Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, January 18, 2011,
Item 21
>> 21, consider and take appropriate action on a letter requesting Travis County be removed from the list of areas recommended to be designated as nonattainment for ozone.
good morning.
>> good morning.
for the record, my name is adell nolan last year governor perry sent a letter to tceq recommending areas in Texas to be designated as nonattainment for ozone.
Travis County at that time was one of the areas recommended based on 2006, 2007 and 2008 air quality monitoring data, our area's design value was 76 parts per billion, the standard 75 parts per billion.
so we were exceeding the standard for ozone.
however, the good news is that 2009 we had a great year thanks to efforts from citizens and surrounding counties known as the big push.
and our design value is now 74 parts per billion below the standard.
however, since we were on the list of areas to be designated as nonattainment, we need to bring to it the attention of e.p.a.
and tceq that we should be removed from that list.
and a letter to tceq will benefit that.
>> when did we receive the letter -- when did we have the knowledge that we were not in the attainment criterion.
if we had gone down to 72 parts per billion, of course we weren't in that before, and I知 looking at the communication saying there's not a situation whereby we have to address this personally -- not personally, but as we go through the process because we were not in that attainment status.
I知 trying to look at the when of we actually found out that, you know, because of the issues that we made that we got a law, parts per billion reading of 74.
so I知 trying to follow this best I can and I don't really know the when of it.
in other words, I hear what you are saying, but when this -- when it actually came out to be 74 parts per billion, the notification of it being that, when did we actually know that?
in other words, if the governor and them were aware of that at that time, this letter should take care of a lot of that stuff, but I知 just trying to get the when of all that.
can you basically isolate and tell me the when?
>> well, Commissioner, it is -- it is a somewhat strange bureaucratic process we are in right now.
>> it's a what?
>> a strange bureaucratic process.
the proposed was held in abeyance and e.p.a.
is looking at the possibilities of setting the standard somewhat lower.
keep in mind that the design standard is based on a three-year running average of what is it?
the fourth highest ozone level recorded by the officially sanctioned e.p.a.
monitors.
we've had a couple of good years so our value right now is at 74.
>> right.
>> and in e.p.a.'s process, we would have had -- we would have had the promulgation of rules establishing 75 parts per billion as the standard by now, but we're holding that process in abeyance and reconsidering and we keep putting off the days in which they are going to make final determination.
however, we still have that letter hanging out there.
and just to be on the safe side, it is prudent for us to go ahead and say, you know what, we are satisfying the 75 parts per billion standard at this point, take us off that list.
and I think that's -- I just think it makes some sense to go ahead and do that at this point.
even though we know that there may be a more stringent standard set later this year, it's still safe to go ahead and get Travis County taken off of that list and then we'll let the process sort of play itself out.
>> I think it's wonderful news that we have been able to get below the value currently in place.
I totally understand the desire of our staff to clean the record, as it were, with regard to this letter hang you out there so I would move approval on this and hope --
>> I second the motion.
>> > make even greater gains bringing ourselves even further below those parts per billion in anticipation of a more stringent standard which, at least in my opinion, is appropriate given the health risks involved.
>> I guess -- I second that.
I have no problem with it from the -- its original state of what we're discussing here, but my concern was the
>> [indiscernible] and try to see since we have this moving target, especially if the parts per billion figure is going to move under guise of e.p.a., it hasn't stayed the same, of course we always want to be in compliance with those particular standards.
but in the meantime, how do we keep up with this so we won't be caught in situations just as we're dealing with today.
and I don't know if there is a mechanism that's been devised to do that so that was my concern more than anything else is the communication aspects allowing, you know, where we have to, you know, we're in compliance with 75 parts per billion as far as what we need to be looking at, but we're going through this process.
so I知 looking at communication type setting that we maybe not have to worry about in the future if everyone is talking to one another and they actually see the end results of what the standards actually are as far as the readings.
and again, I applaud what we've done because it was a heck of an effort by asking everyone to do what we did under the big push initiative, but then again we are going to have to continue that to make sure we stay in compliance.
my concern is still the communication aspect and how do we communicate this during the process as we're looking to lower the standards that's then required by e.p.a.
that was the crux of what I知 trying to get to.
>> okay, sure, Commissioner, I understand that entirely.
keep in mind that adell is working with folks across the region and we can look on a daily basis at what the monitors are recording for ambient ozone.
so we'll have a pretty good idea if we're below the standard at some point.
in the meantime, the actual process for establishing the new standard is out of our control.
we can just monitor what is going on in e.p.a.
and they keep pushing the date back.
I think they are talking July of 2011 for some kind of prom promulgation or declaration of the new standard.
this is sort of hanging out there in the event there would be lawsuits related to the statute.
>> they moved it from August to November to now July to December and then July.
The last 30 seconds of this item were not captioned. No text for that portion of the discussion is available
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, January 18, 2011 5:36 PM
