Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Fair ~ River stage: 33.76 Rising Saturday, November 21, 2009 |
RSS
 Print
 Email link
 Respond to editor
 Read comments (7)
 Share link
Missouri Department of Natural Resources proposes stricter ozone controls for area countiesTuesday, November 25, 2008
The resource agency's Air Pollution Control Program has proposed that Cape Girardeau and Perry counties be designated an ozone nonattainment area because of readings above acceptable levels at a monitoring station near Farrar, Mo., on Route C in Perry County. The DNR has also recommended that St. Francois and Ste. Genevieve counties be added to an expanded St. Louis nonattainment area because of higher-than-allowed ozone readings at a monitoring station near Bonne Terre, Mo. In St. Louis, nonattainment means vehicle emission testing, reformulated gasoline, vapor controls on fuel pumps and controls on new industrial development. Exactly what a nonattainment designation would mean for Perry and Cape Girardeau counties is unclear and won't be known for years, perhaps until the process of writing and winning approval for implementation plans is complete in 2015, said Jeff Bennett, the air quality modeling unit chief in DNR's Air Pollution Control Program. Led by the Southeast Missouri Regional Planning and Economic Development Commission, governments and businesses in Cape Girardeau County are passing resolutions and writing letters protesting the designation. They fear major new employers won't consider the county when looking for sites to build new production plants. "We see this as a major issue for us," said Mitch Robinson, executive director of Cape Girardeau Area Magnet and a member of the planning commission board. On 36 days during the 2005-2007 period, the readings for ozone pollution were above the eight-hour standard of 75 parts per billion, according to figures from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The monitor has not recorded an eight-hour period above the standard so far in 2008, an improvement aided by a cooler and wetter-than-normal summer. According to studies of air patterns, pollution from Cape Girardeau County was a major contributor to the high readings. "When an area does not meet the standard, that means that county is a designated nonattainment area," Bennett said. "The second question is, do other areas around that area contribute to that monitor not meeting the standard? What Cape Girardeau County contributes to the Perry County monitor contributes to the violation." That is not what a consultant hired by the planning commission found, said David Grimes, the planning commission staff member who helped put together the response. "What our wizard said is that the evidence as they analyze the ozone precursors, read at the Farrar monitor, are transmitted in from much farther away than Cape Girardeau." The best hope for altering DNR's proposed designations will come at a Dec. 4 public hearing in Jefferson City. The Missouri Air Conservation Commission will listen to concerns and hear suggestions about what portions, if any, of Southeast Missouri should be designated as nonattainment areas. The commission will also be hearing from people in other areas of the state about expanded or new designations. The regional planning commission has acknowledged that Perry County and Ste. Genevieve County, where the air monitors are located, will be given the nonattainment designation. But each should be named as single-county nonattainment locations, the commission said in response to the DNR recommendations. The regional planning commission has won support from the Cape Girardeau City Council, the Jackson Board of Aldermen, the Cape Girardeau County Commission, Perryville and several smaller towns, including Old Appleton and Altenburg, Grimes said. "My position is we are better served by avoiding the whole issue altogether," he said. Ozone is caused by the interaction of volatile organic chemicals, nitrogen oxides and sunlight. In high concentrations, it creates the haze on a summer day that is usually called smog. Nitrogen oxides are a major component of car emissions and emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Volatile organic compounds include such items as gasoline, paint thinner and adhesives. Buzzi Unicem USA, Procter & Gamble and Southeast Missouri State University are the biggest emitters of nitrogen oxides in the two counties, according to figures provided by DNR. Procter & Gamble, TG Missouri in Perryville, Falcon Foam in Perryville and Nordenia USA are the largest single sources of volatile organic compounds. The monitor at Farrar was installed to determine the effect of Procter & Gamble's most recent expansion, Bennett said. The air pollution permit filed by Procter & Gamble indicated a possibility the expansion could result in more than 100 tons annually of pollution releases. The first step for controlling pollution would be increased scrutiny of any new industrial facilities that expect to emit more than 100 tons of nitrogen oxides or volatile organics, Bennett said. That could begin in late 2010. The next likely step would come around 2013 and be aimed at the large emitters, imposing reductions that can be obtained through the use of "reasonably available control technology." In those cases, the cost of reducing emissions would be weighed against the cost of new controls. "We are not going to shut people down," Bennett said. "We are not going to put controls on that don't make sense economically. We are in the business of doing things that make sense." Vapor controls on fuel pumps and emissions tests would likely be low on the list for this area, he said. EPA rules favor the inclusion of Cape Girardeau County with Perry County in a nonattainment area. But Robinson hopes that if enough pressure is exerted on state and federal politicians, the designation, which he calls a "black mark" that will scare away employers, can be avoided. "They need to look at the big picture," Robinson said. "I live here. I breathe the air. We all want a clean environment. But where is the line being drawn from good regulations to negative regulations that create a more negative impact on the area. How much cleaner does the air need to be and at what costs?" 388-3642 Have a comment? Log on to semissourian.com Ozone pollution basics Comments  Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
|
Enter your email address to subscribe to our mailing lists:
|
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google
The problem is not the Regulations, nor the EPA or DNR. The problem is the air quality. Folks who claim they are concerned about the environment, the quality of our air and water, but then mount a campaign against the very regulations and agencies that assure that we have clean air and water are barking up the wrong tree. The Southeast Missourian did a nice job of pointing out the problem, the health hazards kids, old folks, and those with lung disease suffer at the hands of polluted air. Rather than claiming it's the regulations, we should be exploring how to clean up the air. Again, we know who the major culprits are - P&G, SEMO, and Bootsee Unichem. We should be talking to these folks and persuading them to clean up their act so we can all breathe easier and there is no need to impose non-attaignment on the region.
Hmmm...Interesting since we've lost DANA, Florsheim, and a multitude of other factories. It would only make sense that we have LESS polution. Wait! I got it! It's increased due to the amount of automobile traffic! Now we're getting somewhere.
4.9% of the days were above their standards and they are proposing air quality restrictions? I remember when the majority of them happened--there were several days over one of the summers mentioned when the entire region was occupied by a very large and stagnant blob of air that not only carried in polluted air but it also prohibited pollution--ground especially--from dispersing. There are six significant sources--doubtful that SEMO and Buzzi Unicem even impact the station at Farrar--and the government wants to punish two entire counties? It would be nice for this newspaper to investigate who, exactly, is getting the kickback.
When was this monitor installed? Has the air quality actually gotten worse, or has it been at these levels all along but not previously measured?
Are each of the identified sources operating within their permitted levels and allowable excursion rates? Maximum allowable nitrogen oxide emission levels have already been reduced through the various iterations of the Clean Air Act, Clean Air Interstate Rule, etc.
Are there any really large emitters in counties adjacent to Cape and Perry, such as Scott and Bollinger, etc. that may be significantly influencing these numbers?
If the numbers are truly valid, sure - we need to do something. Just having a hard time believing the validity. What happens if the area makes it through 2008 and 2009 without an excursion??
Pollution in Southeast Missouri? Kind of like drugs, gangs, crime, etc. we may not want to admit it but it's here anyway. Sure, officials and industries want to wait. Waiting puts the burden of health issues on the individuals and their insurance companies, if you are lucky enough to have insurance, instead of on the source of the problem.
Seems to me that addressing the issue at 4.9%ool is by far a better solution than waiting until we hit 49%ool.
We'll all be dead from the toxic haze if we wait for the industries and area officials to voluntarily start any type of clean up.
When Chaffee had their little water fiasco a few weeks ago the DNR was the supreme authority and quoted chapter and verse as such. What's different now other than the number of people affected?
I doubt the pollution that the sensors in Perry county are detecting are from this county. Obviously pollution hasn't been a problem here otherwise, sensors would have been installed in Cape County. The culprit is St. Louis. Don't publish Cape County because of something coming from St. Louis.
If it is determined that the "pollution" is determined to originate in Cape County and affects the sensors in the next county over, then here are my thoughts...we need to address the issue first before inviting more pollution generating companies to locate here, otherwise, the perception that there's a problem just gets worse. I would favor a moratorium on all growth, including commercial, residential, and of course industrial until we get this thing figured out. We need to pitch this to the state as actions that we are taking because the one thing we don't want is the state coming in and telling us how to run our county! There has been no new industrial growth in the county, so I am dumbfounded that this is even an issue so it may be moot once the state figures out that the pollution has more to do with the weather patterns bringing it in from St. Louis than anything in this county that might be generating it. The companies responsible for generating the soot need to be shut down until they can figure out how to dispose of their exhaust. There is no doubt in my mind that the changes in the earth's atmosphere are induced by man-made components. Cape County has an opportunity now to show that it is willing to do its part. Come on county judges, let's see you step up on this.