Agenda Alamo Area Council of Governments Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Wednesday, May 27, 2015 – 8:30 a.m. Al J. Notzon III Board Room 8700 Tesoro Drive San Antonio, TX 78217-6228
1. Meeting Called to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Citizens to be Heard
4. Consider and act upon approval of the January 28th, 2015 minutes
5. Air Quality Outreach and Education Report
6. Ozone Status
A. 2015 Ozone Season Update B. Updates on the Proposed Ozone Standard C. Responses from Other Governments and Organizations to EPA’s Proposed Ozone Standard
7. Consider and act upon membership recommendations for the AIR Advisory Committee:
Colin Leyden – Environmental Defense Fund
8. Ozone Advance Program
A. 2015 Path Forward Plan B. Consider and act upon response to EPA regarding their comments on the 2014 Path Forward Plan
9. Bi-annual air Quality Funding and State Legislative Update
10. Photochemical Modeling Status
11. Potential Cost of Non-Attainment
12. Next Meeting, July 22nd, 2015
13. Adjournment
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. The accessible entrance is located at the front entrance of 8700 Tesoro Drive. Accessible parking spaces are also available. Please contact AACOG for auxiliary aids and services for the hearing impaired, including interpreters for the deaf, at (210) 362-5200 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or by calling Texas Relay at 7-1-1 for assistance. DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Jan. 28, 2015 minutes.
Minutes of the Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Meeting Alamo Area Council of Governments Wednesday Jan. 28, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. Al J. Notzon III Board Room 8700 Tesoro Drive, Suite 100 San Antonio, Texas 78217
Committee Members Guests Councilman Ron Nirenberg, Chair, COSA Joe Eutizi, San Miguel Electric Coop Mayor Chris Riley, Vice Chair, Leon Valley Lee Cover, CEMEX Judge Richard L. Jackson, Wilson County Samuel Kline, JBSA, Lackland Judge Sherman Krause, Comal County Liza Meyer, City of San Antonio Judge Nelson Wolff, Bexar County ( Andy Winter) Chris Ashcraft, STEER, VP Commissioner Jim Wolverton, Guadalupe County Craig Taylor, Communities for Veterans Dub Smothers, Concerned Citizen Maricela Diaz-Wells Lyle Hufstetler AACOG Saff AirTech/Air Advisory Members Brenda Williams, Interim Director of Natural Resources Russell Seal, Sierra Club Steve Smeltzer, Environmental Manager Peter Bella, ImagineSA Annette Prosterman, Transportation Coordinator Kim Stoker, CPS Energy Parviz Nazem, Environmental Modeler Lyza Meyer, COSA Nic Jones, Clean City Coordinator Dr. Vincent Nathan, COSA Nick Page, Alamo Area MPO Dean Word, Andy Quittner, City of Sequin
1. Meeting called to order Commissioner Jim Wolverton called the meeting to order at 8:37 a.m. 2. Roll call A quorum was achieved. 3. Citizens to be heard There were no citizens to be heard. 4. Approval of Minutes Judge Richard L. Jackson made a motion to approve the minutes of Oct. 22, 2014 and Mayor Chris Riley seconded the motion. The motion carried and the minutes were approved unanimously. 5. Consider and act upon election of a Chair and Vice-Chair for the Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Commissioner Jim Wolverton asked the floor to nominate members for the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair. Judge Richard L. Jackson nominated Councilman Ron Nirenberg for the
Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 1 January 28, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Jan. 28, 2015 minutes. position of Chair, and he was elected unanimously. Then Councilman Ron Nirenberg nominated Mayor Chris Riley for the Vice Chair position and she was unanimously elected by the Committee members. 6. Ozone Standard A: Air Quality 101 Councilman Ron Nirenberg took the place of Committee’s Chair and moved on to the item number 6 on the agenda. Mr. Steven Smeltzer provided a presentation in regards to the Clean Air Act and rules and regulation encompassing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He said the law requires EPA to review the standards every 5 years, and conduct scientific studies to determine if the standards are adequate and protect public health and welfare. The rule of states is then to put programs in place to reduce pollution so that the standards are met. No economic cost will be taken into account when the standards are implemented. On Aug. 29, 2014 the EPA published a 597-page report, which cited the scientific data for revising the national standard for ozone. Nov. 25, 2014: EPA's released a proposal to set the standard between 65 to 70 ppb and would consider comments on 60 ppb and the existing 75 ppb through March 17, 2015. Mr. Smeltzer stated that the region currently is in violation of air quality standards, but he anticipated that the region’s design value, most likely, will be based on values from 2014 to 2016 after the release of the new ozone standard, which is advantageous to the San Antonio region, as the values for 2012 and 2013 are considerably higher than that of 2014. If the region does not meet the revised standard and is designated under the new standard, then a SIP must be submitted by October 1, 2020. If the region wants to be in a good position by 2020, we’ll need to implement air quality control strategies much earlier than this date. Mr. Smeltzer pointed out that the San Antonio- New Braunfels MSA, comprising 8 counties would be the basis for the non-attainment designation, and for a “marginal” non-attainment area such as San Antonio region, the attainment deadline is set to Dec. 31, 2020. The attainment date for area designated as “Moderate”, which indicates a more severe case of violation is set to Dec. 31, 2023. B: Consider and act upon forwarding comments to EPA in response to the new proposed ozone standard zone Standard Updates Mr. Smeltzer also presented a letter to the Committee for their approval, which included 7 comments all approved by Air Technical and Air Advisory committees’ members for submitting to the EPA. The comments were as follows: 1. EPA should delay nonattainment designations for the revised ozone standard until 2018 to allow regions to benefit from the implementation of federal air quality controls which will occur in 2017, such as the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards, increased turnover of non-road equipment to Tier 4 standards, and other federal controls.
2. Due to monitoring uncertainty, EPA should allow +15% ppb variance in the calculated design value used to determine attainment. EPA allows +/- 15% error in data accuracy for approving the calibrations of ozone monitors.
3. EPA should consider the number of exceedances allowed by other industrialized nations when implementing the ozone standard. For example, the European Union states that
Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 2 January 28, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Jan. 28, 2015 minutes.
the maximum daily 8-hour mean concentration of ozone should not exceed 120 μg/m3 (60 ppb) on more than 25 days per calendar year averaged over three years.1
4. EPA should consider rigorously monitoring and evaluating data of all areas, both attainment and nonattainment areas, to understand intrastate and interstate transport and protect downwind areas that might be significantly affected by transported emissions. Transport significantly impacts local ozone concentrations. Unfortunately, the Clean Air Act relies on implementation of local strategies for an area to regain attainment, but at this time, no combination of local strategies has been demonstrated as being effective enough for the San Antonio – New Braunfels MSA to reach attainment without concurrent reductions in transport.
5. EPA should recognize the role of interstate, intrastate, and international transport in the calculations and implementation of ozone standards. While we welcome discussions with the EPA on methods to mitigate local contributions to ozone formation, we cannot enact reduction strategies which act beyond our jurisdiction. Moreover, those agencies responsible for air quality management beyond the San Antonio – New Braunfels MSA must provide appropriate reductions within their jurisdictions and authorities, as required, to assist the local nonattainment region’s efforts to regain attainment status.
6. Permitting rules need to require an evaluation of ozone impacts using photochemical grid modeling. Permits should be modified or denied if adverse health impacts or violations of the NAAQS will occur either downwind or within a given attainment/nonattainment area as a result of permit action.
7. When setting the attainment date for areas downwind of other nonattainment areas, consideration should be given to allow appropriate control strategy implementation in the upwind areas as necessary to allow the downwind area to achieve compliance.
Councilman Ron Nirenberg, Chair, asked the floor for any comments; there was no comment so he asked for a motion to approve the content of letter for submission to the EPA and Commissioner Jim Wolverton made the motion, which was seconded by Judge Richard L. Jackson. The motion carried and the letter’s content was approved unanimously. C. Consider and act upon asking EPA for a response to TCEQ’s letter on how the proposed lower ozone standards will not accomplish its stated goal of protecting human health Mr. Smeltzer showed a letter that contained opinion of TCEQ in regards to the EPA’s proposed new national ozone standard and asked the Committee members if they would like to ask the EPA to respond to the assertion made by the TCEQ as to “EPA’s proposed lower ozone standards will not accomplish its stated goal of protecting human health.” He also asked Mr. Andy Quittner and Mr. Dean Word to express the opinion of their respective committee members in regards to this letter. They both confirmed that due to political nature of the letter, the majority of their committee members have decided to stay away from getting involved and rather to focus on the scientific aspect of lowering the ozone levels. The members of Air Advisory Committee decided not to take any action on the inquiry letter to the EPA and the Committee moved to the item number 7 on the agenda.
1 Air Quality in Europe — 2011 report, European Environmental Agency, 11/12/2011. Online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2011
Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 3 January 28, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Jan. 28, 2015 minutes.
7. Consider and act upon membership recommendations for the AIR Advisory Committee:
The membership of Ms. Kimberly Dennis, of CEMEX, and Mr. Chris Ashcraft, of South Texas Energy & Economic Roundtable was discussed. Mayor Chris Riley made a motion in favor of adding them to the Air Advisory Committee, which was seconded by Commissioner Jim Wolverton. The motion carried unanimously and membership of Ms. Kimberly Dennis and Mr. Chris Ashcraft was approved. 8. AIR Public Education Committee update A: Consider and act upon Air Quality Stewardship Award recommendation from the Air Public Education Committee Annett Prosterman, of AACOG AIR Public Education Committee, requested approval of three awards in the categories of Organization, Project, and Trailblazer, along with one honorable mention for area businesses and organizations that are making outstanding voluntary efforts to reduce air pollution from the AIR Executive Committee. The nominees were the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park was nominated for Organization Award, the William R. Sinkin Eco Centro for Project Award, and the Capital SkyMine for Trailblazer Award. For the Honorable Mention, Cities of Cibolo, Garden Ridge, New Braunfels, and Schertz; the Comal and Guadalupe County Commissioners Courts; the McKenna Foundation, and VIA Metropolitan Transit were suggested for their Demand Response Transit project. Councilman Ron Nirenberg, Chair, asked the floor for making a motion accepting the nomination as presented and Mayor Chris Riley made a motion that was seconded by Commissioner Jim Wolverton. The motion carried and the nominations were approved unanimously. 9. Consider and act upon EPA’s response to the AIR Committee’s Path Forward letter Ms. Brenda Williams of AACOG gave a brief overview of the Ozone Advanced – Path Forward program; according to the EPA, the this program should fully describe the measures that a region intends to adopt in order to help a region maintain compliance with the NAAQS and periodical updates are required. She mentioned that the first step in program participation, submittal of a letter of intent, had been provided to the EPA in 2012 and that the second step, the Path Forward, had been approved by the AIR Executive Committee and submitted to EPA in 2013. She said that the EPA considers this document a living document and periodical updates to it must be made at least annually, and a 5-year commitment was required for that program. She stated that an updated copy of Path Forward has been submitted as recent as Oct. 2014, to which the EPA responded in Dec. 2014. She pointed out the 7-page handout that was distributed for this meeting and included the EPA’s comments on our 2014 Path Forward updates. She categorized the response as a very positive one, whereby the AACOG Region has been praised for number of things that has been. Some suggestions have been made by the EPA, including expanding the list of voluntary emission reduction measures to include those measures adopted by other agencies we have missed to include in our list in the Path Forward document. Some, of course are already being implemented by entities in our region, for example the solar powered trash compactors. The City of San Antonio installed 25 of them. Ms. Brenda Williams stated that the AACOG might be able to calculate the emission benefits of these voluntary measures for the next round submission of the plan to the EPA, which is planned for the July of 2015.
Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 4 January 28, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Jan. 28, 2015 minutes.
Councilman Ron Nirenberg asked if the 7-page EPA’s response has been distributed among the participants of the program. Ms. Brenda Williams responded “Yes, it has been distributed among participant entities and it has been posted on our website”. Councilman Ron Nirenberg then asked if there was any discussion on the issue and Russell Seal, representing the Air Advisory Committee responded “Yes we have a discussion from the Advisory Committee”. He continued to say if this is a living document then it is a challenge, as the standards become stricter we must do more to meet the standards, including for the City Councilmen to approve new building codes to help CPS Energy provided cleaner energy options to the households; The houses must be solar-ready and/or equipped to accept recharging of electric vehicles, and these must be done now instead of waiting for some time in the future. Also the “Public Outreach” efforts should be focused on having the public involved in the process to inform everybody as to what is being done for better air quality, just like the participation of public in the matter of water that we have had in this region. Councilman Ron Nirenberg, responded by saying that the City is going to adopt a new comprehensive planning process and the air quality planning will be a part of it, as we have a sustainability track we can rely on. He then asked if there was a motion to send a response to the EPA for their response to the Region’s “Ozone Advance” document. Andy Winter, representing the Bexar County made a motion that was seconded by Mayor Chris Riley. The motion carried unanimously.
10. Questions from the October 22, 2014 meeting of the Air Improvement Resources Executive Meeting
A: Vehicle Emission Standards Mr. Smeltzer explained that this information have been collected due to the request made in the previous Committee’s meeting. He asserted that according to this data shown in the Table 2, the on-road vehicles between 2004 and 2016 have become much cleaner, about %80 cleaner than before; the benefits from stricter auto emission standards will continue into the future as the Tier III emission standards gradually phase in beginning in 2017. B: Eagle Ford Emission Inventory He pointed out to the text version of a PowerPoint slide presentation, included in the meeting handouts, which reported the newest emission inventory for the Eagle Ford Shale oil and gas exploration activities. This emission inventory has been approved by the TCEQ in April 2014 and included emissions from all sources such as those at wellhead, transport, and midstream stages. C. TERP Funding Allocation and TERP Projects A list of all companies in San Antonio that have used funding from State’s TERP program to upgrade or replace their heavy duty vehicles was discussed. This list gave a total amount of dollars that have been used, total cost per ton of NOx emission reduction, and the total of NOx emission reduction since the program began. D. Economic Impact of Non-Attainment
Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 5 January 28, 2015 DRAFT Agenda Item 4: Consider and act upon approval of the Jan. 28, 2015 minutes.
There will be talks with the TCEQ to calculate the dollar cost of being declared non-attainment. No information in this regards is available yet. Other issues in this regards that Mr. Smelter talked about included:
Loss of industry and economic development in and around the area Loss of federal highway and transit funding New emissions in the area must be “offset,” or the unit cannot be built Additional restrictive permitting requirements that are not applied in attainment areas Greater EPA involvement and oversight in permit decisions E. Floresville and Karnes County Monitors The monitors at Floresville in Wilson County and proposed Karnes County are to collect data on Eagle Ford Shale related emissions. They will be measuring hydrogen sulfide and ozone precursors such as nitrogen oxides and VOCs, but not ozone emission. The Air Improvement Committee had contacted TCEQ to inquire why these monitors will not collect data on ozone. Mr. Smeltzer showed a letter from David Brymer, of TCEQ, to the Committee’s member explaining as to why TCEQ is not collecting ozone data at these locations: “Both the Floresville and proposed Karnes County monitoring sites will monitor for not only VOC and meteorological parameters but also NOx (including NO2). We have not included ozone at these sites for several reasons. First, ozone is not emitted directly but is formed by the reaction of VOC and NOx in the presence of sunlight. This reaction often takes hours and we routinely see the highest ozone concentrations a significant distance downwind of the ozone precursor emissions. Second, nearby NOx emissions actually decrease ozone concentrations initially and then react to form more ozone downwind. Thus, an ozone monitor adjacent to a major roadway or other significant NOx source usually measures lower ozone. For this reason, we often monitor ozone downwind rather than at or near emission points.” Peter Bella made a comment in regards to emissions from point source category, pointing out that this source of emissions is not regulated as much as the on-road vehicles, therefore presenting itself as a potential target for future emission reduction plans. He emphasized the rule of emission transport in the Region’s high ozone numbers. Russell Seal made a statement as to the new air quality standard will be different from those in the past, because all regions will be obligated to abide by the rule. This way no entity could remove its equipment from a non-attainment area and take them to an attainment area to skip compliance with the standards. 11. Next Meeting The Committee decided to meet on April 22nd, 2015. 12. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:27 a.m.
Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Page 6 January 28, 2015 5/20/2015
AIR Public Education Air Quality Programs Outreach Committee Report January 1 through May 15, 2015 Events Presentations Air Quality Outreach Programs News Media January through May 15, 2015 Social Media Paid Advertising Air Quality Health Alerts Presented by: Annette Prosterman, PhD Trips by Alternative Modes Natural Resources Transportation Coordinator
May 27, 2015
Air Quality Programs Outreach 2015 Air Quality January 1 through May 15, 2015 Stewardship Awards April 18, 2015 San Antonio Earth Day Event Events
Number of outreach events: 16 Approximate attendance: 11,480 Number of items distributed: 2,887
Air Quality Programs Outreach Air Quality Programs Outreach January 1 through May 15, 2015 S o January 1 through May 15, 2015 c i a News Media l M Press Releases: 6 e Articles: 10 d i Interviews: 9 a
1 5/20/2015
Air Quality Programs Outreach Examples of Billboards Posted So Far January 1 through May 15, 2015 Paid Advertising
April – June, 2015
In Conjunction with: “Make Every Friday a Fresh Air Friday” Locations: Ozone Actions Campaign Loop 410 at Bandera I‐10 at Fredericksburg I‐35 at Weidner Hwy 281 at Donella
Each spot: 10 seconds Number of spots each 24 hrs at each location: 480 Estimated number of distinct viewers every week: Air Quality Programs Outreach • Loop 410 at Bandera 249,917 January 1 through May 15, 2015 • I‐10 at Fredericksburg 297,238 • I‐35 at Weidner 301,083 • Hwy 281 at Donella 187,511 Total 1,035,749 Requests for Air Quality Health Alert Ozone Action Day Notifications
Requests so far this year: 123 Total receiving notification: 1,821 Billboard Digital Images May Be Switched Out within an Hour’s Notice for Air Quality Health Alerts
Alternative Commutes Ongoing Plans . . . NuRide Data: Jan 1 – May 15, 2015 “Make Every Friday a Fresh Air Friday” Ozone Actions Campaign • Number of users added this year 194 • Number Users Active thisYear 2,351 • RdReduced Car TTirips 329, 757 Events • Total Miles Saved 6,080,261 Presentations • VOC Reduction (lbs) 8,025 News Media • NOx Reductions (lbs) 11,111 Social Media Paid Advertising
2 5/28/2015
Status of Compliance with 2008 8‐Hour Ozone Standard, San Antonio‐New Braunfels MSA, 2015 4th Highest Reading, ppb Current* 3 Year Regulatory Monitor Site 2013 2014 2015* Average Ozone Report Camp Bullis C58 83 72 60 71 San Antonio NW C23 76 69 60 68 Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Calaveras Lake C59 69 63 60 64 Alamo Area Council of Governments Camp Bullis Monitor C58 San Antonio NW C23 May 27th, 2015 ‐ 77 ppb on May 2nd ‐ 78 ppb on May 1st ‐ 74 ppb on May 1st ‐ 75 ppb on May 2nd ‐ 67 ppb on April 30th ‐ 67 ppb on April 30th ‐60 ppb on March 7th ‐ 60 ppb on March 23rd
High Ozone event from April 30th to May 2nd, 2015 ‐ High pressure system over Texas ‐ Low wind speeds, winds from the south and southeast ‐ Large diurnal temperature change (indicates rapid rise in mixing height) ‐ High solar radiation (no cloud cover) ‐ Stagnated back trajectories from the south (May 1st and 2nd) * 2015 as of 5/26/2015
Status of Compliance with 8‐Hour Ozone Standard, San Antonio and Austin Design Values, 2000‐2014 Texas Urban Areas, 2012‐2014 Region 2014 Design Value Dallas‐Fort Worth 81 San Antonio ‐ New Braunfels 80 Houston‐Galveston‐Brazoria 80 El Paso 72 Temple 72 Longview‐Tyler‐Marshall 71 Beaumont‐Port Arthur 70 Waco 69 Austin‐Round Rock‐San Marcos 69 Corpus Christi 66 Victoria 63 Lower Rio Grande Valley 58
Number of Days with 8‐hr Ozone Averages > 65 ppb by Ozone Standard Timeline, EPA Semi‐monthly Periods for San Antonio, 2005 – 2014 Nov. 25, 2014: EPA released a proposal to update the NAAQS for ground‐level ozone (Court‐ordered requirement) ‐ EPA proposes the 8‐hour standards to be set within a range of 65 to 70 ppb Dec. 17, 2014: Proposed rule was published in the Federal Register March 17, 2015: Comments on the Proposed Rule were due to the EPA ‐ AIR Executive Committee submitted comments
Oct. 1, 2015: Court‐ordered deadline for EPA to issue the final ozone standard Oct. 1, 2016: Implementation Guidance for the ozone standard could be released by the EPA Oct. 1, 2017: EPA determination of attainment or non‐attainment for affected areas (maybe based on 2014, 2015, and 2016 3‐year average) Oct. 1 2019: SIP elements for non‐attainment areas are due Dec. 31, 2020: Attainment deadline for “Marginal” areas (Impact of the December 2014 court ruling against EPA by the Natural Resource Defense Council?) Dec. 31, 2023: Attainment deadline for “Moderate” areas
1 5/28/2015
Ozone Design Values for Each Monitor within the San Antonio‐New Braunfels MSA, 2014
Based on 2012‐2014
Monitoring Sites in the San Antonio Region
Source: TCEQ, May 2013. “Select a Monitoring Site in the San Antonio Region”. Available online: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/cgi‐ bin/compliance/monops/select_summary.pl?region13.gif. Accessed 5/15/15.
2 Agenda Item 6. Ozone Standard A. Ozone Report
Ozone Report Air Improvement Resources Technical Committee May 11, 2015
Description of ozone standard promulgated in 2008: The annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years, measured at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.075 ppm.1 Table 1 describes current status of San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA in this regards. This standard currently is being reevaluated and the EPA is proposing the 8-hour standard to be set within a range of 65 to 70 ppb.2
Table 1: Status of Compliance with 8-Hour Ozone Standard, San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA, 20153 4th Highest Reading, ppb The 4th highest value in 2015 Current* 3 Year Monitor Site must be below this Average 2013 2014* 2015* value to meet the 75 ppb standard† Camp Bullis C58 83 72 60 71 73 San Antonio NW C23 76 69 60 68 83 Calaveras Lake C59 69 63 60 64 96 * 2015 as of 5/04/2015 * 2014 as of 10/31/2014 † If the three year average is to be in compliance with the 2008 standard, the 4th highest eight-hour average daily reading for each particular monitor must be less than shown value.
During 2014 as the Table 2 indicates, CAMS58 at Camp Bullis recorded an 8-hour average ozone level of 72 ppb. If this number is averaged with the fourth-highest values recorded at the monitor for 2012 and 2013 when these readings are confirmed by TCEQ, then the San Antonio region will have exceeded the current 8-hour average ozone standard.
Table 2: Status of Compliance with 8-Hour Ozone Standard, San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA, 20144 4th Highest Reading, ppb Current* 3 Year Monitor Site 2012 2013 2014 Average
Camp Bullis C58 87 83 72 80 San Antonio NW C23 81 76 69 75 Calaveras Lake C59 70 69 63 67
1 Available online: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html 2 Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/12/17/2014-28674/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for- ozone 3 Available online: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/8hr_attainment.pl 4 Ibid
Page 1 of 5 Agenda Item 6. Ozone Standard A. Ozone Report
Table 3: Status of Compliance with 8-Hour Ozone Standard, Texas Urban Areas 20145 4th Highest Value, ppb 2014 Design Region 2012 2013 2014 Value Dallas-Fort Worth 81 85 77 81 San Antonio - New Braunfels 87 83 72 80 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 87 84 71 80 El Paso 74 73 70 72 Temple 78 71 69 72 Longview-Tyler-Marshall 78 71 66 71 Beaumont-Port Arthur 76 67 67 70 Waco 73 72 63 69 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos 76 70 63 69 Corpus Christi 69 66 65 66 Victoria 66 62 62 63 Lower Rio Grande Valley 58 58 60 58
Figure 1: Number of 8-Hour Ozone Exceedances of 65 ppb at EPA Regulatory CAMS in the San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA, 2005-2014
5 Ibid
Page 2 of 5 Agenda Item 6. Ozone Standard A. Ozone Report
Figure 2: Number of Days with 8-hr Ozone Averages > 65 ppb by Semi-monthly Periods for San Antonio, 2005 – 2014
Figure 3: Ozone Design Values for Each Monitor within the San Antonio Region, 2014
Page 3 of 5 Agenda Item 6. Ozone Standard A. Ozone Report
Figure 4: Contour Plots of 8-hour Ozone Design Values for 2009 – 2014
2009 2010
2011 2012
2013 2014
Ozone (ppb)
56.1 - 57 57.1 - 58 58.1 - 59 59.1 - 60 60.1 - 61 61.1 - 62 62.1 - 63 63.1 - 64 64.1 - 65 65.1 - 66 66.1 - 67 67.1 - 68 68.1 - 69 69.1 - 70 70.1 - 71 71.1 - 72 72.1 - 73 73.1 - 74 74.1 - 75 75.1 - 76 76.1 - 77 77.1 - 78 78.1 - 79 79.1 - 80 80.1 - 81
Page 4 of 5 Agenda Item 6. Ozone Standard A. Ozone Report
EPA’s Proposed Ozone Standard Timeline
Nov. 25, 2014: EPA released a proposal to update the NAAQS for ground-level ozone • Court-ordered requirement • EPA proposes the 8-hour standards to be set within a range of 65 to 70 ppb • EPA is seeking comment on levels as low as 60 ppb Dec. 17, 2014: Proposed rule was published in the Federal Register March 17, 2015: Comments on the Proposed Rule were due to the EPA, and the AIR Executive Committee members submitted their comments
Oct. 1, 2015: Court-ordered deadline for EPA to issue the final ozone standard Oct. 1, 2017: EPA determination of attainment or non-attainment for affected areas (maybe based on 2014, 2015, and 2016 3-year average) Oct. 1 2020: SIP elements for non-attainment areas are due Dec. 31, 2020: Attainment deadline for “Marginal” areas Dec. 31, 2023: Attainment deadline for “Moderate” areas
Page 5 of 5
6. Ozone Report B. Updates on the Proposed Ozone Standard
Proposed Rule for National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone
On November 25, 2014, the EPA proposed to strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, also known as smog. The Proposed Rule can be found on the Federal Register at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-17/pdf/2014- 28674.pdf.
Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699 Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Proposed Rule Summary “Based on its review of the air quality criteria for ozone (O3) and related photochemical oxidants and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for O3, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to make revisions to the primary and secondary NAAQS for O3 to provide requisite protection of public health and welfare, respectively. The EPA is proposing to revise the primary standard to a level within the range of 0.065 to 0.070 parts per million (ppm), and to revise the secondary standard to within the range of 0.065 to 0.070 ppm, which air quality analyses indicate would provide air quality, in terms of 3-year average W126 index values, at or below a range of 13-17 ppm-hours. The EPA proposes to make corresponding revisions in data handling conventions for O3 and conforming changes to the Air Quality Index (AQI); to revise regulations for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program to add a transition provision for certain applications; and to propose schedules and convey information related to implementing any revised standards1.”
The EPA also accepted comments on a 60 ppb standard. Along with proposing exceptional event schedules related to implementing any revised O3 standards, the EPA is proposing to apply this same schedule approach to other future revised NAAQS and to remove obsolete regulatory language for expired exceptional event deadlines. The EPA has received 432,241 comments on the review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.
Public Comment of AACOG’s Air Improvement Resources (AIR) Executive Committee
AACOG’s Natural Resources department submitted a public comment on behalf of AIR Executive Committee members, Ron Nirenberg and Chris Riley, on Feb 11, 2015. AACOG submitted 7 recommendations related to the designation process and schedule for the EPA to consider. The public comment is available at: http://www.regulations.gov/
Review Schedule
Public Comments Public comments were accepted for a period of 90 days and were due by March 17, 2015. Public comments can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov/ under the rule making docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699.
1 Summary taken from the Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-17/pdf/2014-28674.pdf
6. Ozone Report B. Updates on the Proposed Ozone Standard
Public Hearings The EPA has held three public hearings on the proposed updates to NAAQS ground-level ozone. They were held in Arlington, TX, Washington, DC, and Sacramento, CA during January and February 2015.
Final Rule to be signed October 1, 2015.
6. Ozone Report B. Updates on the Proposed Ozone Standard
Natural Resource Defense Council Case against the EPA
The EPA promulgates National Ambient Air Quality Standards for air pollutants, and every 5 years revises or reconsiders these standards. In 2008, EPA revised and strengthened the standards for ozone pollutant and allowed extra time for attainment of these standards for certain nonattainment regions. Also, it revoked conformity analysis for transportation projects, which were put in place to ensure these projects, would not cause excessive pollution beyond what is allowed in the Region’s air quality plan.
The Natural Resources Defense Council challenged these two aspects of the 2008 rule, one allowing regions up to a year more time to comply than had ever been allowed before, another doing away with transportation project requirements1. In December 23, 2014 the D.C. Circuit voted in favor of NRDC and said that the U.S. EPA could not allow extra time for certain regions to achieve 2008 ozone air quality standards, and could not revoke a requirement that regions ensure any transportation infrastructure projects don't cause an exceedance of those standards.
According to the D.C. Circuit, the EPA allowed affected regions more time to attain the new ozone standards — roughly a one-third increase in time for certain areas, amounting to an additional year — as compared with the previous revision in 2004. And that, the court said in a 2-1 decision, violated the Clean Air Act2.
“The transportation conformity requirements obligate affected regions to assure that any proposed project to develop transportation infrastructure — potentially resulting in significantly increased emissions — will align with the maximum emissions levels established in EPA- approved plans for meeting air quality standards”3, the court said.
In finding that the EPA's implementation rules exceeded the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act, the court vacated those two portions of the 2008 ozone NAAQS rule.
1 Law 360, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, “DC Circ. Rejects EPA Ozone Compliance Extensions”, online: http://www.law360.com/articles/607341/dc-circ-rejects-epa-ozone-compliance-extensions 2 Ibid. 3 US Court of Appeals, District of Colombia, Petition for Review of Final Administrative Action of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Online: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E97A64FFBFE4DC1D85257DB70054D5EE/$file/12-1321- 1528834.pdf
Capital Area Council of Governments
BASTROP BLANCO BURNET CALDWELL FAYETTE HAYS LEE LLANO TRAVIS WILLIAMSON
6800 Burleson Road
Building 310, Suite 165
Austin, Texas 78744
(p) 512.916.6000 (f) 512.916.6001 www.capcog.org
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT TO THE CENTRAL TEXAS CLEAN AIR COALITION COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
MARCH 12, 2015
Page 1 of 44
Preface This document provides technical support for the comment letter submitted by the Central Texas Clean Air Coalition to the EPA on its proposed ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). It includes analysis of statutory language, court cases, prior rulemakings, and technical research that supports the main four points made in the comment letter. This document also provides more detailed explanations of how EPA might be able to incorporate these suggestions into the final ozone NAAQS rulemaking or other future rulemakings. Questions on the data or analysis in this document should be sent to Andrew Hoekzema, Air Quality Program Manager for the Capital Area Council of Governments in Austin, Texas: (512) 916-6043 or [email protected].
Page 2 of 44
1 Form of the NAAQS Comment: If EPA lowers the level of the ozone NAAQS to a range of 65-70 ppb, it should consider assessing compliance based on a statistical form less sensitive to fluctuations background ozone levels and meteorology to achieve greater programmatic stability. In describing her decision to propose retaining the current form of the ozone standard, the Administrator notes, “a standard with the current 4th high form coupled with a level lower than 75 ppb…would be expected to increase public health protection relative to the current standard while continuing to provide stability for implementation programs.”1 The assumptions implicit in this statement are: a) the form provides an adequate level of stability for implementing the current 75 ppb ozone NAAQS, and b) using the same form to assess compliance with a new 65-70 ppb standard will provide a similar level of stability for implementation programs. As this section will show, both of these assumptions are problematic. The current form used for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is already highly sensitive to year-to-year variability, even though it uses the 4th highest concentrations averaged over three years. Moving forward, continued use of this form for a 65-70 ppb standard will likely result in even less stability for implementation programs than the current form provides. The EPA could look to data from both the 1997 and 2008 NAAQS reviews and to the decisions other countries have made in setting standards below 75 ppb to see that it can increase the robustness of the standard by using a 5th or higher concentration as the basis for the form of a revised standard set at a lower level without sacrificing public health protections. As EPA looks to the future with this new NAAQS and assesses whether retaining the current form is appropriate, it should consider the extent to which compliance with a NAAQS set at levels lower than 75 ppb would be increasingly influenced by factors outside of the control of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) process and other policy tools the federal government has to address ozone precursor emissions. EPA’s recent modeling for addressing interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS shows that by 2018, 57% of the peak ozone levels in Central Texas will be attributable to factors like biogenic emissions, wildfires, ocean-going marine vessels, off-shore oil platforms in the federal zone, emissions from Canada and Mexico, and emissions from other parts of the world. For all areas modeled to have 2018 design values above 65 ppb, these sources contribute about 33 ppb to peak ozone levels, or about 50% of the level needed to be in compliance with the NAAQS. As U.S. anthropogenic emissions decrease, thereby reducing their contributions to peak ozone levels, the role of factors beyond the control of the EPA and the states, including meteorology, biogenic emissions, and long-range ozone transport from outside of the country will increase, and therefore variability of these factors will play a proportionately larger role in an area’s attainment status year-to-year. Moreover, as the climate changes and regions of the country experience more significant changes in meteorology year-to-year, the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration for a given year used in the current form will be more and more influenced by variations in meteorology, rather than levels of anthropogenic emissions. EPA has directly spoken to this issue in its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, stating, “It is also important to note that it may not be possible for States and Tribes to plan accurately for the impacts of climate change in developing control strategies for nonattainment areas. As noted in the [Technical Support Document] and EPA’s 2009 Interim Assessment Report (IA), climate change is projected to lead to an increase in the variability of weather, and this may increase peak pollution events including increases in ozone exceedances…Inability to predict the frequency and magnitude of such events could lead to an underestimation of the controls needed to bring areas into
1 79 FR 75295
Page 3 of 44
attainment.”2 If projections of increased variability in year-to-year ozone concentrations due to climate change are enough of a concern to EPA to cite it in its endangerment finding, then that same variability should also cause EPA to consider whether more robust metrics of a region’s ozone levels would be more appropriate moving forward. EPA’s 1997 ozone NAAQS review was the last time that EPA modified the form of the standard. In its proposal for the NAAQS, EPA indicated that for a standard using an 8-hour averaging time, as opposed to the 1-hour averaging time used for the 1979 ozone NAAQS, a level of 0.09 ppm would represent a continuation of the same level of protection. By changing the form to use the 5th-or higher number of peak ozone concentrations for assessing compliance with the proposed NAAQS, EPA can still achieve health benefits from lowering the level of the standard without sacrificing programmatic stability resulting from the increased influence of variations in these other factors on an area’s attainment status. While EPA has not conducted any new analysis on how changing the rank the daily maximum 8-hour ozone averages used in the form from four to another number, there are some alternatives EPA could analyze prior to the finalization of the standard to assess whether they would be appropriate: Using the 5th highest maximum 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentration averaged over 3 years. Data from the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS reviews could be used to analyze the relative impact of changing the level of the standard and the number of daily 8-hour ozone maxima); Using the 6th highest maximum 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentration averaged over 3 years. While the 4th highest value corresponds with the 99th percentile of ozone levels over the course of a year, the 6th highest value would correspond to the 98th percentile; Using the 11th highest maximum 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentration averaged over 3 years. This value would correspond to the 97th percentile, and would be similar to the number of exceedances allowed under the United Kingdom’s national air quality objective (10 per year); Using the 26th highest maximum 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentration averaged over 3 years. This form would be similar to the European Union’s 60 ppb standard, which allows for an average of 25 exceedances per year, averaged over 3 years; or Retaining the current 75 ppb standard, while adding a 65-70 ppb that uses a different number of daily 8-hour ozone maxima. This would help retain controls on exposure to levels above 80 ppb with an adequate margin of safety, while adding a standard set at a lower level but allowing more exceedances to control exposure to ozone levels between 70-80 ppb.
1.1 A Standard Set at a Lower Level Could Improve Health Protections Even if the Form Allowed More Exceedances While EPA’s analysis that lowering the level of the NAAQS while retaining the same averaging time and form would be expected to increase public health protection relative to a 75 ppb standard, it is also true that lowering the level of the NAAQS while changing the form to use the 5th highest or lower rank of daily maximum ozone concentrations should also be able to increase public health protection relative to a 75 ppb standard. EPA’s charge in setting the primary NAAQS under Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) is to set standards that are “requisite to protect public health” while “allowing for an adequate margin of safety.” The term “requisite” in the CAA indicates that the proposed ozone standard should
2 74 FR 66530, 2nd column. December 15, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Federal_Register-EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171- Dec.15-09.pdf
Page 4 of 44
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, but should not be more or less stringent than is necessary to achieve that goal. Health data presented as part of the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS reviews, shown below, demonstrate that that vast majority of health benefits EPA could expect to achieve through this NAAQS review would come from lowering the level of the standard, and that the expected protections would not change much by allowing for an extra exceedance day or more.
1.1.1 1997 Ozone NAAQS Review In the discussion of the form of the standard selected for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the preamble to the final NAAQS rulemaking states, “In considering exposure and risk estimates available at the time of proposal for 1- and 5-expected-exceedance forms, the Administrator noted that the level of the standard is a more dominant factor in determining the degree of exposure and risk reductions achieved, with the form being associated with smaller differences in risk estimates within a continuum of risk.”3 This statement is likely as true today for the current NAAQS review as it was 18 years ago for the 1997 NAAQS review. In the 1997 ozone NAAQS review, EPA presented health data in the NAAQS proposal that showed that lowering the level of the NAAQS from an 8-hour average of 0.09 ppm, which represented a continuation of the level of protection for the 1979 1-hour standard, to the level of 0.08 ppm, which was finalized as the standard, achieved significant health benefits, even if the number of expected exceedances for a 0.08 ppm was five times higher. As the figure below shows, lowering the level of the NAAQS from 0.09 ppm to 0.08 ppm would have increased health protections even if the 0.09 ppm only allowed one exceedance (a 2nd-highest concentration-based form) and the 0.08 ppm standard (a 6th-highest concentration-based form).4
3 62 FR 38869, columns 1 and 2. 4 61 FR 65725. “Table 1 – Percent of Outdoor Children Estimated to Experience Various Health Effects 1 or More Times Per Year Associated With 8- and 1-Hour Ozone Exposures Upon Attaining Alternative Standards.” December 13, 1996. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/fr/19961213.pdf
Page 5 of 44
Figure 1: 1997 Ozone NAAQS Review Data on Percent (%) of Children Estimated to Experience Pulmonary Function Decrements of 15% or More Associated with 8-hour Exposures at Alternative Standards
1 expected exceedance 5 expected exceedances
9.50%
7.70% 6.70%
5.10%
Decrements of >=15% at NAAQS at >=15% of Decrements % of Children Estimated to Experience Experience to Estimated Children of %
0.09 ppm 0.08 ppm Standard Level
A similar picture emerges when looking at other health data presented in the 1997 review. The figure below shows a comparison of the annual excess hospital admissions of asthmatics at a monitor in New York City based on various combinations of forms and levels of the standard. As the figure below shows, the value of the nth highest day may make very little difference in the health outcomes compared to changing the level of the standard. Moving from a standard at a level of 0.09 ppm to a level of 0.08 ppm, both based on the single highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration, achieved a 36% decrease in excess hospital admissions by asthmatics. However, changing a 0.09 ppm, 1-exceedance standard to a 0.08 ppm, 5-exceedance standard would still have achieved a 33% reduction in excess hospital admissions in this analysis.
Page 6 of 44
Figure 2: Excess Hospital Admissions at Different Levels and Forms of NAAQS, 1997 NAAQS Review
1 Exceedance 5 Exceedances
241
179 182
115 120
59
0.10 ppm 0.09 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.07 ppm
While in the preamble for the current ozone NAAQS proposal, the Administrator cites the 1997 ozone NAAQS review’s decision regarding the form of the standard, she did not note that the form that was finalized, using the 4th highest concentration, was different from the form that was proposed: “the Administrator proposes to express an 8-hour primary standard of 0.08 ppm as the 3-year average of the 5 annual third-highest maximum 8-hour average O3 concentration.” (emphasis added) This precedent provides EPA with a way for it to consider changing the form of the standard from what it has proposed while staying in compliance with administrative procedure requirements. It also shows that the selection of the appropriate number of exceedances to allow while remaining in compliance with the NAAQS for a concentration-based form is not necessarily self-evident, and that EPA can consider and has previously considered factors that would suggest a different number of exceedance days between proposal and finalization.
1.1.2 2008 Ozone NAAQS Review Just as the 1997 review included comparisons of lowering the level of the standard while changing the form, so too did the 2008 NAAQS review. The 2008 Ozone NAAQS review included health data for ozone exposure in areas modeled to be just attaining the 1997 standard and standards with the same form at 0.080 ppm, 0.074 ppm, 0.070 ppm, and 0.064 ppm. The review also included data on exposure for standards using alternative forms, including a 0.084 ppm standard using the 3rd highest concentration, and 0.074 ppm standards using the 3rd-highest and 5th-highest concentrations. These data showed a pattern similar to the data presented in the 1997 Ozone NAAQS review, demonstrating that the level of the standard is a more dominant factor in the health protections associated with an ozone NAAQS than the allowed number of exceedances, and that EPA can achieve improvements in health from lowering the level of the NAAQS while also allowing for extra exceedances.
5 61 FR 65731.
Page 7 of 44
Data presented in the Ozone Health Risk Assessment for Selected Urban Areas document used in the 2008 Ozone NAAQS reviews presents the detailed city-by-city exposure data modeled by just attaining an 0.08 ppm standard using the 3rd-highest and 4th-highest concentrations, and by just attaining a 0.074 ppm standard using the 3rd-highest, 4th-highest, and 5th-highest concentrations.6 The figure below shows one example of the data on lung decrements greater than or equal to 10% from Table 3-12 in the Ozone Health Risk Assessment for Selected Urban Areas. Figure 3: 2008 Ozone NAAQS Review Data on Number of Occurrence of Lung Function Decrements of >= 10% Associated with O3 Concentrations that Just Meet Alternative Standards (1,000s)
3rd Highest Concentration 4th Highest Concentration 5th Highest Concentration
7,373 6,907 6,515
5,464 5,210 4,873 4,379
3,190 Occurences of Decrements of >=10% >=10% of Decrementsof Occurences
0.084 0.080 0.074 0.070 0.064 Associated with Just Meeting NAAQS (1,000) NAAQS Meeting Just with Associated Level of Standard (parts per million)
As the figure shows, EPA could have achieved nearly the same amount of health protection by moving from a 0.08 ppm, 4th-high standard (the 1997 standard) to a 0.074 ppm, 5th high standard as it would to a 0.074 ppm, 3rd-high standard. A 2008 standard set at 74 ppb using the 5th highest concentration would have achieved a 26% reduction in this modeled health effect compared to a 29% reduction using the 4th highest. In fact, these health impacts would have still been reduced by 21% if a 74 ppb standard using the 5th highest concentration replaced an 84 ppb standard using the 3rd highest concentration. Moreover, a reduction in the level of the standard from 0.074 ppm to 0.070 ppm and 0.064 ppm achieved reductions significantly beyond what changing the form of the standard at 0.074 ppm would have achieved. The table below shows the relative impact of changing the form of the standard at 0.084 ppm and 0.074 ppm, using the data in the figure above. Data on other exposure metrics, including forced expiratory volume (FEV) decrements of >= 15% and >=20% show similar results.
6 Ozone Health Risk Assessment for Selected Urban Areas. EPA 452/R-07-009. July 2007. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/ozone_ra_final_tsd_7-2007.pdf
Page 8 of 44
Table 1: Comparison of Health Impacts from Just Attaining Alternative Ozone NAAQS for 2008 Review
Comparison % Difference in FEV Decrements >=10% 0.084 ppm standard, 4th highest concentration to 7% 0.084 ppm standard, 3rd highest concentration 0.074 ppm standard, 4th highest concentration to 7% 0.074 ppm standard, 3rd highest concentration 0.074 ppm standard, 5th highest concentration to 5% 0.074 ppm standard, 4th highest concentration
Given the statistically similar effect of changing from using the 3rd highest to 4th highest concentration for an 84 ppb and a 74 ppb standard, EPA could apply the ratios of the differences in health effects from changing the form of the standard to the data presented in the Health and Risk Exposure Assessment for the 2015 standard. This would enable EPA to evaluate alternative forms that allow additional exceedance days if EPA does lower the level of the standard to 65-70 ppb.
1.1.3 Current Review Lacks Analysis Alternative Forms Compared to both prior NAAQS reviews of the primary standard and even the current review of the secondary standard, the current proposal for the primary standard lacks any significant analysis of alternatives to the current form of the standard. In prior NAAQS reviews, EPA has recognized that there is nothing uniquely protective about using the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration as opposed to using the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or 6th highest values. As the Administrator stated in the 2008 ozone NAAQS review, there is not a clear health-based threshold for selecting a particular nth-highest daily maximum form of the standard. The focus of the current NAAQS review for the primary standard appears to have focused entirely on determining the appropriate level, without considering how changes in the level of the standard would impact the other goal that has been repeatedly identified by EPA and CASAC in the past in determining an appropriate form: “programmatic stability.” While CASAC devoted several pages on the appropriate level of the primary standard and on the appropriate form of the secondary standard, it only gave two sentences to reviewing whether the form of the primary standard remained appropriate. CASAC’s two sentences devoted to the form of the primary standard consist of the following: “Regarding the form of the standard, the CASAC concurs that the ozone standard should be based on the fourth highest, daily maximum 8-hour average value (averaged over three years). This provides health protection while allowing for atypical meteorological conditions that can lead to abnormally high ambient ozone concentrations which, in turn, provides programmatic stability.”7 This assertion is not supported by any new analysis that would allow for independent evaluation. There is nothing in the Policy Assessment or the CASAC review that shows why a form that allows an average of three exceedances of the level of the standard per year, rather than two or four or five, is “requisite” for the protection of human health with an adequate margin of safety. For example, there are no statistical analyses showing the extent to which meeting a standard of 70 ppb or 65 ppb would specifically protect
7 Letter from the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. Subject: CASAC Review of the EPA’s Second Draft Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA-CASAC-14-004. June 26, 2014. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/5EFA320CCAD326E885257D030071531C/$File/EPA-CASAC-14- 004+unsigned.pdf
Page 9 of 44
against ozone levels above 72 ppb – the level EPA cites as the lowest with direct observations showing health impacts on health adults – given various numbers of allowable exceedances.
1.1.4 Health Considerations and Exposure in Current NAAQS Review Can be Compared to Data from Prior NAAQS Reviews The key question for EPA regarding the form of the standard is the following: is the 4th-highest form that has been in use since 1997 “requisite” to achieve the health benefits EPA describes in its proposal that can be achieved from lowering the level of the standard from 75 ppb to 65-70 ppb? Would a standard set at a lower level with a larger number of exceedances also provide the “requisite” protections and an “adequate margin of safety?” The preamble to the proposed NAAQS states, “the Administrator focuses on the extent to which a revised standard would be expected to protect populations from experiencing two or more O3 exposures of concern (i.e., as a surrogate for repeated exposures)…Although the Administrator is less concerned about single occurrences of exposures of concern, she acknowledges that even single exposures to O3 concentrations at or above benchmark concentrations (particularly for the 70 and 80 ppb benchmarks) could potentially result in adverse effects.”8 She also refers to 72 ppb as being “the lowest O3 exposure concentration shown to result in the adverse combination of lung function decrements and respiratory symptoms.” Elsewhere, she refers to new evidence used for this NAAQS review, including “Two controlled human exposure studies new since the 2008 review are now available that examine respiratory effects associated with prolonged, 6.6-hour, O3 exposures to levels of 72 ppb and 60 ppb. These studies observed effects in healthy adults, including lung function decrements combined with respiratory symptoms at 72 ppb, and lung function decrements and pulmonary inflammation at 60 ppb.”9 By presenting data on one or more exposures and two or more exposures to levels of concern, EPA’s Health and Risk Exposure Assessment for the current NAAQS review provides a simulation of the extent to which a standard set at 70 ppb and 65 ppb would control exposures to benchmark ozone levels above 80 ppb, 70 ppb and 60 ppb compared to the current standard. These data can be used to compare the extent to which standards set at 65 ppb or 70 ppb would eliminate circumstances in which health effects occurred due to a single exposure. Table 2: Health and Risk Assessment Comparison of # of Children Exposed 1 or More Times and 2 or More Times to Benchmark Levels of 70 ppb or Greater at Alternative Standard Levels
% of Children with 1 Level or more exposure 2 or more exposures of >= 70 ppb 1 or more exposure of >= 70 ppb (ppb) who are exposed 2 or more times 75 46,000 362,000 13% 70 5,400 94,000 6% 65 300 14,000 2% 60 0 1,400 0%
8 79 FR 75305-75306. 9 79 FR 75246
Page 10 of 44
In the preamble for the proposal, EPA states, “Compared to the current standard and a revised standard with a level of 70 ppb, the HREA estimates that a standard with a level of 65 ppb would reduce exposures of concern to the range of O3 benchmark concentrations analyzed (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 ppb). The HREA estimates that meeting a standard with a level of 65 ppb would eliminate exposures of concern at or above 80 ppb in the urban study areas. Such a standard is estimated to allow far less than 1% of children in the urban study area to experience one or more exposures of concern at or above the 70 ppb benchmark level, even in the worst-case years and locations, and is estimated to eliminate the occurrence of two or more exposures at or above 70 ppb.”10 To the extent that these statements suggest where EPA is likely to set the standard within the range of 65-70 ppb, particularly to control exposure to two or more exceedances of a >= 70 ppb benchmark, EPA should be able to use the differences between health data presented in the 1997 and 2008 NAAQS reviews depending on the number of exceedance days allowed in order to develop points of comparison for what level of protection a 65 ppb and 70 ppb standard would likely achieve if the form were based on the 5th-highest concentration rather than the 4th-highest concentration.
1.1.5 Health Impact from Changing the Air Quality Index In the section of the preamble for this proposal titled “Averting Behavior,” the EPA describes how people use information on predicted and actual pollution concentrations through the Air Quality Index (AQI) in order to avert exposure to ozone. This section describes the impact of the AQI, stating, “Evidence of individual averting behaviors has been found in several studies, including activity pattern and epidemiological studies, especially for the at-risk populations, such as children, older adults, and people with asthma, who are targeted by the advisories.” Evidence in Central Texas indicates that lower ozone levels may be easier to predict and therefore improve the ability for people to avoid exposure. EPA is proposing to adjust the AQI in conjunction with lowering the level of the standard. To the extent that the air quality forecasting can successfully predict when ozone levels will reach levels considered “moderate,” “unhealthy for sensitive groups,” “unhealthy” or worse, changing the AQI should enable protections against exposures to elevated ozone levels all the way down to 50 ppb potentially. Recent evidence from forecasting for the Central Texas region indicates that the success of forecasting is likely to be higher for Ozone Action Days (exceedances of the level of the standard) at lower levels than they are for the current 75 ppb standard. From 2011 – 2013, the average percentage of days in the region when ozone levels reached above 75 ppb that were accompanied with an Ozone Action Day alert was 40%. For comparison, 70% of the days that were 60 ppb or over were accompanied with an ozone forecast of “moderate” or higher.
10 79 FR 75300 – 75301.
Page 11 of 44
Figure 4: Percent of Days with Actual Ozone > 75 ppb and > 60 ppb that were Predicted 2011-2013 for Central Texas
Forecast for > 75 ppb Forecast for > 60 ppb
75% 70% 70% 70% 66%
50%
40%
0%
2011 2012 2013 Average
What these data suggest is that people will be able to successfully employ “averting behavior” in order to reduce ozone exposure on a higher percentage of days for standard set lower than 75 ppb. Changing the form of the standard from the 4th highest concentration to 5th highest or beyond could account for the extent to which ozone forecasting will improve the ability of people to reduce ozone exposures for a standard set at a lower level.
1.1.6 Summary of Impact of Changing the Form of a Lower Standard on Health Outcomes As the data presented above shows, it is certainly possible for EPA to achieve the health benefits it desires by lowering the level of the standard, even while raising the number of days considered in calculating an area’s design value. Data from the 2008 NAAQ review suggests that changing the form from the 4th highest to 5th highest would only change health outcomes by about 5% or less – an impact that would be dwarfed by lowering the level of the standard to a range of 65-70 ppb. 1.2 Current Form Does Not Provide Stability to Implementation Programs As mentioned earlier, EPA’s assertion as part of this NAAQS review that the current form provides stability for implementation programs deserves scrutiny. While a strict measure of what would be considered “stability for implementation programs” (referred to hereafter as “programmatic stability”) is not provided in either the 2008 ozone NAAQS review or the current review, an examination of the extent to which ozone design values have experienced dramatic swings year-to-year in both directions, undermines EPA’s case that the current form provides sufficient programmatic stability. There are several relatively straightforward ways EPA could analyze readily available data on the extent to which fluctuations in ozone design values for the 2008 ozone NAAQS have already had significant impacts on implementing the 75 ppb standard.
Page 12 of 44
1.2.1 Sensitivity of Initial 2008 Ozone NAAQS Designations to Annual Ozone Fluctuations EPA’s recent experience with area designations for the 2008 provides a very direct test of the extent to which the current form of the standard provides “programmatic stability.” While there are currently 234 counties designated “nonattainment” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 316-323 counties could have been designated nonattainment based on EPA’s designation guidance11 if the agency had only based designations on 2008-2010 or 2009-2011 design values, rather than allowing states to choose which period to use. The fact that the designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were so sensitive that a single year difference can cause 27-30% of the counties that are designated nonattainment to change suggests the current form of the standard does not provide adequate stability for implementation programs. While the Administrator indicated in the preamble that she believed that “currently available evidence and information do not call into question these conclusions from previous reviews” as it relates to the form of the standard, EPA’s recent experience in area designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS strongly suggests that the current form of the ozone NAAQS does not provide nearly the level of programmatic stability the preamble to this NAAQS review would seem to indicate. In April and May 2012, EPA designated 46 areas as “nonattainment” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, consisting of all or part of 232 counties with a combined population of 123,003,795.12 Due to the timing of these designations – after 2011 but before states were required to certify their air quality monitoring data for the prior year – EPA allowed states the option of using either their 2008-2010 ozone design values or their 2009-2011 design values for the designation process. In a sense, by accident of timing, EPA promulgated this initial round of designations based not on a single design value, but the lower (or – in the case of Chicago – higher) of the two sets of design values states had the option of using. This situation provides a direct illustration of the extent to which year-to-year changes in ozone design values calculated using the current form of the standard can be quite unstable, as measured by the number of counties that could have been designated nonattainment if EPA had only used one or the other of these three-year periods (2008-2010 or 2009-2011) for making these designations. The following table shows the number of areas and counties that were designated nonattainment on the basis of 2008-2010 design values and the number that were designated nonattainment on the basis of 2009-2011 design values. Table 3: Areas and Counties Designated Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone Standard
Design Value Period Areas Counties 2008-2010 30 170 2009-2011 16 62 TOTAL 46 232
Almost every one of these areas had ozone design values that exceeded the NAAQS in both 2010 and 2011. The only exceptions were: The Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area (11 counties), which had a 2010 design value of 74 ppb, but a 2011 value of 77 ppb;
11 http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/documents/Area_Designations_for_the_2008_Revised_O zone_NAAQS.pdf 12 www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/hntc.html. Accessed February 20, 2015.
Page 13 of 44
The Jamestown, NY nonattainment area (1 county, which had a 2010 design value of 77 ppb, but a 2011 design value of 72 ppb; and The Penchaga Indian Reservation, CA nonattainment area, which did not have regulatory ozone monitoring in place for the 2008-2010 and 2009-2011 periods.13
However, since states were able to choose which design values (DVs) to use for designations, many counties were designated attainment/unclassifiable that would have been included in the default boundaries of a nonattainment area, based on EPA’s guidance on area designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.14 The table below shows areas that were designated attainment/unclassifiable, even though at least one monitor in the county, core-based statistical area (CBSA), or combined statistical area (CSA) was violating the 2008 standard based on either 2010 or 2011 design values. Table 4: Areas and Counties Designated Attainment/Unclassifiable with 2010 or 2011 Design Values Above the 2008 Ozone Standard
2010 2011 Area Name Area Type Counties DV DV Amador County, CA County 1 81 71 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX CBSA 3 74 79 Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA 17 76 73 Dayton-Springfield-Greenville, OH CSA 7 75 76 Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI CSA 7 75 78 Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI CSA 7 74 76 Greensboro--Winston-Salem--High Point, NC CSA 10 76 75 Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC CSA 8 76 74 Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, MS CSA 5 76 75 County in CSA Hood County Partially 1 75 76 (Dallas-Fort Worth, TX) Designated Nonattainment Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS CSA 16 73 76 Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN CSA 12 76 75 Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV CSA 2 76 75 Longview-Marshall, TX CSA 4 74 77 Louisville/Jefferson County--Elizabethtown--Scottsburg, CSA 16 75 78 KY-IN Manitowoc, WI CBSA 1 73 77 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Columbia, TN CSA 14 76 75 New Orleans-Metairie-Bogalusa, LA CSA 8 75 76 Oklahoma City-Shawnee, OK CSA 8 74 77
13 http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pdfs/Ozone_DesignValues_20112013_FINAL_08_01_14.xlsx. Accessed February 20, 2015. 14 http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/designations/2008standards/documents/Area_Designations_for_the_200 8_Revised_Ozone_NAAQS.pdf
Page 14 of 44
2010 2011 Area Name Area Type Counties DV DV Phoenix Lake-Cedar Ridge, CA CBSA 1 82 74 Richmond, VA CBSA 20 76 74 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA CBSA 1 76 73 County in CSA San Benito, CA Partially 1 76 70 (San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA) Designated Nonattainment Shreveport-Bossier City-Minden, LA CSA 4 74 80 Springfield, MA CBSA 2 77 74 County in CSA Sutter County, CA Partially 1 76 71 (Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Yuba City, CA-NV CSA) Designated Nonattainment Tulsa-Bartlesville, OK CSA 8 75 77
A total of 95 counties that that were designated attainment/unclassifiable were in areas that had design values that were violating the standard in 2010, but meeting the standard in 2011. Similarly, a total of 90 counties that that were designated attainment/unclassifiable were in areas that had ozone design values that were meeting the standard in 2010, but violating the standard in 2011. Table 5: Number of Counties Affected by 2008 Ozone NAAQS Designation Process
Designated Monitoring Data Designated Attainment / Unclassifiable Nonattainment Counties in Areas with 0 220 2010 and 2011 DV Both > 75 ppb Counties in Areas with 95 1 2010 DV > 75 ppb Only Counties in Areas with 90 11 2011 DV > 75 ppb Only
If EPA had only used one year’s design value – 2010 or 2011 – it would have meant another 84-89 counties would have been designated nonattainment – a 36 or 38% increase over the number actually designated nonattainment. The 2010 populations of these extra counties that were not designated nonattainment due to the selection of years used for the designation amounted to 18,110,697 or 15,831,189, depending on whether 2010 or 2011 data were used. This shows how large an impact one ozone season can have on ozone implementation programs.
Page 15 of 44
Table 6: Number of Counties in Areas Designated Nonattainment or Attainment/Unclassifiable with 2010 or 2011 Monitoring Data > 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Designated Nonattainment Designated Attainment/Unclassifiable
95 90
221 231
2010 Data 2011 Data
1.2.2 Sensitivity of Classifications for 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Areas to Annual Fluctuations in Ozone In addition to the actual designation of counties being sensitive to annual fluctuations in ozone levels, the classification of areas that were designated was also sensitive to these fluctuations. The table below shows four areas that were designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for which the classification and the corresponding requirements were sensitive to the design value year each state selected for the basis for designations. These four areas include 33 counties containing a 2010 population of 16,364,471 people. Table 7: 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Designation Classifications that were Sensitive to Annual Fluctuations in Ozone Levels
Classification Classification 2010 Area Counties Classification Based on Based on 2011 Population 2010 DV DV Houston- Marginal Marginal Moderate Galveston- 8 5,891,999 (76-85 ppb) 84 ppb 89 ppb Brazoria, TX Sacramento Severe 15 Serious Moderate 9 2,241,057 Metro CA (113-119 ppb) 102 ppb 95 ppb Marginal Moderate Marginal San Diego, CA 1 3,095,199 (76-85 ppb) 88 ppb 82 ppb Washington, DC- Marginal Moderate Marginal 15 5,136,216 MD-VA (76-85 ppb) 86 ppb 83 ppb TOTAL 33 16,364,471 n/a n/a n/a
Page 16 of 44
Of particular note is the fact that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, San Diego, and Washington, DC-MD- VA areas were all able to be designated as “Marginal” and therefore avoid an attainment demonstration and the various emission controls that would have been required if they had been designated with a higher classification. These areas would have been required to adopt reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonably available control technology (RACT) and a host of other requirements associated with a “Moderate” classification if a different year had been used for classifications. This “under-classification” has therefore caused a delay in implementation of ozone reduction measures in these areas that they might have otherwise been required to put in place following their designations. Since Central Texas is downwind of the Houston area, this also means that 2014-2016 ozone levels in the Austin-Round Rock MSA will be a higher than they would otherwise have been if EPA had used 2011 data as the basis for nonattainment designations. EPA’s recent modeling 2008 Ozone Transport modeling shows that five monitors in the Houston area will continue to be above the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2018, including one as high as 80.5 ppb. EPA’s proposal to continue using of the current form of the standard and the resulting instability in ozone design values should be expected to cause similar delays in the air quality improvements across the country that EPA hopes to achieve in the current NAAQS review.
1.2.3 New Violations of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS after Initial Designations 2012 and 2013 ozone data provides further evidence of the instability of the current standard’s form, beyond the sensitivity of the initial designations and classifications to 2010 and 2011 design values. There are numerous other areas that violated the 2008 ozone NAAQS in either 2012 or 2013, or in both years. In total, 23 areas with a total of 91 counties and a combined population of 18,036,084 people measured ozone exceedances or one or both of these years. Monitoring data in 2012 appears to have been particularly problematic for many areas of the country. The histogram below shows the distribution of changes in ozone design value from 2011 to 2012. The figure shows 2012 ozone levels were significantly higher, on average, than 2011 levels, both for monitoring stations in compliance with the NAAQS and stations out of compliance with the NAAQS. Figure 5: Change in Design Values at All Monitoring Stations in AQS 2011-2012
2012 DV > 75 2012 DV <= 75
122 105 99 86 71 57 52 49 46 39 37 38 35 31 28 26 21 20 14 9 11 8 Number of Monitoring Stations Monitoringof Number 6 7 1 1 3 4 0 1 1 0 1 0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Change in Design Value (2012 DV - 2011 DV)
Page 17 of 44
Monitoring stations with 2012 design values over 75 ppb were more likely to have experienced a 4 ppb or greater increase in design value from 2011 (89 sites) than they were to experience any decrease at all (62 sites). All of these data show the extent to which the current form of the standard can cause significant instability in attainment status – even for a standard set at 75 ppb.
1.3 Future Ozone Levels Will be Less Influenced by Emissions Subject to Clean Air Act Controls As shown above, the use of the existing form for the 2008 ozone NAAQS already has led to considerable instability in implementation programs. EPA has provided no statistical analysis for this review as to whether applying this form to a standard in the range of 65-70 ppb over the next few years would provide a similar level of stability to the current standard, although there are a number of reasons to believe that it will actually lead to even more instability.
1.3.1 Increased Influence of Annual Fluctuations on Attainment Status The modeling data that EPA recently released in support of “transport” SIP development for the 2008 ozone NAAQS provides a useful perspective on the extent to which differences between the value of maximum design values during a five-year period and the “average design value” for that same five year period could make a meaningful difference in each ozone monitor’s attainment status. The figure below shows the total number of monitors across the country where its attainment status between 2016 and 2020 would be sensitive to the year-to-year fluctuations in ozone levels compared to ozone standard levels set at 75, 70, and 65 ppb using the current form. The data represent the number of monitors with maximum modeled future design values exceeding 75.9 ppb, 70.9 ppb, and 65.9 ppb that have an “average design value” of 75.9 ppb or less, 70.9 ppb or less, or 65.9 ppb or less.15
15 EPA. Data File for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Transport Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/OzoneTransportDataFile.xlsx. Accessed February 3, 2015.
Page 18 of 44
Figure 6: Number of Monitoring Stations with 2016-2020 Attainment Status Sensitive to Year-to-Year Fluctuations for Alternative Standard Levels
120
100 96
80
59 60
40
23 20
0 75 ppb 70 ppb 65 ppb
As the figure above shows, stability in attainment status in the 2016-2020 period modeled would decrease as the level of the standard decreases below 75 ppb. Based on these data, a standard set at 70 ppb would result in 2.6 times the number of monitoring stations with an attainment status that could be above or under that level, depending on annual fluctuations, than a continuation of the current standard 75 ppb standard would. A standard set at 65 ppb would lead to 4.2 times the number of monitoring stations with an attainment status sensitive to year-to-year fluctuations. These data also help illustrate the average magnitude of these fluctuations year-to-year. The average difference between the maximum and average design values for stations with maximum 2018 design values over 65.9 ppb was 1.70 ppb. This difference was 1.89 ppb for stations with maximum 2018 design values of over 70.9 ppb. These are impacts that – if they were coming from anthropogenic emissions in another state – would be over double the air quality significance impact threshold (1% of the NAAQS) that EPA uses for evaluating interstate transport impacts. If annual fluctuations in ozone levels can cause that degree uncertainty, it calls into question its utility for assessing compliance with the new ozone NAAQS.
1.3.2 Recent Modeling Results Show Extent of Influence of Non-Anthropogenic Emissions on Peak Ozone Levels As emissions of anthropogenic ozone precursors in the U.S. continue to decline well into the next decade, the influence of other factors will play an increasingly important role in determining the value of the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations recorded at U.S. ozone monitoring stations. The role of meteorology, biogenic emissions, wildfires, and policy-relevant background in determining peak ozone levels will increase as the role of anthropogenic emissions decreases.
Page 19 of 44
EPA’s recent modeling for the 2008 ozone NAAQS interstate transport SIP requirements shows the extent to which 2018 ozone levels around the country area are projected to be impacted by these factors beyond the control of SIPs or FIPs. Table 8: Contribution of Boundary Conditions, Biogenic Emissions, and "Other" Emissions on 2018 Ozone Design Values Over 65 ppb
EPA APCA Modeling Source Category Contribution at Monitors > 65 ppb “Other” 3.32 ppb Biogenic 5.36 ppb Boundary Conditions 24.22 ppb Combined 32.90 ppb
The combined effect of these factors accounts for 50% of the ozone levels for an area just meeting a 65 ppb standard, 46% for an area just meeting a 70 ppb standard, and 43% for an area just meeting the 75 ppb standard. Any fluctuations in biogenic emissions, wildfire emissions, and other non-U.S. anthropogenic emissions will therefore play a larger role in determining an area’s design value for a standard set at 65 ppb than one set at 70 ppb or 75 ppb. The year-to-year variation in ozone levels is often attributable to the impact of meteorology on anthropogenic emissions within the U.S., but it can also be impacted by variations in these factors, none of which the states have control over. A NAAQS form that better accounted for the increased influence of the variability in these factors on peak ozone concentrations would help provide improved programmatic stability compared to the 4th highest value.
1.3.3 Impacts of Changes in Meteorology One of the assumptions used in planning control measures for ozone is that future meteorology is likely to be similar to historical meteorology. In order for EPA’s assertion that continuing to use the current form of the NAAQS will provide a similar level of stability in implementation programs is undermined by statements it has made in other rulemakings. In fact, EPA has elsewhere specifically indicated that it expects future meteorology to be more variable than it has been. In its Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse gases, EPA states: “It is also important to note that it may not be possible for States and Tribes to plan accurately for the impacts of climate change in developing control strategies for nonattainment areas. As noted in the TSD and EPA’s 2009 Interim Assessment Report (IA), climate change is projected to lead to an increase in the variability of weather, and this may increase peak pollution events including increases in ozone exceedances…At this time, models used to develop plans to attain the NAAQS do not take potential changes in future meteorology into consideration. Inability to predict the frequency and magnitude of [ozone exceedances] could lead to an underestimation of the controls needed to bring areas into attainment.” (emphasis added) If the EPA is going to point to the impact of changes in meteorology on ozone levels for its discussions of climate change, it should also apply those same conclusions to assessing compliance with the proposed standard. If EPA expects increase in the variability of weather that will affect the magnitude and frequency of ozone exceedances, it should adjust the measuring stick it uses to assess compliance accordingly.
1.3.4 Sensitivity of Design Values to Equipment Failure Due to Extreme Weather Another potential consideration for the form of the standard is the extent to which an area’s design value is impacted by any potential loss of data that could occur due to instruments going offline due to natural disasters. In 2011, one of CAPCOG’s non-regulatory ozone monitors in Bastrop County was directly affected by the large wildfire that occurred in September, leading to a loss of data. Metrics that
Page 20 of 44
rely on a larger number of days of data for assessing compliance are less likely to be influenced by data loss attributable to extreme weather.
1.4 Summary of Points on the Form of the Standard The fact that EPA did not propose or solicit comments on any specific alternatives to the current form for the primary standards in this proposed rulemaking does not prevent it from changing the form between proposal and finalization of this NAAQS. Precedent for such a can be found in the ozone NAAQS review completed in 1997. Initially, the Administrator proposed a form based on the 3rd-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration16, but changed it to the 4th highest value in the final rulemaking based on further statistical analysis.17 While EPA did not directly provide analysis of the extent to which different forms would protect health at the proposed levels as part of the proposed NAAQS, data from prior NAAQS and current NAAQS reviews can be used to simulate the impacts of a change in the form of the standard would look like. At a minimum, EPA should be able to evaluate the health effects of a standard using the 5th highest concentration, for which prior NAAQS reviews include considerable analysis. EPA’s assertion that the current form of the standard provides sufficient stability for implementation programs is not consistent with its implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA’s own statements and data indicate that factors outside of the control of the Clean Air Act’s tools for addressing criteria air pollutant emissions are going to be more and more important in determining an area’s attainment status in the future. EPA can achieve both the health benefits and the implementation stability it desires with a lower level paired with a more robust concentration-based form based on the 5th-highest, 6th-highest, or larger number of days.
2 Designation of Areas Comment: The EPA should consider any permissible interpretation of the designation process described in the Clean Air Act that would encourage participation in the Ozone Advance Program and avoid nonattainment designations where possible. Nonattainment designations are a very blunt tool for addressing violations of a NAAQS. A nonattainment designation can have far-reaching and long-standing negative impacts on an area. If, for instance, the Austin-Round Rock MSA were to be designated nonattainment for a new ozone NAAQS set at 65 ppb based on what is currently projected to be a 2014-2016 ozone design value of 67 ppb, and then came into attainment of the standard the very next year – as is projected – it would be at least another two years before the area could have a maintenance plan approved and be redesignated to “attainment,” and the area would continue to be subject to conformity requirements for at least another two decades corresponding with each of the two 10-year maintenance periods. As experiences all across the country have shown, including recently in Beaumont-Port Arthur, the transportation conformity process can cause significant disruptions and delays in the transportation planning process for decades even after an area attains the standard. The Austin-Round Rock MSA is now entering the 13th year of voluntary air quality planning efforts under four different EPA programs – the One-Hour Ozone Flex Program, the Early Action Compact Program, The Eight-Hour Ozone Flex Program, and, most recently, the Ozone Advance Program. In addition, the state of Texas has invested nearly a billion dollars over the years through the Texas Emission Reduction
16 61 FR 65725. December 13, 2006. Adapted from Table 1. 17 62 FR 38871. July 18, 1997.
Page 21 of 44
Plan grant programs and yielded hundreds of thousands of tons of NOX reductions as a result, large segments of which have gone to “near-nonattainment” areas like the Austin-Round Rock MSA. Combined, these efforts are already reducing NOX emissions in the Austin-Round Rock MSA by at least 10%. The example set by Central Texas shows how much can be achieved on a voluntary basis without having to resort to a nonattainment designation. One of the important factors that has enabled local stakeholders to be willing to commit to such aggressive actions has been assurances by EPA that if the area was ever designated nonattainment for ozone, these would be fully accounted for and our region would not be penalized for actively participating in the programs. Our region’s success begs the question as to the necessity and utility of designating an area nonattainment when it is already taking strong action to reduce ozone. If EPA does not exercise discretion by being more flexible in implementing the proposed NAAQS, designating such areas nonattainment when not absolutely necessary would send a powerful signal to other areas not to take voluntary action. The other tools available to the EPA under Section 110 of the CAA should be sufficient to address ozone in most of these cases without having to resort to a nonattainment designation. From a legal perspective, all of the things that are required by statute of a nonattainment area could be administratively required by EPA under its existing general authority under Section 110. This could be accomplished through its oversight of “infrastructure” SIPs, including disapproving SIPs that did not sufficiently provide for attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the new proposed ozone NAAQS. Such SIPs are already supposed to “include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights) as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.” The concept of a “nonattainment” designation was only adopted by Congress in 1977. It was used to force EPA and the states to take action where air quality problems had persisted despite the plans required of states to submit under the more general provisions of Section 110. The added requirements for nonattainment areas adopted in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments raised the stakes even further and were even more prescriptive. The key distinction is only that while the EPA could require things like permitting offsets for the construction of new point sources and motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation agencies, a nonattainment area forces these specific requirements on EPA and – in turn – the states and local governments. Section 101 of the CAA describes the Congressional findings and purpose of the statute. This section states clearly that, “a primary goal of this Act is to encourage or otherwise promote reasonable Federal, State, and local governmental actions, consistent with the provisions of this Act, for pollution prevention.” Consistent with this purpose, EPA could interpret Section 107 of the CAA in ways that would reward early proven voluntary emission reductions, or at least avoid disincentivizing such actions. This can be accomplished, in part, by avoiding designating an area such as the Austin-Round Rock MSA that is aggressively voluntarily reducing emissions as nonattainment unless absolutely necessary. Unlike Congress’s very specific requirements for ozone nonattainment designations that occurred immediately following the 1990 Clean Air Act as described under Section 181 of the Clean Air Act, Section 107 of the CAA does not necessarily require that EPA use the same approach to designating areas as “nonattainment” and “unclassifiable/attainment” as it has for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. There is enough flexibility in the CAA to allow EPA to do the following: 1. Designate areas as “unclassifiable” rather than “nonattainment” if the design value is within the range that could be explained by monitoring equipment measurement uncertainty within the range allowed by EPA for valid ozone measurements (≤ +/- 4 ppb, relative to either a 65 ppb or 70 ppb
Page 22 of 44
standard), since this level of uncertainty calls into question whether that design value is actually not attaining the standard and instead suggests that the area “cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting” the standard; and 2. Exercise its discretion to extend the date for promulgating area designations by one year if an area’s 2014-2016 design value is above the standard but it is close enough to the standard that the additional emission reductions from mobile source emission reductions in 2017 and other emission reductions implemented through the area’s participation in the Ozone Advance Program could be sufficient to bring the design value low enough to be in attainment by the end of 2017. If EPA were to interpret the CAA to allow it to take either or both of these approaches, it could provide a very important incentive for areas to take voluntary actions to reduce ozone over the next three years, and could potentially save scores of areas from being designated nonattainment. This would relieve those areas, the states, and the EPA from the burdens of nonattainment area planning. 2.1 Recent Precedent for Unclassifiable Designations and 1-Year Deferrals There is recent precedent for EPA exercising both using “unclassifiable” designations and deferring designations by a year. EPA’s designation of parts of Utah as “unclassifiable” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2012 and EPA’s very recent annual PM2.5 NAAQS designation decisions in December 2014 show approaches that EPA could apply to the designation process for the 2015 NAAQS. Including information in the final NAAQS rulemaking that indicates the extent to which EPA is willing to consider these approaches would be important to providing direction and guidance to states for submitting recommendations to the EPA in 2016.
2.1.1 Recent Precedent for Extending the Designation Process by One Year EPA invoked its authority to extend designations by up to a year after it finalizes a standard for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Practically speaking, EPA did not actually complete the designation process until more than four years after the 2008 NAAQS was finalized, just as it did not complete the designation process for the 1997 ozone NAAQS until almost seven years after that standard was finalized. Under Section 107 of the CAA, the Administrator is supposed to only have two years to designate areas after she issues a new or revised standard, but may extend the period by up to one year “in the event the Administrator has insufficient information to promulgate designations.” Under a two-year deadline, EPA would have been required to issue designations in March 2010. During its reconsideration of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, it issued a notice in the Federal Register that would push that deadline back a year to March 2011 while it completed the reconsideration. In the Federal Register notice announcing this extension, EPA justified the extension by saying, “extending the deadline for promulgating designations until March 12, 2011, will allow EPA to complete the Ozone NAAQS Reconsideration rulemaking before determining whether it is necessary to complete action to finalize designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or, instead, whether it is necessary to begin the designation process for different NAAQS promulgated pursuant to the reconsideration.” 18 In this case, EPA announced that it was deferring designations by a year due to uncertainty as to which standard it would need to make designations for – a 75 ppb standard finalized in 2008, or a 60-70 ppb standard that was supposed to be finalized in late 2010. While EPA had three years of valid data that could have been used to make designations in March 2010, EPA’s decision to defer designations indicated that it recognized that uncertainty as to the necessity and utility of issuing a designation for the 2008 standard was a valid justification for postponing the designations by a year. As it relates to the current review, this precedent shows that availability of three years of valid data does not – in itself –
18 75 FR 2936. “Extension of Deadline for Promulgating Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” January 19, 2010. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-01-19/pdf/2010-349.pdf
Page 23 of 44
mean that EPA must finalize designations two years after it finalizes a NAAQS. The Administrator can consider factors in determining whether she has “sufficient information” to promulgate designations. EPA is proposing to interpret this section of the CAA as meaning that an area is “not attaining” the standard in October 2017 if its 2014-2016 design value is 1 ppb or more above the standard. There are other valid interpretations of the CAA that would allow it to also consider 2017 data in making designations.
2.1.2 Designation of Parts of Utah as “Unclassifiable” for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS In 2012, the EPA designated several areas of Utah as “unclassifiable” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, rather than as “nonattainment” or “attainment/unclassifiable.” In EPA’s response letter to the state’s recommendations for area designations, it stated: “Utah did not provide a recommendation for Indian country. However, there is existing non-regulatory monitoring in Duchense and Uintah Counties, within the exterior boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, that has detected levels of wintertime ozone that exceeds the NAAQS beginning in December 2009. For December 2009, January through March of 2010 and January through March of 2011, the non-regulatory monitors recorded ozone levels above the NAAQS. Regulatory monitoring has been conducted in the Uintah Basin since April 2011 but has not yet occurred for three consecutive years. Should regulatory data continue to show violations, a designation of nonattainment could happen as early as 2013. For this reason, we are proposing a designation of unclassifiable for Duchesne and Uintah Counties.”19 EPA’s decision to designate Duchesne and Uintah Counties as “unclassifiable” means that the agency determined that these counties “cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant,” as such areas are described under Section 107(d)(1)(iii) of the Clean Air Act. While EPA pointed out that there were monitors that recorded ozone levels in excess of the NAAQS, this information was not sufficient for the information to determine if the area was meeting or not meeting the standard. EPA’s tied this lack of certainty to the fact that the ozone monitoring data was based on non-regulatory monitors, rather than regulatory monitors. However – as discussed elsewhere in this section – even valid regulatory ozone monitoring data is characterized by a rather significant range of uncertainty of +/- 7% compared to calibration values.
2.1.3 Area Designations for 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
EPA’s designations of several areas as “unclassifiable” for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 1-year deferrals of designations for several other areas provides a very recent example of the use of these two remedies by EPA in order to account for uncertainty as to whether areas were attaining or not attaining a NAAQS. The figure below shows the areas of the country that were designated “nonattainment” and “unclassifiable” for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as the areas where EPA deferred the designation.
19 http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/designations/2008standards/rec/eparesp/08_UT_resp.pdf
Page 24 of 44
Figure 7: Area Designations for 2012 PM 2.5 Annual NAAQS, December 2014
On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the NAAQS for annual average PM2.5 concentrations from 15.0 3 3 µg/m to 12.0 µg/m . Areas that were measuring or contributing to annual average PM2.5 levels of 12.1 µg/m3 or higher are considered violating the NAAQS. On December 18, 2014, two years after the standard had been finalized, EPA issued area designations for most of the country, but deferred designations for all of Florida, all of Tennessee (except for counties in the Chattanooga area), 22 counties in Georgia, 1 county in Alabama, and 1 county in South Carolina. While most of the country was designated “attainment/unclassifiable,” part or all of 38 counties were designated “nonattainment,” and another 107 counties, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands were designated “unclassifiable.” One notable feature of EPA’s decision to designate some areas as “unclassifiable” is that there are some sites where there were recent data that showed PM2.5 levels above the NAAQS that EPA declined to designate as nonattainment. The table below shows these sites.20
20 http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pdfs/PM25_DesignValues_20112013_FINAL_08_28_14.xlsx. Last accessed 2/23/15.
Page 25 of 44
Table 9: Monitors in Counties Designated "Unclassifiable" with Recent Annual PM2.5 Design Values > 12.0 µg/m3
State County Site ID 2009-2011 DV 2010-2012 DV 2011-2013 DV Illinois Cook 170313103 12.9 µg/m3 13.0 µg/m3 12.5 µg/m3 Illinois Madison 171191007 13.0 µg/m3 13.5 µg/m3 12.4 µg/m3 Missouri St. Louis City 295100093 13.1 µg/m3 13.2 µg/m3 N/A
As EPA described in the letters to the affected states, its decisions to defer designations and to issue “unclassifiable” designations were related primarily to uncertainty as to whether monitoring data that were collected indicated that the area was attaining or not attaining the standard. In some areas like Illinois, an agency’s handling of the samples in an incorrect manner prevented EPA from being able to conclude that areas were not attaining the standard, even though the monitoring data reported showed violations in some cases.
2.1.4 Comparison of Number of Counties Impacted by EPA Designation Process The figure below shows the number of counties for which EPA deferred designations, designated areas as “unclassifiable,” or designated areas as “nonattainment” for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Since EPA deferred the designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for all 3,144 counties and county equivalents in the U.S., this is not shown on the figure. As the figure shows, EPA used the authority it has under the Clean Air Act to defer designations by a year or designate areas as “unclassifiable” for a large number of counties for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS however, it relied almost exclusively on nonattainment designations, only designating the two aforementioned counties in Utah as “unclassifiable.” Figure 8: Comparison of Number of Counties with a Deferred Designation, Designated "Unclassifiable," or Designated "Nonattainment" for 2008 Ozone NAAQS and 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 2008 Ozone NAAQS
232
183
107
38
Number of Counties or County Equivalents Countyor Countiesof Number 2
Designation Deferred 1 Year Designated "Unclassifiable" Designated "Nonattainment"
Page 26 of 44
2.2 Justification for Using “Unclassifiable” Designations for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS EPA could consider interpreting the CAA’s requirement under Section 107(d)(1)(A) to designate as nonattainment “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant” to mean that it is required to designate as “nonattainment” only those areas with design values that are high enough above the level set by EPA that their nonattainment status could not influenced by ozone instrument measurement uncertainty. Similarly, it could designate as “attainment” only those areas that have design values that are low enough below the standard that their status would not be influenced by ozone instrument measurement uncertainty. For other areas that will have 2016 design values that are within the +/- 7% of the NAAQS, EPA could use the “unclassifiable” designation. EPA allows for this level of measurement uncertainty for ozone instruments, and throughout prior ozone NAAQS reviews, there are analyses of the extent to which this uncertainty could influence attainment status. This level of uncertainty is too wide for the EPA to conclude with a high degree of confidence that a 2016 design value of 66 ppb was not reflecting actual ozone concentrations that were in attainment of the NAAQS. EPA would have a valid justification for designating such areas as “unclassifiable.” Statute defines this designation as meaning “any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.” While EPA has traditionally interpreted the CAA in a way that resulted in areas that were even 1 ppb above the standard at time of designation as “nonattainment,” there is no statutory prohibition on EPA designating areas “unclassifiable” if the area’s attainment status could be influenced by measurement uncertainty. Specifically, EPA could consider an alternative approach that accounts for measurement uncertainty in deciding whether an area “does not meet” the new ozone standard: For areas that have design values that are 5 ppb or higher above the standard or areas that are contributing to air quality in such areas, designate as “nonattainment.” For areas that have design values 4 ppb below the standard up to and including 4 ppb above the standard, designate as “unclassifiable” since these values fall within the +/- 7% measurement uncertainty allowed by EPA for ozone monitors. For areas that have design values 5 ppb below the standard or lower, designate as “attainment.”
Such an approach would not preclude the Administrator from – at a later date – designating areas within that range as “nonattainment” if ozone levels deteriorate or other information becomes available that would enable or cause EPA to determine that it would be appropriate to redesignate the area to “nonattainment” under §107(d)(3). It would also not prevent the Administrator from requiring a state to implement control measures in such areas under the authority contained in §110 to approve or disapprove a State Implementation Plan, “which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such primary [or secondary] standard in each air quality control region (or portion thereof) within such State.” Nor would it preclude EPA from issuing findings that a SIP for such an area “is substantially inadequate to attain the national ambient air quality standard which it implements” (§110(a)(2)(H)(ii)).
2.2.1 Measurement Uncertainty in EPA’s Quality Assurance Handbook The ranges identified above are consistent with the measurement uncertainty that EPA allows for in ozone monitoring networks. Monitoring data contain uncertainty, which – if not properly accounted for – can lead to decision errors, as EPA points out in its Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems (Volume II) – Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program:
Page 27 of 44
“The data used in these decisions are never error free and always contain some level of uncertainty. Because of these uncertainties or errors, there is a possibility that decision makers may declare an area ‘nonattainment’ when the area is actually in ‘attainment’… or ‘attainment’ when actually the area is in ‘nonattainment’…There are serious economic and health consequences of making such decision errors.”21 In Appendix D to this handbook, EPA identifies the acceptance criteria for ozone measurements as being whether a one-point quality control check for a single analyzer is ≤ +/- 7% compared to a known quantity. That means that a valid measurement as high as 74.9 ppb or as low as 65.1 could potentially be sampling actual ozone concentrations of 70 ppb, and that measurements as high as 69.6 ppb and or as low as 60.5 ppb could be sampling actual ozone concentrations of 65 ppb.
2.2.2 Measurement Error Described in the 2008 NAAQS Technical Documents One of the documents EPA produced for the 2008 ozone NAAQS review speaks directly to the extent of measurement error in reported ozone levels.22 The following is a table from that document showing the magnitude of these errors: Table 10: Systematic Bias Error in Ozone Measurements Presented in 2008 Ozone NAAQS Review
Error Type Estimate of Error Instrument Drift Error 1.0 ppb Noise Error 0.5 ppb Precision Error 0.9 ppb Calibration Error 2.0 ppb (at ~ 90 ppb) NIST Standards Error 3.0 ppb (3% at 100 ppb)
As calculated by this document, the combined “systematic bias error” associated with the individual components listed above would be 3.9 ppb. This is consistent with the +/- 7% of values allowed for valid ozone measurements in the QA handbook as applied to either a 65 ppb or 70 ppb standard.
2.2.3 Improved Precision of Instruments Does Not Mean Improved Accuracy EPA’s decision to report the level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS out to three significant digits (0.075 ppm) resulted, in part, from improvements in the degree of precision for ozone instruments. As the table above shows, the “precision error” component of measurement error was estimated to be less than 1 ppb (0.001 ppm). While the improvement in ozone instrument precision allows for this finer-scale reporting, it does necessarily allow EPA to determine that the instrument’s accuracy is also valid at that level of significant figures. For the 1997 ozone NAAQS, an area could have ozone averages of 0.084 ppm and still be attaining a 0.08 ppm standard. By reporting the 1997 standard to only 2 significant digits, it was able to account for measurement uncertainty in assessing compliance – an area with a design value of 0.085 ppb was more likely to be experiencing ozone health impacts associated with ozone levels of 0.09 ppm than of 0.08 ppm. However, with a standard reported out to three significant digits (or in ppb to the 1 ppb precision level), no such allowance is offered. While a design value of 66 ppb is more likely to be measuring actual ozone levels above 65 ppb than they are to be measuring actual ozone levels at or below 65 ppb, it is not so much more likely that EPA can be confident that a designation of
21 EPA. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems (Volume II) – Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program. http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/pm25/qa/QA-Handbook-Vol-II.pdf. EPA-454/B- 13-003. May, 2013. Last Accessed January 6, 2015. 22 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/cox_and_camalier_7-7-06.pdf
Page 28 of 44
“nonattainment” would accurately reflect conditions in an area with design values in the ranges of 61-69 for a 65 ppb NAAQS or 66-74 for a 70 ppb NAAQS.
2.2.4 Instrument Measurement Uncertainty in the Health Risk and Exposure Assessment If EPA wished to use a narrower range of values that were directly linked to this rulemaking, it could use the range of impacts that instrument uncertainty was modeled to have on ozone exposure in the Health Risk and Exposure Assessment (HREA). Table 5-10 from the HREA shows that measurement uncertainty causes a +1.2% bias in exposure estimates, with a coefficient of variation of +/- 4.4%.23 The table below shows the ranges of design values that would be expected to fall within these ranges at standard levels of 65 ppb and 70 ppb. Table 11: Ranges of Design Values Consistent With Exposure to a Standard Level of 65 and 70 ppb from HREA
Standard Level Bias C.V. Low Average High Range 65 ppb +1.2% +/- 4.4% 62.92 ppb 65.78 ppb 68.64 ppb 63 – 68 ppb 70 ppb +1.2% +/- 4.4% 67.76 ppb 70.84 ppb 73.92 ppb 67 – 73 ppb
2.2.5 The “Unclassifiable/Attainment” Designation is Inappropriate In the Federal Register notice for EPA’s initial round of designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for all areas other than Chicago, it stated, “Historically for ozone, the EPA designates the remaining areas [not designated nonattainment] as ‘unclassifiable/attainment’ indicating that the areas either have attaining air quality monitoring data or that air quality information is not available because the areas are not monitored, and the EPA has not determined that the areas contribute to a violation in nearby areas.”24 EPA’s approach to issuing initial designations for areas with ozone design values at or below the NAAQS as “unclassifiable/attainment” inappropriately groups areas with valid ozone design values that are meeting the standard with counties that have no ozone measurements at all. Designating an area that has valid ozone data that is clearly meeting the standard as “unclassifiable/attainment” improperly communicates uncertainty as to an area’s ozone levels and if its emissions may be contributing to nonattainment downwind. The EPA supervises state monitoring programs and should be able to assess whether or not a regulatory ozone monitor is correctly positioned within an area to capture peak ozone levels. Photochemical modeling also provides EPA with a readily available tool to determine if a county may be contributing to nonattainment in a nearby county. The only way an area can be designated “attainment” under the current approach would be for it to have previously been designated “nonattainment.” An area that has “clean” ozone data and is not contributing significantly to nonattainment conditions downwind should be able to receive an initial designation of “attainment.” By EPA using the same “unclassifiable/attainment” designation for counties that do not have regulatory monitoring data as it does for counties with monitoring data that is measuring attainment, it is associating “attainment” conditions with an area that it has no direct information on ozone levels for, and many such areas may, in fact, be experiencing ozone levels above the level of the proposed ozone standards. It would be more appropriate to designate such areas as “unclassified” since insufficient information exists to determine whether the area is or is not attaining the standard or contributing to downwind nonattainment.
23 EPA. Health Risk Exposure Assessment for Ozone – Final Report. EPA-452/R-14-004a. August 2014. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/20140829healthrea.pdf. 24 77 FR 30088. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-05-21/pdf/2012-11618.pdf
Page 29 of 44
2.2.6 General Rationale for Considering Measurement Uncertainty Although EPA’s traditional approach to designating areas for ozone NAAQS has involved setting a bright line dividing areas into two designation categories – nonattainment and unclassifiable/attainment – Congress quite deliberately included three types of designations, one of which better describes the situation many areas may face at the end of 2016 – having a design value slightly above the standard but within the range that could plausibly be attributed to monitoring measurement uncertainty. EPA is not explicitly required to designate an area nonattainment if its 2016 design value is measuring 1 ppb above the standard it sets, but it did explicitly provide the option for EPA to designate areas as “unclassifiable” designation for “any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.” In light of these considerations and the very significant implications of a nonattainment designation for an area, the EPA could consider the approach detailed above. This approach, used in conjunction with EPA’s Ozone Advance Program, could provide an effective and cost-efficient way to attain and maintain the standard without resorting to the severe consequences of a nonattainment designation. 2.3 Justification for Extending Time Frame for Designations by One Year Given the implications of getting an area’s initial designation wrong, EPA has an interest in having a high degree of confidence in its initial designations. As the evidence from the designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS show, just because an area has a design value that is attaining the standard in 2016 does not mean that it will be attaining the standard in 2017 and vice-versa. EPA could use its discretion under Section 107 of the CAA to extend the designation process by one year (out to October 2018, based on 2015-2017 monitoring data) for areas with 2016 ozone design values that are close to the standard in order to assess whether these additional emission reductions are sufficient to bring the area’s 2017 ozone design value into attainment of the standard and to account for extra monitoring data, as it did indirectly for the 2008 ozone NAAQS designation process. EPA could use the ranges associated with measurement uncertainty described above (+/- 4 ppb) to decide which areas to defer designations for. Alternatively, if a 2016 design value was above the standard, but a preliminary 2017 design value calculated using 2015, 2016, and first two quarters of 2017 was not yet violating the NAAQS, EPA could consider deferring the designation by a year. Either of these approaches would be consistent with Section 107’s allowance for the designation timeline: “such period may be extended for up to one year in the event the Administrator has insufficient information to promulgate the designations.”
2.3.1 Many Ozone Advance Program Participants May be Able to Attain by 2017 EPA could consider extending the designation promulgation deadline by one year under certain circumstances, as permitted under statute. Specifically, if an area has 2014-2016 ozone data that is measuring above the standard and is the area is participating in EPA’s Ozone Advance Program, the EPA could extend the nonattainment designation period for those areas by a year upon petition from the state in which the area is located. Under such circumstances, EPA would be lacking a key piece of information that would determine whether it was necessary to designate the area nonattainment: whether emission reductions occurring in 2017 would be enough to bring the area’s design value into attainment. Analysis of modeling data and ozone design value trends by the Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) indicate that the Austin-Round Rock MSA is likely to have a design value of 67 ppb for 2016, but may be able to get as low as 65 ppb by the end of 2017. The design value trend analysis below shows a projected 2017 design value of 66 ppb without considering the additional emission reductions
Page 30 of 44
that are expected to occur in that year due to implementation of Tier 3 light duty fuel and vehicle standards. Figure 9: Austin-Round Rock MSA Design Value Trend 1999-2017 (not including Tier 3 Reductions)
100 95 90 89 89 88 85 85 84 85 82 82 80 80 y = -1.3333x + 91.333 77 R² = 0.98 75 75 75 74 74 73 70 69 68 67 65 66
60
Hour Ozone Average (partsbillion) per Average HourOzone
- 8
Murchison 4th High Audubon 4th High 1997 Standard 2008 Standard Design Value Proposed 2015 Standard Linear (Design Value)
Similarly, the most recent fine-scale modeling for the region, which was completed prior to the completion of the Tier 3 rulemaking and release of MOVES2014, showed a 9.0% reduction in ozone design values at CAMS 3 and 10.5% reduction at CAMS 38 between 2012 and 2018.25 Using the attainment demonstration modeling technique of applying these factors to a center-weighted “baseline” design value for 2012 that uses an average of the 2010-2012, 2011-2013, and 2012-2014 design values, the projected 2018 design value for Travis County would be 65.3 without the benefit of the Tier 3 standards. Interpolating between those two years produces 2016 and 2017 design values very similar to the design value trend analysis.
25 AACOG. Future Year Photochemical Modeling, 2012 and 2018. December 15, 2013. http://www.capcog.org/documents/airquality/reports/2013/AACOG_2012_and_2018_Modeling_Report- Body_Only.pdf.
Page 31 of 44
Figure 10: Central Texas Modeled Design Values 2012-2018 without Tier 3 Emission Reductions
CAMS 3
CAMS 38
71.9
71.8
70.7
70.6
69.6
69.4
Modeled Design Value Design Modeled
68.5
67.5 67.5
66.8
66.4
65.6
65.3 64.3
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2.3.2 One-Year Extensions Would Account for Impact of Tier 3 Vehicle Standards As EPA points out in the preamble to the ozone NAAQS proposal, “the emission reductions from…mobile source programs are significant and will continue to be realized throughout the implementation period for any revised O3 NAAQS. The EPA projects that between 2011 and 2025, onroad and nonroad mobile NOX will decline by more than 60% and onroad and nonroad mobile VOC will decline by more than 50%.”26 Given these trends and the significant emission reductions expected to occur in 2017, it is likely that there are many areas might face a situation similar to the one Central Texas is, in which the extra year permitted under the CAA for the nonattainment designation process could well mean the difference between the area being designated nonattainment or not. Given the level of efforts EPA has undertaken to put these Tier 3 standards in place and the investments that states and communities across the country have undertaken to try to stay in attainment of the ozone NAAQS, it would be counterproductive to force a nonattainment designation on an area that is measuring just above the standard in 2016 but likely to be in attainment by the end of 2017. The additional emission reductions that are expected to occur as the result of the Tier 3 standards appear to be just enough that the area’s 2017 design value could be low enough to monitor attainment of a 65 ppb standard. EPA’s Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the proposal for the Tier 3 standards shows a difference of 0.61 ppb between the 2017 “baseline” and “control” scenarios.1 The Technical Support Document for the final rulemaking used different modeling, but found a similar reduction (0.63 ppb) between the 2018 “baseline” and “control” scenarios.1 That level of reduction, applied to an “uncontrolled” 2017 design value of 66.3 or 66.4 would bring the “controlled” design value for 2017 to 65.67 – 65.79 ppb, which would be in attainment of a 65 ppb standard.
26 79 FR 75371
Page 32 of 44
2.3.3 Use of Discretion in Extending the Designation Process by a Year is Consistent with Recent EPA Statements Regarding Ozone Nonattainment Designations Much of the logic used by the EPA in an August 14, 2014, letter to Earthjustice denying their petition to redesignate 57 areas to nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would also be applicable to the situation described above.27 In this letter, the EPA administrator stated that, “EPA believes it is appropriate to allow time for affected states to consider appropriate measures to address air quality problems. The EPA expects that reductions in emissions of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds due to existing federal measures, such as the Tier 3 motor vehicle standards, and state-led efforts will assist these areas in attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS.” While, as EPA correctly points out in this letter, there is a difference between the initial designations EPA must make following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS and any subsequent designations after the initial designations are finalized. In deciding not to exercise its discretion to initiate a redesignation process for the areas referenced in the petition, EPA stated that it, “considered air quality trends and expected emission reductions in the near term,” that “EPA expects this overall long-term trend to continue as additional emissions reductions area achieved through existing regulations,” and that “emissions of NOX in the United States are expected to decline by 29 percent from 2011 through 2018, even when accounting for increases in some sectors, such as the oil and gas production industry.” By the time the Federal Register notice designating areas nonattainment is published in late 2017, most areas will have completed the peak periods of their 2017 ozone seasons and many of their uncertified 2017 design values may already be attaining the standard. The designation process for the proposed standards would be occurring in the midst of the time period referenced by EPA as justifying its denial of a petition to designate the area as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. If these trends in ozone levels and emissions can justify EPA’s decision not to exercise its discretion to designate areas nonattainment for the 2008 NAAQS since it did not consider it necessary, it could also justify an interpretation of the CAA that allows consideration of the effect of another year of ongoing emission reduction measures on ozone levels in deciding on designations. As EPA also points out in its response, area nonattainment designations under a “marginal” classification “would not on its own result in additional local attainment planning requirements for the areas.” This critical point underlines why an area that is above, but close to, the standard in 2016 should be given one extra year before EPA finalizes its designations – the one year of operating under a “marginal” nonattainment would not be expected on its own to achieve new emission reductions beyond what would already be occurring.
2.3.4 Extensions Could Incentivize Voluntary Emission Reductions This approach would provide a powerful incentive for areas that are currently participating in the Ozone Advance Program to aggressively implement voluntary emission reductions without being designated nonattainment over the next few years, and would provide an incentive for areas that are not yet participating in the program to do so. If an area can attain the standard by the end of 2017 such that EPA can avoid designating it nonattainment, that would spare the area, the state, and the EPA from the regulatory burdens of a nonattainment designation that was not necessary to achieve the desired air quality improvements.
27 Letter from EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to Seth Johnson, Senior Associate Attorney, Eathjustice . August 14, 2014. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0563-0004
Page 33 of 44
2.4 Summary of the Case for New Approaches to the Designation Process Unlike the process that EPA undertakes for its regular NAAQS reviews and the criteria that can be considered as part of that process, the courts have not been nearly as specific in directing EPA how it must implement a NAAQS. Where Congress has not been explicit in instructing EPA in how to implement the standard, including in the designation process, the courts must defer to EPA’s decision on what the best way to implement the standard is as long as it is a “permissible” interpretation of the statute. EPA might consider the following points with respect to nonattainment designations: EPA already has tools available to it under Section 110 of the CAA to require administratively the same controls that it is forced to impose on states and areas by statute if an area is designated nonattainment – it is not necessary to designate an area as nonattainment for EPA to require any of those controls for that area; In many cases, a nonattainment designation is unlikely to accelerate attainment of the standard any quicker than would be achieved without a nonattainment designation, especially in areas such as the Austin-Round Rock MSA that are already aggressively reducing emissions while still designated “attainment/unclassifiable;” Many of the various statutory requirements for an ozone nonattainment area are no longer necessary or important for controlling ozone, including particularly the transportation conformity requirements and mandatory VOC controls; and Applied narrowly, some of the statutory requirements could force an area to achieve extra reductions beyond what would have been required if the area had postponed action.
In general EPA could reserve a formal “nonattainment” designation only for situations that under the statute it would be required to do so. There are permissible interpretations of the CAA that would allow the EPA to avoid designating an area with a 2016 design value above the proposed NAAQS as nonattainment in October 2017. The two ideas offered above – accounting for measurement uncertainty and extending the timeframe for designations – should help states and the EPA avoid designating areas like the Austin-Round Rock MSA as nonattainment where it is not explicitly clear that Congress intended the area to be designated nonattainment for a new ozone NAAQS. At a minimum, the efforts that local areas like the Austin-Round Rock MSA have put into avoiding a nonattainment designation could warrant special consideration in the designation process. EPA could specifically offer a proposed rulemaking on a nonattainment designation approach and take comment on both of these approaches. EPA could then evaluate these comments and determine whether there is enough merit in them to modify the approach identified in the preamble to this ozone NAAQS proposal.
Page 34 of 44
3 “Infrastructure” and “Transport” State Implementation Plan Requirements for the New NAAQS Comment: EPA should fully and expeditiously implement the interstate transport and infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements of the CAA for the proposed NAAQS to address the interstate and intrastate transport of ozone that can undermine regional voluntary ozone reduction programs in areas like Central Texas. One important aspect of this new NAAQS is how states will be required to fulfill the “infrastructure” and “transport” SIP requirements described in Section 110 of the CAA. This section requires that within three years after EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, each state must submit a “plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such primary standard in each air quality control region (or portion thereof) within such state.” Among other things, such plans are required to: “(A) include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act;” “(C) include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C an D;” 3.1 Interstate Transport Obligations Before areas like Central Texas are asked to come up with additional emission reductions beyond what is already being done locally, EPA needs to make sure that states promptly fulfill their obligations to avoid significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the proposed NAAQS under Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA. EPA’s recent 2008 ozone NAAQS interstate transport modeling shows that the combined impacts from each state’s anthropogenic emissions on each regulatory ozone monitoring station’s design value in 2018. For the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and EPA’s January 2015 memo on interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA used an air quality impact threshold of 1% or more of the NAAQS for an area with a design value modeled to be above the standard in a future year in order to determine if the state’s anthropogenic emissions were “significantly” contributing to nonattainment at those monitoring stations or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS. An alternative threshold EPA could consider would be 0.5 ppb, used regardless of where it sets the standard. The use of a 0.5 ppb threshold would make that state’s anthropogenic emissions more likely than not to make a difference in a downwind monitor’s design value. Similarly, a threshold of 1 ppb could be used, since an impact of 1 ppb or more would definitely make a difference in an area’s design value. Regardless of whether EPA used either of these thresholds or the 1% threshold used in CSAPR and the 2008 ozone transport memo, upwind contributions are likely to make the difference in Central Texas’s attainment of a 65 ppb standard in 2018. The table below shows a summary of these contributions.
Page 35 of 44
Table 12: Modeled Upwind Impacts of >0.5 ppb on Travis County 2018 Design Value
State Impact Alabama 0.72 ppb Arkansas 0.98 ppb Illinois 0.55 ppb Louisiana 2.56 ppb Missouri 0.74 ppb Oklahoma 0.57 ppb Subtotal: States with >= 1.00 ppb Impact 2.56 ppb Subtotal: States with >= 0.70 ppb Impact 5.00 ppb Subtotal: States with >= 0.65 ppb Impact 5.00 ppb Subtotal: States with >= 0.50 ppb Impact 6.12 ppb
There are many areas across the country like Central Texas for which interstate transport has a disproportionately large impact on peak ozone levels. We are concerned that without clear guidance from EPA as to what the states must do to fulfill the related prohibitions in the CAA, it may not be possible for states to submit implementation plans by October 2018 that can demonstrate that they are meeting these “good neighbor” requirements. We note that EPA is only now in 2015 beginning to implement the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address the 1997 ozone and particulate matter standards, 18 years after those standards were finalized, largely because of confusion and uncertainty as to what is required to fulfill these provisions. Delays in implementing this “good neighbor” provision will shift more of a burden for reducing emissions on downwind areas than the CAA intended and would be contrary to the purpose of the act to “encourage or otherwise promote reasonable Federal, State, and local governmental actions…for pollution prevention” (§101). Given the extent of interstate ozone transport on future ozone levels, prompt implementation of this requirement is important to ensuring speedy and stable attainment of the proposed NAAQS. The Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding CSAPR indicated that cost of emission reductions was a valid consideration for EPA to use in assessing whether a state should be required to reduce emissions in order to fulfill these requirements, and the CAC agrees that this should continue to be a consideration – requiring states with a high degree of control over emissions to further reduce emissions before states with lower degrees of control is an inefficient way to achieve the necessary air quality improvements that would be driven by the proposed NAAQS. While the Supreme Court did allow EPA to implement this rule using trading among states, it did not require it to do so, and requiring a similar approach for the proposed NAAQS would make it nearly impossible for a state to independently meet the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D), forcing it to instead wait until EPA issued a Federal Implementation Plan to address the problem, which could be years after the required deadline. Clear guidelines in the final rulemaking for this NAAQS as to what the air quality threshold for interstate transport will be for the proposed NAAQS and what year or years are relevant for these analysis is important to ensuring that the costs of implementing this NAAQS are fairly distributed. 3.2 Permitting Requirements for Attainment Areas CAC encourages EPA to incorporate into any implementation rule or guidance issued for approval of “infrastructure” SIPs requirements more stringent requirements for assuring that state permitting programs do not interfere with efforts to attain and maintain NAAQS in downwind areas within the same state. While the CAA explicitly requires that SIPs contain adequate provisions to prevent its
Page 36 of 44
emissions from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in an area if it is located in another state, it is not as explicit in requiring that emissions from one area of a state not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another area of the state. However, Section 110(a)(1) does require that the SIPs “provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of [the NAAQS] in each air quality control region (or portion thereof) within such state.” Furthermore, these implementation plans are required to: “include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act;” (§ 110(a)(2)(A)) “include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D;” (§ 110(a)(2)(C)) “contain emission limitations and such other measures as may be necessary, as determined under regulations promulgated under [part C], to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region (or portion thereof) designated pursuant to section 107 as attainment or unclassifiable;” (§ 161) “the maximum allowable concentration of any air pollutant in any area to which [part C] applies shall not exceed a concentration for each pollutant for each period of exposure equal to – (A) the concentration permitted under the national secondary ambient air quality standard, or (B) the concentration permitted under the national primary ambient air quality standard, whichever concentration is lowest for such period of exposure.” (§ 161(b)(4));
Taken in combination, CAC believes that these provisions call for EPA to take stronger action to protect areas like the Austin-Round Rock MSA that have aggressively been reducing local emissions, but where maintenance of a revised NAAQS could be heavily influenced by permits issued in areas outside of the MSA. There is nothing that would prevent, for instance, a state from issuing a permit to either a single large point source or numerous smaller stationary sources of NOX emissions directly upwind from an urban area that was on the verge of violating a NAAQS. In the midst of the Austin-Round Rock MSA’s implementation of the EAC SIP, a number of new, large coal-fired power plants were permitted directly upwind of the region. Over the past five years, as the region barely maintained compliance with the 2008 ozone NAAQS, permits issued for oil and gas production facilities in the Eagle Ford Shale region have led to modeled increases in local peak ozone levels of 0.72 – 0.80 ppb in 2012, with the impact projected to grow to 0.91 – 0.98 ppb by 2018, based on modeling conducted by the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG) in 2013.28 For comparison, the 2012 impacts from Eagle Ford Shale emissions exceeds the modeled impact in 2007 of all of the emission reductions modeled for the Austin-Round Rock MSA’s Early Action Compact SIP (0.71 – 0.79 ppb).29 This includes the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program that Travis
28 AACOG. Future Year Photochemical Modeling for the Capital Area Council of Governments. December 15, 2013. http://www.capcog.org/documents/airquality/reports/2013/AACOG_2012_and_2018_Modeling_Report- Body_Only.pdf. 29 TCEQ. Austin Area Early Action Compact Ozone State Implementation Plan Revision. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/sipdocs/2004-06-AUS/AUS_narr_181104.pdf. November 17, 2014.
Page 37 of 44
County and Williamson County voluntarily adopted in 2004. This one program is currently costing motorists in Central Texas approximately $25-$30 million a year, and was modeled to have an impact of 0.33 – 0.35 ppb in 2007, although the impact now is likely about two-thirds that.30 Using that as a benchmark, it would cost another $80-$100 million per year to abate the increase in ozone from these upwind emissions through additional local emission controls. If the counties that make up the Eagle Ford Shale region were a separate state, the EPA’s would consider them as having a significant air quality impact (>1%) compared to the proposed NAAQS. However, since it is in the same state as the Austin-Round Rock MSA, we must rely on EPA and TCEQ to find a way through the provisions of the CAA to avoid permitting in upwind areas like the Eagle Ford Shale from interfering with our region’s attainment of the proposed NAAQS. The CAA requires that SIPs provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in each air quality control region (AQCR), not just for areas that are designated nonattainment in EPA’s initial round of designations following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Under § 107(c) of the CAA an AQCR is “any interstate or intrastate area which [the Administrator] deems necessary or appropriate for the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards.” Consistent with these provisions of the CAA, EPA could consider establishing overall numeric limits on the maximum amount of NOX and VOC emissions that can be permitted within each air quality control region. These limits could be set consistent with the photochemical modeling used by EPA or the states in support of the Transport SIPs. Since these plans will be required to be submitted by states to the EPA by October 2018, EPA could use the substantial modeling data already available for 2018 in order to establish these limits. States would be required to fully account for all emissions permitted for stationary sources under this scenario to verify that the assumptions matched. This would help ensure that states were fully accounting for all NOX and VOC emissions permitted. This would also limit the potential impact that the proliferation of small stationary sources could have on ozone levels within the vicinity of the sources, since the permits for such sources would reduce the total amount of emissions available to be permitted within that AQCR. Beyond this basic control, since urban ozone levels are very sensitive to not only the overall level of emissions within the corresponding AQCR, but also the location of those emissions, EPA should also consider requiring PSD permitting programs to include photochemical modeling demonstrations for any permit resulting in a net increase in NOX or VOC of over 40 tons per year, which is defined as “significant” under 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) if the state has a designated nonattainment area. Such a demonstration could show that the net increase from issuance of the permit would not: Increase ozone levels anywhere downwind such that it would cause that area to violate the standard once the facility began operation if it would not otherwise be modeled to be in violation of the standard; and Limit the modeled impact anywhere in the modeling domain to no more than the threshold used for interstate transport analysis (for example, 1% of the proposed NAAQS (either 0.70 ppb or 0.65 ppb).
30 TCEQ. Appendix J to the Austin-Round Rock Early Action Compact State Implementation Plan Revision: Supplemental Control Strategies Modeling. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/sipdocs/2004-06-AUS/AppendixJ.pdf. November 17, 2014.
Page 38 of 44
4 Implementing the Proposed NAAQS in New Nonattainment Areas Comment: EPA should consider adjusting the implementation requirements in areas designated nonattainment for the proposed ozone NAAQS to better accounts for voluntary emission reduction efforts already being underway in areas like Central Texas.
The last time the CAA was significantly amended was 25 years ago. By the time EPA designates areas nonattainment under the proposed standard, 27 years will have passed since the last time Congress looked closely how to implement NAAQS. That is more than twice the interval between the 1977 CAA Amendments and the 1990 Amendments, and almost four times the interval between the 1970 CAA and the 1977 Amendments. The highly detailed and prescriptive implementation regime for ozone nonattainment areas are described in Title I, Subpart 2 of the 1990 Amendments. These provisions arose out of a circumstance in which ozone levels had not significantly changed between 1977 and 1990, and Congress determined that it was time to change how the ozone NAAQS was implemented. This particular part of the legislation was based largely on the following assumptions, held by Congress at the time: 1. The key type of ozone exposure that needed to be controlled was peak 1-hour concentrations above 0.12 parts per million (ppm), as expressed in the 1979 one-hour ozone NAAQS; 2. Such ozone concentrations would be found primarily or exclusively in dense metropolitan areas; 3. Peak ozone concentrations are driven primarily by urban anthropogenic VOC emissions; and 4. Ozone problems would continue to persist in such areas unless states expeditiously took action to emissions in such areas; 5. Nonattainment designations were necessary to push states to enact such emission reductions.
While these assumptions drove Congress to enact the highly prescriptive provisions of Subpart 2 in 1990, not a single one of them holds true today for the proposed ozone standards: 1. EPA is seeking through this proposed NAAQS to achieve additional protections from exposure to 8- hour ozone concentrations of 65-70 ppb, a level that is more than 40% lower than the level of the standard in place in 1990; 2. Such ozone concentrations are found across very broad swaths of the entire country, including in very rural areas, such as Brewster County, Texas, which is hundreds of miles from the nearest urban area; 3. Peak ozone concentrations are driven primarily by NOX emissions in most parts of the country; 4. Ozone concentrations above the proposed standard are projected to decline steeply over the next 10-20 years due primarily to federal on-road mobile source emissions standards, rather than state- level or local-level regulations; and 5. As the example of Central Texas shows, it is possible to achieve very significant emission reductions beyond what is achieved through such federal standards, even without a nonattainment designation – local NOX emissions are about 10% lower in Central Texas today than they would otherwise be thanks to emission reductions voluntarily implemented by the state and local governments over the past 13 years.
In light of where things stand today, the CAC encourages EPA to consider ways to interpret the CAA that would enable it to better account for current circumstances, and in particular, avoid interpreting it in such a way that would inadvertently penalize areas like Central Texas for taking the initiative to reduce emissions voluntarily prior to a nonattainment designation. There are ways that EPA can modify its
Page 39 of 44
approach to implementing the proposed ozone NAAQS that would better match the current scientific understanding of ozone, trends in emission reductions, and the extent to which states and local governments are willing to voluntarily reduce emissions and ozone exposure outside of the nonattainment designation and SIP process. Some of our suggestions below might be helpful as EPA considers which implementation strategies would best fulfill one of the primary goals of the Clean Air Act, defined in Section 101(c) as, “to encourage or otherwise promote reasonable Federal, State, and local governmental actions, consistent with the provisions of this Act, for pollution prevention.” 4.1 Allow for Adjustments to Baseline Emissions to Account for Voluntarily Adopted Controls There are some specific requirements for nonattainment areas that, if EPA takes the same approach to implementing as it has in the past, would cause the area to wind up being penalized for having taken voluntary action ahead of a nonattainment designation. CAC encourages EPA to look for ways that it can implement the new standard without penalizing voluntary emission reductions. We believe that any interpretation of the statute that results in such penalties would be contrary to the stated intent of the CAA “to encourage or otherwise promote reasonable Federal, State, and local government actions, consistent with the provisions of this Act, for pollution prevention.”
4.1.1 Nonattainment New Source Review Permitting Under EPA’s existing approach to implementing the permitting requirements under the CAA, the operator of a stationary source that voluntarily reduces emissions prior to a nonattainment designation can also be penalized by having a lower baseline emissions level used for nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting. In this situation, the offsets that would be available to the operator from reducing emissions after the designation occurred would not be available if those reductions occurred prior to the designation. The figure below shows a scenario in which a power plant that, if uncontrolled, would emit 200 tons per year (tpy) of NOX. If it installed low-NOX burners prior to 2012, achieving a 30% reduction in NOX emissions, its “baseline” emissions from 2012-2017 would average 140 tpy. Under a “marginal” nonattainment designation for ozone, if the plant wished to add a unit that emitted 50 tpy, it would be required to obtain 55 tons per year of offsets (110%). If it had remained uncontrolled, the plant would be able to obtain the necessary offsets by installing the same low-NOX burners after it was designated nonattainment. However, that option is not available to this plant operator, since it was voluntarily reduced those emissions prior to the period used for NNSR permitting. The plant’s lower baseline emissions would force it to obtain offsets for the expansion from elsewhere, adding to the cost of the expansion and financially penalizing the facility for having voluntarily installed the equipment earlier than was necessary.
Page 40 of 44
Figure 11: Impacts of Voluntary Emission Reductions on Nonattainment New Source Review Permitting
Uncontrolled Controlled
200
140
60
50 50 55 55 NOX Emissions (tons per year)per (tons Emissions NOX 0
2012-2016 Baseline Expansion Offsets Required Offsets Available Through Installation of Low-NOX Burners
If point source operators voluntarily reduced emissions following assurance by EPA that they would not be penalized for these reductions if the area was later designated nonattainment, the EPA should honor that commitment and find a way to interpret this requirement in a way that avoids penalizing the operator. This is the situation that several point source operators in the Austin-Round Rock MSA are in. These operators voluntarily installed pollution control devices as part of the EAC process under the assumption that they these reductions would be “creditable” if the MSA wound up designated nonattainment in the future. These facilities now have lower emission rates than they would otherwise have, and ozone levels are lower as a result. If the Austin-Round Rock MSA is designated nonattainment for the proposed NAAQS and EPA does not honor the commitment made as part of the EAC process, these facilities will wind up being penalized for their proactive measures. The offset credits that would be available through installation of the technologies currently in place on an uncontrolled facility will no longer be available to them. This will force them to pay more to expand than if they had never voluntarily installed the pollution control equipment, and any competitors that had postponed reductions until after a nonattainment designation would have a competitive advantage. It will also send a very bad message to other areas that may be considering taking voluntary actions to reduce emissions ahead of a potential nonattainment designation. EPA could consider using a different set of years or modeling a “without voluntary measure” scenario in establishing a point source operator’s emissions baseline if they voluntarily reduced emissions under the EAC process or the Ozone Advance Program that better accounts for these voluntary actions.
4.1.2 Conformity Requirements The conformity tests required for a “marginal” area require that future year on-road emissions are less than a given baseline. Therefore, any voluntary emission reductions that cause the baseline level to be lower than it would otherwise have been constrains highway construction beyond what would have
Page 41 of 44
been required. While it is unlikely that these differences would impose a real constraint on transportation planners, since on-road emissions are projected to continue to drop substantially and stay at a level well below current levels for decades to come, this is another illustration of how the EPA’s implementation of the proposed NAAQS could wind up penalizing an area that voluntarily reduced emissions. EPA could allow areas to model the baseline without these voluntarily implemented measures included to avoid this problem.
4.1.3 Reasonable Further Progress Requirements If EPA does set the level of the standard in its proposed range of 65-70 ppb as proposed, it is unlikely that the Austin-Round Rock MSA would be designated a “moderate” nonattainment area. However, if the area were to fail to meet the standard by 2020, it could get “bumped up” to a moderate classification. Implementing the requirements for a moderate classification on an area that had voluntarily implemented emission reductions can cause other outcomes that it is doubtful Congress intended when it passed the 1990 CAA Amendments. The figure below shows a simplified version of the impact of voluntary emission reductions on the target VOC emission level that a nonattainment area would be required to reach under the “reasonable further progress” (RFP) requirements for moderate nonattainment areas. The requirement for a 15% reduction in baseline VOC emissions forces an area that has voluntarily implemented emission reduction measures prior to a baseline year to be required to achieve future emissions levels that are lower than what would have been required if they had not implemented these measures. Figure 12: Impact of Voluntary Emission Reductions on Target Emission Level Required for Reasonable Further Progress (tpd)
No Voluntary Action Voluntary Action
100.0 90.0 85.0
76.5 VOC Emissions (tond per day)per (tondEmissions VOC
Baseline Year Target Year
Under this scenario, the area’s baseline emissions are 10 tons per day of VOC lower than they would have been if they had not taken any voluntary action. The area that took no voluntary action would need to come up with 15 tons per day of emission reductions by the target year (15%), reaching a target level of 85 tons per year. The area that took voluntary action would need to come up with 13.5 tons per day of additional emission reductions in order to reduce baseline emissions by 15% to reach a target of
Page 42 of 44
76.5 tons per day. While the incremental amount of emission reductions required after the baseline year is less for the area that voluntarily implemented controls, the target emissions for the area that voluntarily implemented controls is 8.5 tons below the target emissions level required for the area that took no action (85% of the 10 tpd reduction from the “uncontrolled” baseline). 4.2 Reduce Burdens of Transportation Conformity Analysis The existing engine standards in place for light duty and heavy duty vehicles are projected to achieve large reductions over the next decade and remain at a very low level relative to current emissions for many decades, based on modeling projections using EPA’s MOVES2014 model. The Transportation Conformity process is designed to ensure that Federal funding for transportation projects and approval of transportation plans is consistent with the goals of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and that such activities won’t cause or contribute to any new violations, increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation, or delay timely attainment of the standard or any required emission reductions or other milestones.
The actual influence that these requirements can have over future year NOX or VOC emissions is very limited, given the very low emissions rates of new vehicles and ongoing fleet turnover and the limited extent to which road construction decisions can actually influence regional on-road vehicle activity. A recent analysis by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) showed a 70% decrease in NOX emissions from on-road sources nationwide between 2015 and 2030 due to fleet turnover and federal emissions standards for vehicles despite a 17% increase in vehicle miles traveled over the same period.31 As vehicles get cleaner, the relative impact of travel efficiency improvements on ozone reductions will therefore diminish proportionately. EPA has estimated that a “bundle” of such improvements that might be driven by conformity requirements would reduce the already low 2030 levels by only another 1% compared to 2015 levels.32 That level of emission reductions would not be nearly enough to change the region’s design value. For an area like the Austin-Round Rock MSA that has been aggressively targeting on-road emissions for years, including through the transportation planning process at the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), it is not clear that the transportation conformity process would have any influence on the region’s compliance with the new ozone NAAQS at all, although it could lead to serious disruptions in the transportation planning process in one of the fastest growing regions of the country. For example, between 2010 and 2012, our colleagues in the Beaumont-Port Arthur area experienced a transportation conformity lapse of almost two years due to being 0.4 tons per day over their emissions budget for VOC, even though at the time, they were attaining both the 1997 and 2008 ozone standard. Some remedies that EPA might consider that would be helpful in relieving these burdens: Consider waiving the requirement for areas that are participating in the Ozone Advance Program if they are already performing similar analyses in their transportation planning process; Consider waiving the requirement for areas projected to attain the standard prior to 2020; Consider whether it is necessary or appropriate to set VOC budgets if an area’s ozone levels are driven by NOX emissions;
31 E-mail communication from Jeff Houk to Barbara Malley, “RE: Request for AQ Info.” 12/9/2014. 32 EPA. Potential Changes in Emissions Due to Improvements in Travel Efficiency. EPA-420-R-11-003. March 2011. http://www.epa.gov/oms/stateresources/policy/420r11003.pdf. Page vii – 3.4% reduction in 2030 NOX levels. This reduction was applied to the 2030 emissions levels in the FHWA analysis and divided by the FHWA’s 2015 emission levels.
Page 43 of 44
Consider aligning the timing of various requirements in a manner that is more consistent with related requirements. 4.3 Remove Limits on Creditability of Voluntary Emission Reduction Measures Through several guidance documents issued following the promulgation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, EPA established procedures for states to incorporate voluntary mobile and stationary emission reduction measures into the SIP. The creditability of each of these types of voluntary emission reduction measures was limited to 3% of the total required emission reductions for a given requirement, for a total of 6% between the two categories. If the region needed to achieve 10 tpd of NOX reductions as part of an attainment demonstration, then the state could count only 0.3 tpd of reductions from voluntary mobile emission reduction measures and another 0.3 tpd from voluntary stationary emission reductions. These limits on creditability should be rethought in the context of the proposed ozone NAAQS. In order to achieve further emission reductions in many areas like the Austin-Round Rock MSA, voluntary measures designed to influence emissions-generating behavior and activity are often most of the remaining emissions reduction measures that can be reasonably attained. Lifting this limit would be a good signal to areas participating in the Ozone Advance Program that the emission reduction measures they are securing can become important components of any future SIP.
5 Conclusion This technical support document was intended to provide further detail on the four points contained in the CAC’s comment letter, and provide the kind of technical, legal, and policy analysis that could enable EPA to fully consider its options for finalizing and implementing its proposed ozone NAAQS. Central Texas has enjoyed strong partnerships with the state and the EPA in the past and the region’s air quality planning efforts have benefited greatly. One of the key ingredients to this success has been the willingness of EPA to look at innovative and flexible ways to implement ozone standards that are significantly different from the standard that was in place at the time of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. While the CAC is commenting on the appropriate indicator, averaging time, or level for the NAAQS, it is asking EPA to carefully assess the extent to which a different form of the standard could provide a similar level of protection to the current form while providing a more stable target for states and local governments to try to reach. EPA states in Section VII of the proposal that it does not expect to directly respond to comments on the designation process or implementation issues in the final action on the proposed NAAQS. However, it also states that such comments will be helpful as future guidance and regulations are developed. Since EPA has previously outlined the designation process in final NAAQS rulemakings, it could address the CAC’s comments on designations in the final action on this proposal, but there will be other opportunities to have discussions on these issues as well. At this point, the CAC hopes that the comments on the designation process, interstate and intrastate ozone transport, and requirements for nonattainment areas will be helpful to EPA as it decides on approaches to implementing the standard once finalized. The CAC believes that the approaches identified in this document can enable the EPA to implement the NAAQS in a more equitable and confident manner than the approach that appears to be outlined in the proposal. The CAC believes that these approaches would more closely fulfill the underlying purposes of the CAA than the approach outlined in the proposal.
Page 44 of 44
Ozone Advance Update – 5/18/2015 The following is an overview of the updated or added portions of the Ozone Advance document to be submitted for 2015. Areas of the plan that have not changed are not included in this update. 1. CPS Energy a. Installing LED street lights in the City of San Antonio to increase lighting energy efficiency; 23,492 lights installed as of 4/28/15 b. Participating in residential lighting partnership with HEB to provide low cost LED bulbs to customers; 200,000 total bulbs totaling 5MW of savings. c. Adding 1500 MW of renewable energy capacity by 2020 (approx. 20% of generation capacity); as of April 28,2015, 1,207.4 MW in commercial operation which includes 134 MW of utility-scale solar with 310 MW of utility-scale solar scheduled to come online by 2017; also have about 21.5 MW of rooftop solar as of April 28, 2015. d. Continuing Mow Down Smog program to provide customer rebates for purchasing electric lawn equipment instead of gasoline. In 2014, CPS Energy issued 408 rebates for electric lawn equipment.
2. City of San Antonio a. Network of over 140 electric vehicle charging stations, many with multiple chargers. b. 25 Solar Trash Compactors reducing over 350 miles driven per year, per compactor. c. Municipal Retrofits: Recent (2011 – 2014 ) Energy Efficiency Avoided Elec. (kWh) Projects
EECBG - Municipal Facility Retrofit 8,110,693 Program
EECBG - 3 parking garage lighting retrofits 888,000
EECBG - 24 facilities lighting retrofits 874,000
Alamodome and Convention Center PC 11,987,000
Airport PC 5,100,000
Phase 6 Exterior Lighting 1,670,000
Retrocommissioning of 5 large facilities 1,678,900
Pool Pumps 827,631 Phase 7 Lighting 750,337
CPSE LED street light retrofit (225,000 fixt) 21,698,000
Total 53,584,561
Energy Efficiency Projects Completed to Est. Avoided Elec. (kWh) Date 2015
Programmable Thermostats – 6 Facilities 212,998
High Efficiency Washing Machines – 2 Fire 468 Stations
Solar Window Film – 4 Facilities 73,193
Total 286,659
d. Transportation Enhancements: San Antonio’s B-Cycle bike share program, with a total of 53 locations, provides opportunities to enhance personal health and provides active transportation choices to residents and visitors. According to program data, riders logged over 295,283 B- Cycle trips - burning 38 million calories and offsetting over 1,131,400 pounds of carbon since the program launched in 2011.
Data is still being gathered to add into the report for the following companies:
1. San Antonio Water System a. Gathering savings updates from indoor and outdoor conservation rebate programs. b. Contacts – Al Rocha and Dan Titerle
2. Metropolitan Planning Organization a. Gathering results of the Texas Department of Transportation study “2015- 2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for Mobile Source Emission Reduction Strategies (MOSERS) analysis for tons per day reductions in VOCs and NOx” b. Contacts – MPO – Nicolas Page, TXDOT – Darcie Schipull
3. VIA Metropolitan Transit a. Gathering data on new plans to convert remaining buses to natural gas. b. Contacts – Abigail Rodriguez
4. Matera Paper a. Gathering information and data on their project to convert 31 delivery vehicles to natural gas. b. Contact – Steve Lovelady
Air Improvement Resources Committee 8700 Tesoro Drive, Suite 700 San Antonio, Texas 78217 (210) 362-5200 fax 225-5937
May 27, 2015 Hon. Ron Nirenberg Chair, AIR Executive Committee Ozone Advance City of San Antonio c/o Laura Bunte Councilman U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hon. Chris Riley Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, C304-01 Vice-Chair Research Triangle Park, NC 22711 AIR Executive Committee Alamo Area MPO, Subject: EPA’s comments on the 2014 update to the Alamo Ozone Advance City of Leon Valley, Mayor Dear Ms. Bunte: Hon. Sherman Krause Comal County Please extend our thanks to EPA staff for their comments of December 11, 2014 on the Judge Alamo Area Path Forward update submitted to EPA in October 2014. We appreciate their Hon. Nelson Wolff thorough review of our air improvement plan, recommendations for topics to include in Bexar County future plan submissions, and list of potential emission controls for consideration by our Judge region.
Hon. John H. Williams Greater Bexar County Collectively, the Air Improvement Resources Committees, the air quality planning body for Council of Cities the region, have reviewed the EPA’s recommendations and support their inclusion in the Universal City 2015 Path Forward update. Note that some potential strategies listed by the EPA have, in Mayor fact, been implemented locally. The benefits of providing regions information of this type
Hon. Darrel L. Lux include a comprehensive list of potential strategies from which regions can select Kendall County appropriate measures for adoption in their areas, as well as identification of existing Judge programs that benefit air quality. For example, among the potential controls listed by EPA were use of solar-powered trash compactors to reduce vehicle trips needed to empty trash Hon. Richard L. Jackson receptacles, tree planting programs, and idle reduction policies. Local examples of these Wilson County Judge projects exist and descriptions of the programs will be included in the 2015 update.
Hon. Mike Fincke, The Alamo Area Path Forward demonstrates the proactive position of the San Antonio area AACOG Board of Directors in addressing air quality challenges. In partnership with the EPA and the State, the region Kendall County Commissioner continues to promote and adopt local voluntary strategies that benefit our community’s health and environment. We look forward to your review of and recommendations for our 2015 Path Forward submission.
Sincerely,
Councilman Ron Nirenberg, City of San Antonio Mayor Chris Riley, City of Leon Valley Chair, AIR Executive Committee Vice-Chair, AIR Executive Committee
cc: Carrie Paige, EPA Region 6
Dallas – Fort Worth MSA
Austin-Round Rock- San Marcos MSA
9. Bi-annual Air Quality Funding and State Legislative Update
Status of 2016-2017 Biennium Budget for Air Quality Planning
The house version of the 2016-2017 biennium budget for TCEQ for air quality assessment and planning shows appropriation of $125,851,942 for 2016 and $119,291,383 for 20171. This represents a decrease of $ 3,814,783, or 1.53 percent, as compared to the 2014–15 biennial spending levels2. For the biennium Rider 7, as one of the budget items for air quality planning in near nonattainment areas, $5,000,500 were appropriated. The areas as shown below in House Bill (HB 1) language included Waco, El Paso, Beaumont, Austin, Corpus Christi, Granbury, Longview-Tyler-Marshall, San Antonio, and Victoria.
House Version of Rider 7 “Appropriation: Air Quality Planning. Amounts appropriated above include $5,000,500 for the biennium out of the Clean Air Account No. 151 in Strategy A.1.1, Air Quality Assessment and Planning, for air quality planning activities to reduce ozone in areas not designated as nonattainment areas during the 2014- 15 biennium and as approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). These areas may include Waco, El Paso, Beaumont, Austin, Corpus Christi, Granbury, Longview-Tyler-Marshall, San Antonio, and Victoria. These activities may be carried out through interlocal agreements or contracts and may include: identifying, inventorying, and monitoring of pollution levels; modeling pollution levels; and the identification, quantification, implementation of appropriate locally enforceable pollution reduction controls; and the submission of work plans to be submitted to the TCEQ. The TCEQ shall allocate these funds in such a way as to channel the funds to those projects most useful for the State Implementation Plan (SIP)”3.
In the Senate, the allocated money and the language were modified. The Senate Finance Subcommittee Committee (Senator Nichols, Workgroup Leader and members Senators Bettencourt, Eltife, Uresti, Watson) in March, 23, 2015 increased the budget for “Air Quality Planning in Near-Nonattainment Areas” by $2,074,500 and added the Killeen-Temple region, changed the language emphasizing that each area received $350,000 in funding, and that remaining funds be allocated based on population in excess of 350,0004.
Senate Version of Rider 7 “Appropriation: Air Quality Planning. Amounts appropriated above include $7,075,000 for the biennium out of the Clean Air Account No. 151 in Strategy A.1.1, Air Quality Assessment and Planning, for air quality planning activities to reduce ozone in areas not designated as nonattainment areas during the 2014- 15 biennium and as approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). These areas may include Waco, El Paso, Beaumont, Austin, Corpus Christi, Granbury, Kileen-Temple, Longview-Tyler-Marshall, San Antonio,
1 Legislative Budget Board Recommendations Senate Version, 84th Legislature, 2015, Page VI-18, online:http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Budget/Session_Code_84/2016-17_GAAct_Senate_SB2_Intro.pdf 2 General Appropriations Act, 83rd Texas Legislature, August 30, 2013, Page VI-15, online: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/GAA/General_Appropriations_Act_2014-15.pdf 3 Committee Substitute for House Bill 1, 84th Legislature, 2016-2017 Biennium, VI-18, March 17, 2015, online: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Appropriations_Bills/84/84_Committee_Sub_House_1.pdf 4Senate Finance Committee, Senator Nichols, Workgroup Leader on Article VI, VII, VIII, page 23, online: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Appropriations_Bills/84/Senate_Adopted/SFC_Article_VI_3_23_2015_21_07_1 3_PM_FINAL.pdf
9. Bi-annual Air Quality Funding and State Legislative Update
and Victoria. These activities may be carried out through interlocal agreements and may include: identifying, inventorying, and monitoring of pollution levels; modeling pollution levels; and the identification, quantification, implementation of appropriate locally enforceable pollution reduction controls; and the submission of work plans to be submitted to the TCEQ. The TCEQ shall allocate $350,000 to each area and the remaining funds to each area based on population in excess of 350,000 people. The grant recipients shall channel the funds to those projects most useful for the State Implementation Plan (SIP)”5.
The Senate passed the HB 1 in April 14, 2015, and the bill, which included $7,075,000 for near nonattainment areas, was sent back to the House. In April 22, 2015 the House refused to concur in the Senate Amendments and requested a Conference Committee where appointed members negotiate differences between the House and Senate6. Nevertheless, members of House in April 22, 2015, based on motion made by Rep. Aycock voted to instruct the Conference Committee to support TCEQ Rider 7 placed in the senate budget by Senator Fraser7, The motion to instruct conferees prevailed by: 119 Yeas, 21 Nays, 1 Present and not voting
HB 1 itself still is being negotiated between the House and Senate representatives in the Conference Committee8. The Conferees are as follows:
Conference Committee Members Rep. John Otto, Chair, Dayton | Rep. Trent Ashby, Lufkin | Rep. Sarah Davis, House Conferees: Houston | Rep. Larry Gonzales, Round Rock | Rep. Sylvester Turner, Houston Sen. Jane Nelson, Chair, Denton | Sen. Juan Hinojosa, McAllen | Sen. Joan Senate Conferees: Huffman, Houston | Sen. Lois W. Kolkhorst, Brenham | Sen. Charles Schwertner, Bryan
Conference Committee Version of Rider 7 Appropriation: Air Quality Planning. Amounts appropriated above include $6,000,500 for the biennium out of the Clean Air Account No. 151 in Strategy A.1.1, Air Quality Assessment and Planning, for air quality planning activities to reduce ozone in areas not designated as nonattainment areas during the 2016- 17 biennium and as approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). These areas may include Waco, El Paso, Beaumont, Austin, Corpus Christi, Granbury, Kileen-Temple, Longview-Tyler-Marshall, San Antonio, and Victoria. These activities may be carried out through interlocal agreements and may include: identifying, inventorying, and monitoring of pollution levels; modeling pollution levels; and the identification, quantification, implementation of appropriate locally enforceable pollution reduction controls; and the submission of work plans to be submitted to the TCEQ. The TCEQ shall allocate $350,000 to each area and the remaining funds to each area based on population in excess
5 Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 1, 84th Legislature, 2016-17 Biennium, online: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Appropriations_Bills/84/Senate_Committee_Substitute_For_House_Bill_1.pdf 6 House Journal, April 22, 2015, page 1819, online: http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/84r/pdf/84RDAY55FINAL.PDF#page=39 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid.
9. Bi-annual Air Quality Funding and State Legislative Update
of 350,000. The grant recipients shall channel the funds to those projects most useful for the State Implementation Plan (SIP).9
The bill will have to go through the following stages in order to become a law:
Stage 1 Filed 2/09/2015 Stage 2 Out of House Committee 3/24/2015 Stage 3 Voted on by House 4/02/2015 (Passed) Stage 4 Out of Senate Finance Committee 4/08/2015 Stage 5 Voted on by Senate 4/14/2015 (Passed)10 - Conference Committee 4/20/2015 - report is prepared for submittal to the house and senate 4/20/2015 - must be voted in favor by both chambers Current Status Stage 6 Governor Action not reached Stage 7 Bill Becomes Law not reached
The last day of 84th Regular Session is on Monday, June 1, 2015.11
Clean Air Account No. 151 “The Clean Air Account No. 151 is a General Revenue-Dedicated account created by Senate Bill 2, Seventy-second Legislature, First Called Session, 1991. Account No. 151 was established to receive Clean Air Act fees which are used to safeguard the air resources of the state, recover the costs of permitting new or modified emission sources, and recover the costs of permit review and renewal. Allowable uses of the account include: 1. the development and administration of the federal air permitting program under Titles IV and V of the Federal Clean Air Act; 2. the Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance program (VEIMP); and 3, the Low-Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program (LIRAP). Funds deposited in the Clean Air Account No. 151 come from a variety of permits and fees, with the largest portion from the motor vehicle safety inspection fee.
9 Issue Docket, Conference Committee on House Bill 1, 2016-17 General Appropriations Bill, Article VI - Natural Resources, As of May 19, 2015 page 43. Online: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents/Appropriations_Bills/84/Final/Article06_IssueDoc_05-20- 2015_02_46_27_PM.pdf 10 Senate Journal, 84 Legislature, April 14, 2015, online: http://www.journals.senate.state.tx.us/sjrnl/84r/pdf/84RSJ04- 14-F.PDF#page=4 1184th Legislature Regular Session; dates of interest, online: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/gtli/sessions/dates.html 9. Bi-annual air Quality funding and State Legislative Update
May 20, 2015, 7:47 A.M.
Texas Legislative Session 84(R): Bills Related to Air Quality
The following is a list of bills for legislation related to air quality. This list was mostly populated using NCTCOG 84th Texas Legislature Policy Position table. Comments in quotes are taken from the NCTCOG table as well. Names in parenthesis note the bill’s primary author. Companion bills are listed as single items. All bills are related to TERP with the exception of item 10. Status updates are taken from the Texas Legislature Online at: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/billnumber.aspx. Note that dead bills may still be amended to enrolled germane bills.
Dates of Interest:
05/26/15, Last day for house to consider senate bills and joint resolutions, other than local and consent, on second reading on House Daily or Supplemental Calendar
05/27/15, Last day for senate to consider all bills and joint resolutions on second or third reading
Status Updates
1. HB 3518 and SB 12: (Landgraf and Uresti) Relating to alternative fuel fleets of certain governmental entities, including funding for motor vehicles, infrastructure, and equipment. a. HB 3518: i. 04/30/15, reported favorably as substituted; 05/05/15, bill reported out of House committee on Energy Resources, 9 Ayes and 4 Absent; Bill died, was not heard by house deadline Thursday, May 14, 2015 b. SB 12: i. 05/15/15, scheduled for public hearing in Transportation house committee, reported favorably as substituted with HB 3518, 8 Ayes and 5 Absent(out of House Committee); 05/19/15, committee report sent to calendars ii. Bill Stage 3: Bill passed the Senate, 9 Ayes and 2 Absent
2. SB 321: (Hinojosa) Relating to the amount of money transferred monthly from the state highway fund to the Texas emissions reduction plan fund. “TERP related bill, but not consistent with the RTC Legislative Program; would modify the funding source for TERP by removing the transfer of money from the vehicle title fee/State Highway Fund, but provide funding in an amount totaling the penalties from Section 185 of the Clean Air Act – these are the fees that areas with severe air quality would pay.” a. 04/22/15, reported engrossed; 05/18/15, scheduled for public hearing in Transportation house committee, reported favorably w/o amendments, 10 Ayes and 3 Absent (out of House Committee); 05/19/15, committee report sent to calendars b. In Bill Stage 3: Bill passed the Senate, 10 Ayes and 3 Absent
3. HB14 and SB1619: (Morrison) Relating to the Texas emissions reduction plan and (Watson) Relating to the Texas emissions reduction plan. Has been referred to as the TERP Tune-up bill. “Would extend the expiration of TERP programs and increase the amount and number of grants that can be obtained.” a. HB 14: i. 05/11/15, reported engrossed; 05/19/15, scheduled for public hearing in Natural Resources & Economic Development senate committee; 05/19/15, co-sponsored by Hinojosa and Zaffrini, testimony taken (in Senate Committee) ii. In Bill Stage 3: Bill passed the House, 8 Ayes and 1 Absent b. SB 1619: i. 03/23/15, referred to the Natural Resources & Economic Development (in Senate Committee). 9. Bi-annual air Quality funding and State Legislative Update
ii. In Bill Stage 1: Filed
4. SB 911: (Zaffirini) Relating to the eligibility for grants for natural gas fueling stations under the Texas natural gas vehicle grant program. a. 04/09/15, reported engrossed; 05/19/15, scheduled for public hearing in Environmental Regulation house committee; 05/19/15, testimony taken, left pending in committee (in House Committee) b. Bill Stage 3: Bill passed the Senate, 9 Ayes and 2 Absent
5. HB 652 and SB 603: (Isaac) Relating to the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan and (Hinojosa) Relating to the creation of the offense of unlawful disclosure of certain visual material. “Would extend Texas Emissions Reduction Plan programs for two additional years.” a. HB 652: i. Bill died, was not heard by house deadline Thursday, May 14, 2015 b. SB 603: i. 04/09/15, reported engrossed; 04/30/2015, referred to Environmental Regulation (in House Committee). ii. In Bill Stage 3: Bill passed the Senate
6. HB 624 and SB 1849: (Pickett and Nichols) Relating to the deposit of certain amounts to the credit of the Texas emissions reduction plan fund. “TERP related bill, but not consistent with the RTC Legislative Program; would remove the $5 portion of the motor vehicle title fee that currently goes toward TERP.” a. HB 624: i. Bill died, was not heard by house deadline Thursday, May 14, 2015 ii. Companion Bill (identical): SB 1849 b. SB 1849: i. 03/25/15, referred to Finance (in Senate Committee). ii. In Bill Stage 1: Filed
7. SB 1741: (Hinojosa) Relating to the use of Texas Emissions Reduction Plan funds for the diesel emissions reduction incentive program. “TERP funding allocation changed: at least 50 percent, and any remaining balance as determined by the commission, is to be used for the diesel emissions reduction incentive program.” a. 03/24/15, referred to the Natural Resources & Economic Development (in Senate Committee). b. In Bill Stage 1: Filed
8. SB 1949: (Hinojosa) Relating to the allocation of Texas Emissions Reduction Plan funds. “Changes include: 1) not more than $1 [$3] million may be used to fund a regional air monitoring program in commission Regions 3 and 4, 2) $200,000 [$500,000] is to be deposited to the credit of the clean air account created under Section 382.0622 (Clean Air Fees) to supplement funding for air quality planning activities in affected counties, 3) at least 50 percent, and any remaining balance as determined by the commission, is to be used by the commission for the diesel emissions reduction incentive program.” a. 03/25/15, referred to the Natural Resources & Economic Development (in Senate Committee). b. In Bill Stage 1: Filed
9. SB 1685: (Huffines) Relating to the repeal of the Texas emissions reduction plan and the low- income vehicle repair assistance, retrofit, and accelerated vehicle retirement program. “TERP related bill, but not consistent with the RTC Legislative Program; repeals TERP and LIRAP.” a. 03/23/15, referred to the Natural Resources & Economic Development (in Senate Committee). b. In Bill Stage 1: Filed
9. Bi-annual air Quality funding and State Legislative Update
10. SB 1405: (Zafirini) Relating to idling the diesel engine of a school bus or commercial charter bus while the bus is parked at a public school, school event, or field trip destination. “Prohibits idling the diesel engine of a school bus or commercial charter bus while the bus is parked at a public school, school event, or field trip destination.” a. 03/18/15, referred to the Education (in Senate Committee). b. In Bill Stage 1: Filed
11. HB 1031: (Leach) Relating to funding for certain roadway projects intended to improve or maintain air quality. “Would create a new account to be used on roadway projects that improve congestion, but not toll roads. Each quarter, 1/3 of the new funds in the TERP and the Clean Air Account would be transferred into the new fund for roadway projects. Then, at the end of each budget cycle, any unobligated funds would go 7 back to the TERP and Clean Air accounts. TxDOT would determine the roadway projects in consultation with TCEQ.” a. Bill died, was not heard by house deadline Thursday, May 14, 2015
5/28/2015
NOX Emissions by Source, San Antonio‐New Braunfels MSA, tons/ozone season day Funding is provided by the Alamo Area MPO
Photochemical Modeling Report
Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Alamo Area Council of Governments
May 27th, 2015
• Biogenic Emissions are not available • Oil and Gas Development Emissions are only for the San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA • CPS Energy Deely Power plant is included in 2018 (but not 2023)
10 tons of NOX or VOC Emission Reductions by Source Category APCA Photochemical Model Run
• Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Assessment (APCA)
• The ozone reaction tracers allow ozone formation from multiple “source groupings” to be tracked simultaneously
• A source grouping can be defined in terms of: 1. geographical area and 2. emission category
• What is the source of the ozone at each regulatory monitor?
• Run time ~45 days –run not completed yet CAMS 58
Emission reductions by source type in the San Antonio‐New Braunfels MSA Funding for runs is provided by the Alamo Area MPO
APCA Regions and Categories APCA Run, June 2018 Projection Case, May 31st to June 14th, C58 Regions SE NE NE E SE SE SE SE SE SE SE E SE SE SE • Dallas‐Fort Worth Nonattainment (NA) Area Back Trajectory Direction • Waco‐Temple‐IH35 Region • Austin‐Round Rock Metro Stat Area (MSA) • San Antonio‐New Braunfels MSA • Houston‐Galveston‐Brazoria NA Area • Other Texas Counties • Other US States and Coastal Areas • International (Canada and Mexico) • Initial Conditions • Boundary conditions
Emission Categories • Area • Non‐Road/Off‐Road • On‐Road • Point • Eagle Ford Oil and Gas Development • Biogenic (APCA only attributes ozone production to biogenic emissions when ozone formation is due to the The results are only the first 15 days of the modeling run and does not represent the full June 2006 modeling interaction of biogenic VOC with biogenic NOX) episode. Funding for APCA runs are provided by the Alamo Area MPO, 24‐hour, 100 meter BT ending at C58
1 5/28/2015
APCA Run: Contribution by Region at Peak 1‐hour Ozone, June 3rd, 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 2018, C58 Scheduled Runs (3 Linux Workstations) Example Results: Does not represent all modeling days (6 out of 9 Design Value Days) • Updated 2012 run (AACOG received projected emission inventories from TCEQ) June 3rd, 8th, 9th, 12th, • Updated 2018 run Region 13th, 14th, 2018 • Hourly on‐road source runs (1 ton reduction of NOX –base case, 9 am, 11 am, noon, 1 pm) Initial Conditions 1% • Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Assessment (APCA), 2018 (using existing TCEQ data Boundary 26% and local Eagle Ford EI) Northern Mexico/Canada 1% • Updated 2012 Eagle Ford run with local data Other States/Offshore 12% • Updated 2006 run with the latest emission inventory and meteorological files from TCEQ Other Texas Counties 10% • Updated 2018 low scenario Eagle Ford run with local data San Antonio 35% • Runs on individual Point Sources (3 run+) Austin 7% Waco/Temple 2% • Control Strategy Runs (5 runs?) Dallas 2% • Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Assessment (APCA) run with individual San Antonio Houston 5% New Braunfels MSA Counties as regions , 2018 Total 100% • Start running the June 2012 photochemical modeling episode These results are only for several day with predicated Base Case 8‐hour Ozone >70 ppb and • Create projection cases for 2022 does not represent the full June 2006 modeling episode All Biogenic emissions accounted for 2‐3% of the total Ozone Funding for APCA runs are provided by the Alamo Area MPO
Point Source 2013 NOX and VOC Emissions, San Antonio‐New Braunfels MSA, tons/year
Source: TCEQ, Available online: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/ie/pseisums/2013statesum.xlsx
San Antonio New Braunfels Hourly VOC and June 2006 Photochemical Modeling Episode • NOX emissions contribution to 1‐hour ozone, C58 WRF v3.2 Meteorological Model, CAMx 6.0 • Version 6 of the Carbon Bond photochemical mechanism (CB6) • During the episode, 8‐hour ozone exceeded 75 ppb on nine days at C58 and six days at C23 • Modeling Days: ‐Seven ramp‐up days, May 24th ‐ May 30th, ⁻ Thirty ‐one primary episode days, May 31st – June 30th and ⁻ Two ramp‐down days, July 1st and 2nd • Emissions were projected to 2012 and 2018
• TCEQ approved EI and Photochemical Model
The results are only from May 31st to June 14th of the modeling episode and does not represent the full June 2006 modeling episode. Funding for APCA runs are provided by the Alamo Area MPO
2 5/28/2015
Predicted 8‐hour Ozone Design Values Predicted 8‐hour Ozone Design Values, 2018
C58 Ozone Monitor, 2018
Based on latest TCEQ approved Eagle Ford Emission Inventory Funding for 25%, 50%, and 75% reductions is provided by the Alamo Area MPO Funding for zero out run is provided by the Alamo Area MPO
3 Point Source Emissions, San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA, 2013
County RN COMPANY NOX TPY VOC TPY Bexar RN100217439 CITY PUBLIC SERVICE 6,859 103 Atascosa RN100226539 SAN MIGUEL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC 2,671 62 Comal RN102605375 CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SOUTH LLC 2,295 22 Bexar RN100220474 ALAMO CEMENT COMPANY 2,247 36 Comal RN100212067 TXI OPERATIONS LP 790 51 Bexar RN100211507 CAPITOL AGGREGATES INC 577 96 Guadalupe RN100225820 GUADALUPE POWER PARTNERS LP 437 9 Bexar RN104086673 TOYOTA MOTOR MFG TEXAS INC 19 406 Comal RN100552454 LHOIST NORTH AMERICA OF TEXAS LTD 356 5 Bexar RN100222983 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 165 59 Bexar RN101485183 CALUMET SAN ANTONIO REFINING LLC 24 193 Bandera RN101630481 ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC 167 22 Wilson RN106093883 HUNT OIL COMPANY 54 117 Bexar RN100632629 BIO ENERGY AUSTIN LLC 125 30 Guadalupe RN100851211 REPUBLIC PLASTICS SERVICES LTD 0 154 Guadalupe RN102413689 STRUCTURAL METALS INC 117 35 Bexar RN100220094 US DEPT OF AIR FORCE 65 44 Guadalupe RN105667349 CATERPILLAR INC 73 8 Guadalupe RN100219922 XERXES CORP 0 79 Bexar RN102071131 NUSTAR LOGISTICS LP 8 71 Atascosa RN102643327 REGENCY FIELD SERVICES LLC 46 31 Bexar RN100218338 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS INC 44 28 Wilson RN105094031 LAZARUS ENERGY LLC 11 49 Comal RN105155436 LEISURE POOLS USA TRADING INC 0 57 Bexar RN100519214 MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC 4 42 Bexar RN100215854 BOEING COMPANY 1 41 Bexar RN100221373 ALCOA INC 36 2 Bexar RN102459393 INTERTEK AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH 31 7 Bexar RN100854256 KELLY AVIATION CENTER LP 29 6 Bexar RN100212422 BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC 8 26 Guadalupe RN102799780 GEORGIA-PACIFIC GYPSUM II LLC 19 13 Bexar RN100851625 FLOWERS BAKING CO OF SAN ANTONIO LLC 6 24 Bexar RN100579069 MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS INC 15 9 Bexar RN101058733 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES CORPUS CHRISTI LLC 1 20 Bexar RN101073013 CITGO PETROLEUM CORP 0 20 Bexar RN101677003 EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION 0 19 Bexar RN100852615 WIN SAM INC 16 1 Bexar RN100668573 ENTERPRISE HYDROCARBONS LP 12 4 Bexar RN101966075 UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOC 13 2 Bexar RN100542828 ZEE MANUFACTURING LTD 0 13 Wilson RN102519584 WATCO TANKS INC 0 12 Bexar RN100214444 SAN ANTONIO SHOE INC 0 9 Guadalupe RN104314273 LONESTAR FIBERGLASS POOLS LLC 0 5 Comal RN100852516 SYMONS BY DAYTON SUPERIOR 0 3 Kendall RN100220268 OASIS PIPELINE COMPANY TEXAS LP 1 1
Source: TCEQ, Jan. 2015. Point Source Emissions Inventory. Available online: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/ie/pseisums/2013statesum.xlsx 5/28/2015
General Nonattainment Cost Categories
Costs to Regulated Entities • Requirements to reduce emissions, Potential Cost of Non‐attainment • Implement of federally‐required controls Designation • Nonattainment new source review (NSR) permitting Costs to Governments • Cost of developing, implementing,Most monitoring, likely and enforcing SIPs
Air Improvement Resources Executive Committee Costs to Individuals • May be required to comply with vehicle inspection and maintenance (Moderate Alamo Area Council of Governments Non‐attainment) • Potential restrictions on lawn care equipment and other sources th May 27 , 2015 • Increased costs of goods and services
Indirect Costs • Businesses might avoid locating or expanding in non‐attainment areas • EPA may require permit revisions, even after the state has finalized the terms
Potential Non‐Attainment Designation Scenarios Marginal and Moderate Ozone Nonattainment Categories Marginal Ozone Designation Possible Scenarios If the San Antonio‐New Braunfels MSA is declared non‐attainment • Emission Inventory for Major Point Sources 1) Marginal non‐attainment under a 70 ppb standard with an attainment date of 2020 • Offset required for new or expanding large businesses • Federal General Conformity and Transportation Conformity 2) Marginal non‐attainment under a 65 ppb standard with an attainment date of 2020 Difficult to estimate the cost, nevertheless some concerns for business expansion. 3) Moderate non‐attainment under a 70 ppb standard with an attainment date of 2023 Moderate Ozone Designation 4) Moderate non‐attainment under a 65 ppb standard with an attainment date of 2023 • Everything above, and • Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance Each scenario has different costs to reach attainment • State to SbSubm it a SIP IIldincluding: • Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) • Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) • Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) RFP must show at least a 15% reduction in baseline VOC emissions in six years.
RACT: the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility RACM: EPA guidance interprets RACM provision to require a demonstration that the state has adopted all reasonable measures to meet RFP requirements and to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/eogapti1/video/sip2009/JohnSilvasi.pdf Source: TCEQ Working Paper, March 22, 2015. “Potential Costs of a 2015 Ozone Nonattainment Designation for the San Antonio Area”. TCEQ. “Texas Emissions Reduction Plan(TERP)”. Available online: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐02/documents/062404_terp.pdf. Accessed 05/14/15
Summary of Available Literature on Nonattainment Costs Predicted 8‐hour Ozone Design Values 2018, C58
EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the proposed (2014) ozone standard includes C58 Ozone Monitor, 2018 the following estimates of costs per ton for controls (http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#nov2014): • Electric Generation Units (EGU): $12,000/ton; range: $2,000 to $38,000/ton; • Non‐EGU point source: $3,000/ton; range: $17 to $90,000/ton; • Nonpoint sources (Area): $1,100/ton; range: $520 to $2,200/ton; and • Nonroad: $4,600/ton; range: $3,300 to $5,300/ton.
Texas EEiimissions RRdeducti on Plan(TERP)
• Voluntary incentives for projects to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the nonattainment and near‐nonattainment areas of Texas
• All projects must meet a cost effectiveness threshold of $13,000 per ton of NOX reduced.
Source: TCEQ Working Paper, March 22, 2015. “Potential Costs of a 2015 Ozone Nonattainment Designation for the San Antonio Area”. TCEQ. “Texas Emissions Reduction Plan(TERP)”. Available online: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐02/documents/062404_terp.pdf. Accessed 05/14/15 Funding for 25%, 50%, and 75% reductions is provided by the Alamo Area MPO
1 5/28/2015
Reduction Needed to reach Attainment To reach a 70 ppb standard in 2018
• Ozone season weekday NOX emissions are 143 tons/day • Approximately 50,500 tons of NOX annual • ~27% reduction in NOX from the San Antonio‐New Braunfels MSA • ~13,500 tons annual reduction in NOX
To reach a 65 ppb standard in 2018
• ~55% reduction in NOX from the San Antonio‐New Braunfels MSA • ~27,500 tons annual reduction in NOX
Inspection and Maintenance (Required under a Moderate Nonattainment Scenario) • $14 to $27 for annual for each gasoline Light Duty Vehicles (LDVs) • Estimated costs between $18,000,000 and $36,000,000 for the 4 county area of Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, and Wilson in 2014 • Probably less than 0.43 ppb reduction in ozone (Need to run the model to determine the potential ozone reduction)
EPA Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Point Source Emission Reduction Cost Marginal Nonattainment • Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) Program and emission offsets for stationary Source TCEQ-Estimated Cost for NOX
sources that emit over 100 tons per year of either VOCs or NOX. Reductions must offset Unit/SourceControl Category Kiln Capital TCEQ Estimated Cost Cost Annual Cost Year Estimated Cement Kilns/Cement Control Technology Ki Tota Total Annual Cost (MM $) Cost Effectiveness 2006 Cost per Ton ManufacturingTechnology 1 Typeln l (MM $) ($/ton NOx reduced)(MM $) 1.1 : 1 the proposed emissions increase at new major sources and major modifications at T Capi y tal existing major sources p Cost Wete (M 5.0 - 5.7 0.6 - 2.7 $5,500 - $96,000 Cement SCR M • If necessary, implement additional controls to ensure attainment Dry$) 6.7 - 8.4 2.0 - 2.2 $1,900 - $2,200 SCR W 5.0 ‐ 0.6 ‐ 2.7 5,500 ‐ 96,000 Kilns/Cement et 5.7 WetD 6.7 ‐ 2.0 ‐ 2.2 1.2 - 1.4 1,900 ‐ 2,200 0.3 - 0.5 $2,400 - $13,000 Manufacturing SNCR ry 8.4 Moderate Nonattainment SNCR W 1.2 ‐ 0.3 ‐ 0.5 2,400 ‐ 13,000 Dryet 1.4 2.3 1.0 - 1.1 $1,500 - $2,900 • Everything above, and D 2.3 1.0 ‐ 1.1 1,500 ‐ 2,900 Wetry 2.8 - 5.8 0.5 - 1.6 $$,3,300 - $$,11,000 LoTOxTMLoTOxTM W 2.8 ‐ 0.5 ‐ 1.6 3,300 ‐ 11,000 • Basic Inspection and Maintenance for on‐road vehicles et 5.8 DryD 5.2 ‐ 2.4 ‐ 3.1 5.2 - 6.7 2,300 ‐ 2,600 2.4 - 3.1 $2,300 - $2,600 ry 6.7 • Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonably Available Control Lime Kilns 1 Control Technology Total Capital Cost ($) Total Annual Cost ($) 2006 Control TechnologyStaged Combustion 225,000 Capital Cost 10,000 Annual Cost Lime Kilns Electric Generating Control Technology Si Capi FO&M Cost ($/kW) VO&M Cost ($/MWh) 2011 Measures (RACM) emission reductions Utilities (EGU) ze tal (2008 $) Staged Combustion( Cost $225,000 $10,000 M ($/k • Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) – 15% VOC reduction within 6 years W W) Control Size) Capital Cost FO&M Cost SCR 2 492 2.6 ‐ 0.4 1.23 VO&M Cost ($/MWh) • Emission Offsets (new or modified stationary sources over 100 tons must offset 1.15 : 1) Technology (MW)5 ‐ ($/kW) ($/kW) ‐ 270 • 9 Attainment Demonstration Electric SCR 25 - 9000 492 - 270 2.6 - 0.4 1.23 0 • Contingency Measures Generating SNCR 2 33 ‐ 0.7 ‐ 0.2 1.235 SNCR 25 - 9005 10 33 - 10 0.7 - 0.2 1.235 ‐ Utilities (EGU) 9 Control Technology0 Capital Cost ($/MW) Annual Cost 0 RACT: the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control Control Technology Capital Cost ($/MW) Total Annual Cost ($) 2 2006 technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility SCR 125,000 $1,362,500 RACM: EPA guidance interprets RACM provision to require a demonstration that the state has adopted all reasonable measures to meet RFP requirements and to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable Available online: http://www.epa.gov/eogapti1/video/sip2009/JohnSilvasi.pdf
2 TCEQ Working Paper 11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment March 12, 2015
Potential Costs of a 2015 Ozone Nonattainment Designation for the San Antonio Area
The San Antonio area may face a nonattainment designation for the 2015 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Stakeholders are seeking information on potential costs associated with an ozone nonattainment designation. Related questions include: What air quality controls and state implementation plan (SIP) strategies are in place? How do nonattainment costs compare under marginal and moderate designations? What are the costs of potential new voluntary and mandatory control strategies?
This paper, prepared at the request of the Alamo Area Council of Governments, provides general information about the potential costs of a nonattainment designation for the 2015 ozone standard for educational purposes only. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is not recommending, endorsing, or implying which, if any, counties may be designated nonattainment or what controls may be required. In addition, inclusion of a reference to a cost estimate does not indicate that the TCEQ has reviewed or agreed with the referenced study results.
Overall Economic Impact of Nonattainment Available studies have widely varying conclusions regarding ozone nonattainment costs. The cost of an ozone nonattainment designation depends on many factors. Generally, nonattainment costs fall into the following categories: 1. Costs accruing to regulated entities to comply. These stem from requirements to reduce emissions (such as additional point source controls), implement federally-required controls (some for areas sources), and additional procedural requirements, such as nonattainment new source review (NSR) permitting. 2. Costs accruing to governments. State and local governments incur costs for developing and implementing SIPs, implementing more stringent permitting requirements, and monitoring and enforcement. 3. Costs accruing to individuals. Citizens in ozone nonattainment areas may be required to comply with inspection and maintenance (I/M) and fuel requirements for vehicles or face other potential restrictions (on idling, lawn care equipment, etc.). They may also experience indirect costs for goods and services as businesses complying with control requirements raise prices. These costs may be estimated in general equilibrium econometric models that account for behavior changes (“induced” effects). 4. Indirect costs. These include the long-term effects of business decisions to avoid locating or expanding in areas with stricter air quality controls. They may include changes in prices, employment, and consumption patterns. 5. Negative costs (benefits). Some businesses that build, install, and service pollution control equipment may benefit from increased demand for their products, including engineering design, materials, manufacturing, construction, and vehicle inspection industries.
1
TCEQ Working Paper 11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment March 12, 2015
This discussion does not address indirect or negative costs. The only cost to individuals that is assessed is that of complying with vehicle emissions testing (I/M) requirements.
Existing Nonattainment-Related Control Measures and SIP Strategies Several control measures have already been implemented in many Texas counties, including some in the San Antonio area. The air quality-related requirements already in place in the San Antonio area are: nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions limitations for water heaters, small boilers, process heaters, cement kilns, nitric acid manufacturing, and electric generating units (EGU); emission limitations for volatile organic compounds (VOC) in windshield washer fluid, degreasing processes, loading and unloading operations, storage tanks, transport vessels, vent gas, and water separation; and use of Texas low emission diesel fuel (TxLED), low Reid Vapor Pressure fuel, and Stage I vapor recovery equipment.
Costs of these existing control measures were accounted for in associated rulemakings. (See http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/sipstrategies.html and http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/stationary-rules/san.)
Several voluntary SIP strategies have been implemented in the San Antonio area, including energy efficiency/renewable energy projects, transportation emission reduction measures, transportation demand management projects, and the Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) program to repower, retrofit, or replace diesel engines with cleaner equipment. Being voluntary, these SIP strategies are not considered to have a cost to the San Antonio area.
Nonattainment Costs under Marginal and Moderate Classifications The cost of nonattainment is influenced by the type, amount, location, and timing of emission reductions necessary to achieve attainment, which is driven by the classification level. The figure below includes requirements by classification. The requirements most likely to influence the potential cost of nonattainment to emission sources and local authorities in the San Antonio area are discussed below.
With a marginal ozone designation, major point sources in the area must begin to comply with emissions inventory reporting requirements and offset proposed new emissions via a nonattainment NSR permit and local authorities must comply with federal general and transportation conformity requirements. It is challenging to estimate the cost of these requirements; however, the procedural costs, delays, and uncertainty introduced by these permitting and conformity requirements are cited as reasons why companies may prefer not to locate or expand in nonattainment areas.
With a moderate or higher ozone nonattainment designation, citizens would be required to obtain emissions inspections for most vehicles (discussed below).
2
TCEQ Working Paper 11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment March 12, 2015
Also, at the moderate nonattainment level, Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), §172(c)(1) requires states to submit a SIP that incorporates all reasonably available control measures (RACM) necessary to achieve or advance attainment, including reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements. FCAA, §182(b)(2) and (f) requires the state to implement RACT requirements for all VOC emission source categories addressed in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) control techniques guidelines (CTG) documents and all non-CTG major sources of NOX and VOC. The major source threshold for moderate nonattainment areas is a potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of either NOX or VOC. The EPA’s CTG documents presumptively define RACT for existing VOC facilities. The EPA has also issued VOC and NOX alternative control techniques (ACT) documents that describe available control technologies but do not define presumptive RACT levels. The EPA’s CTG and ACT documents can be accessed at the EPA’s website: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html.
RACT is defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762, September 17, 1979). RACT requirements for moderate and higher classification nonattainment areas are included in the FCAA to assure that significant source categories at major sources of ozone precursor emissions are controlled to a reasonable extent, but not necessarily to best available control technology (BACT) levels expected of new sources or to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) levels required for major sources of hazardous air pollutants.
3
TCEQ Working Paper 11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment March 12, 2015
While RACT and RACM have similar consideration factors like technological and economic feasibility, there is a significant distinction between RACT and RACM. A control measure must advance attainment of the area towards meeting the NAAQS for that measure to be considered RACM. Advancing attainment of the area is not a factor of consideration when evaluating RACT because the benefit of implementing RACT is presumed under the FCAA. Emission reductions from RACM requirements that are relied on for the attainment demonstration must be achieved by the beginning of the ozone season prior to the area’s attainment date. All other RACT requirements must be implemented as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than January 1 of the fifth year after the effective date of a nonattainment designation.
With a moderate and higher ozone nonattainment designation, the FCAA also requires states to demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment and at least a 15% reduction in VOC from baseline emissions within six years. Should controls required as RACT or RACM not provide sufficient reductions in ozone precursors to demonstrate RFP, then additional controls may be needed.
Potential VOC and NOX Control Requirements If the San Antonio area is designated moderate nonattainment or above for ozone, the types of controls currently required in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria or Dallas-Fort Worth areas may be considered for the San Antonio area. Attachment 1: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Source Categories and Estimated Costs and Attachment 2: Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Source Categories and Estimated Costs provide available cost information on emission sources that are subject to control requirements in other Texas nonattainment areas that are designated as moderate or above. Attachment 1 includes all EPA CTG emission source categories and selected ACT emission source categories for which cost information was available.
The cost information is based on the EPA’s CTG documents for some source categories, and on the cost information included in previous TCEQ rulemakings to meet RACT requirements. The cost information consists of the cost effectiveness ($/ton of VOC or NOX reduced), the capital unit cost, and the annual operating cost, if the cost information is available. This cost information can be used as a framework, in conjunction with publically available emissions inventory data, to determine overall cost estimates of potential new controls in the San Antonio area.
Potential Vehicle-Related Costs If the San Antonio area is designated a moderate or above ozone nonattainment area, the FCAA requires vehicle emissions testing requirements and associated program fees. In areas with currently active I/M programs, the vehicle emissions inspection fee is generally an incremental $14 to $27, on top of the cost for a safety inspection, for all gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles aged 2 through 24 years old.
4
TCEQ Working Paper 11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment March 12, 2015
The counties that may be subject to an I/M program would be determined after designation. For illustration purposes only, the TCEQ is providing data on the four counties listed below. As of August 2014, the number of potentially subject vehicles by county was: Bexar: 1,099,625; Comal: 90,537; Guadalupe: 92,007; and Wilson: 30,300.
Vehicles that do not pass the emissions inspection must be repaired and retested in order to be registered. In 2014, the emissions inspection failure rate was approximately 4% and the average cost of repair was $554 for vehicles that participated in the state’s Low Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program (commonly known as “LIRAP”).
Counties may opt to make LIRAP vehicle repair and replacement funding available to their eligible citizens. Eligibility is based on legislatively-mandated household size and income categories. If a county opts into LIRAP, an additional $2 to $6 fee is assessed with every vehicle emissions inspection in order to fund the program.
Other vehicle-related policies that have been implemented in nonattainment areas include idling restrictions for heavy duty vehicles, reformulated gasoline requirements, and transportation control measures.
Implementing SIP Strategies If the San Antonio area is designated as nonattainment, local governments will face costs associated with implementing SIP strategies. These costs include coordinating stakeholder involvement in air quality planning decisions, developing local ordinances, outreach, and participation in transportation and general conformity activities. The TCEQ has estimated that the agency’s level of effort is 45,000 to 55,000 hours of staff time, with an estimated cost of over $1 million dollars, per SIP. The cost of implementing SIP strategies at the local government and regional level can also be significant. If the designation classification is marginal instead of moderate, the costs would be lower with the amount varying in relation to the volume of emissions that would need to be reduced as previously discussed.
Summary of Available Literature on Nonattainment Costs Based on the research TCEQ conducted to prepare this paper, the available literature does not appear to include any detailed estimates for the costs of an ozone nonattainment designation for the San Antonio area.
The EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the proposed (2014) ozone standard http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#nov2014 includes the following estimates of costs per ton for controls: EGU: $12,000/ton; range: $2,000 to $38,000/ton;
5
TCEQ Working Paper 11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment March 12, 2015
non-EGU point source: $3,000/ton; range: $17 to $90,000/ton; nonpoint sources: $1,100/ton; range: $520 to $2,200/ton; and nonroad: $4,600/ton; range: $3,300 to $5,300/ton.
In 2010, the National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (NERA) and Sierra Research, under contract to the American Petroleum Institute (API) and using the Regional Economic Modeling, Inc (REMI) econometric modeling system, produced 11 state-specific reports estimating the economic impacts of EPA’s 2008 ozone NAAQS revision assuming the standard were set at 0.06 parts per million (ppm). These estimates include compliance costs for industrial and commercial sources, potential gains to some businesses (e.g., increased demand for low-emission technologies), impacts on small businesses, and indirect/induced effects throughout the regional economy. They estimate impacts on gross regional product, employment, disposable income, and state tax revenue. This analysis included a suite of controls, including: coal-fired EGU retirements, vehicle scrappage, marine engine retrofits, and natural gas space heaters.
NERA/Sierra Research REMI Cost Estimates for 0.06 ppm Ozone NAAQS State 2020 Cost 2020 to 2030 Cost in billions (# counties) in billions present value, @ 7% discount rate AR (2 counties) $1.7 $12.3 CO (9) $3.9 $26.9 IL (9) $41.7 $342.2 MO (8) $6.1 $48.9 NH (3) $1.7 $13.6 NM (5) $2.1 $17.7 NC (19) $10.9 $82.7 OH (31) $22.2 $185.9 PA (28) $31.4 $254.1 TN (10) $6.6 $51.9 WV (6) $4.1 $35.5
There have been a number of studies done to estimate costs of nonattainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for metropolitan areas, states, and the entire country. A 2009 report discusses nonattainment costs for Tulsa, OK but does not provide estimates, saying too much was still unknown, including the amount of needed reductions. A 2012 briefing paper estimates nonattainment costs of $10 million for the City of Wichita, based on data from seven uncited cities of similar size, among them Pima County (AZ), which includes Tucson. The Pima County estimate was $39 million. Another source cited an estimate of $55 million for Pima County. This analysis included costs for federal motor vehicle controls, Tier I and Tier II, vehicle I/M, stationary source permitting, compliance and enforcement programs, travel reduction program, rideshare, promotion of voluntary no-drive days, clean fuels and clean fleets, governor’s telework program, voluntary vehicle repair and retrofit, intelligent transportation systems, and compressed natural gas buses.
6
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment
Nonattainment Areas’ Required Controls and Associated Costs
The San Antonio area may face a nonattainment designation for the 2015 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and AACOG in this regards asked TCEQ to help analyze the potential costs of this designation for San Antonio region. TCEQ has submitted a list of potential VOC and NOX controls, as well as estimated cost for these controls if/when they are implemented. TCEQ would like to emphasize that it has collected the information from publically available sources, and inclusion of a reference to a cost estimate does not indicate that the TCEQ has reviewed or agreed with the referenced study results. TCEQ’s study reveals that the cost of an ozone nonattainment designation depends on many factors.
General Nonattainment Costs Categories Available studies have widely varying conclusions regarding ozone nonattainment costs. The cost of an ozone nonattainment designation depends on many factors, including:
Costs accruing to regulated entities to comply These stem from requirements to reduce emissions (such as additional point source controls), implement federally-required controls (some for areas sources), and additional procedural requirements, such as nonattainment new source review (NSR) permitting.
Costs accruing to governments State and local governments incur costs for developing and implementing SIPs, implementing more stringent permitting requirements, and monitoring and enforcement.
Costs accruing to individuals Citizens in ozone nonattainment areas may be required to comply with inspection and maintenance (I/M) and fuel requirements for vehicles or face other potential restrictions (on idling, lawn care equipment, etc.). They may also experience indirect costs for goods and services as businesses complying with control requirements raise prices. These costs may be estimated in general equilibrium econometric models that account for behavior changes (“induced” effects).
Indirect costs These include the long-term effects of business decisions to avoid locating or expanding in areas with stricter air quality controls. They may include changes in prices, employment, and consumption patterns.
Negative costs (benefits) Some businesses that build, install, and service pollution control equipment may benefit from increased demand for their products, including engineering design, materials, manufacturing, construction, and vehicle inspection industries. This discussion does not address indirect or negative costs. The only cost to individuals that is assessed is that of complying with vehicle emissions testing (I/M) requirements.
Nonattainment Costs under Marginal and Moderate Classifications
The requirements most likely to influence the potential cost of nonattainment in the San Antonio area are those mandatory controls set aside for Marginal or Moderate nonattainment areas. For Marginal ozone designation, major point sources in the area must begin to comply with emissions inventory reporting requirements and offset proposed new emissions via a nonattainment NSR permit and local authorities must comply with federal general and 11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment transportation conformity requirements. It is challenging to estimate the cost of these requirements; however, the procedural costs, delays, and uncertainty introduced by these permitting and conformity requirements are cited as reasons why companies may prefer not to locate or expand in nonattainment areas. For a Moderate nonattainment designation, citizens would be required to obtain emissions inspections for most vehicles and State to submit a SIP that incorporates all reasonably available control measures (RACM) necessary to achieve or advance attainment, including reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements. With a Moderate and higher ozone nonattainment designation, the FCAA also requires states to demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment and at least a 15% reduction in VOC from baseline emissions within six years. Should controls required as RACT or RACM not provide sufficient reductions in ozone precursors to demonstrate RFP, then additional controls may be needed. The vehicle emissions inspection fee, under Moderate scenario, is generally an incremental $14 to $27, on top of the cost for a safety inspection, for all gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles aged 2 through 24 years old.
If the San Antonio area is designated Moderate nonattainment or above for ozone, the types of controls currently required in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria or Dallas-Fort Worth areas may be considered for the San Antonio area. Attachment 1: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Source Categories and Estimated Costs and Attachment 2: Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Source Categories and Estimated Costs provide available cost information on emission sources that are subject to control requirements in other Texas nonattainment areas that are designated as moderate or above. Attachment 1 includes all EPA CTG emission source categories and selected ACT emission source categories for which cost information was available.
Cost of Implementing SIP Strategies If the San Antonio area is designated as nonattainment, local governments will face costs associated with implementing SIP strategies. These costs include coordinating stakeholder involvement in air quality planning decisions, developing local ordinances, outreach, and participation in transportation and general conformity activities. The TCEQ has estimated that the agency’s level of effort is 45,000 to 55,000 hours of staff time, with an estimated cost of over $1 million dollars, per SIP. The cost of implementing SIP strategies at the local government and regional level can also be significant. If the designation classification is marginal instead of moderate, the costs would be lower with the amount varying in relation to the volume of emissions that would need to be reduced. 11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment
Attachment 2: Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Source Categories and Estimated Costs
Unit/Source TCEQ Estimated Cost Year Information/Source Link Category Estimated Cement Control Kiln Total Capital Total Annual Cost Effectiveness 2006 Assessment of NOx Emissions Kilns/Cement Technology Type Cost (MM $) Cost (MM $) ($/ton NOx reduced) Reduction Strategies for Cement Kilns- Manufacturing 1 SCR Wet 5.0 - 5.7 0.6 - 2.7 5,500 - 96,000 Ellis County: Final Report, ERG, Inc. Dry 6.7 - 8.4 2.0 - 2.2 1,900 - 2,200 (July 14, 2006) SNCR Wet 1.2 - 1.4 0.3 - 0.5 2,400 - 13,000 Revised Final Report with corrected Dry 2.3 1.0 - 1.1 1,500 - 2,900 tables and figures (August 23, 2006) LoTOxTM Wet 2.8 - 5.8 0.5 - 1.6 3,300 - 11,000 Dry 5.2 - 6.7 2.4 - 3.1 2,300 - 2,600 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10600) Lime Kilns 1 Control Technology Total Capital Cost ($) Total Annual Cost ($) 2006 25 TexReg 8137 (pg. 8290) Staged Combustion 225,000 10,000 Electric Control Size Capital Cost FO&M Cost VO&M Cost 2011 Potential Impacts of Environmental Generating Technology (MW) ($/kW) ($/kW) ($/MWh) (2008 $) Regulation on the U.S. Generation Utilities (EGU) SCR 25 - 900 492 - 270 2.6 - 0.4 1.23 Fleet, Final Report, Prepared by ICF International for the Edison Electric SNCR 25 - 900 33 - 10 0.7 - 0.2 1.235 Institute (January 2011) Control Technology Capital Cost ($/MW) Total Annual Cost ($) 2 2006 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10600) SCR 125,000 1,362,500 Stationary Control Firing Capital Cost ($) Annual Cost ($) 2006 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10599 - 10601) Internal Technology Type Installation 2nd Catalyst Equipment 2nd Catalyst Combustion NSCR Rich-Burn 16,667 + 15/hp 2,600 + 5/hp Engines 3 16.67/hp 11/hp EGR + Lean-Burn 39,167 + 15/hp 2,600 + 5/hp NSCR 41.67/hp 11/hp SCR Lean-Burn 310,000 + 72.70/hp 37,300 + 16.30/hp SCR Dual-Fuel 187,000 + 98/hp 37,000 + 16.30/hp LEC Lean-Burn 226,000 + 66.80/hp 57,800 + 14.60/hp Stationary Control Technology Total Capital Cost ($) Total Annual Cost($) 2006 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10599) Combustion LNB 400,000 52,500 Turbines 2
1
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment
Unit/Source TCEQ Estimated Cost Year Information/Source Link Category Estimated Industrial, Control Technology Capital Cost Annual Cost 2006 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10597 - 10598) Commercial, ($/MMBtu/hr) ($/MMBtu/hr) Institutional SCR 4,000 - 6,000 700 Boilers LNB 3,100 600 Industrial, Control Capital Cost Total Capital Cost ($) 2 Total Annual Cost ($) 2 2006 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10599) Commercial, Technology ($/MMBtu/hr) Institutional LNB 3,280 23,640 3,980 Process Heaters Natural Gas-Fired Control Technology Total Capital Cost ($) Total Annual Cost ($) 2006 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10599) Heaters, Dryers, LNB 37,070 6,370 & Ovens 2 Brick & Ceramic Control Technology Total Capital Cost ($) Total Annual Cost ($) 2006 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10599) Kilns 2 LNB 159,090 72,730 Glass & Technology Unit Type Total Capital Cost ($) Total Annual Cost ($) 2006 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10599) Fiberglass Oxy-Fuel Glass Furnace 9.8 (million) 4 0.7 - 4.1 (million) 4 Manufacturing Firing Fiberglass Furnace 1.9 - 5.1 (million) 4 LNB Glass/Fiberglass 65,000 2 11,000 2 Curing Oven Iron & Steel Technology Unit Type Total Capital Cost ($) Total Annual Cost ($) 2006 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10599) Manufacturing 2 LNB Reheat/Heat Treat 150,000 28,700 Furnaces Incinerators 2 Control Technology Total Capital Cost (MM $) Total Annual Cost ($) 2006 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10600) SCR 1.2 272,000 CEMS 1 Total Capital Cost ($) Total Annual Cost ($) 2006 31 TexReg 10538 (pg.10599) (general) 148,300 48,000
MM $: million dollars Wet: Long Wet Kiln Dry: Long Dry Kiln SCR: Selective Catalytic Reduction SNCR: Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction LoTOxTM: Low Temperature Oxidation CEMS: Continuous Emissions Monitoring System 2
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment
MW: Megawatt kW: Kilowatt MWh: Megawatt-hour FO&M: Fixed Operating and Maintenance VO&M: Variable Operating and Maintenance LEC: Low Emissions Combustion LNB: Low-NOx Burner Units may need fuel meters to demonstrate compliance with state rules, thereby incurring additional compliance costs. Fuel metering costs are ~$2,500 per meter. Units may need to conduct initial compliance testing to demonstrate compliance with state rules, thereby incurring additional compliance costs. Initial stack test costs are ~$3,500 per control. Engine owners/operators may need to conduct quarterly testing in addition to initial and periodic testing, thereby incurring additional compliance costs. Quarterly test costs are ~$125 per control. 1 Costs per unit. Costs for units in San Antonio may differ. 2 Costs per unit, reverse calculated from the total costs and total number of units based on the specific units subject to the cited rulemaking. Total costs for the entire unit group may include zero costs for units considered already compliant with the proposed rulemaking. Costs for units in San Antonio may differ. 3 Cost curves for engines apply to only gaseous fuel-fired engines and not to diesel-fired engines. 4 Costs per plant. Costs for plants in San Antonio may differ.
3
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment Attachment 1: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Source Categories and Estimated Costs Source Category CTG/ACT EPA Estimated Cost 30 TAC TCEQ Estimated Year Control Description Information (Year) Cost Estimated Source Bulk Gasoline Plants CTG Top submerged fill balance system §115.211 – $75,000 to 2006 Vapor combustor, or 31 TexReg EPA- -$36/ton of VOC reduced §115.219 $200,000/unit 5558 450/77-2- Top submerged fill system $300,000 to Vapor recovery unit 035 -$118/ton of VOC reduced $1,000,000/unit (1977) Bottom fill -$18/ton of VOC reduced (1977) Cleaning Solvents CTG Parts cleaner §115.460 – -$1840/yr per 2011 Switch to low-VOC or 36 TexReg EPA- $1,666/ton of VOC reduced §115.469 large facility low vapor pressure 3865 Industrial 453/R-06- -$2760/yr per cleaning solvents
001 Other solvent cleaning small facility December (2006) -$1,326/ton of VOC reduced Parts cleaning: 26, 2014 (2002) $2,589/ton of VOC reduced Other cleaning: -$1,590/ton of VOC reduced (2008 dollar) Cutback Asphalt CTG -$14.5/ton of VOC reduced §115.510 – No cost increase 2006 Alternative materials 31 TexReg EPA- (1977) §115.519 are available at 5558 450/2-77- comparable prices. 037 (1977) Fugitive Emissions CTG Model Unit B Net Annualized costs: §115.352 – $0.5 to $1.0 per 2002 Quarterly monitoring 27 TexReg EPA- §115.359 component of blind flanges, caps, 5394 450/3-82- Monitoring: $2,292/yr plugs at pipe or line
010 end; connectors; (1982) §115.780 – heat exchanger §115.789 heads; sight glasses; meters; gauges; connections; bolted manways; hatches; agitators; sump
1
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment Source Category CTG/ACT EPA Estimated Cost 30 TAC TCEQ Estimated Year Control Description Information (Year) Cost Estimated Source Monitoring and leak repair for pump $215,250 to 2002 covers; stormwater seal: $4,674/yr $430,500 per and process drains; quarter junction box vents; Monitoring and leak repair for valves: covers and seals on $5,100/yr water separators
Graphic Arts CTG Carbon Adsorption §115.430 – No recent cost EPA- $46 to $34/ton of VOC recovered §115.439 estimated Rotogravure and 450/2-78- Flexography Incineration System 033 $120 to $1,650/ton of VOC reduced (1978) (depending on VOC input rate, heat recovery, and outlet concentration) (1978) Graphic Arts CTG $1,300 to $2,800/ton of VOC reduced §115.430 – $1,300 to 2011 Add-on control for a 36 TexReg EPA- (2006) §115.439 $2,800/ton VOC press emitting at 3834 Flexible Package 453/R-06- reduced least 25 tons per year Printing 003 $142,000 to Installing a fixed bed (2006) $341,000/unit catalytic oxidizer $26,200 to Annual operating $47,500/yr costs Graphic Arts CTG Control of VOC from heatset inks §115.440 – $27,847/unit 2009 Refrigeration unit for 34 TexReg EPA- $2,010/ton of VOC reduced §115.449 fountain solution 7015 Offset Lithographic 453/R-06- Printing and 002 Letterpress Printing Control of VOC from cleaning solution $1,876/yr Annual operating (2006) $855/ton of VOC reduced cost (2006) Industrial Adhesives CTG $265/ton of VOC reduced §115.470 – $4,480/yr 2011 Switching to low VOC 36 TexReg EPA- §115.479 formulas 3834 453/R-08- $3,356/yr per facility $200 Coating application
005 (2008) system – High (2008) volume/low pressure (HPLV) spray gun $1400 Coating application complete system Natural CTG Monitoring instrument $9,200/site §115.352 – No recent cost Gas/Gasoline EPA- Cap on line installed $61/cap estimated
2
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment Source Category CTG/ACT EPA Estimated Cost 30 TAC TCEQ Estimated Year Control Description Information (Year) Cost Estimated Source Processing 450/3- Compressor vent control §115.359 Piping: $4,020 plus 83-007 Flare: $10,040/site (1983) Initial leak repair $1800 to $18,000/site Annual leak detection and repair $9,800 to $48,000/site Recovered product benefit $6,500 to 65,000/site Net annual cost: $3,300 to -$17,000/site -$67 to $127 $/ton of VOC reduced (1980)
Petroleum Liquid ACT Liquid-mounted seal Internal Floating §115.110 – $10,000/Tank 2006 Guidepoles control 31 TexReg Storage EPA- Roof (IFR): $20/linear (lin) feet (ft) §115.119 10525 Floating and Fixed- 453/R- External Floating Roof (EFR): $80/lin ft $60,000/Flare 2011 New flare, or 36 TexReg Roof Tanks 94-001 3817 (1994) Secondary seals on IFR $26/lin ft $110,000/Unit 2011 Vapor Recovery Unit 36 TexReg 3817 Secondary seal on EFR $54/lin ft Controlled fittings $600 to $680/tank (1994) Install IFR capital $46,970 to $189,040/tank $380 to $1,530/ton VOC reduced
Upgrade IFR fittings $420 to $17,300/ton
Upgrade EFR fittings -$260 to -80/ton (1991) Petroleum Liquid CTG Capital cost for IFR and seals §115.110 – No recent cost Storage EPA- $12,000 for 50 ft diameter tank §115.119 estimated $28,000 for 100 ft diameter Fixed-Roof Tanks 450/2- $53,000 for 150 ft diameter 3
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment Source Category CTG/ACT EPA Estimated Cost 30 TAC TCEQ Estimated Year Control Description Information (Year) Cost Estimated Source 77-036 Annual operating and maintenance (1977) (O&M), inspection $900 for 50 ft diameter tank $1,800 for 100 ft diameter $3,400 for 150 ft diameter -$136 to $235/ton of VOC reduced (1977) Petroleum Liquid CTG -$60 to $3,582/ton of gasoline lost §115.110 – $10,000/Tank 2006 Guidepoles control 31 TexReg Storage EPA- §115.119 10525 $24 to $4,930/ton of crude oil lost $60,000/Flare 2011 New flare, or 36 TexReg External Floating 450/2- 3817 Roof Tanks 78-047 Secondary seal capital $16,900 for 100 $110,000/Unit 2011 Vapor Recovery Unit 36 TexReg (1978) ft diameter welded & riveted tank 3817 Seal inspection, O&M $1,100/yr for 100 ft diameter tank (1978) Refineries CTG Surface condenser §115.120 – $50,000/unit 2006 Water separator 31 TexReg -$104/ton of VOC reduced §115.129 control unit 5558 Vacuum Producing EPA- Systems, 450/2- Vacuum producing system §115.131 – $15,000/unit 2006 Water separator VOC 31 TexReg Wastewater 77-025 -$96/ton of VOC reduced §115.139 monitoring and 5558 Separators, and operating 1977/10 §115.311 – Process Unit Wastewater separator $500/year 2002 Recordkeeping per 27 TexReg (1977) §115.319 Turnaround -$91/ton of VOC reduced facility 49 Flaring $4.5/ton of VOC reduced Turnaround -$91/ton of VOC recovered (1977) Refineries CTG Monitoring instruments initial cost §115.352 – No recent cost $8,800/site §115.359 estimated Leaks from EPA- Petroleum Refinery 450/2- Annual leak detection and repair cost $112,600/site Equipment 78-036 Optional: Seal oil vent control device (1978) initial cost: $3,700/site
4
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment Source Category CTG/ACT EPA Estimated Cost 30 TAC TCEQ Estimated Year Control Description Information (Year) Cost Estimated Source Annual seal oil control operation cost: $400/site (1977) Rubber Tires CTG $151 to $459/ton of VOC reduced No rubber tire (1978) manufacturer Manufacture of EPA- identified in 2012 EI Pneumatic Rubber 450/2- for San Antonio area Tires 78-030 (1978) Solvent Cleaning CTG §115.412 – There are no EPA- §115.419 requirements from Solvent Metal 450/2-77- this CTG in §115.420 Cleaning §115.420 – 022 – §115.429 that are §115.429 (San Antonio area (1977) expected to cost or already subject to save a source money. the requirement) Surface Coating CTG §115.420 – No magnet wire EPA- §115.429 manufacturer Insulation of 450/2-77- identified in 2012 EI Magnet Wire 033 for San Antonio area (1977) Surface Coating CTG No shipbuilding and 61 FR ship repair operation Shipbuilding and 44050 identified in 2012 EI Ship Repair (1996) for San Antonio area Operations Surface Coating CTG Carbon adsorbers for chemical milling §115.420 – No recent cost EPA- maskants capital: $247,000 §115.429 estimated Coating Operations 453/R-97- at Aerospace Carbon adsorbers for waterborne 004 Manufacturing and milling maskants capital: $143,000 (1997) Rework Operations Dry media blasting for depainting 59 FR capital: $604,000 29216 High transfer efficiency application (1994) equipment capital: $64,200 Spray gun cleaning equipment: $5,000 Spray booth and filter system: $6,400 Hand-wipe and flush cleaning annual cost: $6,900
5
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment Source Category CTG/ACT EPA Estimated Cost 30 TAC TCEQ Estimated Year Control Description Information (Year) Cost Estimated Source Waterborne chemical milling maskants annual cost: $55,000 Blast depainting annual cost: $3,000 (1994) Surface Coating CTG Exterior siding §115.420 – No recent cost EPA- $2,600/ton of VOC reduced §115.429 estimated Flat Wood Paneling 453/R-06- Interior siding Coatings 004 $1,900/ton of VOC reduced (2006) $101,000 per facility (2005) Surface Coating CTG $1,200/ton of VOC reduced §115.450 – $1,200/ton VOC 2011 Add on @ 90% 36 TexReg EPA (2005) §115.459 reduced emission reduction 3834 Paper, Film, and 453/R-07- Capture system and new thermal Foil Coatings 003 oxidizer (TO) (2007) Capital: $2,479,820 to $6,780,733 (2002) annual cost: $857,781 to $2,312,499/yr (2005) Capture system Capital: $290,000 to $1,686,000 (2002) annual cost: $145,013 to $1,049,738/yr (2005) Surface Coating CTG $500/ton of VOC reduced §115.450 – $500/ton of VOC 2011 Switch to low-VOC 36 TexReg EPA (2006) §115.459 reduced solvent 3834 Large Appliance 453/R-07- (2006) Coatings 004 $730/yr Small plant: switch (2007) to low-VOC solvent $25,900/yr Large plant: switch to low-VOC solvent $200 HVLP spray gun, or $1400 Coating application complete system Surface Coating CTG $200/ton of VOC reduced §115.450 – $200/ton VOC 2011 Cost effectiveness 36 TexReg EPA- (2003) reduced 3834
6
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment Source Category CTG/ACT EPA Estimated Cost 30 TAC TCEQ Estimated Year Control Description Information (Year) Cost Estimated Source Metal Furniture 453/R-07- §115.459 $600 to $36,000 Capital: switch to Coatings 005 per facility low-VOC solvent (2007) $1,670/yr per Operating cost: facility switch to low-VOC solvent $200 Coating application system HVLP gun $1400 Coating application complete system $3,500,000 to Capital: enclosure $6,300,000 and thermal oxidizer $575,000 to Annual operating $1,100,000 cost: enclosure and thermal oxidizer Surface Coating CTG $1,758/ton of VOC reduced §115.450 – $9,950/ton of 2012 Use exempted SCAQMD – EPA- §115.459 VOC reduced solvents to meet R1107 Miscellaneous 453/R-08- 2015 standard Metal and Plastic 003 $1,758/ton of 2011 Switch to low-VOC 36 TexReg Parts Coatings (2008) VOC reduced coating cost 3834 effectiveness $2,600 to Switching to low-VOC $11,500/facility solvent for metal per year coating operation $600 to Plastic coating annual $76,000/facility operating cost per year $200 HVLP spray gun $1,400 Complete coating application system Surface Coating CTG No cost implications expected. §115.450 – No recent cost EPA §115.459 estimated Automobile and 453/R-08- Light-Duty Truck 006 Assembly Coatings (2008)
7
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment Source Category CTG/ACT EPA Estimated Cost 30 TAC TCEQ Estimated Year Control Description Information (Year) Cost Estimated Source Synthetic Organic CTG §115.531 – No pharmaceutical Chemical EPA- §115.539 products Manufacturing 450/2-78- manufacturer Industry 029 identified in 2012 EI (1978) for San Antonio area Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products Synthetic Organic CTG Polypropylene plant §115.120 – $600,000 2006 Control device for a 31 TexReg Chemical EPA- Thermal incinerator: $635,900 or §115.129 vent stream 5558 Manufacturing Flare: $90,600 450/3- Industry Polyethylene plant $360,000 2006 Annual operating 83-008 Incinerator: $557,400 or Flare: cost Manufacture of (1983) $54,500 High-Density Polyethylene, Polystyrene plant Condenser: $32,300 Polypropylene, and (1980) Polystyrene Resins Synthetic Organic CTG Cap lines: $5,500 to 67,900/site §115.352 – $500/site per 2002 Recordkeeping 27 TexReg Chemical EPA- §115.359 year 55 Manufacturing 450/3- Monitoring instrument: $9200 Industry 83-006 Polymer and Resin (1983) Initial leak repair: $22,500 to 2002 Startup monitoring 27 TexReg Manufacturing $1,200 to $14,000/site $45,000/yr per after shutdown 5415 Equipment Net annual cost: $2,300 to $5,400/site site @ $0.5 to (1980) $1.0 per component Synthetic Organic CTG capital cost $1,373,000 to $9,988,000 §115.120 – No recent cost Chemical EPA- (1980) §115.129 estimated Manufacturing 450/3-84- Industry 015 annual costs (1984) Air Oxidation $338,000 to $5,294,000
Processes (1980) $100 to $6,849/ton of VOC reduced depending on flow rate, emission rate, and heating value
8
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment Source Category CTG/ACT EPA Estimated Cost 30 TAC TCEQ Estimated Year Control Description Information (Year) Cost Estimated Source Synthetic Organic CTG Incinerator capital costs: $86,203/unit §115.120 – No recent cost Chemical EPA- annual cost: $49,562 §115.129 estimated Manufacturing 450/4- Industry 91-031 Scrubber capital cost: $28,237/unit Reactor Processes (1993) annual cost: $47,130 and Distillation Operations Flare capital cost: $94,502 annual cost: $508,481 Incinerator + scrubber: $241 to $21,405/ton of VOC reduced
Flare: $632 to $6,034/ton of VOC reduced Thermal incinerator: $275 to $12,525/ton of VOC reduced (1993)
Tank Trucks CTG Vapor recovery unit capital: $176,000 §115.211 – $75,000 to 2006 New vapor 31 TexReg EPA- to $194,000 §115.219 $200,000 combustor 5558 Tank Truck Gasoline 450/2-77- annualized: $20,600/yr Loading Terminals §115.221 – $300,000 to New vapor recovery 026 §115.229 $1,000,000 unit (San Antonio area (1977) Incinerator capital: $140,000 $1700 to 1999 Vapor balance 24 TexReg already subject to annualized: $29,800/yr $2700/tank truck system 61 the requirement) $71,350/Bulk Vapor recovery plant equipment Cost effectiveness $19,300 to Ultraviolet beam @251,000 gal/day throughput $22,300/flare sensor or thermocouple $121/ton for refrigeration system
$129/ton for compression- refrigeration-absorption system
$181/ton for TO (1977)
9
11. Potential Cost of Non-attainment Source Category CTG/ACT EPA Estimated Cost 30 TAC TCEQ Estimated Year Control Description Information (Year) Cost Estimated Source Tank Trucks CTG Not available §115.211 – $1700 to 2006 Vapor recovery 31 TexReg EPA- §115.219 $2700/tank truck system 5558 Leaks from Gasoline 450/2-78- Tank Trucks and §115.234 – 051 Vapor Collection §115.239 (1978) $360 to Vapor tightness Systems $650/tank truck testing per year (San Antonio area already subject) Vegetable Oil CTG Not available None identified in Manufacturing EPA- 2012 EI for San 450/2-78- Antonio area 035 Wood Furniture CTG 20 foot turbolator oven: $48,600 §115.420 – $21,000/yr Compliance cost 22 TexReg Manufacturing EPA- annual operating cost: $3,500/oven §115.429 12401 453/R-96- Waterborne paint delivery small 007 system: $9,100 (1996) Medium to large system: $34,400 Spray booth modification medium to large system: $3,250 -$818 to $3,272/ton of VOC reduced (1991) Industrial ACT Steam Stripping Unit §115.140 – $194,600 annual 2002 Inspect water seals 27 TexReg Wastewater EPA- capital: $512,000 §115.149 operating cost daily 5394 453/D-93- $500 2001 Recordkeeping cost 26 TexReg 056 4026 (1993) annual cost: $267,900 $347/ton of VOC 1999 For Organic 24 TexReg (1989) reduced Chemicals, Plastics, 5413 and Synthetic Fibers Manufacturing $5,732 to 1995 Based on similar 19 TexReg $420,796/ton of control for benzene 7999 VOC reduced NESHAPS Adsorption initial cost: $246,030 to $971,214/site annual cost: $96,470 to $204,120/site (1988)
10