central texas air quality july 18, 2012 capital area council of governments

CENTRAL TEXAS AIR QUALITYJULY 18, 2012

CAPITAL AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

• Monitoring• Emissions Inventory• Data Analysis and Modeling• Planning• Technical Assistance• Outreach

CAPCOG’s Air Quality Program

THE CAPITAL AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS │ Austin Air Quality Program Presentation │ July 18, 2012

• Air Quality Status in Central Texas– Criteria Pollutants– Air Toxics

• Ozone Basics & What Nonattainment Means• Factors that Influence Pollution Levels• Travis County Emissions• Strategies to Reduce Emissions• Authority over Air Quality

Overview


Austin’s Compliance with Federal Air Quality Standards


Pollutant Averaging Time Last Review Concentration Austin Value

Ozone 8 Hours 2008 75 ppb 75 ppb (2011)

PM2.5 Annual 2006 15.0 µg/m3 10.0 µg/m3 (2010)

PM2.5 24 Hours 2006 35 µg/m3 22 µg/m3 (2010)

PM10 24 Hours 2006 150 µg/m3 41 µg/m3 (2011)

NO2 1 Hour 2010 100 ppb 22 ppb (2010)

NO2 Annual 2010 53 ppb 3 ppb (2010)

CO 8 Hours 2011 9 ppm 0.3 ppm (2010)

CO 1 Hour 2011 35 ppm 1 ppm (2010)

SO2 1 Hour 2010 75 ppb Not Monitored

Lead 3 Months 2008 0.15 µg/m3 Not MonitoredPollutant Averaging Time Next Review Likely Range Austin Value

Ozone 8 Hours 2013/2014 60-70 ppb 75 ppb (2011)

PM2.5 Annual 2012 12.0-13.0 µg/m3 10.0 µg/m3 (2010)

Austin Area Ozone Continuous Air Monitoring Stations


• PM2.5– Zavala Elementary School– Austin Audubon Society– Murchison Middle School– Webberville Road– Fayette County

• PM10– Webberville Road– Austin Audubon Society

Non-Ozone Monitoring in Region


• NOX

– Murchison Middle School– Hutto

• CO: Murchison Middle School• SO2

– Hutto• VOC: Webberville Road

Non-Ozone Monitoring in Region


• TCEQ Toxicological Evaluation 2010– Webberville Road VOC Canister Sampling– Audubon Society PM2.5 Sampling for Metals– Conclusion: “Exposure…for Region 11 – Austin

would not be expected to cause chronic adverse health or vegetation effects.”

• EPA 2005 National Air Toxics Assessment• CAPCOG 2005 Air Toxics Monitoring Project

Air Toxics


Air Toxics


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Webberville Road Benzene Concentrations

MedianHigh

Conc

entr

ation

(ppb

)

• Existing monitoring does not indicate that the general population is exposed to unhealthy levels of any pollutant other than ozone

• If there are other problems, our existing monitoring network is not picking them up

• Additional monitoring may shed light on additional problem areas, especially near-roadway pollution levels

Bottom Line for Pollutants Other than Ozone


Austin Area Ozone Compared to Other Areas


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 7000.0000.0100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.1000.1100.120

Austin: 77th Percentile

2010 Design Values

Austin Area Ozone “Design Value” 1999-2011


1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201160

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

89 8988

8584

85

82 8280

7775

7475

Murchison

Audubon

1997 Standard

2008 Standard

Design Value

8-Ho

ur O

zone

(par

ts p

er b

illio

ns)

Days of Ozone Considered Unhealthy for Certain Groups


1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

33

5159

48

3641

52

37

59

47

3642 39

31

57

19

13

26

18

76

13

10

11

17

42 5

4

10

1

1

8

2

2

1

Unhealthy (96+ ppb)

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups (76-95 ppb)

Moderate (60-75 ppb)

• Secondary pollutant: not directly emitted– NOX + VOC + Sunlight = Ozone

• Seasonal (March – November in Austin)• High temperatures & slow winds tend to

increase ozone production• Regional Geographic Scale• 2 Distinct Periods in Austin: March-July and

August-November

Ozone: the Basics


• Areas designated nonattainment based on the worst air quality measured in an area

• Allowed an average of 3 exceedances/year• Current default area would be Austin-Marble

Falls Combined Statistical Area– Bastrop, Burnet, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, Williamson

• Other factors: meteorology, commuting patterns, growth rates, emissions sources, jurisdictional boundaries, among others

Ozone Nonattainment Designations


• State required to bring area into attainment• Offsets required for new and modified point

sources• Transportation “conformity” required for at

least 25 years• Emission controls on existing sources• If state plan is inadequate, EPA creates plan;

can impose sanctions

What Nonattainment Means


Areas that Influence Ozone at CAMS 3 on Days >70 ppb


1-Day Back Trajectories 3-Day Back Trajectories

http://www.capcog.org/documents/airquality/cac/2010/september2010/Austin_CM_ver21.pdf

• Immediate vicinity: Travis, Caldwell, Bastrop, Fayette, Lee, Milam, Bell, and Williamson Counties

• Most of East Texas contributes to Background• March-July: Winds from the South/Southeast• August-October: Winds from the Northeast

Potential Upwind Areas


• Texas Contribution: 19-33 ppb (avg: 23.7 ppb)• Louisiana Contribution: 1-6 ppb (avg: 2.8 ppb)• Impact of Local Emissions on Ozone:

– EAC SIP Modeling for 2007: 3-18 ppb– 2010 Conceptual Model: 11-16 ppb– 2011 Mobile Monitoring: 10-21 ppb

• Local Ozone Levels primarily NOX-driven– 2-3 times the impact per ton as VOC

Technical Research on Ozone Impacts


Impact of Local Point Sources in 2007


Point Source > 75 ppb >65 ppb NOX (tpd)

Decker 1.0 0.9 4

Sandow 0.6 0.5 9

Austin Lime 0.5 0.5 2

UT 0.4 0.4 2

Lehigh 0.1 0.2 6

Fayette 0.1 0.2 20

Sim Gideon 0.1 0.1 2

Bastrop 0.1 0.1 1

Sand Hill 0.1 0.1 <1

Prarie Lea <0.1 <0.1 2

Lost Pines <0.1 <0.1 <1

Hays Energy <0.1 <0.1 <1

http://www.capcog.org/documents/airquality/cacac/dec2009/Item6-UT_Modeling_BigPush.pdf

2008 Travis County Emissions Inventory (tons per day)


On-Road; 35.99

Non-Road; 14.1

Point;

9.74

Area; 3.47

NOX

On-Road

; 15.8

8

Non-Road; 10.4Point

; 1.18

Area; 44.16

VOC

Top 10 Sources of NOX Emissions in Travis County, 2008


Source 2008 NOX Emissions (tons/day)

1. Passenger Cars 14.35

2. Passenger Trucks 5.77

3. Combination Long-Haul Trucks 5.65

4. Construction and Mining Equipment 5.40

5. Decker Creek Power Plant 5.07

6. Combination Short-Haul Trucks 4.30

7. Aviation 3.04

8. Single-Unit Short-Haul Trucks 2.36

9. Industrial Equipment 2.82

10. Light Commercial Trucks 2.22

81% of Total NOX Emissions in Travis County

NOX Emission Control Strategies

Source Type Technology-Based Measures Behavior-Based Measures

On-Road -Accelerated fleet replacement-Idle reduction infrastructure-Remote I/M detection-Vehicle retrofits-Use of electrified vehicles-Fuels

-Commute reductions-Enforce anti-idling rules-Sticker enforcement-Congestion mitigation-Use of mass transit-Encourage growth that minimizes VMT growth

Non-Road -Accelerated fleet replacement-Vehicle retrofits-Use of electrified equipment-Fuels

-Modify times/schedules of use-Idle reduction measures-Contract specifications or incentives

Point/Area Sources

-Low-NOX burners-SNCR-SCR-Replace boilers with turbines

-Energy efficiency measures-Ozone action day measures


Local Air Quality Planning Efforts

• 2002: 1-Hour Ozone Flex Plan• 2004: Early Action Compact SIP• 2008: 8-Hour Ozone Flex Plan• 2009: Big Push• 2012/13: Ozone Advance


• Deferred Nonattainment Designation• Early Action Compact Control Measures:

– 6.61 tpd of NOX emission reductions (5% reduction)– 17.01 tpd of VOC reductions (10% reduction)

• Modeled Ozone Impact in 2007:– 0.79 ppb at Murchison Middle School– 0.71 ppb at Austin Audubon Society

Early Action Compact

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/nov2004eac.html


• Maintain compliance with 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard of 84 ppb

• Continue Emissions Control Measures from Early Action Compact

• Additional regional emission reduction measures

• Additional measures implemented by local governments and other government agencies

8-O3 Flex Plan


• Maintain compliance with 75 ppb standard, get an “advance” on a potential lower standard

• Reevaluate existing control measures• Expand/enhance existing measures• Add new control measures where appropriate• Extend commitment for at least 5 years

Ozone Advance


Challenges

1. High background ozone levels2. Limited ability to address local emissions3. Rapid pace of growth of Eagle Ford Shale oil

and gas development upwind of region4. Permitting in attainment areas


Federal Authority

• Authority to approve/disapprove SIP• Authority to institute Federal Implementation

Plan• Enforcement of SIP/FIP rules• SIP Sanctions• On-road, non-road engine standards• NSPS, NESHAPS, RACT, MACT• Operation of rail & aircraft• Fuels


State Authority

• Point source emission standards & permitting• Enforcement of rules & permit requirements• Operation of on-road, non-road equipment

(except aircraft & rail)• Fuels (limited authority)• Building/energy efficiency standards• Prohibited from:

– Requiring Stage II if not required by EPA– Requiring new Environmental Speed Limits


Local Authority

• Transportation planning• Land use planning• Energy generation• Energy efficiency requirements• Operation of on-road and non-road equipment• Enforcement of existing state rules• Air quality ordinances that don’t conflict with

state rules & authorizations


THANK YOU

Andrew Hoekzema, Air Quality Program [email protected]

www.austinairquality.com


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.austinairquality.com/

central texas air quality july 18, 2012 capital area council of governments

Documents

air quality status

air qualityoverview

federal air quality

project air toxics

austin area ozone design

central texas air qualityjuly

days of ozone

upadditional monitoring