Tougher ozone standards could put Victoria in violation
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
12 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
TIMELINESA tougher ozone standard will be officially proposed in December.
That proposal will be reviewed and, in August 2010, a final cap will be adopted.
In 2011, communities will be notified if they are in violation.
Plans of action ...
- SHOW ALL »
TIMELINESA tougher ozone standard will be officially proposed in December.
That proposal will be reviewed and, in August 2010, a final cap will be adopted.
In 2011, communities will be notified if they are in violation.
Plans of action to help reduce ozone levels will be due in December 2013.
Victoria County could be in violation of ozone standards if tougher rules being considered by the federal government are adopted.
That likely would lead to restrictions to curtail ozone generation, but no one is sure yet what those restrictions would be.
Marie Lester, Victoria's environmental programs coordinator, said the city's average ozone so far this year is 66 parts per billion. The Environmental Protection Agency is considering lowering the cap to between 60 and 70 parts per billion.
"That puts us right in the middle," she said.
It could also put 27 of the 28 Texas counties that monitor ozone in violation of the standard, she said. The exception would be Webb County.
"It's going to be difficult for many of these communities to reach attainment because the air quality problems we have are not always locally generated," Lester said.
Up to 87 percent of Victoria's ozone is transported in by air currents from other parts of Texas and the eastern United States.
Ray Miller with the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which coordinates the county's transportation plans, agreed Victoria has little control over ozone levels.
"You have mesquite trees and pecan trees that put off chemicals that can create ozone," he said. "You may have a spike in the spring just because of all the plants."
Officials need to consider such factors when they set tougher ozone standards, he said. On the flip side, ozone is a health problem for some and it needs to be regulated, he said.
A proposed state plan for dealing with cities that don't meet the ozone standard deals mainly with the oil-and-gas industry. Restrictions range from such vague terms as controls for tank fittings on floating roofs to controlling crude and condensate storage tanks.
While Victoria County has an oil-and-gas industry, Lester said University of Texas research shows it's not the main source of ozone.
"Because it's so far in the future, they put some more generic things in there," Lester said. "Whatever they decide to do, we'll tailor some of our campaign to help meet some of the needs of the plan."
But the focus will be on vehicles, because they produce more than half of the ozone generated locally, she said.
Miller said the good news is that vehicle fleets have a relatively high turnover rate and the older vehicles are being replaced with those that produce less pollution.
Comments
Carbon dioxide is the unavoidable byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, which currently provides 85 percent of America's energy. Thus, it will be very costly to move away from this preferred energy source, and especially doing so as expeditiously as S. 2191 requires. A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050. Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050.
November 16, 2009 at 7:34 a.m.Even these cost projections may underestimate the true costs, because they assume no unpleasant surprises. But the world has already witnessed many unpleasant surprises with Europe's ongoing efforts to impose a cap and trade program under the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, European efforts have racked up significant costs while failing to reduce emissions.
Yeah Mike says that electric cars will reduce the consumption of oil. Well, I guess the EIA has not yet heard about the electric cars because they forecast the world wide consumption of oil to increse from 84 to 106 million barrels a day by 2030.
And one other thing I just love the hand wringing and weeping that occurs whenever the price of some consumer good starts to rise. Yeah we all hate pollution but for gosh sake don't stop producing the things we want and need - cough, don't do that.
November 15, 2009 at 8:08 p.m.For the most part.. some humorous post, and others.
If you think the Obamacare bill if passed, breaks the proverbial camels back, you ain't seen nothing yet.
The proposed Cap and Tax legislation, pushed by the Obama administration, again if passed,will be the absolute end of manufacturing in America.
It will raise the price of every single consumer good bought or sold.
Mike mentioned that every country is moving towards electric cars in another post... that's all fine and dandy, but the Cap and Tax bill will raise the price of the electricity to charge the electric cars by at least 100% IMO.
To even try to enact legislation that increases the burden on citizens and businesses, and increase the influence of the federal government, at this time, is...
1. Faulty economic policy, tax the public to spend more that will increase the public s outlay for basic necessities. OR...
2. A very large amount of hubris by the congress and the executive branch to shove through their personal agenda, just because they can, and to hell with the taxpayers, no matter what it costs the taxpayers.
November 15, 2009 at 3:45 p.m.lol, the agency that hawks the right to pollute off the highest bidders now wants to tell communities to clean up their act?
it's time to close the curtain on E(very)P(olluters)A(ccomplice).
November 15, 2009 at 2:36 p.m.I forgot to comment yesterday on how much I enjoyed this blog, it makes one think and provides a head-ups to the future of area ozone standards and greenhouse gases.
November 15, 2009 at 11:49 a.m.You guys need to read up a little. Ozone comes from a process where sunlight breaks down two basic types of chemicals NOx (exhaust emissions) and VOCs (volatile organic compounds). While industry and vehicles are responsible for the majority of ground level ozone pollution, anything that lives (including trees) also produce the VOCs that result in ozone. You call that junk science? read up a little http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_th...
November 15, 2009 at 10:54 a.m.The dirty coal used in the furnace's to produce electricity at Coleto Creek Power Plant, and the numerous area chemical and industrial plants in the area are the only serious area polluters. Are people really that gullible to believe pecan and mesquite trees? Junk science is creeping into every facet of public debate.
Lawnmowers, pecan trees, and a host of other alleged culprits are straw man arguments. Sure they pollute, but the real offenders, the reason we have a problem is dirty heavy industry. The solution is apparent, but I won't say it here, because the people who choose not to believe have a very aggressive propaganda campaign they are blending with politics.
November 15, 2009 at 8:10 a.m.Interesting fact to know and tell, Patient. Not only do pecan and mesquite trees give off these chemicals, but so do those lovely liveoak trees that everyone worships around here as does corn and a number of other crops common in this area. Wait, don't forget about the amount of ozone produced naturally in the Gulf of Mexico. Wonder how long it would take to pump the Gulf dry???
November 15, 2009 at 7:45 a.m.It has been a number of years and I cannot recall the year or the source of the document I had read about Texas air quality being heavily influenced by the trade winds from Mexico.
November 14, 2009 at 11:38 p.m.I wonder how they determine that vehicles produce over half the ozone gases.
I also wonder if the area will have to have special formulation of its gasoline to reduce certain ozone gases.