Transcript Title of Presentation

Proposed 2015 Ozone Standard
Donna F. Huff
Air Quality Division
May 2015
Air Quality Division
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 1
Presentation Outline
• Proposed Rule
• Timeline
• Design Values and Trends
• Potential Classification Ranges
• Potential Attainment Deadlines
• Emissions
• SIP Development Process
• What Might Nonattainment Mean?
• Questions and Contacts
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 2
Proposed Rule: General
• The EPA proposed revisions to the primary and
secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for ozone on November 25, 2014.
• Both standards are proposed to be eight-hour
standards set within a range of 0.065 to 0.070
parts per million (ppm), which is often expressed as
65 to 70 parts per billion (ppb).
• The EPA took comment on a primary standard as
low as 0.060 ppm as well as retaining the current
0.075 ppm standard.
• The EPA took comment on a secondary standard
based on the weighted (W126) metric within a
range of 13 to 17 ppm-hours averaged over three
years.
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 3
Proposed Rule: Monitoring
• Proposed extension of the ozone monitoring season
by one month
– No impact: Texas already conducts year-round regulatory
monitoring for ozone
• Proposed requirement for photochemical
assessment monitoring at existing National Core
(NCore) monitoring sites
– NCore sites in Texas currently measure photochemical
assessment parameters such as ozone, NO, NO2, NOy,
speciated VOC, carbonyls, and meteorology
• Proposed requirement for hourly speciated VOCs
using autoGCs to meet photochemical assessment
monitoring requirements
– No impact to Texas assuming hourly speciated VOC
measurements will only be required at existing NCore sites
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 4
Proposed Rule: Permitting
• The EPA generally requires that a project
demonstrate compliance with any revised NAAQS
that are in effect when a permit is issued. However,
the EPA proposed to allow PSD permit applications
to be “grandfathered” from this requirement for the
revised ozone NAAQS, as long as either of the
following conditions apply:
– The application has been determined to be technically
complete on or before the date the EPA signs the final rule;
or
– The public notice for a draft permit or preliminary
determination has been published prior to the date revised
ozone standards become effective (60 days after publication
in the Federal Register).
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 5
Proposed Rule: Costs
• The EPA estimates a cost of $3.9 billion for 70 ppb
and $15 billion for 65 ppb by 2025. California is
expected to have an attainment date and costs
incurred after 2025 and an additional cost of $0.8 –
$1.6 billion for 70 or 65 ppb, respectively.
• The EPA estimates benefits of $7.5-$15 billion for a
70 ppb standard and $21 - $42 billion for a 65 ppb
standard (includes California benefits after 2025).
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 6
Timeline - Comments
• EPA held public hearings
– Washington D.C. 1/29
– Arlington, TX 1/29
– Sacramento, CA 2/2
• Written comments were due by March 17,
2015.
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 7
Timeline
October 1, 2015
Consent decree deadline for final
NAAQS
October 2016
State designation recommendations
due to the EPA
June 2017
EPA sends letter to states with
proposed nonattainment area
designations
October 2017
EPA to sign (finalize) designations and
classifications
October 2017
EPA to finalize implementation rule
October 2020-2021 State Implementation Plans (SIP) due
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 8
CSA/CBSA
County
Dallas-Fort Worth
Denton
Dallas-Fort Worth
Tarrant
Houston-The Woodlands
Brazoria
San Antonio-New Braunfels
Bexar
Dallas-Fort Worth
Collin
Dallas-Fort Worth
Dallas
Dallas-Fort Worth
Johnson
Dallas-Fort Worth
Hood
Houston-The Woodlands Montgomery
Houston-The Woodlands
Harris
Dallas-Fort Worth
Parker
Dallas-Fort Worth
Rockwall
El Paso-Las Cruces
El Paso
Houston-The Woodlands
Galveston
Killeen-Temple
Bell
Dallas-Fort Worth
Ellis
Longview-Marshall
Gregg
Tyler-Jacksonville
Smith
Beaumont-Port Arthur
Jefferson
Dallas-Fort Worth
Kaufman
Amarillo-Borger
Randall
Austin-Round Rock
Travis
Dallas-Fort Worth
Hunt
Longview-Marshall
Harrison
Waco
McLennan
Dallas-Fort Worth
Navarro
Beaumont-Port Arthur
Orange
Corpus Christi-KingsvilleNueces
Alice
Big Bend (No MSA)
Brewster
Alabama-Coushatta (No
Polk
MSA)
Victoria-Port Lavaca
Victoria
Laredo
Webb
Brownsville-HarlingenCameron
Raymondville
McAllen-Edinburg
Hidalgo
2014 8Hr
Ozone DV
(ppb)
81
80
80
80
78
78
76
76
76
76
74
73
72
72
72
71
71
71
70
70
70
69
69
69
69
68
67
2014 Ozone Design
Values by County
66
65
65
63
61
58
*2014 design values are calculated as of 4/1/2015. The monitors in Polk and Webb
Counties do not have enough complete data under 2008 NAAQS; however, the design
values at those monitors could become valid depending on the level of the new NAAQS.
57
**The Brewster County, Randall County, and Polk County monitors are part of the Clean
Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) of monitors and report data directly to the EPA.
2014 Ozone Design Values by
CSA
CSA/CBSA
2014 8Hr
Ozone DV
(ppb)
Dallas-Fort Worth
Houston-The Woodlands
San Antonio-New Braunfels
El Paso-Las Cruces
Killeen-Temple
Longview-Marshall
Tyler-Jacksonville
Amarillo-Borger
Beaumont-Port Arthur
Austin-Round Rock
Waco
Corpus Christi-Kingsville
Big Bend (No MSA)
Alabama-Coushatta (No MSA)
Victoria-Port Lavaca
Laredo
Brownsville-Harlingen-Raymondville
McAllen-Edinburg
81
80
80
72
72
71
71
70
70
69
69
66
65
65
63
61
58
57
*2014 design values are calculated as of 4/1/2015. The monitors in Polk and Webb
Counties do not have enough complete data under 2008 NAAQS; however, the design
values at those monitors could become valid depending on the level of the new NAAQS.
**The Brewster County, Randall County, and Polk County monitors are part of the Clean
Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) of monitors and report data directly to the EPA.
2014* Secondary Ozone
W126
Design Values by County
W126 DV
Region
DFW
DFW
DFW
DFW
ELP
DFW
BB
DFW
DFW
SAN
KTF
DFW
HGB
DFW
NETX
NETX
NETX
DFW
HGB
DFW
HGB
ARR
BPA
DFW
WAC
BPA
HGB
CC
VIC
LAR
LRGV
County
Denton
Tarrant
Collin
Dallas
El Paso
Parker
Brewster
Johnson
Rockwall
Bexar
Bell
Hood
Brazoria
Ellis
Smith
Gregg
Harrison
Hunt
Harris
Kaufman
Montgomery
Travis
Jefferson
Navarro
McLennan
Orange
Galveston
Nueces
Victoria
Webb
Cameron
(ppm-hrs)
17
17
15
13
13
12
12
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
4
3
3
Secondary
Ozone DV’s
> 17
14-17
8 - 13
<7
*2014 W126 Design Values are preliminary and are subject to change.
Texas Air Quality Trends:
Potential Classification Ranges
Example Classification Thresholds
Based on Percent-Above-Standard Approach
0.070 parts per million (ppm)
Marginal
Moderate
Serious
Severe – 15
Severe – 17
Extreme
0.071
0.081
0.093
0.105
0.111
0.163
up to 0.081 ppm
up to 0.093 ppm
up to 0.105 ppm
up to 0.111 ppm
up to 0.163 ppm
ppm or more
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 13
Potential Classification Ranges
Example Classification Thresholds
Based on Percent-Above-Standard Approach
0.065 parts per million (ppm)
Marginal
Moderate
Serious
Severe – 15
Severe – 17
Extreme
0.066
0.075
0.087
0.098
0.103
0.152
up to 0.075 ppm
up to 0.087 ppm
up to 0.098 ppm
up to 0.103 ppm
up to 0.152 ppm
ppm or more
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 14
Potential Attainment Deadlines
Based on Section 181(a)(1) of the Federal Clean Air Act:
Marginal
2020
Moderate
2023
Serious
2026
Severe
2032 or 2034
Extreme
2037
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 15
Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
2011 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
Contributions by Source Category
Region
Source category
Point
Austin (Bastrop, Burnet, Caldwell,
Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties)
Nonpoint
Mobile
14.8%
8.2%
77.0%
31.5%
8.6%
59.9%
8.3%
12.2%
79.5%
22.2%
5.4%
72.4%
San Antonio (Atascosa, Bandera,
Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall,
Medina, and Wilson Counties)
Dallas-Fort Worth (Collin, Dallas,
Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker,
Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties)
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery,
and Waller Counties)
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 16
Volatile Organic Compounds
Emissions
2011 Volatile Organic Compounds
Emissions Contributions by Source
Category
Region
Source category
Point
Austin (Bastrop, Burnet, Caldwell, Hays,
Travis, and Williamson Counties)
Nonpoint
Mobile
1.7%
63.7%
34.6%
3.0%
65.4%
31.6%
6.1%
63.3%
30.6%
16.7%
57.5%
25.8%
San Antonio (Atascosa, Bandera,
Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall,
Medina, and Wilson Counties)
Dallas-Fort Worth (Collin, Dallas,
Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker,
Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties)
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery,
and Waller Counties)
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 17
SIP Development Process
Typically a 3 - 4 Year Process
1
Pollution-exceeding episode is selected.
2
Base case and future emissions inventories are
prepared.
3
Photochemical grid modeling is performed to
determine the amount of emission reductions
required.
4
Control measures are evaluated to determine how to
accomplish the needed reductions.
5
Draft SIP revision and rules are prepared.
6
Commission approves the proposed SIP revision and
rules package.
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 18
SIP Development Process
Typically a 3 - 4 Year Process
7
Formal public review and comment period with a public
hearing.
8
Response to comments are prepared and options are
reviewed based on comments.
9
Proposed control measures are re-quantified and remodeled.
10
Final revisions are made to SIP and rulemaking
packages.
11
Commission adopts final rules and SIP revision
packages.
12
The state submits the complete rule and SIP revision
packages to the EPA.
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 19
Nonattainment:
What It Could Mean for an Area
SIP revision
Controls for major sources of nitrogen oxides and volatile
organic compounds, possibly minor sources as well
Vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) for some areas
Emission offsets for new major sources or major source
modification
More stringent permitting requirements
Conformity Process: general and transportation
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 20
Nonattainment: Federal Requirements
MARGINAL
MODERATE
SERIOUS
SEVERE
EXTREME
(3 Years)
(6 Years)
(9 Years)
(15-17 Years)
(20 Years)
Basic I/M
Enhanced
Monitoring and I/M
3% per Year VOC
Reductions After 6
Years
VMT Growth Offset
Clean Fuels and
Controls for Boilers
RFP Milestone
Contingency
Measures
Major Source Fees
for Failure to Attain
(185 Fees)
Traffic Controls
During Congestion
Emissions Inventory
Emissions
Statements
Nonattainment NSR
Program & Emissions
Offsets
RACT Fixups
I/M Corrections
RACT & RACM
Emissions Reductions
Attainment
Demonstration
Contingency
Measures
RFP - 15% VOC
Reductions within 6
years
Modeled Attainment
Demonstration
Clean Fuels Program
VMT Demonstration
Stage II Gasoline
Vapor Recovery
100
100
50
25
10
1.1 : 1
1.15 : 1
1.2 : 1
1.3 : 1
1.5 : 1
Nonattainment requirements compound as classification increases.
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 21
Air Quality Division Contacts
David Brymer, Director
[email protected]
512-239-1725
Kim Herndon, Assistant Director
[email protected]
512-239-1421
Donna F. Huff, Air Quality Planning Manager
[email protected]
512-239-6628
Steve Davis, Air Modeling and Data Analysis Manager
[email protected]
512-239-1412
Kevin Cauble, Emissions Assessment Manager
[email protected]
512-239-1874
Air Quality Division • Proposed 2015 Ozone Standards • ETF • May 2015 • Page 22