Travis County Commissioners Court
March 2, 2010,
Item A1
A 1 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding comments to the clean air coalition and u.s.
environmental protection agency in response to rule proposal of the epa to reconsider the national air quality standards for ozone, the effects of the proposal on Travis County and related issues.
good morning.
>> good morning judge, Commissioners.
john white, tn r.
with me today is tom weber, our environmental quality program manager.
so as you stated, the u.s.
environmental protection agency is reconsidering its national air quality standard for ozone.
we had a work session last week in which we discussed this topic.
a month ago today, I guess it was, tom and I both attended a hearing in houston to present preliminary comments of Travis County.
we also recognize that there will be a need for additional comments coordinated through the clean air co lages, a regional body of which we are an active member, an also an opportunity for additional more detailed comments from Travis County.
so in our work session we discussed a number of issues and based upon the discussion there, we have made some revisions to the letter that we had originally submitted last month as our comments.
generally those, the revisions focus upon looking at, actually picking a number for a recommendation for the proposed standard, looking at issues associated with transport from out of the region, and then trying to figure out how we are going to move forward in terms of dealing with a more aggressive air quality standard.
with that I'll let tom, who actually worked on the revision thrort--to the letter which you apparently now are just getting the revised letter, so I'll let tom walk through the specific language there.
>> Commissioners, judge, I'll focus mainly on the changes since I think you all saw the letter that we presented to epa the first part of February.
on the first page of this, as john mentions, we do put more emphasis on 70 parts per billion as the standard.
previously the letter just kind of said that we defer to epa scientific advice in setting this.
but we are a little bit more focused on the 70 in our comment there.
the next item, transport from out of region emission sources, we sort of basically rearranged our comments into this issue.
so it's kind of a restructuring.
but we mentioned both studies, scientific suds that were done, one by baylor university and then others by the university of Texas that focused both on the weather patterns that sometimes give us 80-85 percent of the standards as what blows in.
additionally we make the point that we can have up to 20 parts per billion that comes into our metropolitan area from upwind sources very close by.
i think you remember some of the demonstration and slides on that last week.
then on page 2 we have kind of sub items under that, one, two and three.
the first one is basically to try to recognize that we need more time to attain the standard.
and that there are other efforts that should run their course before all of a sudden we find ourselves trying to solve this problem on our own in the central Texas area.
item 2 there, we restructure that to say that we believe phasing is something that should be done if epa decides on a standard more stringent than 70.
in other words, if they go to 65 or 60, we might try to have a phase in period of time.
we added number 3 there to put more of a focus of need to be photo chemical grid modeling of major sources such as electric power sources upwind.
we think that is something that has been an issue in the Texas legislature that didn't pass last time.
we expect that that is going to continue to be an issue until it's addressed.
we added the next item, us, epa must pursue more stringent vehicle engine and fuel standards.
as we pointed out in our slide presentation last week, some of the most significant decreases in ozone that we obtained are not because of individual things we have done here in this region but because nationally, engines are becoming cleaner and fuels are becoming cleaner and we think that there's room for more actions of that level at the federal level.
we encourage epa to do so.
>> just to be clear on that, just so everybody listening into this understands, the measures we have taken under the early action come pack have had a significant impact in reducing our ozone.
however, the big ticket item has been improvement of vehicle fleet, and that is from federal standards.
>> we had a discussion of the last item on page 2, the form of primary standard needs to be revised.
this is also something that campo may be consideredr considering in their comments.
basically, rather than using the fourth highest average value as our design value that decides whether we pass or fail, is to consider either using the 7th highest or to use the fourth highest in combination with basically backing out those days when weather patterns from upwind seem to have clearly caused us to fail to meet the standard.
and we think that is an option that might help us stay in attainment.
but we're not really, I think we make the point in here that going through the whole process of having a state implementation plan to address a matter that is kind of beyond our control is somewhat counter productive and very costly.
and so why not make the standard calculated differently, I'll just leave it at that.
i think you can kind of read the comments.
neck item, met pal ton designation is essential, that is the same comment we gave epa last month.
we added an item, voluntary compliance efforts.
in this case, this is kind of campo and capcog appear to be developing a comment similar to this that basically tries to let us have an early action come pack as tool for meeting the standard without the more formal and regulatory process involved with the si p.
the next item on page 4, reduce error of monitoring data, we discussed that before and that is largely the same comment.
the secondary standard, this is the one for protection of eco systems, vegetation and agricultural crops.
our comment number one there is saying we did add items two and three.
item 2 is taken from what capcog but I should say the clean air coalition, to allow a full two years to implement that secondary standard.
there's a lot of questions about how exactly you go about implementing that.
we think a lot of bugs need to be worked out by epa.
finally, because of these monitoring gaps that we have and the need for epa and the state to gain more experience on how to implement that secondary standard, we thangthink maybe they ought to start in 15.
this is another one where they suggest maybe a range of 7-15.
those are the changes we made.
and so we can carry these forward as recommendations to the cac for their consideration or we can consider these forward as an amendment to our earlier comments on behalf of Travis County directly to epa.
>> any comments from the court?
>> these would be.
>> that would be a place for us to sign them.
>> yes.
>> just to give you a sense of where you stand relative to your partners in the region, I think these are very concrete doable recommendations.
they are moderate in terms of focusing, positioning Travis County.
and let's continue to improve air quality but let's get it to the point where we can actually attain the standard that epa sets.
you will find your partners in the region much more conservative.
i believe they see this as being becoming a mandate.
so they are reluctant to commit to statements at this time until they actually see the rules.
and one where we will separate clearly from the rest of the region is in the area that is to be designated.
i don't think you will get a lot of buy in from our sister counties, being in a mandated additional area, even though we believe that would be appropriate, we believe epa will ultimately do that, I don't think you will find your sister counties volunteering to become part of a nondesignated area.
even though they may understands the science behind it, I think they will be a little more conservative in statements that they bring forward into the regional forum.
i think overall we are well positioned in the statement that is made here.
clearly continuing to move toward cleaner air in the region and something I think that hopefully epa will agree with the voluntary efforts that we have done to date and represent the spirit of clean air that is regional.
continue that although I'm not hopeful that the epa will allow us to do that, think that is where our other counties would gladly join us in voluntary efforts.
they are just a little more reluctant to become mandated into doing these things.
>> seems to me that we should indicate in the title here of these coming from Travis County Texas.
that is my first recommendation.
>> second one is under the revision of the ozone standards as appropriate.
we say we encourage u.s.
epa.
i would add, we strongly encourage.
just add strongly.
then, I would say, to set the standard at 70 parts per billion and I would add those words, between two and continue.
if we are asking them to set it at 70 parts per billion, I think we ought to go ahead and say it.
we recommend it, then, I wount dance around, that I would strongly encourage them to do it.
so between we and encourage, I say we strongly encourage.
then I would say, sets the standard at 70 parts per billion and.
between two and continue, the next few words.
see that?
>> uh-huh.
>> the other thing, I guess it would be a question for us, we say in two on page 2, we talk about Travis County encouragings the agency to use flexibility in establishing interim targets for reducing the ozone standard by increments tied to reductions, et cetera.
so on.
so, then we say, such phasing in of incremental emission reductions.
so will they interpret that flexibility in establishing interim targets as phasing in, if you are not setting at 70, we are saying, but you want to set it lower, then phase in ation of that lower standard--implementation of that lower standard.
>> that iser the clar if I case.
>> what I'm saying, I'm not sure that language clearly sets that for the for us.
and my first thought when I read it was, if you time all together it's kind of clear that we mean phase these in if you are going to do lower than 70.
but I think I would say it more clearly than that.
if possible.
i just had a moment to kind of reflect on that.
my first reading of it was it really is pretty generally and susceptible to different interpretations.
why not just go ahead and state what we mean.
we really mean if you set the standard lower than 70 parts per billion, phase them in.
right?
>> yes.
>> and then we want to encourage phasing in over three years, four years, fire years or ten?
we want to phase in over a reasonable period because we are not trying to delay with this, right?
>> correct.
>> what is the reasonable time?
>> I think five years probably is the reasonable time because that is the time frame for them to revisit the standard.
>> I think I would say that.
>> uh-huh.
>> because if they phase in going from 70-60 in a two-year period, we are not going to like that.
right?
throws --those are my comments.
otherwise I think they are good.
we send these to the epa from Travis County?
>> I think will you have another opportunity with campo, they have this on their upcoming agenda to discuss.
>> what is the finally version of this for the time line, when is the finally version--
>> March 22 is the deadline to give comments to the epa.
>> so cac is going to meet again on the 10th.
this will obviously be the primary focus of their discussion on that date.
>> so we can make these changes.
we can get it to the cac today.
>> when we make the final changes, we like to, I'd like to have a copy of those final changes that we included today.
>> oh, yes.
>> send to the whole court.
>> yes.
>> the problem is that if the clean air co-coalition meets when?
>> something could come up.
there could be additional comments.
>> yes.
>> let's have it back on the agenda on the 9th then.
>> all right.
>> any percentage in recognition that the two major sources that our area contributes to are mobile sources, nitrous oxide and electricity generation else where that we use here, is there any percentage in including that as part of our argument for metropolitan area designate nigs since on you are population is booming?
i imagine we will be one of the largest markets for electricity usage.
just wondering if there's any percentage in including that as an additional argument for metropolitan area destination.
>> I think the strongest argument has to do with transportation because that is the overwhelming source for us around here and that is going overwhelming growth area for emissions over the next few years.
the electric generating facilities, some of them are local, some them are outside of the region.
>> it really contributes to our background.
>> we have to be careful when we we got into it with the epa folks.
they are concerned about our use of the term background.
we have got sort of a vernacular that we are using that is perhaps not consistent with the rest of the country.
but we all understand what we saying there.
it does contribute to emissions elsewhere that could then either blow in here because of specific events on a particular day.
much less would it be involved in the large continental scale, weather pattern that is the other problem that we face.
>> Commissioner, you specifically want a statement about coal fire plants in our region that contribute to the--
>> I think it would be good to go ahead and mention it in the transport from out of region emission sources.
>> that seems to be something that would be directly related to the concept of the prevention and significant deterioration rules.
>> good point.
>> that is where we would hope in the future this is going to be more seriously considered.
>> it's implied in the transport from outs of region emission sources.
i think we could make it explicit with regard to energy production shun outside the region is predominantly coal fired power plants.
>> any other comments?
move anel of this as the--approval of this as the draft as of today with the understanding we will have the item on the agenda next week in the event that there is a needs for further modification.
seconded by Commissioner Davis.
discussion of the motion?.
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all very much.
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:
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 2:55 PM
