At its monthly meeting on October 17, 2023, the Broomfield Council made a impactful and unfortunate decision on their air quality monitoring programs during a Special Study session: They decided not to renew the 2024 contract with Boulder AIR, but instead to continue its contract with Fort Collins-based Ajax Analytics. The Council’s vote was based on strongly worded directive from its city manager, Jennifer Hoffman.

Having learned beforehand that the Council would be voting on this matter, a member of the Larimer Alliance signed up to speak during the public comment period in support of continuing the Boulder AIR contract. The recording of the meeting can be seen here:

City Council Special Meeting and Study Session – October 17, 2023

The Larimer Alliance has carefully reviewed the recording of that meeting, which appears below. A quick summary of the upshot of the meeting follows.  We believe this was an ill advised decision that is relevant beyond Broomfield, affecting thousands of citizens in the Northern Colorado Front Range. Therefore, it deserves the attention of the broader environmental community that is concerned about the dire state of our regional air quality.

(Note: Because the term is used so often below, Air Quality is abbreviated as AQ.)

A Summary of the Council Special Meeting

Here is the upshot of what happened at this nearly two-hour long meeting, which ended in several votes by Council after the staff and city manager gave a detailed, but not exhaustive, presentation:

• The Broomfield Council was led to believe, by city staff and the city manager on their word alone, that the data collected by Ajax  is of equal quality to the data collected by Boulder AIR.
• There was no hard data provided to back up this assurance of data quality.
• The Broomfield staff and city manager also indicated to Council that state agencies have begun to use Ajax Analytics technology in preference over Boulder AIR technology, which the Larimer Alliance does not believe is the case.
• Despite almost four years of successful operation, the Boulder AIR’s AQ monitoring contract for 2024 was not renewed.
• Ajax  AQ monitoring contract for 2024 was renewed. 

It is due to the lack of information, and uncertainties produced by the staff and manager’s presentation, that we felt the need to speak out.

What Is Wrong With This Picture?

Broomfield staff and the city manager asserted without proof that Ajax Analytics data would be comparable to Boulder AIR data. Ajax Analytic systems uses screening tool-type monitoring sensors with trigger canister sampling.  These methods and technologies have never been audited nor accepted by the EPA.  In contrast, Boulder AIR data follows regulatory grade protocols, Boulder AIR monitors have been audited and accepted by the EPA since the started operating in 2017 at the Boulder Reservoir.

There was no solid evidence brought forth showing the comparable performance of Ajax  to Boulder AIR technology. In fact, it is well known by Broomfield residents that there have been numerous problems with Ajax equipment. One simple comparison can be made that clearly shows this: the number of valid VOC samples that were analyzed by the two systems in 2023. The Boulder AIR sampling program has been collecting data on many concerning pollutants that include ozone, methane, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxides, fine and coarse particulate matter, and over 14,000 VOCs samples per year, all at high accuracy.  Ajax monitoring provides screening grade indicator for total VOC only.  Their canister sampling collected some 280 samples last year:  a mere 2% of the Boulder AIR program.  Boulder AIR’s monitoring identified 22 oil and gas well pad emissions events, compared to 8 valid events reported by Ajax.

In reaction to the inconceivable recommendation by Broomfield City staff and  the Broomfield Council vote, a Broomfield resident started an online petition in mid-December 2023, calling on the Council to seek objective information and revisit its decision.  That petition can be seen (and signed) here:

BETTER AQM (AIR QUALITY MONITORING) IN BROOMFIELD

The air monitoring and air quality research that has been provided by Boulder AIR for local Front Range Governments over the past five years has been instrumental in developing a much-improved understanding of regional air pollution sources, air pollution transport and air quality and health impacts. Local governments and policy makers have been heavily relying on this information for drafting and passing stricter air pollution policies that have benefited all of Colorado citizens. 

The Larimer Alliance additionally comments here that a fundamental reason why local communities felt the need to invest in reliable local AQ monitoring technology was because they had lost confidence in their state agencies. The data, or lack thereof, that was forthcoming from the APCD or the CDPHE  during ongoing struggles with getting information from them by the pubic at large is what let the various communities to contract with Boulder AIR, and control their own access to reliable AQ monitoring data. This deserves to be a significant point to remember in the evolution of this complex regional process by the state legislature, should they choose to review this article.

Recognizing the lack of capacity (or interest) of CDPHE to provide oil and gas well pad emissions monitoring, regional air monitoring and air quality research for Front Range Communities, between 2017 – 2021 Boulder Country, Longmont, Erie, and Broomfield decided to move ahead with implementing their own monitoring to inform its citizens and legislators, and to present a united and common voice at the State level promoting stricter air emissions permitting and enforcement of existing policy and more protective air emissions legislation.  Recognizing the efforts and weight of this coalition of local governments, Weld County now has also implemented its own air monitoring program.  Interestingly but not too surprisingly, given Weld County’s historic support of their oil and gas industries, but of much concern for the health interests of the Front Range communities, Weld County’s monitoring program has been used to argue against the State’s efforts to reduce pollution: see  (https://www.greeleytribune.com/2023/04/15/weld-county-officials-challenge-ozone-data-referenced-by-gov-polis-in-directives-targeting-oil-and-gas-emissions/).

It is concerning that with Weld County having become increasing vocal in defending it’s oil and gas industries, and Broomfield’s withdrawal from the Front Range’s Air monitoring coalition may weaken the position of the Front Range communities in their quest to regulate oil and gas emission and attain cleaner air.

The Larimer Alliance supports the Broomfield citizen petition; but not just for the people of Broomfield. All people in the Front Range are affected by this decision. We strongly feel this would be a disastrous decision with dramatic consequences for our state’s air quality. The quality of the data produced by Ajax Analytics monitors has never been audited, and is, we believe, vastly inferior to Boulder AIR’s data, both in quantity and quality — and therefore vastly inferior, if not totally unreliable — on which to base regulatory actions.

We join the signees of the petition and strongly encourage  Broomfield Council to not rely on the on their poorly informed staff to interpret the information for them but instead seek objective information on the AQ programs, possibly by outside experts.  PREFERABLY BY directly consulting with  the two CEOs of the two companies, Dr Helmig of Boulder AIR and Brent Buck of Ajax Analytics to explain their technology and limitations to them in another special session.

The Pathetic State of Colorado’s Air Quality…and the Pathetic Attempts to Regulate It

This decision by the Broomfield Council involves a complicated nexus of issues which requires a bit of background to fully understand. Here are the salient points:

• Emissions of VOCs and nitrogen oxides have been steadily increasing in northeast Colorado, causing a degradation of air quality throughout the regions.
• The state’s regulatory agency, CDPHE, has been negligent in fulfilling its obligation, allowing the expansion of the industry with little regulatory oversight.  Rather than relying on objective data, CDPHE has vastly relied on the self-reporting of emissions by the industry, which over and over has been shown to underestimate actual emissions, often by up to a factor of three.
• The NoCo region has been out of EPA compliance for surface level ozone since 2004.
• Surface level ozone pollution has been increasing such that the EPA downgraded the quality rating from “serious” to “severe” in 2021 (see here for more information).
• Air quality is monitored by the CDPHE in .various categories, but only a few of the station include the ozone precursor nitrogen oxides. CDPHE does not provide continuous monitoring of ozone precursor VOCs at any of their Colorado monitoring stations..
• Local jurisdictions (cities or counties) began using Boulder AIR monitoring in 2017 to gain a better understanding of what is in their air, including the ozone precursors.
• Boulder AIR monitoring stations had been installed at six locations and five jurisdictions by 2023.
• There is no clear legislation, at any level, indicating how to manage or coordinate air quality data between local, state and federal agencies.
• There is no clear legislation that spells out what to do with such data; in particular, what compliance enforcement actions that could be taken to identify and reduce or eliminate the source of the pollution.

In other words, air quality management in Colorado’s Front Range is an unclear and conflicting state of affairs, despite some mighty efforts and expense, which calls out to be addressed. It is my understanding that there will be some legislation during the upcoming 2024 session that will address this, particularly the ozone problem; but what form that will take is as yet undetermined.

Why Colorado’s AQ Regulation Is (Overly) Complicated

Colorado’s implementation of air quality programs is a spread over the following state agencies (with links to their websites):

• CDPHE – Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment
• APCD – Air Pollution Control Division, within the CDPHE
• AQCC – Air Quality Control Commission, within the CDPHE

The APCD is responsible for issuing the emission permits to companies that create air pollution from stationary locations. The purpose of the AQCC is ostensibly to “oversee Colorado’s air quality program” though its exact role, and relationship to the APCD, is murky at best. The real purpose of the AQCC appears to be political, since all four members of its commission are appointed by the governor. The only mention of their relationship to the APCD on their website says “Please do not confuse the Air Quality Control Commission with the Air Pollution Control Division.” (see here)

Without further transparency than what’s shown on their websites, it is left to the public to speculate on how decisions within these two key agencies are actually made regarding our air quality. Given the significance of AQCC commissioners being appointed by the governor, while the APCD staff is more engineering oriented, top-heavy with specific roles related to monitoring, compliance and outreach (as its detailed org chart shows), it suggests that the AQCC has the final say on air quality policy decisions. That is pure speculation on our part, but given the heavy handed treatment of this issue under the Polis administration, it seems likely.

Then the Plot Thickened….

As if this distributed nature of AQ regulation in Colorado wasn’t complicated enough, their regulatory roles were materially affected by the passage of SB-181 in May 2019, which mandated that the former COGCC (Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission), now the ECMC (Energy and Carbon Management Commission), not only regulate and monitor the wells drilled by the O&G industry, but now also protect people and the environment from said industry. The irony of the situation was not lost on members of the environmental community, which had been fighting with the COGCC for the past decade due to the environmentally malevolent, multifaceted effects of fracking.

This was a new twist for the ECMC, and was, in effect, a forced marriage with the CDPHE — which itself had no experience in regulating the O&G industry! This must have resulted, one can imagine, no small amount of confusion as the senior and middle managers within these agencies scrambled to cope with these newfound responsibilities. Because as with any sweeping law that attempts a major shift in a new direction, there will be many details that are later found lacking in its implementation. The hapless regulators can only cope as best they can when they attempt to implement the new law. Small wonder, then, that the rulemaking period for SB-181 took over a year and a half to accomplish — and even after all that effort said little or nothing to clarify the responsibilities for air quality regulation.

So, although SB-181 resulted in a complete reinvention of O&G regulation in Colorado by transforming the COGCC into the ECMC by replacing its previous appointed board with a professionally nominated one, it did little to resolve confusion over air quality monitoring and emissions enforcement. Small wonder, then, that local jurisdictions have had difficulty where in the judicial and legislative landscape they fit in. Lost in the wilderness might be an apt description.

Local AQ Data Do Not Matter to the State

The one tangible result that was an outcome of this reworking of the COGCC-to-ECMC transformation has been greater recognition of environmental injustice in the sighting of polluting industries, and the need to at least acknowledge it, if not do something meaningful about it. The Suncor facility in Commerce City was a particular focus, resulting in the creation of the Cultivando Project (see cultivando.org). The increased publicity of Suncor’s repeated air pollution violations did result in a $9 million fine that has created some additional monitoring projects. However, such a fine will hardly alter the behavior of a company with $41 billion annual revenue. But this brief spurt of increased monitoring at one facility serves as a example of regulatory failure: there has not been any real change in how the company operates. What does it matter if there is more data collected about how much pollution is generating if nothing is done about it?

In the end, in the summer of 2023 the Culitvando Project decided to stop their AQ monitoring project there (“After declining an EPA grant, a Latino-led community group ends air monitoring project near Suncor Energy”, CPR News, July 27, 2023), which should serve a stark challenge to other air monitoring projects: if there is no plan to incorporate the resulting data in on-going monitoring and enforcement actions against the guilty parties, the projects are likely to fade away — while the industry operations continue as before. This might have been the first time that an independent, community-controlled air quality data project collected data in a scientifically rigorous manner which directly contradicted what state regulators and Suncor said was happening; and still it was not enough for the state to admit it as sufficient evidence to take any action.

The Showdown in Broomfield: A Fateful Decision Is Made

All of the above information serves to show how confusing it must be for local jurisdictions to attempt to do anything meaningful with their own air quality monitoring. Since there are no legal paths for using the data to do anything legally binding, the value of the data appears to be limited to its scientific, health and political value. In other words, the industries and consumer activity that create the pollution are not even going to be identified, much less have any corrective actions taken to remedy the problem.

With this background, one can understand the sentiments and frustration expressed by the Council, its staff and the community members who made comments at the meeting. We have summarized this long meeting below to be the best of our abilities, as well providing more background information, which we hope will be useful to the community.

The high points of the meeting were:

• Broomfield staff who conducted the studies of its AQ monitoring projects did a lot of work, over several years, directed by city manager Jennifer Hoffman.
• Both monitoring systems had been in use since 2019.
• All costs had been paid for by Broomfield.
• That Broomfield has been subjected to a considerable amount of O&G drilling within and near its county limits in the recent past, resulting in a considerable amount of air pollution to the community, hence the need for accurate AQ monitoring.
• Broomfield’s air quality staff interacted quite a bit with the APCD in its research.
• The staff believes the state should be conducting and funding AQ monitoring, and is exploring other funding through DOLA, the Dept of Local Affairs (see cdola.colorado.gov).
• The decision made to stop supporting two AQ monitoring programs was made mostly on the basis of cost to taxpayers, not harm to community health.
• Jennifer Hoffman, the city manager, simply requested the Council to adopt the conclusions she and their staff arrived at, leaving no opening for further discussion or investigation.
• There was no discussion of the comparative AQ monitoring technologies in question in terms of accuracy, precision, or timeliness of the data.
• There was no discussion of the comparative expertise of the two small companies in question, though both are local to the area and could have been contacted.

Other conclusions can be made after watching the recording:

• There is no provision for actions to take to cure or eliminate harmful pollutants at the source.
• There is no identification of what levels of pollutants that are harmful to human health and the environment (only to “inform”)

What Was Said

Since the recording of the meeting is nearly two hours long, and because we would like to provide some context to what we say here, the notes below provide a timestamp index into what was said in the meeting. (Note: The numbers refer to hour:minutes:seconds as displayed in the recording’s timestamp) If interested, we encourage you to check our account of the recording of the meeting.

03:10 – Staff presentation begins with Renee Boulliard, the lead staff member reporting on the AQ topic. This was very detailed, somewhat technical, covering the breadth of the committee’s work from 2018 to 2023, including some specific pollution events detected by the Ajax and Boulder AIR systems.

11:30 – Staff presentation continues with Jason Vahling, director of Public Health. Described their methodology for identifying health events and dealing with them. They hired a consultant, Dr Megan Weisner, a toxicology expert. His department prepared quarterly updates on health concerns, which are shared with the Council and the public. Had monthly meetings with the CDPHE regarding pollution events, collaborating on their methodology.

Mr Vahling described attempts to secure funding from CDPHE for AQ monitoring, which were unsuccessful. A pointed comment was made how the CDPHE will not consider local data, even if it is “reference grade”. This term was never explained, but we assume it refers to data collected from Boulder AIR stations, which maintain rigorous research standards, as the data have been used in scientific journals with high standards for publication; we believe “reference grade” also means the data can be used as evidence in legal cases. Note that Ajax Analytics data were never referred to as having this level of quality.

32:30 – The final recommendations portion of the presentation begins. Notes that in 2023 the AQ program as a whole went over budget, and therefore intended to ask the Council in Q4 2023 “…how they should proceed.”

34:45 – The recommendation to discontinue the Boulder AIR contract is made.

35:20 – Renne Bouillard demonstrates she is unfamiliar with the Boulder AIR system as she misidentifies, and mispronounces, “mass spectrometry” as the technology used in its instruments. This is not quite correct, because the heart of the measurement system is a gas chromatograph, which is utilized in conjunction with a mass spectrometer detector.

36:44 – staff presentation ends

37:09 – in-person public commentary begins (there were 2 in-person commenters: one for the staff recommendation, one was against.

41:01 – phone-in commentary by a Larimer Alliance member begins. There was a 3 minute limit, which was filled. Council was asked to support Boulder AIR, due to its superior data quality for protecting community health versus the Ajax Analytics technology.

44:08 – Kathy Swan Bogard’s commentary begins. Her testimony went over time, so the mayor had to tell her time had expired after about 4 minutes. Kathy made a strident case for the Boulder AIR technology being much better than Ajax Analytics technology, which “has had trouble from the get go.”

48:08 – Questions & comments by Council begins.

Rep. Paloma Delgadillo asks a very relevant question regarding human health, namely what levels of benzene are considered safe for human exposure. Megan Weisner’s answer, the epidemiologist consultant, seem indicated the “highest weekly values” around the “production sites” (referred to verbally, not identified by name or a visual map), was “point four six” (.46 ppb), and the “chronic” level was 3 ppb (3.0), so while there is some background benzene levels it was “trending down” to the “background levels” of .2 ppb.

Ms. Delgadillo’s next question was equally interesting: is there any way to compare the validity of Boulder AIR data versus Ajax Analytics data? Or are they even measuring the same things?

Ms Weisner responded that Ajax collects the triggered canisters and has them analyzed at a lab at CSU by PhD students working under the direction of Dr Jeff Collett (see his CSU bio here)…that they check for 49 different chemicals in that canister’s sample…and totally did not answer Ms Delgadillo’s direct question…as her answer did not mention Boulder AIR, or how their data compares to Ajax Analytics data.

51:30 – Mr Vahling did address this question, and the first words out of his mouth were that “the state is moving towards the technology that Ajax has, the PID sensors.” That “they are getting more reliance on that…the real time data…that they’re collecting.” He then characterized the data that a Boulder AIR station collects only occurs for 15 minutes, and is then “extrapolated” (a mathematical term meaning to extend in the same direction) for the rest of the hour; whereas the Ajax Analytic data is “collected in real time.” (This is a grossly incorrect misconception which is addressed below.) He closed by commenting that the state agencies are not moving towards “reference grade”, but rather are beginning to use PID technology like Ajax Analytics…and then abruptly left the podium. Again, this never answered Rep. Delgadillo’s original question.

53:03 – One last time, seemingly trying to get a straight answer out of the evasive staff, Rep. Delgadillo asked if there have been any problems at all with the Ajax Analytics system, or “has everything just been hunky-dory?”

Renee Bouillard stepped up to answer the question….which sounded like an evasive runaround, stating that their contract with Ajax has a “90 per cent SLA agreement” and that this is “really high in the industry”, and that Ajax performance has been higher than that. (An SLA means service level agreement, and is common in real time industries that do continuous monitoring, such as computer networks.) The answer was, again, evasive because it only refers to the percentage of time the system was operating, not the type, quantity or quality of the data it produced.

53:50 – The city manager, Jennifer Hoffman, then interrupted the Council by stating that she did not want this “…to be a value judgement on Ajax or Boulder AIR.” That the two systems deliver “two very different…avenues… of information…” That the “…speed with which they deliver it isn’t a value judgement from our perspective.” That she didn’t want “Boulder AIR to be seen as more reliable or less reliable…nor, uh….Ajax.” And that “It’s hard to hear from the community…that we [i.e. the Council & the manager] don’t care about community health..from a public health perspective…that we should go either direction.” This was followed by praise to the mayor (“a champion of public health”), because now they have a “team of seven…which we didn’t have in 2018…”

We are not quite sure what to make of the city manager’s comments here; but she appeared to be extemporaneously seeking a way to remove the comparative quality of the two systems, and that the timeliness of the data availability should not be used as a basis on which to evaluate the two systems. (It is rather mystifying that if you are not going to use the timeliness or the quality of the data produced by a technology, to evaluate it….then what would you use?) By removing these comparative qualities, it would make it easier to suggest to the Council to choose between the two systems based on cost and the type of system: a warning system or a community health system. This is discussed further below.

The next council member to comment was Heidi Henkel. She noted that Broomfield had been going back and forth with the CDPHE over the past four years over who should pay for AQ monitoring, and specifically what toxicity levels of benzene are acceptable; as well, she states, as other public health sources have stated, there are no “safe” levels of benzene in the human body.

The public health director, Jason Vahling, answered Ms Henkel’s question, saying the CDPHE is “not interested in funding [such a] health study.” He did touch on new legislation and its rulemaking that focuses on “impacted communities” and that the CDPHE will need to identify the specific pollutants involved there. This is sliver of information indicating how the role of the CDPHE is shifting, however slightly and slowly, towards the regulation of the O&G industry, from which they had been prohibited before now, but which the passage of SB-181 changed. However, as the director says, this will not happen until 2025(!).

Upon further questions from Ms Henkel about whether the CDPHE was willing to pay just for the data collected by the Boulder AIR stations in Broomfield, he replied, no, because the state will not accept that data as valid because such data series were not created under the Clean Air Act. Note that the EPA has been accepting Boulder AIR data into its data series for AQ Data for Outdoor Stations for some time. This contradiction in the state’s position that the EPA does not consider Boulder AIR’s data to be consistent with the EPA — when the EPA has audited Boulder AIR’s data and has been accepting it for several years — is a strikingly inconsistent position for them to take.

Ms Henkel pressed on with her questioning, and next asked about a grant that had been submitted to DOLA (see above) about funding for their Boulder AIR stations. Dr Weiner responded, saying that Broomfield is a partner on the grant application; however, the grant would be used for analyzing Boulder AIR data “to find out where the sources of ozone are coming from” (i.e. precursors), but that it would not be used for further funding of AQ monitors.

This was indeed an interesting information, and is the first time, to our knowledge, that a government employee admitted that Boulder AIR data could be used to identify “sources of ozone.”

Next, Council member James Marsh-Holschen hammered away with questions about Boulder AIR and state compliance…which was somewhat surprising to hear. The Boulder AIR monitors are not part of state compliance in any way, and have been operating in Broomfield since 2019. The health director, Mr Vahling, answered that the Boulder AIR data have been useful for advocacy purposes, in providing solid evidence that the source of their ozone non-compliance comes from Weld County.

Mr Marsh-Holschen next asked a key question: what will they lose, in terms of advocacy, if they lose their Boulder AIR monitors? Dr Weisner stepped up to answer this question, relating that she is part of an Interim Ozone Committee (interim in the sense of being between state legislative sessions), and recently participated in a presentation at the capital. She said that while both Boulder AIR and Ajax monitors measure ozone precursors, that Ajax data are more precise for what phases of O&G operations; and that they would still be “relevant in the rule-making if they no longer had Boulder AIR [data] moving forward.”

The good council member was still concerned about “losing a leverage point” if they discontinued Boulder AIR, given the progress that Broomfield had made with pushing the CDPHE to address the ozone problem; so he asked Dr Weisner directly. She answered, no, she did not think they would lose such a leverage point because the CDPHE is “moving towards the PID systems” that Broomfield has their Ajax monitors, and that they (Broomfield) “have dramatically shifted the landscape” because of this. She assured the council member that because they are part a local government group with Boulder, Erie and Longmont, which all have both Boulder AIR and Ajax monitoring systems, that if Broomfield were to drop their Boulder AIR monitors, they would still play a part with their Ajax monitors and their data.

One last question from Mr Marsh-Holschen was how much did the Boulder AIR system cost? $450,000, answered staff.

Next, council member Deven Shaff asked a new question: what would be the advantages and disadvantages of keeping just the Boulder AIR program, strictly for the purposes of measuring O&G pollution in Broomfield, not for overall community monitoring?

Dr Weisner answered this as well, emphasizing how she and the Broomfield staff had worked closely with CDPHE regarding the siting of Ajax canisters in proximity to the O&G well sites in Broomfield; and that O&G emission events are sporadic — they are unpredictable as to when they occur, or how much pollution they will produce. She also expressed concern about the two ability of the two existing Boulder AIR stations to be able to detect any emission events from them, that the “plume might be too diluted,” and because all the wells being monitored are in production, and therefore less likely to have emission events. For all these reasons, she emphasized, she was afraid that “a Boulder AIR station was going to miss….a plume…because there are only two stationary monitors…”; whereas, Ajax canisters can be “strategically placed…and moved…in case we need to move them.”

Mr Shaff then asked a question, which he alluded to public comment, about the auditing of the data collected by AQ stations: has the audited data Boulder Air been compared to Ajax Analytics? Dr Weisner replied she could not comment on that, because she has no expertise that area. With such a comment, the Council was left in the dark about the auditing of their AQ monitors data; which is as serious an oversight as allowing financial statements to be submitted without being audited by a CPA. This speaks to the new regulatory territory that is being explored here, where the standards for what stands for acceptable data are still being established through trial and error…and, in this case, cries out for standards based on scientific evidence and considered judgement.

(01:13:33) Next, council member Austin Ward spoke up, posing the deep question: if Broomfield dropped its support of Boulder AIR monitors, how would that affect their advocacy position with the CDPHE, considering data about regional VOCs, wildfires, VOCs from cars versus O&G, and other regional air quality questions? It was a rather broad question, which left it open to the respondent how to answer it.

Dr Weisner again stepped up to answer; but as you can see in the video, the public health director, Jason Vahling, stepped into the camera frame, and took up a position behind Dr Weisner, in anticipation of needing to speak up as well.

Dr Weiser’s reply did not address Mr Ward’s question directly. She initially focused on the smoke from wildfires, and how the Boulder AIR stations collected much valuable data about them; but then she shifted to addressing VOCs, and how Boulder AIR “provides redundancies in the system” about measuring them — insinuating that Boulder AIR’s measurements for wildfire smoke and particulates is essentially unnecessary.

Mr Vahling then stressed that they would stay involved in advocacy, adding that Broomfield has a monitor at Rocky Flats. [COMMENT: This is not true; there is no AQ monitoring station in Rocky Flats.] As for informing the public, he referred to the CDPHE ozone alerts tool, which allows individuals to get personal notifications sent via text or email. Therefore, he did not see the need for adding their own ozone alerts using their own monitors, so as not to confuse the public.

[01:27:52] Councilperson Jean Lim spoke next, asking staff about their statement that the state is moving towards PID sensors: were they surprised by this? Because she has heard that “the industry has discredited” these PID sensors. In response, Dr Weisner went into some detail explaining how Ajax measurements work with extrapolation — which was somewhat unclear — but she concluded with the strong statement that for Ajax canisters that are maintained by the state, and if a canister is triggered by an emissions event where a health guideline has been exceeded, then “maybe the state will get to a place…where it be more actionable” — which seemed like a roundabout way of saying that the ECMC might be moving towards unspecified compliance enforcement against well operators who commit pollution violations.

We must imagine this answer was somewhat frustrating to the local Broomfield residents present, who have had to put up with pollution from O&G operations for years.

Ms Lim then brought up a past emissions event on May 23 (2023?) at the Livingston pad, when the operator company, Extraction, had a VOC venting event that lasted for six hours. Consequently, the ECMC filed a violation against Extraction, which is yet pending. Her understanding was that the operator’s sensors (unspecified) failed to capture the event, but that Broomfield’s sensors (again unspecified) did capture it. Her direct question was should they trust that the state’s choice of PID sensors, since there are different types and quality in them? And will the ECMC force the operators to use better sensors?

Dr Weiser answered that operators are required to do “some type of monitoring” because of “Reg 7” (unspecified as to what those are), but she did describe how Ajax Analytics is “working with the state to organize that massive [sic] Reg 7 data.” She notes as well how the state regulators (in the APCD and CDPHE) agree that the data collection methods used by some operators can be of questionable quality and consistency, implying that the rules in Reg 7 about operators use of AQ monitoring need to be strengthened.

There was no mention in this discussion of Boulder AIR monitors at all, which we found quite unfortunate; because this technology has proven itself to be incredibly sensitive. Also, because its data stream can be combined with air stream models, using NOAA wind velocity data, Boulder AIR data can reveal from what direction, and in what amount, a particular pollutant was detected and when. Councilperson Lim did not specify which Broomfield sensors detected the May 23 event, which would have been helpful to know.

Ms Lim pressed on with her questioning, asking if the contract with Ajax Analytical could be renegotiated downwards, since they are not doing as much work this year (2023) as in the previous year (2022). There was about a 90 per cent drop in canisters that were analyzed, noted Ms Lim, and asked the staff if the contract payments should therefore be reduced?

At this point, city manager Hoffman stepped in, who dodged the direct question of cost — if the contractor is doing less work shouldn’t they be paid less? — and launched into a protracted description of how the canisters are arranged gets changed over the different phases of production of well operation….which was hard to understand how this answered the simple and direct question from Councilperson Lim. The only direct answer manager Hoffman gave was that she did not recommend reducing payments to Ajax because, in effect, this data was too important to Broomfield, though her reasoning was, shall we say, somewhat obfuscated.

Ms Lim then reposed her question, saying she was not suggesting the number of canisters be reduced; rather, since they were not being triggered as often, requiring less trips by Ajax to pick them up and have them analyzed, they were doing less work; so why should they be paid the same amount in 2023 if they were doing 90 per cent less work?

Renee Boulliard stepped up to answer this question, noting that the contract is a fixed amount, and recommended not making any changes until the current contract period runs out, and they analyze the data. Ms Boullliard brought up a map of the various AQ monitor sensor locations (both Boulder AIR and Ajax) shown here:

In the graphic above, we believe the two Boulder AIR stations are in red, and that the remaining sensors are all Ajax Analytic canister sensors. The big road running east-west in the middle is the Northwest Parkway, which roughly bisects Broomfield in its middle body, as shown below. Here’s another map that will help to situate the location for the reader:

Ms Lim pressed the staff on yet another loose end, that she is aware that Boulder AIR monitors have detected “yet another” unknown source of pollution that is “a continuing search”…

[01:16:33] This led to an interesting exchange with another staff member, environmental analyst Ryan Rush:

Clearly this was the guy who gets sent out into the field, as his testimony revealed, and who ought to know what is going on. However, he sadly had to conclude that the search for the elusive emission source had been unsuccessful…and that they basically gave up, and allowed that their Boulder AIR station had detected something, but that could not identify the source of it over a several year period.

Such an inconclusive answer must not have been reassuring to the Council, who depend on these staff members to get them reliable information.

Next to speak was Councilperson Todd Cohen, who questioned what purpose any further data collection for just Broomfield was going to accomplish. The original purpose was to determine what was in their air, work with the CDPHE to acknowledge what was in their air, and place the matter before the state to deal with further action. Since Broomfield has “checked off those boxes,” he suggested it was time for them to stop spending their local money on what is a regional problem; what is “the end point” for this program?

Director Vahling answered the reason the AQ monitoring exists is to hold the O&G operators accountable. There are two objectives he suggested the Council keep in mind in discussing the future of the program: one was to hold the O&G operators accountable; the other was the non-attainment in ozone (i.e. that ozone levels are at unsafe levels in the summer months). Mr Cohen acknowledged those are valid goals, but wondered aloud why the operator is not bearing the cost of monitoring AQ, instead of Broomfield taxpayers.

[01:37:27] Last of the Council members to speak was Laurie Anderson. She stressed the importance of the Boulder AIR data, and that it has been audited and accepted by the EPA. She expressed surprise that the Boulder AIR contract is being considered for being dropped from the 2024 budget, because that had not been part of earlier budget discussions in June 2023. Moreover, she pointed out, that because Colorado continues to “be in non-attainment” (which is bureaucratese for excessive ozone levels above what is considered safe for human health) they are at risk of having the EPA “reject their SIP”, i.e. the state implementation plan for dealing with non-attainment — which would not be good for Colorado, for various reasons. She felt that keeping the Boulder AIR data collection going will be important for the state in the event the SIP rejection occurs, since Boulder AIR data has valuable data on both ozone and its precursors that could help with dealing with such an eventuality. She also pointed out that “shaving off” some of the budget for Ajax could be done to keep Bouder AIR in the 2024 budget.

[01:41:27] Last to speak was Mayor Guyleen Castriotta, who flatly stated she heard from their health director and epidemiologist consultant that Broomfield “would not be harmed” if they discontinued the Boulder AIR monitors.

One last question from Councilperson Heidi Henkel was if they were to not have Boulder AIR monitors, would they know if they were in nonattainment? I think this shows the degree to which some of the Council members were unfamiliar with this whole issue: ozone levels are officially measured by the CDPHE ozone monitors, which the state must operate under regulation by the EPA. Director Vahling quickly answered that Boulder AIR monitors are not involved in determining attainment levels, but that the data can provide additional information.

The mayor then asked for a motion to continue the contract with Ajax Analytics; council member Marsh-Holsen made the motion, council member Shaff seconded. This passed 8 to 1, with Council member Anderson the one ‘no’ vote. Next, the Mayor continued with second item on the agenda, to discontinue the contract with Boulder AIR; council member Ward made the motion, council member Shaff seconded.

At this point, council member Anderson asked for an amendment to the motion, to ask for an extension of time before voting, in order to see if the EPA and the state could be contacted for their possible support in keeping the Boulder AIR monitors operating. Mayor asked for a second; council member Lim seconded. Discussion: council member Shaff was unclear what the amendment was. The mayor replied to ask for an extension of time before voting; she then ask Ms Anderson how long should the extension be? She replied three months, to consider all options. The mayor replied she believed the staff had already exhausted all those avenues as had been shown in their thorough presentation that night.

Ms Anderson then asked a direct question to city manager Hoffman, that if she advocated for this issue, and if additional funding could be found to continue operating the Boulder AIR stations, would that be possible? Ms Hoffman stonewalled the question by replying, “It’s not up to me.”

Council member Shaff then asked for clarification of the exact end of the contract period; Ms Boulliard answer December 31. Mr Shaff then asked manager Hoffman if there had been discussion to extend the contract period month-by-month; the manager answered no, there has not. Mayor Pro Tem Stan Jezierski then spoke up, commenting that there was still time left in the rest of the year for “something to happen”, and if some funding source could be found, “…why not?” (i.e. keep Boulder AIR) Health Director Bollen stepped up to answer that he and his staff had “exhausted all avenues” for that.

Council member Marsh-Holschen then commented that this issue was “a tough one” for him, because “community health and safety was the number one issue we should be prioritizing”; but since “staff has indicated they are not losing any important data” he could not support continuing to pay the cost for Boulder AIR.

The motion for the amendment proposed by Council member Anderson was voted on; this failed 2 to 8, where Anderson and Lim were the two ‘yes’ votes. The final motion, to discontinue the Boulder AIR 2024 contract, was voted on, which passed 6 to 1, with Anderson the one ‘no’ vote. (One council member left before this final vote.)

This concluded the special study session.

What Was Left Unsaid

Of course, this was a dissatisfying outcome; but after reviewing the recording, one can understand — even sympathize — with the Broomfield council members who were making a difficult decision. But there was a lot that was left unsaid, which deserves better public discussion; because we feel this action by the Broomfield Council should not go unnoticed.

One of the things learned from this meeting was the apparent long and extensive involvement of their public health department and staff, and consultants, in the O&G monitoring effort there; and their extensive work with the CDPHE, as well as their continued advocacy work to better understand the AQ data they have, and continue, to collect. It may well be that Broomfield has worked more with the state AQ regulatory agencies than any other jurisdiction in the state; we cannot really say, as we don’t know how much Boulder AIR and Ajax Analytics monitors have been used and examined in other places.

What we observed, however, were some city administrators operating with very incomplete information, who deserved to have better information than what the staff and city manager brought to them. To expect lay persons with no specific training to be able to understand the difference between the PID sensors (on which Ajax Analytics technology is based) and a gas chromatograph (on which Boulder AIR technology is based) within the compressed time frame of a Special Study Session of this Council is to expect the impossible. Once a city council is in the middle of a meeting is no time to be explaining the nitty-gritty technical details of such specialized technology. That should have been handled by the staff meeting with council members in preparatory meetings. And there is no reason that they could not have called the CEOs and chief scientists of these two companies in to meet and explain how their technology worked, since both companies are local to the area. This  was an egregious oversight by the city manager, who seemed to have a closed mind about which technology she was supporting. At this meeting, council members were expected to decide between a company whose data had never been subjected an outside audit, to a company whose data have been audited and accepted by the EPA, and used in peer reviewed research. Is it any wonder that some of them were left groping for answers in the course of the discussion?

Here are some points which we think the Council should have been told:

PIDs Are Faulty

We think that would have been very interesting for the council members to learn, for example, that PIDs (photoionization detectors) are known for giving off false positives; apparently there are a variety of things that cause them to get triggered beyond the VOC detection they are ostensibly used for. Nor can a PID sensor itself detect any individual chemical; the air captured in the canister must be taken to a lab before that can be identified. And there is a considerable lapse of time before that captured air is analyzed in a lab, and the resulting measurements made. Do any of the council understand how air chemistry works, or what such a delay might mean for data accuracy? We doubt that any of them understand that; but we all know if leave food out for a few days it starts to rot and smell, right? What might happen inside an air canister between the time it was triggered and analyzed? How soon, on average, are canisters analyzed? How sensitive are the chemicals of interest to decay or transformation? Having some answers to those types of questions would have helped here.

It is not difficult to find research indicating that while PIDs are ok for crude detection, they should not be relied for regulatory monitoring; for example: “Although this instrument [a photoionization detector] …can be used as a screening tool…in the occupational setting rather than compliance monitoring.” (Evaluation of a portable gas chromatograph with photoionization detector under variations of VOC concentration, temperature, and relative humidity, NIH, April 2018)

CanisterTriggers Are Faulty

For the purposes of AQ compliance monitoring, where an emissions event could have consequences in a matter of minutes, there is a real risk of detections not being detected at all. This was evident during this special study meeting when council member Lim described a May 23, 2023 venting event that went undetected for six hours! Other anecdotal evidence also brings canisters under suspicion for not detecting onsite leaks — or even misoperation by the O&G operator if left in their charge.

Canister Triggers Will Never Capture Maximum Concentration of a Plume Event

This is not hard to understand, since once a canister is triggered, it will only sample the surrounding air for the short time for which it is programmed, or until it is full, whichever comes first. We believe the Ajax canisters are programmed to sample for 15 minutes. What this means is that if a plume event lasts longer than that time, the canister will not capture it…at all. And what this also means is that there is no way such a methodology can guarantee that it will capture the maximum concentration of the plume; there is simply no way to know what happened before and after the triggering event. Whereas with a continuous, real time system such as Boulder AIR, there is no question to what happened before or after a plume event, because there will be continuous sampling, analyzed in real time, and recorded in a database — without human intervention.

Ajax Analytic Data are Not Real-Time or Automated

All of their website hype notwithstanding, the data that comes from measuring the contents of a gas canister is not done in “real-time”, because there is a lag between when a canister is triggered and the time when the air is analyzed, and the data recorded. That canister is manually carried by someone from the site location to the lab; that is not what I call automated.

Gas Choromatographs Don’t Lie…and Boulder AIR measurements ARE Fully Automated

By contrast, Boulder AIR technology never gives a false positive about anything, since they are directly measuring the molecules of the chemicals of interest: all BTEX compounds, ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, PM2.5, PM10, gas-phase radioactivity, and particle-bound radioactivity, as well as the meteorology data (air speed, direction, humidity, barometric pressure and temperature). All measurements are immediately uploaded to a website, and after about a fifteen minute delay from processing, available on a public website. The instruments in these stations are constantly calibrated for accuracy, and comply with all CDPHE and EPA standards. Their data are shared with public dissemination sites, and reside in the EPA at its Air Quality Data Collected at Outdoor Monitors Across the US.

Data Quality Matters…But Not In This Case

The Broomfield staff and its city manager never questioned the quality of the Ajax Analytics data; but if the company’s data has never been audited how on God’s green earth are you going to know about its quality? And how can you compare an AQ monitoring company run by a serial entrepreneur with zero training in air chemistry to a PhD scientist who has published articles about surface level ozone in peer-reviewed journals for decades? This, too, was not even brought up, and the Broomfield Council simply took their cue from the city manager, who strong-armed the meeting in the direction, apparently, that she wanted to go….we don’t think bamboozled is too strong a word to use.

Local Jurisdictions Are Not The Place To Decide Regional Issues…& Why the State Must Act

Watching this complex issue being hashed out over nearly two hours of detailed discussion was somewhat tragic — because how can a local metropolitan jurisdiction be expected to deal with a regional air quality issue, and where the federal law itself is so incomplete? The Clean Air Act itself says nothing about ozone precursors; only surface level ozone. This is why the CDPHE only has monitors that detect ozone — but not the ozone precursors. So, watching the Broomfield council attempt to nail down answers by grilling their elusive staff was like watching a kid’s game of Pin The Tail on the Donkey: how can you answer such questions with such incomplete information? Pin the tail of your opinion somewhere; though it doesn’t really matter…just vote yes or no. The frustration of being forced to vote on the matter despite the incomplete information was quite evident among the council members.

What the decision really came down to was money — and apparently the desire of the city manager and some of the Council to save $470,000 on the 2024 budget by cutting Boulder AIR from it. Observing the callous disregard for the community health and safety — but where the delayed effects of such harm are not going to be obvious for some time — reminded us of the decision made in 2014 on the basis of cost by the state-appointed emergency manager who changed Flint, Michigan’s water source — with disastrous results, as we all know.

One of the Larimer Alliance Members had this additional analogy: when he was a young boy, an amusing pastime was “shooting caps,” which was a toy gun in which you would insert a roll of paper tape, and in a series of dots on the tape, were tiny amounts of gunpowder which, when struck successfully by the pistol hammer, would bang with a sharp retort, pretending to be a real gun. Since these were imitation, crudely made pistols, the tape would not always advance correctly, and you might have to pull the trigger about three times to get one shot to sound — but it was still fun for child’s play.

An Ajax Analytic canister has similar features: many false positive signals, and they do not shoot with real bullets, since the data are not “reference grade”, and therefore are not admissible in court or in regulatory proceeding. Whereas the data produced by Boulder AIR stations is admissible in legal proceedings, and much more precise than what canister technology can produce. Compared to a “cap gun” canister, we might say a Boulder AIR monitoring station more resembles a hunting rifle equipped with a long range scope with proven accuracy — which fires real bullets that hit real targets.

So, we ask the Broomfield Council: which weapon would they rather use for hunting their AQ data? The ‘cap gun’ canister technology from Ajax or the hunting rifle technology provided by Boulder AIR?

Moreover, the Larimer Alliance feels strongly that we should not be treating the public health on the basis of cost alone; rather, we should be giving protection of the health and safety of the environment  the public support as matters of top priority, which SB-181 supports.

But no local jurisdiction can be expected to should this burden — which is why the state needs to act. The Front Range communities afflicted by surface level ozone alert days in the summer months — which is now up to over one day in three — are in dire need of a coherent state regulatory framework that addresses the ozone precursors directly. And stop the political posturing about “concern” and “informing the public”. The people with chronic breathing problems don’t want such sympathy: they want action that is going solve the problem.