1. Proposed 2015 Ozone Standard
Donna F. Huff
Air Quality Division May 2015
Air Quality Division

2. Presentation Outline Proposed Rule Timeline Design Values and Trends
Potential Classification Ranges
Potential Attainment Deadlines
Emissions
SIP Development Process
What Might Nonattainment Mean?
Questions and Contacts

3. Proposed Rule: General
The EPA proposed revisions to the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone on November 25, 2014.
Both standards are proposed to be eight-hour standards set within a range of to parts per million (ppm), which is often expressed as 65 to 70 parts per billion (ppb).
The EPA took comment on a primary standard as low as ppm as well as retaining the current ppm standard.
The EPA took comment on a secondary standard based on the weighted (W126) metric within a range of 13 to 17 ppm-hours averaged over three years.

4. Proposed Rule: Monitoring
Proposed extension of the ozone monitoring season by one month
No impact: Texas already conducts year-round regulatory monitoring for ozone
Proposed requirement for photochemical assessment monitoring at existing National Core (NCore) monitoring sites
NCore sites in Texas currently measure photochemical assessment parameters such as ozone, NO, NO2, NOy, speciated VOC, carbonyls, and meteorology
Proposed requirement for hourly speciated VOCs using autoGCs to meet photochemical assessment monitoring requirements
No impact to Texas assuming hourly speciated VOC measurements will only be required at existing NCore sites
Extended ozone season for 33 states. Houston is already year round but it did extend the monitoring season for DFW for 1 month.

5. Proposed Rule: Permitting
The EPA generally requires that a project demonstrate compliance with any revised NAAQS that are in effect when a permit is issued. However, the EPA proposed to allow PSD permit applications to be “grandfathered” from this requirement for the revised ozone NAAQS, as long as either of the following conditions apply:
The application has been determined to be technically complete on or before the date the EPA signs the final rule; or
The public notice for a draft permit or preliminary determination has been published prior to the date revised ozone standards become effective (60 days after publication in the Federal Register).

6. Proposed Rule: Costs
The EPA estimates a cost of $3.9 billion for 70 ppb and $15 billion for 65 ppb by California is expected to have an attainment date and costs incurred after 2025 and an additional cost of $0.8 – $1.6 billion for 70 or 65 ppb, respectively.
The EPA estimates benefits of $7.5-$15 billion for a 70 ppb standard and $21 - $42 billion for a 65 ppb standard (includes California benefits after 2025).

7. Timeline - Comments EPA held public hearings
Washington D.C. 1/29
Arlington, TX 1/29
Sacramento, CA 2/2
Written comments were due by March 17,

8. Timeline October 1, 2015 Consent decree deadline for final NAAQS
October State designation recommendations due to the EPA
June EPA sends letter to states with proposed nonattainment area designations
October EPA to sign (finalize) designations and classifications
October EPA to finalize implementation rule
October State Implementation Plans (SIP) due

9. 2014 Ozone Design Values by County
CSA/CBSA
County
2014 8Hr Ozone DV (ppb)
Dallas-Fort Worth
Denton 81
Tarrant 80
Houston-The Woodlands
Brazoria
San Antonio-New Braunfels
Bexar
Collin 78
Dallas
Johnson 76
Hood
Montgomery
Harris
Parker 74
Rockwall 73
El Paso-Las Cruces
El Paso 72
Galveston
Killeen-Temple
Bell
Ellis 71
Longview-Marshall
Gregg
Tyler-Jacksonville
Smith
Beaumont-Port Arthur
Jefferson 70
Kaufman
Amarillo-Borger
Randall
Austin-Round Rock
Travis 69
Hunt
Harrison
Waco
McLennan
Navarro 68
Orange 67
Corpus Christi-Kingsville-Alice
Nueces 66
Big Bend (No MSA)
Brewster 65
Alabama-Coushatta (No MSA)
Polk
Victoria-Port Lavaca
Victoria 63
Laredo
Webb 61
Brownsville-Harlingen-Raymondville
Cameron 58
McAllen-Edinburg
Hidalgo 57
Map and table created by Kasey Savanich (x1145) on February 27, 2015.
*2014 design values are calculated as of 4/1/2015. The monitors in Polk and Webb Counties do not have enough complete data under 2008 NAAQS; however, the design values at those monitors could become valid depending on the level of the new NAAQS.
**The Brewster County, Randall County, and Polk County monitors are part of the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) of monitors and report data directly to the EPA.

10. 2014 Ozone Design Values by CSA
CSA/CBSA
2014 8Hr Ozone DV (ppb)
Dallas-Fort Worth 81
Houston-The Woodlands 80
San Antonio-New Braunfels
El Paso-Las Cruces 72
Killeen-Temple
Longview-Marshall 71
Tyler-Jacksonville
Amarillo-Borger 70
Beaumont-Port Arthur
Austin-Round Rock 69
Waco
Corpus Christi-Kingsville 66
Big Bend (No MSA) 65
Alabama-Coushatta (No MSA)
Victoria-Port Lavaca 63
Laredo 61
Brownsville-Harlingen-Raymondville 58
McAllen-Edinburg 57
Map and table created by Kasey Savanich (x1145) on February 27, 2015.
*2014 design values are calculated as of 4/1/2015. The monitors in Polk and Webb Counties do not have enough complete data under 2008 NAAQS; however, the design values at those monitors could become valid depending on the level of the new NAAQS.
**The Brewster County, Randall County, and Polk County monitors are part of the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) of monitors and report data directly to the EPA.

11. 2014* Secondary Ozone W126 Design Values by County
Region
County
W126 DV
(ppm-hrs)
DFW
Denton 17
Tarrant
Collin 15
Dallas 13
ELP
El Paso
Parker 12 BB
Brewster
Johnson
Rockwall 11
SAN
Bexar
KTF
Bell 10
Hood
HGB
Brazoria 9
Ellis
NETX
Smith
Gregg 8
Harrison
Hunt
Harris
Kaufman
Montgomery
ARR
Travis
BPA
Jefferson
Navarro 7
WAC
McLennan
Orange 6
Galveston CC
Nueces 5
VIC
Victoria 4
LAR
Webb 3
LRGV
Cameron
MEM
Hidalgo 2
Secondary
Ozone DV’s
> 17
14-17
8 - 13
< 7
*2014 W126 Design Values are preliminary and are subject to change.

12. Texas Air Quality Trends:

13. Potential Classification Ranges
Example Classification Thresholds
Based on Percent-Above-Standard Approach
0.070 parts per million (ppm)
Marginal up to ppm
Moderate up to ppm
Serious up to ppm
Severe – up to ppm
Severe – up to ppm
Extreme ppm or more

14. Potential Classification Ranges
Example Classification Thresholds
Based on Percent-Above-Standard Approach
0.065 parts per million (ppm)
Marginal up to ppm
Moderate up to ppm
Serious up to ppm
Severe – up to ppm
Severe – up to ppm
Extreme ppm or more

15. Potential Attainment Deadlines
Based on Section 181(a)(1) of the Federal Clean Air Act:
Marginal 2020
Moderate 2023
Serious 2026
Severe or 2034
Extreme 2037
Two Options for Timing of Deadline:
End of calendar year
Considers all ozone seasons
Consecutive calendar years from the effective date of designations
Does not consider most recent ozone season

16. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
2011 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Contributions by Source Category
Source category
Region
Point
Nonpoint
Mobile
Austin (Bastrop, Burnet, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties)
14.8%
8.2%
77.0%
San Antonio (Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Medina, and Wilson Counties)
31.5%
8.6%
59.9%
Dallas-Fort Worth (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties)
8.3%
12.2%
79.5%
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties)
22.2%
5.4%
72.4%

17. Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
2011 Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions Contributions by Source Category
Source category
Region
Point
Nonpoint
Mobile
Austin (Bastrop, Burnet, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties)
1.7%
63.7%
34.6%
San Antonio (Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Medina, and Wilson Counties)
3.0%
65.4%
31.6%
Dallas-Fort Worth (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties)
6.1%
63.3%
30.6%
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties)
16.7%
57.5%
25.8%

18. SIP Development Process Typically a 3 - 4 Year Process1
Pollution-exceeding episode is selected.
Base case and future emissions inventories are
prepared.
Photochemical grid modeling is performed to
determine the amount of emission reductions
required.
Control measures are evaluated to determine how to
accomplish the needed reductions.
Draft SIP revision and rules are prepared.
Commission approves the proposed SIP revision and
rules package. 2 3 4 5 6

19. SIP Development Process Typically a 3 - 4 Year Process7
Formal public review and comment period with a public hearing. Response to comments are prepared and options are reviewed based on comments. Proposed control measures are re-quantified and re- modeled. Final revisions are made to SIP and rulemaking packages. Commission adopts final rules and SIP revision packages. The state submits the complete rule and SIP revision packages to the EPA. 8 9 10 11 12

20. Nonattainment: What It Could Mean for an Area
SIP revision Controls for major sources of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, possibly minor sources as well Vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) for some areas Emission offsets for new major sources or major source modification More stringent permitting requirements Conformity Process: general and transportation

21. Nonattainment: Federal Requirements

22. Air Quality Division Contacts
David Brymer, Director
Kim Herndon, Assistant Director
Donna F. Huff, Air Quality Planning Manager
Steve Davis, Air Modeling and Data Analysis Manager
Kevin Cauble, Emissions Assessment Manager