October 2, 2009

PERRYVILLE -- The Air Quality Committee of the Southeast Missouri Regional Planning Commission held a meeting on September 18, 2009 at the American Legion Hall in Perryville. Twenty-three people were in attendance including representatives from local governments, education institutions, economic development organizations, and the private sector. The following is a summary of that meeting.

Meeting was called to order by Chairman Albert Fults at 11:00 a.m.

Mr. Fults then asked David Grimes, a planner with the Regional Planning Commission, to summarize the meeting of the Government Relations Subcommittee that had been held earlier that day. Mr. Grimes reported that the subcommittee had met earlier and the following conclusions had been reached:

1. The draft Clean Air Action Plan contains no sections or statements that would be unacceptable to local governments.

2. There was a minor change that would be made to change the "strict" enforcement of speed limits section to read simply "Careful Enforcement of Speed Limits."

3. A new section would be added providing a clear method for amending the Clean Air Action Plan.

Mr. Grimes explained that he thought that the Air Quality Committee should have one more meeting before the October Regional Planning Commission meeting and he suggested the week of October 19, 2009. He said that this would allow another month for the committee to review the CAAP and make and revisions needed. At the October meeting he hoped that the Air Quality Committee would vote to accept the CAAP and recommend it to the Regional Planning Commission Board of Directors for adoption. Mr. Grimes said that if this schedule can be met he would expect to begin, immediately following the Regional Planning Commission’s October 27, 2009 meeting, to present the CAAP to the member counties and municipalities in order to obtain as many formal Resolutions of Support as possible.

Mr. Fults then asked Mr. Grimes to address the agenda item dealing with "Draft CAAP: review." Mr. Grimes said that he had made several changes to the CAAP draft as comments were received. He noted that the inclusion of a formal amendment section was an example of the kinds of changes that could still be made and, indeed, he would be drafting such a section before posting the latest revisions on the RPC web site. He stressed that while he felt that the CAAP was coming along nicely, he understood that to a great degree any plan remains a "work in progress."

This led into the "Discussion of Future Directions" especially including the "Impact of EPA "revisiting" Ozone Guidelines." Grimes briefly recapitulated that a recent press release from EPA indicated that the Ozone Regulations were being "reconsidered." He observed that he believed that there was little doubt that any changes in the regulation would be in the direction of stricter rules. He explained that as of the meeting the Farrar monitor in Perry County was in compliance and that since we were now past the heat of the year he anticipated that the three-year rolling average data would show this monitor to be in compliance and, therefore, Perry County could well be designated as "Attainment." Even a small adjustment in the regulations would result in the Farrar monitor being out of compliance.

Based on this, Grimes said that it was his opinion that it was more important than ever that the CAAP process move forward. He said that the defense against having any southeast Missouri counties included into the St. Louis Metropolitan Nonattainment Area was to be able to demonstrate that the local, rural area was doing everything possible to promote clean air and to be able to make the case that any additional regulations associated with inclusion into a metropolitan area would be, at best, ineffective.

Stan Payne, from MoDNR said that MoDNR staff had been caught by surprise by the EPA press release just like everyone else had. He expressed agreement with Mr. Grimes evaluation and urged the Air Quality Committee to move forward.

Ken Hagg, the engineer who has been providing technical assistance throughout the process, agreed. He pointed out that it was important to be sure that all of the components of the CAAP were, in fact, implementable. He observed that EPA might be sensitive to things put into the CAAP that were outside the range of what could reasonably be accomplished.

Mike Alesandrini added that he had recently been in contact with Josh Tapp from U.S. EPA. According to Alesandrini, the EPA schedule would be to have preliminary recommendations regarding new standards prepared by August, 2010. There would follow a 120 day state review period during which the state could amend its recommendations regarding nonattainment area designation. There would follow a one year review process before EPA would make its final nonattainment area designations. This "calendar" would make November, 2011 the earliest time for final designations to be made. Alesandrini concluded by saying that Mr. Tapp had said that EPA was fully aware of efforts being made in southeast Missouri, and that he had encouraged the Air Quality Committee to keep on doing what we were doing.

General discussion followed regarding the position of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) prior to the final decision regarding Ozone standards which had been released in March, 2008. Mr. Hagg noted that there were Primary and Secondary standards involved. The existing (March, 2008) regulations contained the same Primary and Secondary standards (8-hour readings not to exceed 75 parts per billion). CASAC recommendations had included a separate, and presumably more stringent Secondary standard. This could well be included in any revised standards developed under the current process.

A question arose regarding whether it would be appropriate to start reaching out to the agricultural community.

Chairman Fults said that he believed it was time to start notifying congressional representatives and Senators. Linda Greaser with Procter and Gamble said that she would be going to Washington next week and would be happy to carry that message. After discussion Mr. Buchheit agreed to draft a letter for Ms. Greaser to take with her on that trip.

The next meeting was set for October 23, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. at the American Legion Hall in Perryville.

Terry Miner with Sabreliner Corporation suggested a set of talking points – to be no more than six "bullet points."*

Meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

*In light of the recent statement by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that Ozone Standards as finalized in March, 2008 were being "reconsidered," the Air Quality Committee asked that a set of Points for Discussion be prepared. A draft of these points follows.

1. Rural areas are different. While this seems self-evident to those of us who live and work in rural areas, it is not at all clear that it is apparent to those who make the rules. The Clean Air Action Plan we are working on presents a reasonable, voluntary, and proactive approach for our rural area to do what we can that can reasonably be expected to have any measurable impact on air quality in our area.

2. A federal approach to Ozone is required, not local, rural approaches. Ozone precursors are, by their nature, highly transportable. Research by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and by URS Corporation done in conjunction with the recent round of nonattainment area designations both concluded that significant sources of ozone precursors in southeast Missouri are the Ohio River Valley and even the Gulf Coast.

3. The rationale for further reductions is, at best, subject to debate. For example, the statement that 4,000 heart attacks that could be prevented (CASAC estimates) seems significant until compared to the 1,500,000 heart attacks per year. This would be a reduction of up to one-fourth of one percent of heart attacks at a huge cost. Similarly, 2,330 potential deaths averted begs the question of what are the ages and other physical condition characteristics of those 2,330 persons.

4. More stringent standards are potentially counterproductive. At present, several of the larger industries (point sources) agree to Best Available Control Technology as a part of the permitting process for major expansions. A new standard with the potential for imposition of Least Achievable Emissions Rate (the "money is no object" level) standards could well mean that the project is not undertaken. The existing levels of emissions would, then, be continued and the improvements achieved from installation of Best Available Control Technology not achieved.

5. There is a certain fairness issue here. In our part of Missouri, for example, two counties could be penalized simply by virtue of having the misfortune of having a monitor located within them. If you are in one of the lucky counties that do not have monitors you are not faced with the problems inherent in designation as a nonattainment area.