Travis County Commissioners Court
January 26, 2010,
Item A1
>> you all know how old fashioned I am about change.
we have special guests today on item number a 1.
and sherry, we will get you next.
a 1 is to receive briefing from capital area metropolitan planning organization and capital area council of governments.
and our own adele noel and mr.
weber.
on the u.s.
environmental protects agency as proposed revisions to ground level ozone standards and take appropriate action.
good morning.
>> good morning, on January 6 of this year epa proposed to change the ozone level for ground level to 60 parts per bill to 70 parts per bill, vonvo in that range for primary and secondary ground level ozone.
today I have bill gil, with capcog and cathy stevens with camp, to explain the changes.
afterwards to hear some proposed comments from Travis County that we can give to epa on these changes.
>> I'll bill gill, the program director with the air quality program at capcog.
i have been down here before.
we have a couple times since I have been at capcog where epa has changed the standard regarding attain the or compliance with two previous standards.
this one looks like we are going to have a little trouble with.
ep as has proposed between 60-70 parts per billion.
we just barely made it with the 2008 standard, 75.
this past ozone season we had low enough ozone that we met that 75 standard.
but with this new standard down likely to be between 60 and 70, we would have to have, we have a chart in here, we would have to have a design value, or the fourth highest next year of 61 parts per billion at our regulatory monitor.
we have never seen that before anywhere close to that.
if they set the standard at 60 parts per billion we would have to see a fourth high of 31, which just is almost impossible.
background level is higher than that.
in spite of all of the efforts that were undertaken in the past year under the big push where we actually got emission reductions from Texas lehigh cement, Texas energy, the public contributed on ozone action days.
i believe the program was successful in helping us attain that standard of 75.
we're likely to continue doing those projects over this coming year.
we have a current plan in place, the eight-hour o 3 flex which goes through 2013, that programs the vehicle inspection maintenance program as part of that heavy duty vehicle island restriction.
so we have a quite a few programs underway to help reduce emissions that contribute to ozone.
and I'm sure we will continue those programs as well as look for additional ones.
but at the same time, I think what we are looking at now is potential of a nonattainment designation coming up.
and in your packet there's a schedule that epa has laid out for this.
they published this in the federal register on January 19.
what that does is open up the comment period.
they are asking for comments by March 22 on the standard itself.
they have not set a specific level.
they said 60-70 parts per billion.
so we can comment on what we think that ought to be, but I think in years past when they proposed the standard, locally we pretty much said we don't have the resources or the epidemiologist on staff to look at whether it should be 70, 75 or that.
but we do have other concerns about that standard.
so I think later kathy is going to talk about some of the comments that we have already discussed with regard to that.
now.
>> bill, when epa proposes a standard such as what we are looking attitude, do they indicate how they arrived that the?
>> their direction on the standards, well, take it back one step.
they have a science advisory committee, the clean air science advisory committee.
and they are required periodically to review all of the standards, not just ozone, but a number of other criteria for standards, and determine whether or not the standard is appropriate to protect public health and welfare.
so they reviewed this ozone standard.
and under the past epa administration, they decided to not follow the recommendation of that committee.
the committee was recommending somewhere between 60-70, and epa decided to set it at 75.
now, this is based on analysis of a number of studies done, some of them epa, some of them other studies.
but they look at the, what levels of ozone are likely to impact public health.
and they are interested especially in health of people that have respiratory problems already, people with asthma and elderly.
they turn this sensitive populations and that is what the standard is set to protect.
>> okay.
so there's supporting data that may be reviewed in the advisory committee's report to epa?
>> right.
and as much as you want to read, there's a lot of studies.
of course, there are arguments about some of these studies, as there are any science studies.
that will be part of the debate, I guess, going into the standard the validity of some of those studies and the conclusions.
besides science advisory committee is comprised of some people that are involved in the business of epidemiology, medical doctors, and they really have the expertise to look at this and make that call.
>> uh-huh.
>> the clean air act does not allow epa to consider the financial aspects.
they only look at the health aspects.
and so, no matter how much it costs, they set the standard based on public health.
>> explain the health aspect.
if there is something out there that will post any threat to health, then they look at, consider that more so than anything else.
is that top priority?
>> right.
>> all right.
i want the make sure that, it to get a good clear understanding because we have some issues here today that deal with some similar concerns on this agenda today.
health.
so I want to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying here.
>> right.
public health and welfare.
>> public health and welfare.
>> right.
and they have actually posed two standards this time for ozone.
of course they are looking at, this is focused on ozone.
that has been one of the city systems that people have had, criticisms that people have had.
air doesn't have one thing in it.
it has a number of pollutants.
ep as says they look at ozone, particulate, sulfur dioxide and look at those separately.
so that has been one of the criticisms on this study, on on zone, normally when you see ozone you are also going to see high particulate.
you have to try to separate out the health effects of the two.
it always comes back to public health and welfare.
the standard for the, the primary standard they are proposing for public health protects is 60-70 parts per billion.
secondary standard, and I believe there might be something in your packet on that, to protect welfare, and they are primarily looking at protection of crops and forests, and that is a little bit more complicated standard.
they had considered it before but didn't propose that.
this time they did.
and it's 7-14 parts per billion hours.
it's a complicated standard by looks over a three-month period in Texas and a weighted average of hourly ozone for those days.
that is where they come up with the 7-15.
the graphs that we have included for the primary standard, as I mentioned, we would have a lot of difficulty meeting even 70 parts per billion.
65 would be way beyond what we would expect to see.
the secondary standard, however, the 7-15 parts per billion, we currently with the 2009 data are looking at 8.
is we're pretty close to the lower end of that standard.
now, they set it at 7, we mitt have difficulty with that.
but if they set it somewhere in the midrange to upper end of that, then we probably are in attainment with that standard.
so that is probably not as much a concern for us right now.
back to the schedule, they have proposed a standard.
the next thing that comes out, which is going to be more complicated but very important to us, is the implementation rule.
and that is, that is where they tell you which numbers are going to be used for different classifications.
so if you are classified as a marginal area or a moderate area or severe area, that determines what you have to do.
so whether you have a basic program or you have to do an intense program, whether you have to do stage two controls on gasoline stations, all of that.
the standard is one thing, the implementation requirements, when you have to be in anne --attainment, classification, I think that is where we want to focus comments to make sure epa understands our position vis-a-vis houston, dallas, other areas that might have impact on us.
so epa then will propose the final standard August of this year.
we ask epa do we have a chance to comment on that.
that is wren they say it's going to be 70 or 65.
and epa's response, that is where you don't have a chance to comment on that.
that is where litigation starts taking place.
when they set that final number, that is the one that we have to live with.
the next step is the state will look at the monitoring data for our area.
and they will make a recommendation on which counties should be included in a nonattainment designation, whether it be Travis County only that is what they had recommended on the 75 standard, or will they come back and say it should be all five counties in the nsa.
>> that was the state's recommendation.
>> the state.
>> not the epa recommendation.
>> right.
epa this last time never got to the point where epa made their recommendation because that is when they switched standards.
so we don't know what that would have done.
they won't tell us whether they were thinking about more than one county.
they have about 11 criteria to look at to determine whether it's just the county with the monitor or all the counties surrounding.
they look at populations and commutes, all that sort of thin.
>> currently only Travis County has monitors.
surrounding counties do not, including william son, correct?
>> there are monitors in the other county but william son we just started operating two years ago so it doesn't, you're supposed to have three years of data in order to make it classification with that monitor but it's not considered a regulatory monitor at this point.
just because they don't have a monitor doesn't mean they would be excluded from consideration.
what epa does look at the whole urban area.
and that is the msa.
so the state will make that recommendation in January of 2011, a year from now about which counties they think should be included.
they send that to epa, and epl will come back and propose designations, will say okay, state, we agree with you or we think you ought to include other counties.
that will be in April of 2011.
that is also an opening of a comment period, so that is when we all have a chance to say, well, we agree with you, epa, or not.
then epa will then make the final designation on August 2011.
that is basically when everybody knows where they stand and it's time to start doing the, developing the plans.
the implementation plans will be in December of 2013.
tceq will be that but we hoping they will also include a large enknew that process.
they have in houston and dallas and we would expect our clean air coalition to be involved in developing any kind of plan.
>> when will we know not just where we are as far as the old standard, the 75 parts per billion.
in other words, when will we actually know that we are in attainment or out of attainment?
what date is that?
just under currently.
>> right.
>> all right.
>> based on epa schedule, we will have one more year of monitoring data to include in determining whether or not we will be in attainment or not.
so 2010, this year's ozone season, that number will be added to, 29 in '08.
>> the three year average.
>> right.
>> so I guess what time of the year, calendar year, would that be when they will see whether we are in attainment?
i'm trying to get to a specific--
>> right.
the end of the ozone season here is normally the end of October.
>> end of October.
>> right.
>> okay.
you mention a few things earlier with some of these proposals that is coming out of the epa looking at even lower standards as far as ozone and where we currently, now, I know we made comments, or the comment period as far as what we see Travis County.
two questions I need to find out an answer.
if they start to look at a region which I do not know if that will be the case.
epa looks at the big picture.
what will the other counties looking at this, because we will all be affected if it's a regional thing, have the other counties been participating as Travis County is now to look at reduction of emissions since they will be contributing to the cause?
what are they doing?
>> right now the five county area all participate in our clean airplane.
>> right.
>> of course Williamson has a program just as Travis County does.
>> right.
>> the other rules and volunteer emission reducks measure--reducks measures that have been committed to by the five counties and seven cities continue and will until 2013 under the 803 flex.
nobody has expressed any intent to withdraw from that plan.
>> okay.
go ahead.
>> I expect other counties may make comments about whether they should be included or not in a nonatakenment area.
and that is their right to make whatever demonstration they feel is appropriate to do that.
think what we have seen and will continue to see a participation by all five counties in the locally developed plan we have in place.
>> okay.
you mentioned earlier about vegetation, crops and things of that nature, something that may be measured even on a secondary type situations.
15 hours secondary.
what was the intent of epa, or what is the intent of the epa to look at that particular aspect?
and if they look at that, then what crops, where are we talking about?
are we talking about all of Travis County?
those particular farmers and ranchers and other vegetation areas?
what part of the county?
all enexclusive or the county designates one area?
what are we talking about?
>> that standard we see as somewhat problematic.
and cathy might have a bit of comment on that too.
because it doesn't seem appropriate to use an urban monitor to determine impact on agriculture.
>> exactly.
that is my point.
trying to figure out how that could actually work.
let me shut up and listen.
>> the standard is set for the whole country.
some of the comments have been different parts of the country are different with regard to the seasons of agriculture don't necessarily coincide with ozone.
a lot of details need to be worked out with that.
that is definitely one of the things we want to comment on.
even though it's not likely we will be in violation of sta standard based on our monitoring data looks like we are at the lower end of that range.
hopefully we won't have to deal with any attainment plan on that one.
>> I have a lot of other questions but I will wait until laterment some other things come to mind.
i don't want to take over the whole show.
>> sure.
just to kind of wrap this up.
we probably talked about the potential things that happen with nonattainment enough that you are probably familiar with those.
but on the one-pager, transportation conformity is the big one that most people get concerned about.
it makes transportation planning more complicated, more lengthy, possibly eliminating some projects that don't demonstrate con term ty.
the other thing is the impact on business growth.
if we were to recruit a business that had a lot of air contaminants associated, say toyota or cement plant with a lot of air pollution, they would have to come up with offset.
they could not build a plant unless they shut down something else that reduced the emissions equivalent to what they would increase when they started up.
so that is a big thing also.
they have to make more stringent requirements for permitting.
i guess the line is that companies that have that type of operation may look for areas other than a nonattainment area to locate in because it's a little diser and cheaper to build that--easier and cheap tor build that plan.
local businesses would be hit with more restrictions on emissions, dry cleaners, gasoline stations, furniture coat, furniture manufacturing and coating operations.
so there would be incost --increase in cost in business with any businesses have air pollution associated.
those are generally the things mentioned with nonattainment.
not something anyone wants to be but houston and dallas have been nonattainment for a long time and it hasn't really seemed to impact their growth a lot.
it costs a little more to do business but it's not a show stopper as far as it shuts down business or transportation.
>> costs more to do business.
>> right.
>> can we give cathy an opportunity to make comments.
then let's look at the deadline for submitting comments and try to figure out where we go from today.
we got a briefing at the clean air coalition meeting so I thought it would be good for the Commissioners court to get one.
this is not a one had ever time opportunity.
in fact we ought to have it back on the court's agenda in about two weeks.
we did ask the members of the coalition to go back to their respective jurisdictions and try to figure out what comments they would submit and go back again.
i see the individual members of the coalition submitting comments also.
so cathy.
>> good morning.
i am going to go over briefly the comments of the clean air coalition will be considering today.
just for your information.
and essentially we're starting with the comments we made last time because this is essentially the same proposal epa gave us when they settled on the 75 parts per bell yun.
we want to emphasize that the coalition superintendents standard fully protective of public health and welfare.
however, there are some concerns with the memberation, in particular the come plikes mayen unchief--compliance may be unchiefable in the time proposed especially for less polluted areas.
provide posed time frame is 2014-2031.
we would like ep too.
consider and address, number one, the transport and background levels will have to be significantly reduced nationwide.
we see background and transport on our area on high ozone days of 65-75 parts per billion right there.
obviously there is not a problem that can be solved streck--streckly through local redeck shunce.
it will require national effort.
we think attainment dates need to be closely aligned.
right now.
worse the rates are the longer you have.
with transport being difficult it makes it difficult in not impossible for smaller areas getting transport from more polluting areas.
we also mention permitting rules need to require an evaluation of ozone impacts with photo chemical grid modeling.
right now there is no requirement to look when considering a permit on what the effects would be on someplace far down wind.
you can do that easily with photo chemical models.
permits should be denied if add ver health impacts or violation of the standards result from the facility being built.
also, we wanted to mention that voluntary compliance efforts such as wunds we have done in this region, in particular the early action compact have been proven successful and should be offered as viable option.
the compact was able to result in clean air sooner than the traditional nonattainment process, resulting in greater buy in I think elected officials.
allows you to tailor the plan.
you can tailor so you can get one that works.
the eca provides a provision that 23 it was not successful the area would have to join the nonataint process with no delay in chiefing that time line.
those were the many comments made first by the coalition.
there were some additional comments discussed at our coalition meeting.
these are still more concepts than finalized comments.
one was, and we discussed this just a minute ago, question the validity of using primarily urban area monitors to determine compliance to secondary standard which is primarily designed for rural areas by definition, for crops, eco systems, forests, et cetera.
there is a requirement in making the new monitoring guidelines that each state would be required to add three rural monitors.
and that may be sufficient for smaller states but in a state the size of Texas we don't think it will be enough to work.
that was one.
another one, in the proposal epa includes a definition of public welfare.
that is found in the united states code.
and it says that public welfare includes but is not limited to effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, climate, damage to and deterioration of property, hazards to transportation as well as effects on economic value and personal comfort and well being.
our thought is while the proposal from the secondary standard addresses vegetation, crops, forests, eco systems and indirectly addresses some soils and other related things related to vegetation, it does not address the other concepts laid out in that definition, and we believe that epa should explain if the secondary standard is adequately protecttive of all those aspects, fan so how, fan --and if not, can they fix it.
another comment was that the accuracy of the monitors become increasingly critical as the standard is lower.
currently there's an allowable error range of plus or minus 7 percent.
if you are looking at 75 parts per billion that amounts to five parts per billion.
bill can add more but if you calibrate the monitors more frequently you can improve accuracy.
we doing that as well as requiring accuracy requirements for monitors.
other comments brought up at coalition meeting, perhaps a phased in approach to the standard would be a good idea.
that would give areas a realistic target, a chance to comply.
for example, since epa can't seem to decide should it be 60 or 70, why not start at 70 and then phase in over time down to 60.
that might be a good approach that would give everybody a target that is somewhat realistic.
another comment was that the standard should not be applied retroactively.
we should not be using previous year's data for designations because this essentially penalizes areas for not complying with the standards they had not known existing.
the example given at the coalition meeting, this is somewhat like lowering the speed limit from 70 to 60 on a road and going back and giving sown --somebody a tict for speeding three years ago.
we think it would be a better approach to set the standard and then go through years forward and give areas additional chance to comply and not feel penelize.
>> you have a question.
>> the previous data will not be taken into consideration, as we do now, an example of what we just discussed earlier.
the year 08, 09 and 10 to be considered to see if you come into compliance?
in other words, what you are suggesting, if I'm understanding this correctly, if I'm not, then explain it to me, what you are suggesting is that whenever we have, as far as the recommendation that we have, then three years out, that we would have to look to see if we are in compliance from that point forward.
>> right.
>> that is--
>> that is the thought behind i.
>> right.
>> they would set the standard and we would go and take the next three years to determine compliance.
>> okay.
>> yes.
>> well, based on what I'm hearing, and I know all these other things will have to be taken in consideration.
because Travis County has been very aggressive in trying to ensure that we do not get into a nonattainment status from the flex plan to early action plan.
we have been very aggressive in trying to do some things.
however, I understand from the early testimony, bill, suggesting that those particular counties or cities that have not come into compliance and is now operating in a nonattainment status, of course economically it could probably cost businesses in those particular counties or cities, dallas, houston, other folks like that, cost them more to operate as far as the business is concerned.
has there been any indication as far as doubt is concerned as far as how much it will cost those businesses to do business in a nonattainment area versus an attainment area as far as the increasing cost to operate that similar business.
has there been anything brought?
because I think what I'm trying to do is have everybody understand that this is serious business.
and since it is, it would take all of us to go and meet some type of measure meant to see that we are in compliance and we are really trying , epa, to come up with a solution.
so my question is, has there been any doubt for the business community, per se, all of us are a part of this, but for the business community, per se, of examining a common business here in an attainment area versus a nonattainment area as far as the increase in cost to operate that same business.
have we any doubt on that at all?
>> the type of businesses that are going to be affected are businesses that have air pollution that contributes to ozone.
so if you don't have any air contaminants, if you are a commercial business that manufacturing something and doesn't have air pollution, you don't have to worry about it.
>> we are talking about ozone.
go ahead.
>> we are in a little different situations than dallas and especially houston as far as the type of businesses that we have.
we don't have a whole lot of businesses that contribute a lot of air pollution.
small businesses, gasoline stations, dry cleaners, furniture manufacturers, will have to spend more, maybe carbon absorption device on control solvent ee milges--emission, might have to use lower voc solvents.
i don't think it will be a real large difference but we can look at some businesses and get back to you as far as a comparison on attainment versus nonattainment emission control costs.
>> dry cleaning is one area.
i don't really know.
those particular, it would be good if you could bring some examples because I think we do have some similarity to some degree.
but what they are, I really don't really have a grasp on as far as the increase, as far as those businesses are concerned.
just want today hammer on--wanted to hammer on that point.
>> for the record, tom weber with tnr Travis County.
one thing to bring up with macrolevel, rule making undertaken by epa does include the cost versus benefits of this rule making.
and there are very high costs for two businesses in the regulated community and generally public.
but the epa identified that those costs are more than offset by the health benefits and the health, reduction in health costs from this.
that doesn't exactly answer your question about a cost to a business, but it does lay out that there is another side of the picture.
>> I wasn't excluding health.
that was at the top of the pyramid, the first thing I hit on.
i can understand your point of view.
the health effects, public health is the a the top of the pyramid.
public welfare is another big indicator.
nay, --nay--anyway, you get my point.
>> what is the deadline for submitting comments?
>> March 22 is the deadline to get comments to ep zampt here is what I propose--
>> here is what I pro e pose, that members of the court spend the next two weeks working on what we think out ought to be submitted from Travis County.
so one would be comments to tceq probably.
the other won comments to the clear air coalition to be later submitted to tceq or epa or both.
then the question would be what comments would we send to the epa.
and what I would do would be to schedule a work session with this item and maybe another where we would give ourselves an hour and a half to mull over suggestions, think through them, and then the following Tuesday, put the matter on a voting session where we can take action.
but what I wanted the court to do early on was to get a briefing on the proposal from epa, some idea of the recommended schedule for epa action, and then a schedule for us to put ourselves in a position to submit comments to tceq and epa.
we don't know what the other counties will do.
these can be viewed as very burden sow.
i wouldn't be surprised if the other four counties were to suggest that make Travis County go it alone in the future and they be freed.
similar suggestions I think were given to tceq last time.
i don't know that they have a responsibility to let us know.
in fact, do we know before tceq took action last time?
so there is a whole lot going o.
>> yes.
>> it can become complicated.
i think we should give ourselves an opportunity to look at it when we have, when we are not rushed with other items on a voting session.
>> may I make a request, please?
that in that work session, could we also get a briefing from campo?
(change in captioner)
>> can you let us know what you would say about 3:00 this afternoon?
>> we could.
we could have an attachment in there that has our proposed Travis County comments, so you actually do have that in your back up.
>> this is what you would say next Tuesday?
>> we would say that, and I think there's one thing on here that escaped in the version control and is that was to mention the importance of the metropolitan designation rather than a single county designation as you heard us discuss here.
>> okay.
so what you just described is part of our back up for a1?
>> that's right.
>> with that also there needs to be some clarity.
i'm concerned about the 7:15 hour type deal, even though this is an urban area, however, the secondary type of product we're looking at is actually affecting rural area and if that is the case, then I need to know more about that if they were actually -- this is part of the epa's proposal, so, you know, I don't know where they are on that.
but, you know, just have to be some clarity because the public is very concerned as we all are.
so I just wanted to lay that out.
>> you talking one page front and back?
>> yes, sir.
>> this is what you would say in houston?
>> yes, these six comments.
the seven one would be the preference for us to have a metropolitan designation, since we have a metropolitan issue.
>> this doesn't have a page number seven.
>> I understand.
>> what if we call -- can we call this up after executive session this afternoon?
i did not appreciate that this is what would be said next Tuesday.
i thought this is what we could muddle between now and March.
>> this' why I brought it up.
>> do you have the one with number seven, can you get that here by the noon hour.
>> I will get this to you in a moment.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for being on your toes.
i cannot express in words how much I appreciate you coming down and briefing us today there will be a similar opportunity in a work session real soon and we will invite you to that also.
we will call this item back up this afternoon specifically to address what we ought to say in houston next Tuesday.
we have designationed a person to go down there?
>> we would be available.
we would also like your direction.
we sort of feel that, you know, the more prominence we can place on our comments, the bar.
but we do -- the better.
but we do understand it is a court day.
>> are we looking for a leader or a sacrificial lamb?
>> [laughter] 3:00 this afternoon okay?
i'm saying 3:00.
after executive session.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> over the lunch hour, I'll make a call to staff.
tnr staff on this item.
>> this item we will call backup later today.
Now, this morning we indicated that we might call back a 1.
after executive session.
and that time has come.
and that is the matter involving the briefing we received regarding ozone and revisions that the e.p.a.
has indicated that it will recommend, very, very soon.
and staff advised that they had made reservations to travel to houston to give comments next Tuesday.
and they invited us to comment on their comments.
>> if anybody is missing their latest copy, I've got a couple of extras here.
>> mine is all marked up in red ink.
if I can find it.
>> with regard to comment 2, there seems to be a small typo,.
>> we can take that out.
>> I think that was just an oversight from one draft to the next.
>> I have one question that I wanted to try to make sure that -- when will, if at all possible, I know that this is something that e.p.a.
is kind of really concerned about as far as public health is concerned, seems to be the real focus of some of these recommendations is the reason for some of the reduction, as far as some of the ozone emissions.
but my question still is going to go back, when will they maybe take up some type of situation where if they will, maybe not, I don't really know, but I'm kind of concerned about the -- about the particular matters, will they take it up -- I mean it's probably already set edge in stone as far as that standard of 2.5 microns.
>> with respect to mattercal matter, there's a standard for 2.5 microgram particles was established I think in 2006.
that is definitely the most recent.
>> that's the most recent?
>> correct.
>> okay.
and --
>> Commissioner, we expect that at some interval they would review that against newer information and see if that standard needs to be changed.
>> okay.
I just didn't want it to get left by the wayside so it's very, very prevalent and of course the fine dust and how it could actually affect the health and there seems to be the intent of the e.p.a.
at this point to look at those particular things that have an impact on the health, on the public health.
and look at all of these things, that's exactly what it appears to be.
so I just want to just throw that out.
as, you know, something that -- that -- okay.
thank you.
>> anything else?
now, I have a couple here.
up in the shaded area, we say it will be essential to the success of control strategists to maintain -- no, to reach attainment that all significantly contributing geographic areas be included.
I have here why don't we add -- as used by e.p.a.
historically.
is that true?
>> I think that is correct.
>> so to be included, this is what e.p.a.
has done historically is the point that I'm trying to make.
>> exactly.
it would be very unusual for them to designate one county out of a region.
>> then I would, I would put that in there because I think that would be real important, especially if they get the different recommendation from tceq.
which based on recent action by tceq for other geographic areas in central Texas will be its inclination, tceq's inclination, it seems. Now the other thing that I have out to the side on number 6, sufficiently -- sufficiently -- sufficient -- sufficient collaboration to make reading or results reliable.
we talk about the need for accurate calibrations and -- and is it readings or results?
I would add that language somewhere.
because it's so important that those readings ought to be reliable, right?
>> correct.
>> that's correct.
>> and I didn't think of this until you told me that you told us it could be, plus or minus, six or seven points off.
which is a big difference if you reduce that to 60 or 65.
>> well, certainly it's a concern to us because potentially what it means is that you could be found -- too be non-attainment, but still be within the range of error of the device.
that somehow doesn't seem proper.
>> I would just put that somewhere in there.
>> sufficient collaboration.
>> or sufficiently collaborated to make readings reliable or make results reliable.
because our point is that if you really don't collaborate, calibrate frequently, you don't know whether the results are reliable or not.
right?
>> that's correct.
I think our -- our intent here is that e.p.a.
oversee how the states operate these systems. And that they mandate or direct greater frequencies.
in the end it becomes a resource issue.
so if you have the u.s.
government dictating a minimum frequency, that should help us get closer to more accuracy.
>> okay.
okay.
therefore Travis County urges the u.s.
e.p.a.
and states, as in state of Texas?
>> correct.
>> is that what we have in mind?
>> yes.
>> and our state?
>> if we are serious about that, yes.
>> in our state.
>> our state?
if we look at that next to the last line there, where it says proposed standards, instead of seems, I would say it is.
we say it seems crucial.
it is crucial.
it's just a little stronger.
and after standards I would add: and the costly consequences of non-attainment.
we say upon the health effects documentation, dah-dah-dah, presented by the proposed standards.
I would add and the costly consequences of non-attainment.
it is crucial.
just to show you all I read it over lunch.
that's what I would do.
I will speak it like -- I would speak it like I meant it.
we're standing right there behind you, mr. Webber.
>> are you the one that's going there?
>> [laughter]
>> actually, I think we're both going to be perhaps.
so --
>> changes from -- that's been discussed here from the court, I would like to see that last version before you take off and go to houston for that public hearing.
>> one thing that I would like to point out, in making these comments we would be making basically independent comments on behalf of Travis County.
it is our expectation take there will be additional comments that will be fully vetted through the regional clean air coalition and stuff for written submission later.
>> can I restate something that I said at the coalition meeting that I really think is important.
it seems to me that we've had such a hard time achieving the standard of 75 parts per bill, that if they were to do 60 or 65 overnight, I mean, they really would just take the wind out of us, wouldn't they?
wouldn't we just logically conclude there's no way for us to reach a standard this low.
so my idea was if your goal is to get down to 60 or 65, why do it overnight?
why not phase it in.
and thereby encourage jurisdictions like us to at least try to meet the new standard.
and the difference that it would make would be that year one instead of trying to get to 60 or 65, maybe we try to get 70.
I mean, even that's incredibly low compared to 75.
but it's much closer to where we are now, the 75 standard, than the 60 or 65.
see what I'm saying?
>> uh-huh.
>> the other thing is, I mean, do we argue here that instead of looking at historical data, we would look at -- you would look at the new data?
>> we actually looked at that as a legal issue and -- and julie, maybe you would like to -- to pipe in here?
>> the law says that the e.p.a.
can rely on past data if it chooses to.
it has a lot of discretion to set the standard on what it determines is important to protect the public health.
so unless there's a showing of abusive discretion or that, you know, there's some violation of the law, they're not likely to be reversed --
>> I'm not suggest thank we argue that the e.p.a.
-- suggesting that we argue that the e.p.a.
cannot do it.
I'm suggesting that we argue that the e.p.a.
should not do it.
there's a difference there.
>> there would be.
you can certainly comment on that.
>> I would.
I would argue that the good government strategy is that we want to implement a new standard in such a manner that governmental entities are encouraged to comply.
they don't want us just to blow it off, hopefully.
hopefully they want us to get out there and work harder, right, to improve the quality of our air.
so that's the argument that I would make.
really, it seems, I mean I think we ought to argue it even if we think e.p.a.
will not accept it.
so I wouldn't say that you cannot do this, but I would argue that you shouldn't do this or from the positive perspective, you should implement this in a way that promotes compliance.
by local governmental entities.
to the extent that's possible.
>> yes, ma'am?
>> at that point I agree with you on a stepped implementation process with regard to what the parts per bill level is.
but I don't think that -- I don't think at this point, I probably need to do some more research on this, that I would be in favor of both a stepped parts per billion and a three year lag in taking the data necessary to see whether we are in compliance or not, because that puts us six years down the road for determination with regard to our air quality or five years.
>> perhaps what we can do at this point is we can offer comments about a phased implementation and then we talked about having a work session to work out some of these alternative approaches.
there might be a whole array of alternative phasing approaches that one could develop and suggest and we might include that then in written comments later.
>> otherwise, we are -- we will be hit with a hammer a day after implementation.
because we will be in non-attainment the way they are doing it.
now I'm just thinking that is not the best strategy if your ultimate goal is compliance with it.
now, in our community, we really ought to try to do the best we can anyway.
and I'm sure that we will.
but it's certainly -- it certainly makes it easier when you know that you are reaching for something that you might attain rather than an impossibility.
with the I and m, seems like no matter what we do would be real drastic unless we put a fence around the county, even that won't keep the air pollution out.
>> it won't stop the background transport.
>> it will stop a lot of those cars coming into travis.
>> even if we don't operate another vehicle, we would still have some background -- transport issues.
>> [laughter]
>> I mean, one concern that I have, this is something that if we could look into there for the work session, one concern that I have is if we were to argue for a -- for a prospective monitoring to determine our -- our action plan, I fear that the -- that the generators of our background would also then get prospective monitoring, which would put us that much further behind the 8 ball if nearly 70% of what gets measured out there is coming from someplace else than Travis County residents and they get a three year prospective look at their emissions, I'm just concerned that the time is of the essence.
I completely get it, though, that we are about to be hit with a pretty significant hammer.
I -- I hope that in a three-year period we could really move the needle.
but in the event that we couldn't, I don't want to delay.
>> what would the public -- let me shut up after this.
but when would the public really be exposed thoroughly, just to these latest proposals by e.p.a., to let them know that the critical features of this is -- is, you know, concerns public health?
when will they actually, you know, the -- the everyday people, the folks that maybe can help out in this regard.
>> Commissioner, I think there's been a pretty good effort to alert the public to that --
>> these new ones, though, this is something brand new.
>> well, there was a lot of news attention to this.
it's just that in the current environment of news reporting, I think that a lot of things just don't get --
>> yeah.
>> -- on the front burner.
>> this is very critical.
>> okay.
>> fascinating area, thanks for giving us the opportunity to address it.
with that, are we done?
>> I think so.
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Friday, January 29, 2010 3:56 PM
