Colorado’s new air toxics regulations would impact oil and gas, waste management industries
Loretta Lohman
Colorado’s new air toxics regulations would impact oil and gas, waste management industries
State air regulators’ plan will need legislative approval during a tight budget year
Colorado regulators are working on a new permitting system for five toxic air pollutants that will cost millions of dollars to implement — a plan that will need legislative approval during a tight budget year.
The state’s Air Quality Control Commission earlier this year approved the five toxics the state should monitor, and this month set health-based standards to determine exactly how much of each of those toxics in the air puts people at a higher risk for cancer, asthma, reproductive health problems and other illnesses.
Now, the state agency that creates the rules is drafting a proposal detailing how the state should write and enforce the permits that industries, including oil and gas, need to operate.
Industry leaders expect they will pay for the new regulations through fees as the legislature figures out how to cut nearly $1 billion in spending, said Carly West, executive director of the American Petroleum Institute Colorado.
“The budget is going to play in every decision they make in the coming year,” West said. “There absolutely will be a state cost, and I will not be surprised if it’s a fee-based regulation.”
Environmental advocates say the new regulation of air toxics, which was required under a 2022 bill called Public Protections From Toxic Air Contaminants, will make the state’s air cleaner and its people healthier.
“This is an opportunity for Colorado to protect community members from toxic air contaminants that aren’t being regulated at the federal level,” said Rachael Jaffe, an associate attorney at Earthjustice who is working on the policy. “All of these have hefty health impacts.”
In January, the Air Quality Control Commission, which establishes regulatory policy for polluters, identified the five pollutants that would be newly regulated in the state:
- Benzene, a carcinogen released when fossil fuels are burned, including in car exhaust and oil and gas extraction and production. It is also created by cement manufacturing, waste disposal and wood burning. Acute exposure may cause drowsiness, dizziness and headaches, as well as eye, skin and respiratory tract irritation, and unconsciousness at high levels. Chronic inhalation has caused cancer, various blood disorders and affects women’s reproductive organs, the Environmental Protection Agency has reported.
- Formaldehyde, a colorless, odorless gas used in household products, wood-product manufacturing and from burning fossil fuels. It causes skin, eye, nose and throat irritation and can cause cancer with high exposure levels.
- Ethylene oxide, which is used to make products such as antifreeze, textiles, adhesives, plastics and detergents. It’s used to sterilize medical equipment, including at Terumo BTC in Lakewood. It causes cancers in humans, including lymphoma, myeloma, leukemia and breast cancer.
- Hexavalent chromium, a by-product of industrial processes such as metal fabricating and burning coal for electricity. It can leak into water systems and into the air. It can cause cancer and impact the respiratory system, kidneys, liver, skin and eyes, the EPA’s website says.
- Hydrogen sulfide, highly toxic gas that smells like rotten eggs. It is released by wastewater treatment facilities, meat processing facilities, petroleum refining, manufacturing of asphalt and roofing material, and places where large quantities of manure are stored. It can cause people to pass out due to high exposure. Low exposure can cause headaches, memory loss, balance problems and fatigue. It is not considered a carcinogen, but data is limited on how it affects children’s health or women’s reproductive health, according to the EPA.
On Sept. 19, the commission approved health-based standards for those five air toxics, which establishes the baseline for how much of each contaminant can be in the air without making people sick. The new benchmarks have standards based on cancer risks and non-cancer risks.
Environmentalists and industry representatives agreed that the Air Quality Control Commission used science-based evidence to formulate the new standards. The big question, though, will be how those standards are used in issuing permits and enforcing the law, West said.
“This is a really important step in the process,” she said. “That’s when we will see it start to translate into what those benchmarks will mean. It could be a modest impact or a large impact.”
During a public hearing Wednesday, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Air Pollution Control Division presented a draft plan on how the air toxics will be permitted.
The division must file its report to the Colorado General Assembly by Dec. 31, and regulators expect it will need legislative approval because it could cost the state between $3.7 million to $10.7 million, depending on which of the three potential plans legislators adopt, according to a presentation from Laura Newman, the division’s construction permitting and permit modeling program manager.
The division did not include recommendations on how the state would pay for the permitting program.
The new program will affect more than 3,000 businesses in Colorado, with the oil and gas industry being the most impacted because fossil fuel extraction and burning emit tons of air pollution.
Colorado’s air regulators are proposing four options for which businesses would need permits.
One option would require universal permitting, meaning every business that emits the five toxics would need a permit, and another proposal would require universal permitting with some exceptions. A third option would require permitting only in areas where people are exposed to the toxics at higher rates than other parts of the state, and the final option would require permitting for the five toxics for companies that already must have air-pollution permits, according to Newman’s presentation.
The more companies required to apply for permits would mean the state would need to hire enough people to process those permits, inspect sites and enforce violations. Hence, the costs.
The division’s research shows “that the most affected industry would likely be the oil and gas extraction, followed by pipeline transportation, gasoline stations, utilities and then waste management,” Newman said.
Multiple people who attended the public meeting urged the air division to regulate as many polluters as possible and to require facilities that already release high levels of toxics to reduce their emissions, especially in neighborhoods where polluters operate, which typically are in areas populated by lower-income residents and minorities.
“We have to cast a broad net, and given our poor air quality here, we need to catch all the polluting sources that we can,” said Elizabeth Smith, who identified herself as a Wheat Ridge resident and as someone who suffers from asthma.
Get more Colorado news by signing up for our Mile High Roundup email newsletter.
Loretta Lohman
Trump’s administration can’t grasp that some American lands should remain wild, without roads or logging (Opinion)
The Roadless Rule that the Trump administration wants to eliminate has not been controversial for 24 years because it is grounded in common sense. Stirring up needless fights over public lands is more about smoke and mirrors than wise management.
The Forest Service manages about 194 million acres. About 58 million acres of national forest are relatively undeveloped. These lands are remote, rocky and rugged, defined by what they don’t have — roads. They’re mostly accessed by trail, except in winter when they might be approached with snowmobiles.
Since the Clinton administration, these roadless lands have largely been left alone under the policy called the Roadless Rule. No one has complained, as there is plenty of work to do elsewhere. Leeway for management was written into the Roadless Rule, allowing the U.S. Forest Service to manage roadless areas where conditions merit. So why is the current administration so eager to rehash pointless battles?
I’m scratching my head. Perhaps this and other moves take our attention away from the current purges, budget and staff cuts that have left the agency in shambles. Perhaps the political appointees at the head of the Forest Service are themselves stuck in the past, trying to drive forward by looking in the rearview mirror. In any case, there is a wiser way forward.
That is: Stop creating controversy where none exists. This September, the public was given just 21 days to weigh in on repealing the rule. The response demonstrated that no one is asking for the changes the administration is pushing. Over 99% of the 183,000 comments submitted argued against removing the public land protection for roadless lands, according to the Center for Western Priorities, which evaluated the response.
The many conservationists who defend roadless areas tend to do so because these often-remote areas of our national forest are fine as they are and need to be left alone. They provide world-class wildlife habitat, havens for recreation and clean water.
During the Clinton Administration of the 1990s, the Forest Service created an administrative rule that basically said it would no longer build new roads into pristine forests, focusing instead on maintaining its existing backlog of 370,000 miles of roads. Any frequent visitor to our national forests will tell you that too many of these roads are fraught with ruts, deadfalls and washouts.
High elevation roadless areas never had roads built through them for the simple reason that it’s grossly impractical to build roads there. To do so would require massive government subsidies — first to build the roads and then to maintain them after floods, wildfire or freezing wipes them away.
The administration’s attempt to rescind the Roadless Rule of 2001 is basically a distraction. It takes us away from dealing with the long and time-sensitive “to do” list that hangs over the Forest Service–managing wildfires, clearing trails, fighting flammable weeds, fixing access roads.
Likewise, the extensive trail system of the Forest Service badly needs tender loving care, as do its campgrounds and other infrastructure. Foresters will tell you that many of our national forests have become overgrown because of generations of fire suppression. They need selective logging. But the practical place to begin addressing that expensive but crucial need is at the interface of wildlands and developed lands.
Idaho, a Republican state with more roadless lands than just about any other state, decided to do its own analysis of roadless lands during the 1990s. Idaho found it was fiscal folly to build roads on 99 percent of Idaho’s roadless lands. For context, the review revealed that Idaho roadless areas support some of the state’s best big game hunting, while also providing cold, clear water that native trout, salmon and steelhead need to spawn.
The roadless lands also tended to be poor at growing trees. Idaho’s review even called for stricter protections of some of its roadless lands than what was provided by the Clinton Administration.
Most Americans want our national forests to be well managed and open for people to enjoy. Roads are an important part of that. But pushing to build new roads in our most rugged areas is a fool’s errand. Let’s restore the national forests, trails and access roads that for too long we’ve allowed to deteriorate.
Ben Long is an outdoorsman, conservationist and longtime contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He lives in Kalispell, Montana.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
