comments to: cdphe.aqcc-comments@state.co.us

Learn more and sign up to provide oral public comments:

Thank you!

8 of 56

HB22-1244 Community Meeting on Phase 2 Toxic Air Contaminant Monitoring Site Locations

November 14, 2023

December 9, 2023

9 of 56

Goals of this meeting

9

Overview of HB22-1244 and monitoring program

Present site selection process

Get input on our process and proposed sites

10 of 56

What is HB22-1244 and What Does it Do?

10

Toxic air contaminants (TACs) reporting

Health based standards for priority air toxics

Air toxics emission control regulations

Air Toxics permitting needs assessment program

Air toxics monitoring program

TACs = Air Toxics

11 of 56

What is HB22-1244 and What Does it Do?

11

Toxic air contaminants (TACs) reporting

Health based standards for priority air toxics

Air toxics emission control regulations

Air toxics permitting needs assessment program

TACs = Air Toxics

Air toxics monitoring program

12 of 56

What’s Required in the Monitoring Program?

12

Each site location must measure all air toxics listed in this

technical assistance document used in a national EPA program

About the EPA Program

National Air Toxics Trends Program

Variety of analytical tools to measure required toxic air compounds

Establishes long term trends

Colorado has 1 site in Grand Junction

5

Map of National EPA Program Sites in USA

13 of 56

EPA National & 1244 Monitoring Programs

Operational for 20 years
Well established analytical methods
Well established data quality objectives
19 required compounds, additional 42 “highly desired” but not required

1244 Monitoring Program Differs Slightly

Required to measure all 61 compounds
Colorado specific long term trends
Disproportionately impacted community monitoring requirements

13

Grand Junction Shelter

How do they relate?

EPA Air Toxics Program = Framework

So, how are these 2 air toxics monitoring programs related? As previously mentioned, the NATTS program provides the framework for the collection, analysis and evaluation of the generated data. Many sites in the network have been operating for approximately 20 years, using proven analytical methods and detailed data quality objectives. There are both urban and rural sites in the network. Urban concentration data are needed to address the range of population exposures across and within urban areas. Conversely, rural concentration data are needed for characterizations of exposures of non-urban populations, to establish non-source impacted concentrations, and to better assess environmental impacts of emissions of air toxics. Long term monitoring needed to measure average concentrations over successive 3-year periods requires that sites are maintained at, or in very close proximity to, their current location. This long term data generation from each monitoring site is integral to discerning trends in air toxics concentrations.

The NATTS and 1244 programs differ in that the NATTS program is required to measure only 19 Tier 1 compounds from the list in the Technical Assistance Document, while the 1244 program requires the measurement of all 61 compounds on the list. While the remaining Tier 2 compounds are not required by the NATTS program, they are classified as highly desired data. Colorado’s NATTS site has been measuring for all 61 compounds on the list, in addition to many more that are not listed. Another difference in the programs is found in the specific requirement that the 1244 sites must provide monitoring in disproportionally impacted communities.

14 of 56

What’s Required in the Monitoring Program?

14

Establish 6 Air Toxics Monitoring Sites

Determine long term trends

Located in both urban and rural areas

Prioritize disproportionately impacted (DI) communities

Timeline

Phase I - 3 sites by January 1, 2024

Phase II - 3 sites by July 1, 2025

15 of 56

Identifying Site Locations is Very Complex

15

Criteria we are balancing include:

Capturing emissions from all sources impacting air quality in a community

Providing air quality information for the greatest number of residents

Is geographically representative across the state

Prioritizes disproportionately impacted communities

Is logistically possible

16 of 56

Monitoring Region Identification

16

LEGEND

17 of 56

Monitoring Region Identification

17

LEGEND

Urban

Rural

18 of 56

Monitoring Region Identification

18

LEGEND

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Urban

Disproportionately Impacted Urban

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Rural

Disproportionately Impacted Rural

19 of 56

Monitoring Region Identification

19

LEGEND

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Urban

Disproportionately Impacted Urban

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Rural

Disproportionately Impacted Rural

Reported Emissions

(colored by emissions sum lbs/yr)

20 of 56

Monitoring Region Identification

20

LEGEND

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Urban

Disproportionately Impacted Urban

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Rural

Disproportionately Impacted Rural

Reported Emissions

(colored by emissions sum lbs/yr)

21 of 56

Let’s Take a POLL

21

22 of 56

Monitoring Site Prioritization

22

How can we prioritize site locations with so many different possible regions of expected emissions, and only 6 monitoring sites?

Use a data driven approach

We welcome your feedback on how we’ve chosen to prioritize site locations!

23 of 56

Phase I Recap

23

How can we prioritize site locations with so many different possible regions of expected emissions, and only 6 monitoring sites?

Factors to Evaluate - Phase I

Logistics
Estimated Risk

Health: cancer, respiratory
Exposure: stationary emissions
Population: sensitivity, density

DI community prioritization
Geographical representativeness
Population representativeness

First, I want to take a moment to recognize that many of you on this call tonight also attended the Phase 1 meetings last year. I’d like to thank you all for your time and input on this process. We couldn’t make this happen without your help! Before moving into the Phase 2 process, I want to recap what was done in Phase 1, and remind everyone where those sites are located.

For Phase 1, logistics were a major factor in determining locations due to the shorter amount of time allotted to establish the first 3 sites. The second major driver was the estimated risk values, which took into account health, exposure and populations factors. Following the risk driver were the requirements for prioritizing disproportionately impacted communities, and ensuring geographical and population representativeness.

24 of 56

Phase I Recap

24

LEGEND

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Urban

Disproportionately Impacted Urban

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Rural

Disproportionately Impacted Rural

Reported Emissions

(colored by emissions sum lbs/yr)

Phase I Site Location

Areas Identified for Monitoring in Phase 2

Areas with Monitoring in Development

With the factors from the previous slide in mind, three areas were identified as locations for Phase 1 sites. These sites are indicated by the white arrows on the map. The hot spot areas these sites are associated with are now indicated by green circles, while the other areas of interest are still indicated by the yellow circles.

The site in Grand Junction has been fully operational since 2004. The site in Commerce City has some equipment installed and operating, but is still in development for the additional equipment required. The rural Platteville site development has been more challenging than initially anticipated. Upon reaching out to the landowners for permission to expand our monitoring footprint there, we were informed that the land was going to be sold and we would need to remove everything. Working with our partners in Weld County, we were able to quickly identify another location in the area that met our needs. As a result, we are building this site from the ground up, instead of adding additional equipment as initially planned. Development is on track to meet the deadline of January 1, 2024.

As you can see in this slide, although 3 sites have been identified, there are still many more areas across the state in need of monitoring representation.

25 of 56

Monitoring Site Prioritization

25

How can we prioritize site locations with so many different possible regions of expected emissions, and only 3 remaining monitoring sites?

22

Factors to Evaluate - Phase II

Expanded Estimated Risk

Health: cancer, respiratory
Exposure: stationary and mobile emissions
Population: sensitivity, density
Secondary Pollutants: PM and Ozone

DI community prioritization
Geographical representativeness
Population representativeness
Logistics

26 of 56

What risk factors should we consider?

26

Monitoring Site Prioritization

Predicted health risks

Air toxics emissions
Population factors
Other pollutants

27 of 56

Monitoring Site Prioritization

27

How do we evaluate these risk factors?

We use publicly available tools that incorporate Air Toxics

Predicted health risk - EPA’s AirToxScreen
Emissions- Colorado’s EnviroScreen and EPA’s 2019 Emissions modeling platform
Population factors - Colorado’s EnviroScreen
Secondary pollutant concentrations – EPA’s Remote Sensing Information Gateway

28 of 56

Monitoring Site Prioritization

28

LEGEND

29 of 56

Monitoring Site Prioritization

29

LEGEND

Reported Emissions

30 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

30

LEGEND

(colored by emissions sum lbs/yr)

Phase 1 sites

Reported Emissions

Areas Identified for Monitoring in Phase 2

Areas with Monitoring in Development

31 of 56

Monitoring Site Prioritization

31

How can we prioritize site locations with so many different possible regions of expected emissions, and only 4 remaining monitoring sites?

Factors to Evaluate - Phase II

Expanded Estimated Risk

Health: cancer, respiratory
Exposure: stationary and mobile emissions
Population: sensitivity, density
Secondary Pollutants: PM and Ozone

DI community prioritization
Geographical representativeness
Population representativeness
Logistics

32 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

32

LEGEND

Phase 1 sites

Proposed Site A

Proposed Site A – Jefferson County

Phase II Area of Interest

33 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

33

LEGEND

Current ground monitoring network sites

Proposed Site A – Jefferson County

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Site near 32^nd Ave and Wadsworth Blvd.

Phase II Area of Interest

Phase 1 site

Zooming in on the map we see the targeted area of interest in the red circle. The green balloons on this map show the locations of other CDPHE criteria pollutant monitoring sites. The white arrow indicates the location of a phase 1 site. Although there are other monitoring sites in the area, none are sampling for air toxics compounds. The area in the red circle was identified as an area of interest based on the high level of risk, the pollutant source type, and the lack of any monitors near the circle border. The primary source attribution for the area is point source.

The white balloon inside the circle marks the location of an intersection near a tentatively identified potential monitoring site, based on a Google Maps inspection, and conditionally meeting NATTS siting requirements. It is important to note that the proposed location could change based on a number of factors such as logistics, inability to negotiate land use, not meeting siting criteria on closer inspection, and so on. Should that be the case, all efforts will be made to secure a different location inside the area of interest.

34 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

34

LEGEND

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Urban Disproportionately Impacted Urban

Current ground monitoring network sites

Proposed Site A – Jefferson County

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Site near 32^nd Ave and Wadsworth Blvd.

Phase II Area of Interest

Phase 1 site

35 of 56

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Sites

35

Site #	Location	Estimated Risk	Urban/Rural	DI
A	Jefferson County	Higher	Urban	Yes

Does this site meet our criteria?

Does it prioritize estimated risk?
Does it prioritize DI communities?
Geographically representative?
Populationally representative?
Is it logistically possible?

Potentially

36 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

36

LEGEND

Phase 1 sites

Proposed Site B

Proposed Site B – El Paso County

Phase II Area of Interest

37 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

37

LEGEND

Current ground monitoring network site

Proposed Site B – El Paso County

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Site near Palmer Park Dr. and N. Circle Blvd.

Phase II Area of Interest

Zooming in here we see the targeted area of interest in the red circle. Again, the green balloon on this map shows the location of another CDPHE criteria pollutant monitoring site. Although there is another monitoring site in the area, it is not sampling for air toxics compounds. The area in the red circle was identified as an area of interest based on the high level of risk, and no monitoring sites within 2 miles of the highest risk area. The white balloon inside the circle marks the location of an intersection near a tentatively identified potential monitoring site, based on a Google Maps inspection, and conditionally meeting NATTS siting requirements. It is important to note that the proposed location could change based on a number of factors such as logistics, inability to negotiate land use, not meeting siting criteria on closer inspection, and so on. Should that be the case, all efforts will be made to secure a different location inside the area of interest.

38 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

38

LEGEND

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Urban Disproportionately Impacted Urban

Current ground monitoring network site

Proposed Site B – El Paso County

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Site near Palmer Park Dr. and N. Circle Blvd.

Phase II Area of Interest

39 of 56

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Sites

39

Site #	Location	Estimated Risk	Urban/Rural	DI
A	Jefferson County	Higher	Urban	Yes
B	El Paso County	Higher	Urban	Yes

Does this site meet our criteria?

Does it prioritize estimated risk?
Does it prioritize DI communities?
Geographically representative?
Populationally representative?
Is it logistically possible?

Potentially

40 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

40

LEGEND

Phase 1 sites

Proposed Site C

Proposed Site C – Pueblo County

Phase II Area of Interest

41 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

41

LEGEND

Current ground monitoring network site

Proposed Site C – Pueblo County

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Site near S. Aspen Rd. and Taos Rd.

Phase II Area of Interest

Zooming in a bit we see the targeted area of interest in the red circle. Again, the green balloon on this map shows the location of another CDPHE criteria pollutant monitoring site. Although there is another monitoring site in the area, it is not sampling for air toxics compounds. The area in the red circle was identified as the area of interest based on the high level of risk. The white balloon inside the circle marks the location of an intersection near a tentatively identified potential monitoring site, based on a Google Maps inspection, and conditionally meeting NATTS siting requirements. It is important to note that the proposed location could change based on a number of factors such as logistics, inability to negotiate land use, not meeting siting criteria on closer inspection, and so on. Should that be the case, all efforts will be made to secure a different location inside the area of interest.

42 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

42

LEGEND

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Urban Disproportionately Impacted Urban

Current ground monitoring network site

Proposed Site C – Pueblo County

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Site near S. Aspen Rd. and Taos Rd.

Phase II Area of Interest

43 of 56

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Sites

43

Site #	Location	Estimated Risk	Urban/Rural	DI
A	Jefferson County	Higher	Urban	Yes
B	El Paso County	Higher	Urban	Yes
C	Pueblo County	Higher	Urban	Yes

Does this site meet our criteria?

Does it prioritize estimated risk?
Does it prioritize DI communities?
Geographically representative?
Populationally representative?
Is it logistically possible?

Potentially

44 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

44

LEGEND

Phase 1 sites

Proposed Site D

Proposed Site D – Fremont County

Phase II Area of Interest

45 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

45

Proposed Site D – Fremont County

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Site near College Ave. and 12^th St.

Phase II Area of Interest

Zooming in a bit we see the targeted area of interest in the red circle. There are no other air quality monitoring sites in the area. The area in the red circle was identified as an area of interest based on the moderate level of risk, the topography of the area, and the primary emissions source being wood smoke. This area lies in a mountain “bowl” that is representative of similar meteorological conditions as those seen in small mountain towns throughout the state. Learning more about the air toxics emissions involved with this type of source can help inform future regulations.

The white balloon inside the circle marks the location of an intersection near a tentatively identified potential monitoring site, based on a Google Maps inspection, and conditionally meeting NATTS siting requirements. It is important to note that the proposed location could change based on a number of factors such as logistics, inability to negotiate land use, not meeting siting criteria on closer inspection, and so on. Should that be the case, all efforts will be made to secure a different location inside the area of interest.

46 of 56

Phase II Monitoring Sites Identification

46

LEGEND

Non-Disproportionately Impacted Rural Disproportionately Impacted Rural

Proposed Site D – Fremont County

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Site near College Ave. and 12^th St.

Phase II Area of Interest

47 of 56

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Sites

47

Site #	Location	Estimated Risk	Urban/Rural	DI
A	Jefferson County	Higher	Urban	Yes
B	El Paso County	Higher	Urban	Yes
C	Pueblo County	Higher	Urban	Yes
D	Fremont County	Moderate	Rural	Yes

Does this site meet our criteria?

Does it prioritize estimated risk?
Does it prioritize DI communities?
Geographically representative?
Populationally representative?
Is it logistically possible?

Potentially

48 of 56

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Sites

48

LEGEND

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Sites

Phase II Proposed Site Locations

49 of 56

Goals of this meeting

49

Provide overview of HB22-1244 and the monitoring program requirements

Present site selection process

Get input on our process and proposed sites

50 of 56

Phase I and Phase II Sites

50

LEGEND

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Sites

Phase I Sites in development

Additional factors considered in Phase II site selection:

Additional sources (mobile, smoke, etc.)
Potential exposure to secondary products (PM, Ozone)
Updated emission inventory and risk information

51 of 56

Phase I and Proposed Phase II Monitoring Sites

51

Site #	Location	Estimated Risk	Urban/Rural	DI
1	Weld County	Higher	Rural	Bordering
2	Adams County	Higher	Urban	Yes
3	Mesa County	Moderate	Urban	Bordering
A	Jefferson County	Higher	Urban	Yes
B	El Paso County	Higher	Urban	Yes
C	Pueblo County	Higher	Urban	Yes
D	Fremont County	Moderate	Rural	Yes

52 of 56

Phase I and Phase II Sites

52

LEGEND

Proposed Phase II Monitoring Sites

Phase I Sites in development

We welcome your input!

53 of 56

Questions?

53

54 of 56

Goals of this meeting

54

Provide overview of HB22-1244 and the monitoring program requirements

Present site selection process

Get input on our process and proposed sites

55 of 56

Formal Comment Period Open November 14, 2023 - January 5, 2024

Please send comments to

https://cdphe.commentinput.com/?id=UY5bPEC9k

55

56 of 56

56

Thank you for your time, attention, and input.

We greatly appreciate it!