APPENDIX B

EMISSIONS MODELING F OR THE DALLAS

- FORT WORTH

ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRA TION STATE

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION FOR THE 200 8

EIGHT

- HOUR OZONE STANDARDAPPENDIX B: EMISSIONS MODELING F OR THE DFW

ATTAINMENT DEMONST RATION SIP REVISION FOR THE

2008 EIGHT

- HOUR OZONE STANDAR D



## TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix B: Emissions Modeling for the DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the

1997 Eight

- Hour Ozone Standard

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1

1. General Modeling Emissions Development

................................ ................................ ............ 2

1.1 Base Case Modeling Emissions

................................ ................................ ....................... 2

1.2 Baseline Modeling Emissions

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

1.3 Future Year Modeling Emissions

................................ ................................ ................... 4

1.4 Future Year Control Strategy and/or Sensitivity Analyses Emissions

........................... 4

2. Point Source Modeling Emissions Development

................................ ................................ ..... 5

2.1 2006 Base Case Point Source Modeling Emissions Development

................................ . 6

2.1.1. Texas Point Sources

................................ ................................ .......................... 6

2.1.2. Regional (Outside of Texas) Point Sources

................................ ...................... 21

2.1.3. Plume

- in

- Grid (PiG) Source Selection

................................ ............................ 30

2.1.4. Summary of June 2006 Base Case Point Sources

................................ .......... 30

2.2 2006 Baseline Point Source Modeling Emissions Development

................................ .. 31

2.2.1. Texas Point Sources

................................ ................................ ......................... 31

2.2.2. Outside Texas

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 32

2.2.3. Summary of 2006 Baseline Point Sources

................................ ..................... 33

2.3 2018 Future Year Point Source Modeling Emissions Development

............................ 34

2.3.1. Regulations and the Cap

- and

- Trade Programs

................................ ............... 35

2.3.2. Attainment Areas of Texas

................................ ................................ .............. 39

2.3.3. Nonattainment Areas (NAA) of Texas

................................ ............................ 44

2.3.4. 2018 Regional (Outside of Texas) Point Sources

................................ ............ 49

2.3.5. Offshore, Mexico, and Canada

................................ ................................ ......... 52

2.3.6. Summary of Future Case Point Source Data Files

................................ ........... 52

2.4 2018 Point Source Control Strategy and/or Sensitivity Analyses

................................ . 533. On

- Road Mobile Source Modeling Emissions Development

................................ ................. 53

3.1 On

- Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventories for 10

- County DFW

........................... 53

3.2 On

- Road Mobile Source Emissions Processing

................................ ............................. 57

3.2.1. Texas Low Emission Diesel Fuel Benefits

................................ ...................... 58

3.3 10

- County DFW Photochemical Modeling Input

................................ .......................... 59

3.4 Attainment Demonstration Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

................................ ...... 61

3.5 On

- Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventories for Non

- DFW Areas

.......................... 67

4. Non

- Road, Off

- road, And Area Source Modeling Emissions

................................ ................ 68

4.1 Oil and Gas Production and Drilling Emission Inventory Development

..................... 68

4.2 Airports

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 81

4.3 Locomotives

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 86

4.4 Non

- Road/TexN

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 92

4.5 Area Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 104

5. Biogeni c Modeling Emissions

................................ ................................ .............................. 113

5.1 Emission Factor and PFT Inputs

................................ ................................ ................. 113

5.2 Fractional Vegetated Leaf Area Index Input

................................ ............................... 113

5.3 Meteorological Input

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 113

5.4 Biogenic Emission Summary

................................ ................................ ....................... 113

6. References

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 117

1. GENERAL MODELING EMISSIONS DEVELOPMEN T

The EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze (EPA, 2007) specifies a procedure for demonstrating attainment through modeling. Instead of using the model results in an absolute sense, the eight

- hour ozone pr ocedure uses the modeling results in a relative sense. This relative approach is based on how the model responds to the reduction in emissions between a baseline and a future year. Therefore, the photochemical modeling process for attainment demonstration requires four modeling emissions data sets:

• base case emissions ;

• baseline emissions ;

• future year emissions ; and

• future year control str ategy and/ or sensitivity analyses emissions

.

1.1 Base Case Modeling Emissions

In order for the photochemical model to be used in the attainment demonstration, the model needs to be capable of adequately replicating historical episodes (base cases) for which high daily eight

- hour ozone was measured. To maximize model performance, base case emissioninputs are estimated as accurat ely as possible. In the development of the base case modeling emissions, a number of quality assurance techniques are used to evaluate the reasonableness of the emission magnitudes, along with their spatial distribution and temporal profile. Using the qual ity assured episode

- specific emissions along with other modeling inputs (e.g., meteorology), the photochemical model is run and the simulated concentrations of both ozon e and ozone

precursors of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) ar e compared to the measured concentrations to evaluate the adequacy of the photochemical model in replicating the

base case. If the evaluation indicates that the base case is not adequately replicated, then diagnostics are conducted to determine which model ing inputs are unsatisfactory

. When the emissions are implicated, the modeling emissions are reviewed and pertinent revisions are made

as appropriate. If the evaluation implicated other inputs

, or once the photochemical model adequately replicates the base case, then the modeling emissions are considered to be sufficiently representative of the episode.

A summary of the primary data sources for the development of the base case modeling emissions is provided in Table 1

- 1 : Summary of Bas e Case Point Source Emission Data Sources

, Table 1

- 2 : Summary of Base Case On

- Road Mobile Source Emission Data Sources , and Table

1

- 3 : Summary of Base Case Non

- R oad Mobile , Area, Oil and Gas, and Biogenic Source Emission

Data Sources

.

Table 1

- 1 : Summary of Base Ca se Point Source Emission Data Sources

Region Data Source

Texas 2006 State of Texas Air Reporting System ( STARS )

Regional 2008 National Emissions Inventory ( NEI ) based EPA Modeling Platform

All States 2006 EPA Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) Air Markets Program Data (AMPD)

hourly data

Harris County 2006 hourly Harris County Tank Landing Loss surveys

HGB 2006 HGB Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound ( HRVOC ) reconciliation

Offshore 2005 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Gulf

- Wide Emissions

Inventory ( GWEI ) platforms of western Gulf of Mexico

Mexico 1999 Phase III Mexico N ational Emissions Inventory

Canada 2006 National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI)

Table 1

- 2 : Summary of Base Case On

- R oad Mobile Source Emission Data Sources

Region Data Source

DFW 2006 based on MOVES2010a and local travel demand model (TDM) for vehicle

miles traveled (VMT)

Other Texas 2006 based on MOVES2010b and Highway Performance Monitoring System

(HPMS) for VMT

Outside Texas 2006 based on MOVES2010b default analyses

Table 1

- 3 : Summary of Base Case No n

- R oad Mobile , Area, Oil and Gas, and Biogenic Source Emission Data Sources

Region Non

- R oad Mobile

Sources Area Sources Oil and Gas Sources Biogenics

Texas Texas NONROAD

(TexN) model 2008 TexAER 2008 TexAER, 2006

T exas Railroad

Commission data MEGAN 2.1 modelRegion Non

- R oad Mobile

Sources Area Sources Oil and Gas Sources Biogenics

Outside

Texas 2006 NMIM 2008 EPA NEI 2008 EPA NEI MEGAN 2.1 model

Emissions modelers generally use a hierarchical approach, such that t he closer the area is to the

nonattainment area of interest, the more detailed the resolution of the emissions, i.e., Canadian emissions are expected to have very little influence on model performance in DFW, so the TCEQ does not attempt to gather hourly power plant emissions from Canada. Emissions are developed for the ozone precursors of NO X , VOC, and carbon monoxide ( CO )

. The emission inventories
(EIs) are prepared for photochemical modeling input using Version 3 of the Emissions Processing System (EPS3) 1

.

1.2 Baseline Modeling Emissions

T he EPA procedure for demonstrating attainment requires the development of modeling emissions for a baseline year to be used with similarly developed future year emissions. In order to keep the baseline and future year modeling emissions commensurate, more generic non

episodic ozone season day (OSD) emissions are developed for the baseline year. The OSD modeling emissions f or the baseline and future years are developed using the same averaging and estimating procedures, which provides an appropriate basis for assessing the photochemical model response to emission reductions.

The major difference between the base case and bas eline modeling emissions is the treatment of the hourly

- specific emissions for elevated point sources, such as electric generating units
(EGUs). E missions for the other source categories are identical between the base cases and baseline modeling emissions. 2006 was chosen as the baseline year and Section 2.2 describes the averaging processes used in the development of the baseline inventory.

1.3 Future Year Modeling Emi ssions

The 10

- county DFW area is classified as moderate nonattainment under the 2008 eight

- hour

ozone standard. The attainment date for DFW is December 31, 2018 and the modeling
attainment year is 2018

. Modeling emissions for the 2018 future year were esti mated by applying growth projections

, existing control measures , and emissions caps to the baseline (in general) modeling emissions. T he 2018 modeling emissions include the benefits of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), Ellis County Cement Kiln Cap, Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) Program, the Highly Reactive VOC Emission Cap and Trade (HECT)
Program in the Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria (HGB) area, and Phase II of the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR)

.

1.4 Future Year Control Strategy and/ or Sensitivity Analyses Emissions

Existing controls with compliance dates that have passed or are between the baseline and the future years are modeled in the future case identified above. Any new control strategies, other rules, potential ru les, or sensitivity analyses that are modeled are applied on top of the future case modeling in order to determine the efficacy in the future. The point source sensitivity analyses performed for this DFW attainment demonstration are a

1 Environ product, maintained by EnvironDiscrete Emission Re duction Credit (DERC) Flow Control sensitivity and a Cross State Air

Pollution Rule ( CSAPR ) sensitivity. See Section 2.4 2018 Point Source Control Strategy and/or

S ensitivity Analyses of this appendix for details.

2. POINT SOURCE MODELIN G E MISSIONS DEVELOPMENT

Much of the point source emissions development began w here the December 2011 DFW SIP

Revision 2 left off , with this SIP Revision providing large upgrades to the TCEQ Modeling Platform as described in Chapter 3 of this SIP Revision, including new and extended modeling

domain definitions that include the entire continental U

. S

. (CONUS) , new versions of the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions ( CAMx ) and V ersion 3 of the Emissions Processor System ( EPS3 ) , and the updated Carbon Bond 6 (CB6) chemical mechanism

. The two modeled episodes of the 2006 base case (“June” and “AQS1” ) were originally modeled in the

March 2010 HGB SIP Revision 3 , and then upgraded fo r the TCEQ Rider 8 4 Modeling Platform

, which is equivalent to this DFW Modeling Platform

. S ome of the descriptions of this DFW modeling development will refer to the work performed for the SIP Revisions noted above and footnoted (for proper reference)

, especially for descriptions of HGB

- specific emissions development, and will hereafter be referred to as “previous SIP documentation

. ”

The various data sources that went into the development of the point source modeling emissions

are summarized in Table 2

- 1 : Sources of Point Source Emissions Data

. The TCEQ compiled and formatted the data to generate modeling datasets for the base case, the baseline, and the future

case studies as detailed in subsequent sections

.

Table 2

- 1 : Sources of Point Source Emissions Data

Sources of Data Calendar Year(s)

Used

TCEQ State of Texas Air Reporting System (STARS) 2006 , 2012

TCEQ Hourly Floating Roof Tank Landing Loss (TLL) Surveys 2006

TCEQ

- derived Highly Reactive V olatile Organic Compound (HRVOC)

Reconciliation using Potential Source Contribution Factor (PSCF)

Methodology 2006

EPA Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) Air Markets Program Data

(AMPD) of power plant Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs) for all

states 2006, 2013

EPA/TCEQ Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) allocation estimates for

entire modeling domain 201 8

Electric Reliability Council of Texas , Capacity, Demand, and Reserve

report 201 4

U.S. Department of the Interior

, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

(BOEM) Gulf

- Wide Emissions Inventory (GWEI) of Offshore Platforms 2005 , 2008

EPA Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse (EMCH) Modeling Platform 2008 , 2018

2 December 7, 2011 DFW Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 Eight

- Hour Ozone Standard at
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/dfw_revisions.html

3 March 10, 2010 HGB Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 Eight

- Hour Ozone Standard at
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/HGB_eight_hour.html#AD

4 TCEQ prog ram to support local air quality planning for the ozone NAAQS at
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/airmod/rider8Sources of Data Calendar Year(s)

Used

Environment Canada Nat ional Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) 2006

Phase III Mexic o N ational Emissions Inventory and future case

projection 1999 , 2018

2.1 2006 Base Case Point Source Modeling Emissions Development

The following subsections describe development of the base case point source modeling emissions for all portions of the domain used for th e June 2006 and August

- September 2006 (AQS1) DFW modeling episode s

.

2.1.1. Texas Point Sources

For Texas point sources, ozone season da ily ( OSD ) emissions data from State of Texas Air Reporting System ( STARS ) and hourly emissions data from the EPA’s Air Markets Program

Data ( AMPD ) provided the basis for modeling the 2006 base case episode. Additionally, the supplemental “extra olefins” file was used from previous SIP Revisions to accoun t for reconciled highly reactive volatile organic compound ( HRVOC ) emissions in the HGB area

. HRVOC include ethylene, propylene, 1, 3

- butadiene, and all isomers of butene. The e pisode

- specific survey results of HGB floating roof tank landing losses (TLL) we re used to develop files of hourly emissions for the 2006 episode. The following subsections describe the development of modeling emissions for each of these components.

2.1.1.1. State of Texas Air Reporting System (STARS)

Point source emissions and industrial proc ess operating data are collected annually from sites that meet the reporting requirements of 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §101.10. Subject entities are required to report levels of emissions subject to regulation from all emissions

generating units a nd emissions points, and also must provide representative samples of

calculations used to estimate the emissions. Descriptive information is also required on process equipment, including operating schedules, emission control devices, abatement device contr ol efficiencies, and emission point discharge parameters such as location, height, diameter, temperature, and exhaust gas flow rate. All data submitted in the annual emissions inventory questionnaires ( EIQ ) are subjected to TCEQ quality assurance (QA) proc edures. The data are

then stored in the STARS database. The TCEQ reports point source emissions data to the EPA for inclusion in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI).

Annually, the TCEQ collects emissions information from approximately 2000 major point

s ources. In nonattainment areas, major point sources are defined for inventory reporting purposes as industrial, commercial, or institutional sources that emit actual levels of criteria pollutants at or above the following amounts: 10 tons per year ( tpy ) of volatile organic compound ( VOC ) ; 25 tpy of nitrogen oxides ( NO X ) ; or 100 tpy of any of the other criteria pollutants including carbon monoxide ( CO )

, sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 )

, 10

- micron threshold particulate matter ( PM 10 ), or lead (Pb)

. For the attainment areas of the state, any company that emits a minimum of 100 tpy of any criteria pollutant must submit an inventory. Additionally, any source that either generates or has the potential to generate at least 10 tpy of any single
Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) or 25 tpy of aggregate HAPs is required to report emissions to
the TCEQ. The reporting requirements, guidance documents, trends, and summaries of the most recently quality assured year of reported data can be found on the TCEQ Point Source Emissions Inventory website

at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/industei/psei/psei.h tml

.Development of the Texas point source emission modeling files beg an with queries of the quality

- assured data of the STARS database. Updated modeling query reports are typically run when significant STARS updates are completed. The STARS modeling extract report (“STARS
extract”) is simply a snapshot of Texas emissions

, since emissions from previous years can be updated by the regulated entities.

SAS computer programming code was written, updated, and/or modified to parse the STAR S extract, perform various logical checks and comparisons, assign defaults for missing data, appl y rule effectiveness to VOC paths with control devices, and format the data into an AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS) file that can be processed with the modules o f EPS3.

The STARS extract contains four types of emission rates : annual, OSD, emission events (EE), and scheduled maintenance startup and shutdown (SMSS). When supplied, the OSD emissions in tons per day (tpd) are modeled, plus any EE/SMSS for the source ( after conversion to tpd). When OSD is not provided by the source, an OSD is computed from the reported summer use percentage of the source and the other reported operational parameters of the source, plus any reported EE/SMSS for the source

. The modeled OS D emission rate is representative of average daily emissions during the summer. For 2006, the ozone season for emission inventory ( EI )

reporting purposes is June through August. This is generally the time of the year that monitored

ozone concentrations are highest. A n example of STARS extract data is available in the March

2010 HGB SIP Appendix B, Section 2.1.1

.

2.1.1.2. Rule Effectiveness (RE)

The TCEQ continue to apply RE to the STARS VOC emissions where appropriate

, as a legacy procedure. The purpose is to account for the possibility that not all facilities covered by a rule are in compliance with the rule 100% of the time and that control equipment does not always operate at its assumed control efficiency. A dditional details about rule effectiveness and how it is applied by the TCEQ are described in previous SIP documentation.

2.1.1.3. Preparation of AFS File for EPS3 Input

The resultant OSD AFS file is in a format ready for input to EPS3. The STARS

- derived AFS file for all criteria pollutants typically has more than 200,000 records. Each point source emissions path contains references for the TCEQ account (RN), equipment (FIN), and exhaust point
(EPN). For ozone modeling purposes, values for the ozone precursors of NO X , VOC, and CO are

retained in the AFS file for EP S3 input. A n example AFS record with explanations, specific QA steps, and file naming conventions can be found in previous SIP documentation

. The AFS file

format used by the TCEQ for this modeling , including field descriptions and options

, which is an

expa nsion of the standard EPS3 AFS format, can be found on the TCEQ FTP modeling webpage

, ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/TX/ei/basecase/point/AFS/AFS

- EPS3

- v3.docx

.

2.1.1.4. Pre paration of Photochemical Model

- Ready Files w ith EPS3

EPS3 is used to process the emi ssions in the AFS file into a format ready for photochemical model input. Photochemical model inputs require that the emissions be ( in EPS3 order performed by the TCEQ ) :

• chemically speciated into groups of compounds with similar reactivity for the formatio n of

ozone;

• temporally allocated by hour of day, day of week, etc.; and

• spatially allocated to grid cells or assigned to fixed points.The EPS3 User’s Guide 5 provides additional details for processing the point source emissions for
photochemical model inpu t

. The remainder of this section discusses some of the specific point source emissions processing procedures. E xcerpts of the data, which provide a better visual understanding of the processes, can be found in previous SIP documentation

.

2.1.1.4.1. Chemical Speciatio n with EPS3

VOC e missions in STARS can be reported as individual compounds, mixtures, classes of compounds, total VOC, and unclassified VOC. The VOC values that are included in the AFS file are speciated into carbon bond groups of similar ozone reactivity that will be recognized by the specific chemical mechanism of the photochemical model. For operational efficiency, most photochemical modeling studies are not based on separate algorithms for each individual

reaction

. Instead, for SIP modeling purposes, gr oups of compounds with similar reactivity for the formation of ozone are grouped together and input into the photochemical model. The TCEQ

used the CB 6 “lumped” chemical mechanism , implemented via EPS3 module SPCEMS

.

The majority of TCEQ EIQ responses include constituent VOC emission rates , which are used to develop point

- specific speciation profiles. When the composition of the VOC reported for a specific source is unknown or not fully

- speciated, the default speciation profile is applied based

on the s ource classification code (SCC) and the default speciation from EPA’s SPECIATE 6

database software program

. More detail on the TCEQ source

- specific speciation approach is

available in previous SIP documentation and in a n international emission inventory conference

paper 7

.

E thane and a cetone, which are technically not VOCs by EPA’s definition, are also extracted from STARS and processed in the emissions model, and are subjected to the same speciation as all of the other STARS compounds. Ethane

, a cetone and VO C are now included in VOC totals in tables

and tile plots in subsections below, because the photochemica l model can use these compounds as CB6 lumped specie s categories of their own. This is a new procedure for TCEQ that was brought about by CB6 implementa tion. Because ethane and acetone are additive to the VOC, the modeled and tabulated VOC will almost always be greater than reported (STARS) VOC. The Tank Landing Losses and Extra Olefins datasets were created prior to this new procedure, so

those d atasets do not include ethane or acetone.

2.1.1.4.2. Temporal Allocation with EPS3

Even though OSD is typically used for processing of photochemical modeling emissions, EPS3 can temporally distribute emissions by month, day of the week , and hour of a specific episode

when sufficient detail is provided in the EIQ. P revious SIP documentation provides detail about temporal allocation, along with examples of the cross reference and profile records.

2.1.1.4.3. Spatial Allocation with EPS3

Photochemical models generally rely on a three

- dime nsional Eulerian system in which emissions are allocated to individual grid cells. Emissions occur at or near the surface for most

5 Wri tten and updated by Environ to accompany their software. The TCEQ posts a courtesy copy at
ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/TX/ei/basecase/point/eps3/EPS 3UG_UserGuide_200908.pdf

6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/speciate/

7 Thomas, et al, Emissions Modeling of Specific Highly

- Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds (HRVOC)

in the Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area, EPA

- sponsored 17 th Annual International Emission Inventory Conference, Portland, Oregon, June 200 8. Paper: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei17/session6/thomas.pdf

Presentation: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei17/session6/thomas_pres.pdfsource categories such as area, biogenic, some on

- road mobile , and some non

- road mobile , and

are classified as low

- level , bei ng released at the same time, mixed throughout the grid cell

. Numerous point sources also fall into the low

- level source category, but large combustion

sources

, such as power plants

, are categorized as elevated sources, because their hot exhaust

gases can rise several hundred meters into the atmosphere.

Low

- level point sources are allocated to grid cells and merged with the other low

- level source categories prior to photochemical model input. Whereas, e levated point sources are kept at their reported X

- Y lo cations and assumed to emit from the calculated effective plume height of Z to better simulate physical mixing in the elevated layers of the photochemical model. As with other advanced emissions processors, EPS3 processing of point source emissions is divi ded into low

level and elevated streams , which provides better simulation of how elevated emissions are distributed prior to mixing and reacting with surface emissions

. T he drawbacks of using the dual
regimes are more complicated EPS3 processing and longer photochemical model run times.

The photochemical model inputs for point sources consist of a single low

- level gridded merged file and a single file of elevated sources. A plume cutoff height of 30 meters was chosen to divide the point sources into low

- lev el and elevated categories. The emissions from elevated sources can be individually tracked, and NO X reaction chemistry can be enhanced by treating these plumes as Lagrangian puffs by use of the optional Plume

- in

- Grid (PiG) treatment. The TCEQ

uses the Gre atly Reduced Execution and Simplified Dynamics (GREASD) PiG option 8 in CAMx, which is most applicable to large NO X plumes. More detail on the GREASD PiG approach is provided below in Section 2.1.3

.

Figure 2

- 1 : Tile Plot of DFW 10

- County OSD Non

- EGU Low

- Level NO X Emissions for June 1,

2006 is a tile plot of the low

- level OSD (non

- EGU) NO X emissions for the DFW t en c ounty area at the 4 km by 4 km grid cell resolution. The specific day of the episode is irrelevant for OSD

emissions, because each modeled day of OSD emissions is identical. Figure 2

- 2 : Tile Plot of

DFW 10

- County OSD Non

- EGU Elevated NO X Emissions for June 1, 2006 is a plot of the
elevated OSD (non

- EGU) NO X emissions for the DFW 10

- County area

. Note that a vast majority

of the NO X emissions are from elevated sources (mainly combustion with hot exit gas and taller
stacks). Also note that the diurnal profiles of the OSD sources are generally flat (don’t vary across the day) on average, indicating t hat the non

- EGUs are dominated by sources that operate continuously

.

8 See Environ’s CAMx User’s Guide at http://www.camx.com/download/default.aspxFigure 2

- 1 : Tile Plot of DFW 10

- County OSD Non

- EGU Low

- Level NO X Emissions

for June 1, 2006Figure 2

- 2 : Tile Plot of DFW 10

- County OSD Non

- EGU Elevated NO X Emissions for

June 1, 20062.1.1.5. Hourly Air Markets Program Data (AMP D )

To enhance emissions accuracy for the base case

, the TCEQ increases temporal resolution by replacing some of the daily OSD emission records with as much monthly, daily, or hourly data 9

as available. For the e lectrical generating units (EGU ) in the state, hourly records from the

EPA’s AMP D database are substituted for the STARS OSD records

. “ AMP D ” refers to EGU (a.k.a. power plants) emissions in which a continuous emission monitoring (CEM) system must

be used to record and store emissions data

. “ AMPD ” is an updated database name for what
TCEQ ha s previously referred to as “ Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) ” data or “ Acid Rain
Data (ARD). ” This substitution occurs simultaneously removing the AMPD source from the OSD files while adding hourly records for the source to the AMPD file, to avoid any double counting

of emissions.

Under the Clean Air Act’s Acid Rai n Program and the other budget/cap programs for EGUs,

each unit re ports its emissions of SO 2 , NO X , and CO 2 , along with other parameters such as heat

input

. The EPA quality assures the raw hourly data and provides datasets and a query wizard on

the AMPD web site 10 for downloading the data. Missing or invalid hourly data that arise from
CEM equipment problems are generated by the EPA using specific substitution criteria. Thus,

EGU

- reported data (such as input to STARS or the NEI) do not always match that from E PA’s

AMPD

.

Hourly data were downloaded from EPA’s AMPD website for Texas and the rest of the country for the 2006 episode s

. The AMP D database uniquely identifies point sources by FACILITY

ID/ ORIS (Office of Research Information Systems) number and UNIT ID/ BLRID (boiler

identification )

. FACILITY ID/ ORIS identifies the site and UNIT ID/ BRLID specifies the source (piece of equipment generating the emissions, not to be confused with the stack, which is the exit point of the emissions to the atmosphere) within t he site. The TCEQ maintains an internal

cross reference that links the FACILITY ID and UNIT ID emissions data to a NEI and STARS

FIPS /plant/stack/point emissions “path” which provides location, stack, and other parameters needed to model the point source. C orresponding hourly VOC and CO records for sources matched with the cross reference were generated using their VOC

- to

- NO X and CO

- to

- NO X ratios. This was still the procedure for the 2006 work. In later work for this SIP , the TCEQ upgraded this procedure by basing the hourly VOC and CO emissions on the hourly heat input instead of the hourly NO X emissions. AFS files with “A RD ” in the name contain the se hourly

emission records , although in later work, the designation has been changed to “AMP” to more

accurate ly reflect the data source

. Previous SIP documentation describes

, in more detail, with examples, how ARD/ AMPD point sources are converted to hourly AFS emissions records.

Figure 2

- 3 : Tile Plot of DFW 10

- County AMPD EGU NO X Emissions for June 6, 2006 is a tile plot of AMPD NO X emissions of the 10

- County DFW area for June 6, 2006

. The tile plot is used to graphically QA the modeled emissions. Reported on the t ile plots are t he emissions totals by county in the lower left hand corner and the

corresponding total diurnal profile of the sources in the lower right corner of the graphic. The colored/shaded tiles represent the quantity of emissions within that grid c ell. A colored/shaded

9 Thomas, et al, Development of an Hourly Modeling Emissions Inventory from Several Sources of
Regulatory Speciated Hourly Data for the Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area, EPA

sponsored 17 th Annual International Emission Inventory Conference, Portland , Oregon, June 2008.

Poster Presentation: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei17/poster/thomas.pdf

10 http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/tile represents the AMPD EGU NO X tons for a modeled day’s 4 km

- by

- 4 km grid cell within the

10

- County DFW area.

Figure 2

- 4 : Tile Plot of DFW 10

- County AMPD EGU NO X Emissions for June 14, 2006 is a tile plot similar to Figure 2

- 1 , except that it represents a day in the June episode that has few er EGU

emissions. Note that the tabulated June 14 NO X emissions are approximately 1.5 tons lower than

the June 6 NO X emissions for the 10

- County EGUs. Also note from the diurnal profile that the maximum hourly emissions total for June 14 occurs during the hour beginning at 3:00 PM at a level of approximately 0.52 tons per hour. Whereas, the diurnal profile for June 6 has a lower

low NO X tons per hour and a higher high NO X tons per hour, with the maximum (approximately 0.75 tons per hour) shifted to the 4:00 PM hour. The comparison of Figure 2

- 3 and Figure 2

- 4
point s out the variability of the overall DFW EGU emissions, even within the same month.

Figure 2

- 5: Tile Plot of Texas AMPD EGU NO X Emissions for August 31, 2006 is a tile plot of the

entire AMPD NO X emissions for August 31, 2006, during the AQS1 episode. This day is one of the days that recorded some of the highest ozone at most of the DFW area monitors. Note that to

cov er the entire state, Figure 2

- 3 grid cell size is 12 km. Also note that the baseload (run almost continuously) EGUs in the remainder of Texas flatten out the diurnal profile a bit compared to the peaking or intermediate units in the DFW area.Figure 2

- 3 : Tile Plot of DFW 10

- County AMPD EGU NO X Emissions for June 6,

2006Figure 2

- 4 : Tile Plot of DFW 10

- County AMPD EGU NO X Emissions for June 14,

2006Figure 2

- 5 : Tile Plot of Texas AMPD EGU NO X Emissions for August 31, 20062.1.1.6. 2006 Tank Landing Loss (TLL) Survey in HGB

As a result of a Texas Air Quality Study II (TexAQS II) remote sensing VOC project in July 2005, large storage tanks in specific service (e.g., tanks

- for

- hire at terminal facilities and crude oil breakout stations) in the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) area were found to be landing their floating roofs (internal an d external) on the tank legs and not reporting those vapor space losses. As a result, a TCEQ Chapter 115 rule was written that limits the number of permissible

“ convenience ” roof landings , and additional VOC emissions from special inventory surveys specifi c for these events were added to the sources that replied to the survey

. A dditional details

about the under

- reported VOC emissions and data development for modeling are in the March

2010 HGB SIP Appendix B, Section 2.1.1.7

.

Figure 2

- 6 : Tile Plot for HGB Tank Landing Loss Surveys for a Representative Summer Day in

2006 in 2006 is a tile plot of a representative day of the TLL that was added to HGB

. Note the

diurnal varia tion of these emissions.Figure 2

- 6 : Tile Plot for HGB Tank Landing Loss S urveys for a R epresentative

Summer D ay in 20062.1.1.7. Emissions Inventory Reconciliation in HGB (aka, HRVOC Reconciliation, Extra
Olefins)

EI Reconciliation is the process by which the reported EI is adjusted so that modeled emissions more closely match the concentrations measured at monitors during the episodes. TexAQS II
confirmed the need for this, as TexAQS 2000 first affirmed. VOC, and e specially HRVOC,

continue to be under

- reported in the annual EIQs, according to monitors and aircraft

measurements. In previous SIP revisions, as with this SIP revision, the TCEQ generated a day

specific “extra olefins” file to add to each episode day of t he modeling EI in HGB to account for

the under

- reporting. Rather than placing the reconciled extra emissions at the locations of existing point sources, the TCEQ placed a single pseudo point in each affected modeling cell

, and assigned an emission rate for each HRVOC to best offset the difference between modeled

and calculated concentrations , according to the Potential Source Contribution Function (PSCF)

. This same file was modeled unchanged. A dditional details about the under

- reported HR VOC

emissions , the PSCF technique, and data development for modeling are in the March 2010 HGB

SIP Appendix B, Section 2.1.1. 9

.

Figure 2

- 7

: Tile Plot of HGB HRVOC Reconciliation Emissions for a Representative Summer Day in 2006 is a tile plot of modeled VOC representing the HRVOC reconciliation (PSCFv3)

.Figure 2

- 7 : Tile Plot of HGB HRVOC Reconciliation Emissions for a Representative

Summ er Day in 20062.1.2. Regional (Outside of Texas) Point Sources

This section and its subsections discuss the point source modeling emissions development for all

areas outside of Texas within the modeled CAMx domain. The modeled Regional area includes

the following parts:

• Continental U.S. A. outside of Texas ;

• Offshore (Gulf of Mexico);

• Mexico; and

• Canada.

2.1.2.1. Continental USA Outside of Texas

, non

- EGU NEI

The 2006 EI for states outside of Texas were developed from EPA’s 2008 NEI based Modeling

Platform. The TCEQ downloaded the annual emissions inventory data 11 from the EPA Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse (EMCH) in the Flat File 2010 (FF10) format, a format suitable for Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) processing. To be consistent

with the area sour ce data modeled , the 2008 data were used without back

- casting to 2006. The

2008 NEI was used as an upgrade from the 2005 NEI, because the 2008 NEI touted to be a more thorough and detailed inventory than the 2005. Records for certain SCC s , for rail and

air ports, were removed to avoid duplicating emissions with area source categories. An AFS

formatted file

, including all necessary and relevant modeling parameters

, was produced for EPS3 processing. The associated temporal allocation file for SMOKE was convert ed to create the daily temporal distribution. A June day was selected to represent a typical ozone season day.

Details on AFS file creation from the NEI

- based data, including QA, speciation

, and temporal allocation, are described in previous SIP documentat ion

.

2.1.2.2. States Outside of Texas, Hourly AMPD Substitution for EGUs

The TCEQ replaced the original emission records with hourly records for all the AMPD EGUs in all states outside of Texas by matching the AMPD identifiers, ORIS and Unit ID. The T CEQ

maintains a ( ORIS and Unit ID keyed) cross reference that links the 2008

- based NEI to the

AMPD data.

Location and stack parameters, obtained from the NEI are appended to the AMPD point

sources. All AMPD points in the adjacent states of Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklah oma are cross referenced; thus, AMPD emissions in these states are accurately placed for the model. Corresponding hourly VOC and CO records for EGUs matched with the cross reference were generated using their VOC

- to

- NO X and CO

- to

- NO X ratios.

AMPD NO X emiss ions for the EGUs of the adjacent states for a specific episode day modeled in

2006 are shown in Figure 2

- 8 : Tile Plot of AMPD EGU NO X Emissions for the Adjacent States

for June 14, 2006

. This is a tile plot of the 12 km by 12 km grid cell domain with Texas in the

center. Note that the emissions summary in this tile plot is for the entire 12 km domain, minus

Texas. AMPD NO X emissions for the EGUs of the continental USA outside of Texas for the same specific modeled episode day are shown in Figure 2

- 9 : Tile Plot of AMPD EGU NO X Emissions for the USA (outside of Texas) for June 14, 2006

. This is a tile plot of the 36 km grid cell domain.

11 The TCEQ extracted the “CAP_BAFM_2008NEI_v2_POINT_20120202_09feb2012_v1” annual

emissions data file, which does not in clude Integrated Planning Model (IPM), or EGU, unitsFigure 2

- 8 : Tile Plot of AMPD EGU NO X Emissions for the Adjacent States for June

14, 2006Figure 2

- 9 : Tile Plot of AMPD EGU NO X Emissions for th e USA (outside of Texas)

for June 14, 20062.1.2.3. Offshore Point Sources

T he TCEQ obtained the 2005 Gulf

- Wide Emissions Inventory ( GWEI ) , developed by Eastern Research Group (ERG) under contract to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)

. These are the same data modeled and documented in the two previous SIP revisions. The report and data are divided into two parts

, oil and gas explor ation and production platform (point)

sources

, and non

- platform (area) sources. The TCEQ obtained the 2005 GWEI data and

documentation from BOEM 12

. Previous SIP documentation discusses the formatting of the data, QA, justification for using June 2005 as representative data, and creation of temporal profiles.

The offshore emissions are illustrated in Figure 2

- 10 : Tile Plot of Offshore Platform NO X Emissions for a Representative June day of 2005

.

12 in Microsoft Access (zipped) and PDF format, respectively

. These can be downloaded from the BOEM
webpage, http://www.boem.gov/Environmental

- Stewardship/Environmental

- Studies/Gulf

- of

- Mexico

Region/Air

- Quality/2005

- Gulfwide

- Emission

- Inventory.aspxFigure 2

- 10 : Tile Plot of Offshore Platform NO X Emissions for a Representative June day of 20052.1.2.4. Mexican Point Sources

The TCEQ used the data from Phase III of the 1999 Mexico NEI , which is the most current data used by EPA and the regional planning organizations ( RPO )

. These are the same data modeled and documented in the two previous SIP revisions. The TCEQ downloaded the NIF format

versions of the files from the EPA North American Emissions Inventory webpage
( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/mexico.html ) and parsed the files into AFS files.

The 1999 data w ere used for the 2006 episode without growth because there is no information on growth and controls for Mexican point sources. No temporal allocation or speciation data

were available, so defaults were used. A tile plot of the Mexican OSD NO X emissio n

s of Ph a se III of the 1999 Mexico NEI for a representative OSD is provided as Figure 2

- 11 : Tile Plot of Mexican

NEI NO X Emissions for a Day in 1999

.Figure 2

- 11 : Tile Plot of Mexican NEI NO X Emissions for a Day in 19992.1.2.5. Canadian Point Sources

The TCEQ obtained 2006 point source emissions from the Canadian National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI)

. These data ar e the first upgrade to the Canadian emissions since the last

three SIP revisions. Th e data w ere provided to the TCEQ in the one

- record

- per

- line (ORL)

format by s taff at Environment Canada

. The VOC emissions were developed for the CB05

chemical mechanism. T he TCEQ converted the files to AFS records for further processing with

EPS3. No temporal allocation or speciation data were available, so defaults were used. The NO X emissions for this dataset are illustrated in Figure 2

- 12 : Tile Plot of Canadian NPRI NO X Emissions for a Day in 2006

.Figure 2

- 12 : Tile Plot of Canadian NPRI NO X Emissions for a Day in 20062.1.3. Plume

- in

- Grid (P iG) Source Selection

CAMx provides the option to model selected point sources with a PiG algorithm. NO X reaction chemistry is enhanced by treating these selected point source plumes as Lagrangian puffs. The
TCEQ use s the GREASD PiG option in CAMx, which is most applicable to large NO X plumes.

T he GREASD PiG option was used for all point sources that met the criteria in Table 2

- 2 : Summary of PiG Thresholds Chosen

.

Table 2

- 2 : Summary of PiG Thresholds Chosen

Modeled Area NO X Threshold ( tpd )

Texas 5.0

Adjacent States (LA, AR, OK) & Mexico 7.5

Next ring of States (MS, etc

. ) 10.0

Next distant ring of States (AL, etc

. ) 15.0

Other States, Canada & Offshore 25.0

The NO X threshold of 5.0 t pd in Texas denotes that any individual stack or co

- located group of nearby stacks that total ed 5.0 or more t pd of NO X emissions on an episode day were tracked as a

PiG source. I f multiple stacks were close enough together for their plumes to merge (within 200 meters of each other), and the aggregate NO X emission rate for the cluster exceeded the

threshold value, a new so urce was created with the combined NO X emission rate of the cluster, and this source was flagged for PiG treatment. The stack parameters of the new source became an average of the stack parameters of all of the sources in the cluster. The TCEQ modeled both

individual PiGs and combined PiGs within each of the modeled areas of Table 2

- 2

. The EPS3 module, PiGEMS, provides a summary of the PiG treatment

. There were a total of 25 8 PiG

sources chosen for the entire domain, 2 00 of which are co

- located combined new stacks.

2.1.4. Summary of June 2006 Base Case Point Source s Snapshots of the point source emission files processed with EPS3 for CAMx in each episode are presented in Table 2

- 3 : Base Case AFS File s for the DFW June 2006 Episode and Table 2

- 4 :
Base Case AFS Files for the DFW AQS1 Aug 15

- Sep 15, 2006 Episode

. As discussed earlier, the

A M PD files may be referred to as ARD or CAMD in file name conventions. The version number on each dataset indicates a change from the previous version (e.g., “v8”)

. T he regional AFS file for the GWEI contains monthly emissions for June only and the regional AFS file for Canadian

emissions contains annual emissions. The FTP dow nload web site for these files ( or their

successors ) is ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/TX/ei/basecase/point

.

Table 2

- 3 : Base Case AFS File s for the DFW June 2006 Episode

Area AFS Point Source Emissions File Hourly Daily Special

Texas afs.osd_2006_with_ards_removed_CB06_RPOlcp_v3 X

Texas afs.ard_TX_29may_thru_02jul2006_RPOlcp X

Texas afs.aggVOC_extra_alkenes_for_2006_lcpRPO.v3 X

Texas afs.landing_losses_3Q06_aver_day_episode_lcpRPO.v1 X

Regional afs.2008NEIv2_noTX_noIPM_noRail_noAirport X

Regional afs.ard_USA_29may_thru_02jul2006_RPOlcp X

Regional afs.gwei.2005.4pol.lcpRPO Monthly

Regional afs.Mexico_from_phaseIII_1999NEI_4pols.RPOlcp XArea AFS Point Source Emissions File Hourly Daily Special

Regional afs.canada_2006_all_pols.RPOlcp Annual

Table 2

- 4 : Base Case AFS File s for the DFW AQS1 Aug 15

- Sep 15, 2006 Episode

Area AFS Point Source Emissions File Hourly Daily Special

Texas afs.osd_2006_with_ards_removed_CB06_RPOlcp_v3 X

Texas afs.ard_TX_15aug_thru_15sep2006_RPOlcp X

Texas afs.aggVOC_extra_alkenes_for_2006_lcpRPO.v3 X

Texas afs.landing_losses_3Q06_aver_day_episode_lcpRPO.v1 X

Regional afs.2008NEIv2_noTX_noIPM_noRail_noAirport X

Regional afs.ard_USA_15aug_thru_15sep2006_RPOlcp X

Regional afs.gwei.2005.4pol.lcpRPO Monthly

Regional afs.Mexico_from_phaseIII_1999NEI_4pols.RPOlcp X

Regional afs.canada_2006_all_pols.RPOlcp Annual

The TCEQ chose the second Wednesday of the June 2006 episode as a representative day for

reporting base case emissions totals

. Table 2

- 5 : 2006 DFW Base Case Episode Day (June 14,
2006) Emissions Summary sum marizes emissions for that day.

Table 2

- 5 : 2006 DFW Base Case Episode Day (June 14, 2006) Emissions Summary

Emissions Source DFW

NO X (tpd) DFW

VOC

(tpd) TX minus

DFW

NO X (tpd) TX minus

DFW

VOC (tpd) U.S. minus

TX NO X

(tpd) U.S. minus

TX VOC

(tpd)

Non

- EGUs (OSD) 48.0 49.5 704.5 569.0 4538.8 2457.5

EGUs (ARD) 8.4 1.0 513

. 7 15.4 7144.3 82.2

Tank Landing Losses 6. 5

HRVOC Reconciliation 19. 3

2.2 20 06 Baseline Point Source Modeling E missions Development

The 2006 point source emissions used in the base case are specific to individual days and hours,

for the AMPD EGU portion of the EI. For the baseline case, the TCEQ created files that represent a typical ozone season (summer) day in 2006. The subsections that foll ow discuss how

the baseline emissions differ from the base case.

2.2.1. Texas Point Sources

2.2.1.1. Ozone Season Daily (OSD)

The OSD point source emissions for the typical 2006 baseline day are the same as the 2006 base case OSD emissions, as these are the average OSD em issions extracted from STARS

.

Table 2

- 6 : 2006 Baseline OSD Emissions in Texas shows the modeled ozone precursor 2006 baseline totals for point sources in the DFW 10

- Co unty nonattainment area (NAA), HGB , and

the rest of Texas

.Table 2

- 6 : 2006 Baseline OSD Emissions in Texas

Area NO X #points NO X tpd VOC

#points VOC

tpd

DFW 1,427 41.6 7 4, 421 42.83

HGB 4,628 125. 42 24,150 206.37

Rest of TX 8,893 584.49 27,046 369.21

The “#points” entry in Table 2

- 6 is the total number of point sources in that area. Emissions

were summed within the area to give the area emissions total. The TCEQ typically eliminates zero emissions records, and the EPS3 p rocessor drop s VOC records with zero emissions because they do not have a speciation cross reference.

2.2.1.2. Hourly AMPD Point Sources

To develop an AMPD EGU baseline, the TCEQ averaged the AMPD NO X for each hour of the day

for each unit for four months of 2006 t o cover the two episodes ( Ju ne 1 through September 30). These data records represent the typical ozone season day that maintains the temporal profile of

the individual units. Corresponding hourly average CO and VOC emissions were calculated from

STARS OSD, stack

- specific emissions by multiplying CO: NO X and VOC: NO X ratios by the hourly NO X rate for each AMPD unit.

2.2.1.3. Tank Landing Loss (TLL) Survey

The 2006 baseline for floating roof TLL surveys in HGB was calculated as the average of the hourly emissions for each tank point source of the survey for the third quarter modeled episode days of 2006

. This average was used for both the base case and baseline modeling. D etails about

these sources are available in previous SIP documentation , namely the March 2010 HGB SIP Appendix B, Section 2.2.1. 4

.

2.2.1.4. Emissions Inventory Reconciliation in HGB (aka, HRVOC Reconciliation, Extra

Olefins )

T he 2006 HRVOC Reconciliation emissions remain unch anged from the 2006 base case

.

2.2.2. Outside Texas

2.2.2.1. States Outside of Texas

, Non

- EGU NEI

For the states outside of Texas, the TCEQ used the same 2008 NEI

- based non

- EGU file generated for the base case. A typical June day was already being used in the base case for the

non

- EGUs (NEGU )

. Table 2

- 7

: 2006 Baseline Emissions Summary for Non

- AMPD Points

Outside of Texas summarizes the non

- AMPD emissions for the 2006 baseline

.

Table 2

- 7 : 2006 Baseline Emissions Summary for Non

- AMPD Points Outside of

Texas

STATE NO X tpd VOC tpd

Arkansas 94.11 73.98

Louisiana 391.31 183.45

Oklahoma 171.66 66.89

Other States , outside Texas 4346.26 2323.332.2.2.2. States Outside of Texas , EGUs

T he 2006 baseline for the AMPD sources of the other states is a calculated typical summer day

with hourly emissions that are the average for each Acid Rain point source for the four months of 2006 to cover the two episodes (J une 1 through S eptember 30). VOC and CO emissions for each hour of the typical summer day come from the hourly NO X emissions and the VOC: NO X and CO: NO X ratios, computed from the daily emissions data for each AMPD point.

2.2.2.3. Offshore, Mexico , and Canada

The Offshore 2005 GWEI, the 1999 Mexican NEI, and the 1995 Canadian baseline point source files are the same as the base case files, since they are already being modeled as an average day.

2.2.3. Summar y of 2006 Baseline Point Sources

T he point source emission files that were proc essed with EPS3 for CAMx for the baseline (typical summe r day) are presented in Table 2

- 8 : AFS Files for the 2006 Baseline

. T he regional AFS file for the GWEI contains monthly emissions for June only and the regional AFS file for

Canadian emissions contains annual emissions. The version number on each dataset ind icates a change from the previous version (e.g., “v2”). As discussed earlier, the AM PD files may be

referred to as ARD or CAMD in file name conventions. The FTP download web site for the point

source files or their successors is ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/TX/ei/baseline/point

.

Table 2

- 8 : AFS Files for the 2006 Baseline

Area AFS Point Source Emissions File Hourly Daily Special

TEXAS afs.ard_JUN2SEP_2006_CAIR_avg_day_all_pols_RPOlcp X

TEXAS afs.osd_2006_with_ards_removed_CB06_RPOlcp_v3 X

TEXAS afs.landing_losses_3Q06_aver_day_episode_lcpRPO.v1 X

TEXAS afs.aggVOC_extra_alkenes_for_2006_lcpRPO.v3 X

REGIONAL afs.ard_usa_episode_minus_texas_JUN2SEP_2006_RPOlcp X

REGIONAL afs.2008NEIv2_noTX_noIPM_noRail_noAirport X

REGIONAL afs.gwei.2005.4pol.lcpRPO Monthly

REGIONAL afs.Mexico_from_phaseIII_1999NEI_4pols.RPOlcp X

REGIONAL afs.canada_2006_all_pols.RPOlcp Annual

Table 2

- 9 : 2006 Baseline Point Source Emissions Summary summarizes the baseline emissions.

These tabulated emissions are AFS totals input to EPS3

. CAMx input values may differ.

Table 2

- 9 : 2006 Baselin e Point Source Emissions Summary

Emission Source DFW

NO X (tpd) DFW

VOC

(tpd) TX minus

DFW

NO X (tpd) TX minus

DFW

VOC (tpd) U

. S

. minus

TX NO X

(tpd) U

. S

. minus

TX VOC

(tpd)

NEGUs (OSD) 48.0 49.5 704.5 562.2 4538.8 2457.5

EGUs (ARD) 9.6 1.0 534.7 21.7 7757.3 88.3Emission Source DFW

NO X (tpd) DFW

VOC

(tpd) TX minus

DFW

NO X (tpd) TX minus

DFW

VOC (tpd) U

. S

. minus

TX NO X

(tpd) U

. S

. minus

TX VOC

(tpd)

Tank Landing Losses 6.5

HRVOC

Reconciliation 19.3

Below in Table 2

- 10 : DFW10

- County EGU emissions for the 2006 Baseline , is a summary of the

10

- County Baseline EGU emissions for the 2006 Episodes.

Table 2

- 10 : DFW10

- County EGU emissions for the 2006 Baseline

Owner/ Sitename County NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) PM

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd)

FPLE Forney Electric Kaufman 3.48 0.01 0.23 0.75 0.07 0.00

Midlothian Energy Ellis 1.23 0.28 1.30 0.74 0.06 0.02

Luminant Lake Ray

Hubbard Dallas 0.85 0.09 0.36 0.12 0.01 0.00

Garland Power Ray

Olinger Collin 0.76 0.07 0.68 0.08 0.01 0.00

Wise County Power

Plant Wise 0.76 0.19 0.20 0.08 0.03 0.08

Extex LaPorte

Mountain Creek Dallas 0.67 0.11 0.72 0.16 0.01 0.01

Luminant North Lake Dallas 0.56 0.03 0.18 0.03 0.00 0.00

Ennis Power Ellis 0.55 0.00 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.04

Extex LaPorte

Handley Tarrant 0.30 0.14 0.52 0.19 0.02 0.02

Brazos Electric

Johnson County Johnson 0.25 0.07 0.16 0.28 0.00 0.01

Garland Power

Spencer Denton 0.18 0.03 0.29 0.04 0.00 0.00

Garland Power

C.E.Newman Dallas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

DFW Area Electric

Utility Total - 9.63 1.03 4.77 2.61 0.22 0.18

2.3 2018 Future Year Point Source Modeling Emissions Development

This section describes the development of the 201 8 future year point source EI. The 2008 eight

hour ozone attainment date for the DFW nonattainment area

, classified as Moderate

, is
December 31, 201 8

. The modeled attainment year is 201 8

.

Many factors create the foundation for the future case point source EI prior to control s trategies and/or sensitivity analyses , including a starting point that we refer to as the “projection base”, emission credits in the bank for permit expansion offsets and compliance, economic projections,EGU expansions, newly

- permitted EGUs, shutdown EGUs, EGUs to be retired, existing

emissions controls , source caps, trading programs, other state measures, and other federal

measures,

The TCEQ use s the most complete and accurate emissions data available , wh en given enough

time and resources to complete a SIP revision

. This effort is most important for Texas emissions data, since the modeling results may provide a basis for future banking and trading

considerations , and the basis for many other determinations

. For this SIP revision

, the TCEQ

used the most current STARS and AMPD data sets available

– 201 2 and 201 3 , respectively

, -- from which to develop a future case EI

. These “projection base” years also become the baseline for emission credit generation.

The 2012/13 projection base emissions are projected into the future to develop 2018 future case

emissions

. All of the ozone precursor emissions are projected. The future case EI provides the basis to determine if attainment has been reached and is the starting point for any 2018 control
strategy testing and/or sensitivity analyses , if required.

In general, baseline emissions are projected , i.e. they are grown to the attainment year and on

the

- books controls (those that will be in place after the baseline year and prior to the attainment

year ) are applied. The on

- the

- books controls are controls for which enforceable emissions reductions rules have been written already; they are not additional proposed rules that result

from this SIP revision

. P roposed rules wou ld be modeled in a 201 8 control strategy EI or as part of Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) analyses.

This section of this appendix addresses the above issues

.

2.3.1. Regulation s and the Cap

- and

- Trade Programs

I n some instances, growth of future emissi ons is limited by regulation

. Prior to discussing growth and the development of emission files for specific categories and areas of the state , a description of the various regulations and trading programs is provided here, since they are

referenced in seve ral sections below

.

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) limits NO X and SO 2 emissions for affected power plants throughout Texas, as well as NO X emissions in certain states during ozone season. In the eight county HGB region , the Mass Emissions Cap and Trade program (MECT) limits NO X emissions for accounts in the program. In Harris County, HRVOC Emissions Cap and Trade (HECT) limits HRVOC emissions for certain point sources

. Besides MECT, HECT, and CAIR, there are other regul ations and agreements that affect certain NO X sources in the state, some of which have compliance dates between the projection base year(s) and the attainment year, but for most, the compliance date has already passed and are accurately modeled using the r eported projection base year(s) emissions. Again, the projection base years are 2013 for AMPD EGUs and 2012 for all other Texas point sources, and the attainment year is 2018.

2.3.1.1. Clean Air Interstate Rule Background

The EPA’s CAIR program limits NO X and SO 2 emissions for a ffected power plants in 27 eastern

states and the District of Columbia

. T he definition of an EGU for the CAIR program is approximately the same definition as that for a Federal Clean Air Act Title IV Acid Rain unit

, i.e., larger than 25 MW a nd more than one

- third of its generation going to the public grid for sale. CAIR is a cap

- and

- trade program, with each of the CAIR

- applicable states given calculated NO X and SO 2 budget s by the EPA. EPA ’ s modeling determined that Texas significantly contributed to the nonattainment of the particulate matter of 2.5 microns and less (PM 2.5 ) standard of twocounties in Illinois

. Texas was not included for eight

- hour ozone contribution. Thus, Texas is not part of the CAIR ozone season (May through Septemb er) NO X budget, only the annual NO X budget program. M ore details on CAIR are available on EPA’s “ CAIR for Texas ” webpage, http://www.epa.gov/cair/tx.html

.

CAIR is implemented in two phases

. F or NO X , Phase I covers the years 2009

- 2014 and Phase II

covers the years 2015 and later; for SO 2 , Phase I covers the years 2010

- 2014 and Phase II covers the years 2015 and later. Because 201 8 is the DFW ozone attainment year

, this DFW SIP
revision incorporates the stricter CAIR Phase II, which provides for a Texas state

- wide NO X budget of 150,845 tpy or 413 t p d. The CAIR allocations and past transactions for all relevant

states can be found at EPA’s Air Market Programs data query or prepackaged data

website, http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/

.

CAIR provides a NO X emissions cap for most AMPD EGUs in Texas (and other CAIR states). CAIR sources (i.e., piece s of equipment) at applicable sites are allocated a specific amount of allowances for each compliance year referred to as allocations

. The sum of each state’s

allocations of all CAIR sources equal s the EPA

- prescribed state ’s budget. At the end of each year

, each site with CAIR sources must have sufficient allowances to cover the total emissions from all its CAIR sources. Subject sources can purchase or sell allocated allowances ; their emissions in any year are not limited to their allocation for that year. The “reconciliation” of available allowances and annual emissions is done by EPA following the completion of the compliance year. Any allowances not needed for a compliance year can be banked and are available for the

site to use in future years. It should be noted that though the state budget is distributed to each subject source, compliance is a done at the site level. As CAIR is a cap

- and

- trade program, modeling each CAIR source solely at its assigned allocation would be inaccurate, because many

sources in Texas consistently operate above their CAIR allocation, while others are consistently below. In addition, some points in CAIR are in the HGB MECT program as well, which complicates the modeling of these sources. TCEQ accounts for the cap

- and

- trade aspec ts of CAIR and the overlap of CAIR and MECT sources, as described below in S ection 2.3.1.4

, Modeling the Cap

- and

- Trade Programs

.

2.3.1.2. Mass Emission Cap and Trade (MECT) Background

The MECT program provides NO X emission limits for applicable sources as specified in 30 TAC §101.351. The MECT program covers almost all pieces of NO X

- emitting equipment in HGB. Sites with these point sources comply with the source category emis sions limits via the cap

- and

- trade

method. The TCEQ allocates allowances to each point source (i.e., piece of equipment) at a site
(account, RN). Similar to the CAIR program, the MECT program also allows trading and banking of allowances. A key difference between the CAIR and MECT programs is that in the MECT program unused allowances can be banked only for one additional compliance year

, while in CAIR

, unused allowances can be banked indefinitely. To comply with the MECT program, each site in the MECT prog ram should have sufficient allowances to cover the total annual emissions from all its MECT sources. The TCEQ’s Emissions Banking and Trading (EBT) Team QCs the annual reports, submitted by subject sites, to verify that the site has allowances equivalent t o the total NO X emissions from the MECT points at the site. Similar to the CAIR program, in the MECT program though

, the MECT cap is distributed to each subject source (in
the form of annual allocations) , and compliance is a done at the site level. More de tail about the MECT program can be found in in the March 2010 HGB SIP Appendix B

.

The MECT cap, as of December 31, 2013 , was 40,176 tpy or 110 tpd. In previous SIPs, MECT sites were modeled at their future year allocations, regardless of their trading history. The fact that some MECT sites sell all or a portion of their allowances each year permanently via “streamtrades” or each year , gave TCEQ the impetus to model a more spatially

- realistic future case

distribution of MECT Source emissions , as describ ed below in S ection 2.3.1.4

.

2.3.1.3. HRVOC Emissions Cap and Trade (HECT) Background

The H RVOCs are ethylene, propylene, butadiene, and the butenes. The HECT program limit s HRVOC emissions discharged from applicable point sources in Harris County as specified in 30

TAC §101.391. The HECT program is a cap

- and

- trade program similar to the MECT program with compliance being handled by TCEQ’s EBT team. The HECT cap applies to HRVOC

. Commonly included sources are flares, non

- tank stacks, and cooling tower emissions

. However,

unlike the MECT program, the HECT cap is distributed by site (RN, account) via annual

allocations. The HECT cap, as of December 9, 2013, was 2590.3 tpy or 7 .1 tpd. See footnote 7 in

S ection 2.1.1.4.1 above for additional background, speciation procedures, and development of the HRVOCs and HECT program

.

HECT allowances were allocated to applicable sites in proportion to the site's level of activity,

determined from each site's selection of a twelve

- consecutive

- month baseline from 2000 through 2004. HECT sites were given the greater of 5.0 tons of HECT allowances or the allocation from the site, determined from using the equation listed in 30 TAC §101.394(a)(1)

. A dditional details of this Harris County control program are described in previous SIP

documentation.

2.3.1.4. Modeling the Cap

- and

- Trade Programs

The TCEQ administers fou r cap and trade programs in Texas : (1) the Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances program (also known as the SB7 program) for SO 2 and NO X emissions, (2) the MECT program for NO X emissions, (3) the HECT program for HRVOC emissions, and
(4) the CAIR pro gram for SO 2 and NO X emissions. The TCEQ models these cap and trade programs by limiting the future emissions of sources subject to these cap and trade programs to the appropriate program’s total future year cap. If multiple programs cover a set of sources , the
most stringent (smallest total cap) program is modeled. Three cap and trade programs were used to limit future year emissions for select sources in Texas : MECT, HECT

, and CAIR. The SB7 program, which affects EGUs, is not modeled as it is less stringe nt than CAIR Phase . T he

t hree cap and trade programs used to model future year NO X and HRVOC emissions are summarized in Table 2

- 11 : Texas Cap

- and

- Trade Program Summary

. SO 2 is not a modeled precursor for ozone.

Table 2

- 11 : Texas Cap

- and

- Trade Program Summary

Program Pollutant

Affected Geographical Scope 2018 Program Cap for Texas Sources

(tp y )

CAIR NO X 27 eastern states and the

District of Columbia 150,845

MECT NO X HGB Nonattainment Area 40,176.2

HECT HRVOC Harris County 2,588.6

The spatial representation of future year emissions of the sources subject to these cap

- and

- trade programs has typically been based on the source’s future year allocation of allowances specified for the relevant cap and trade program(s). Since future year allocations are typically distributed many years in advance 13 , the sources that received future year allowances in many cases may not

13 Details regarding future year allocations for CAIR, MECT, and HECT can be found in 30 TAC §101.506,
§101.353, and§101.394, respectively.be ope rational in the future year. While the total future emissions from all the sources subject to each of the programs is limited to the 2018 program cap listed in Table 2

- 11

, the TCEQ spatially

distributed the 2018 cap to sources that are expected to be operational in the future using

historical trend analysis for each program

, as detailed below

. The distributed annual 2018 site

emissions (tons/year) we re then converted to f uture year ozone season day emissions (tons/day)

. T he distribution of the 2018 program cap described here is only intended to spatially represent future year emissions for modeling purposes and does not take the place of official

allocation of allowances associated with these programs. The official future year allocations can

be found at the EBT program web page
( http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/banking/banking.html ).

The general procedure for the historical trend analysis used to spatially distribute the future

year program caps consisted of the following steps 14

.

1. For each site, the difference between the total reported site emissions and the site’s annual allocation for all past compliance periods for a program was calculated . The difference was termed “site cap gap”.

2. A positive site cap ga p for a compliance year indicated that the site had leftover allowances that it could potentially sell to other sites in the program (a spatial trade) or

bank for future use (a temporal trade). A site with a positive cap gap is a potential

“Seller” (spatia l or temporal) . Similarly, a site with a negative site cap gap indicated that the site purchased allowances (spatially or temporally) f or compliance purposes and was termed “Buyer”. The terms “Seller” and “Buyer” are used to refer to the potential to trade

and not actual trades. In each compliance year

, a site is a “Seller” or a “Buyer” in each program based on the site cap gap for that program

, i.e., in 2009 a site cou ld be a “Seller” in the CAIR program but a “Buyer” in the MECT program.

3. If a site was a “Seller” (had a positive cap gap) 80% 15 of the time then site was termed to have a “Seller” trend. Similarly, if a site was a “Buyer” (negative cap gap) 80% of the time then the site was termed to have a “Buyer” trend. The 80% cut off for a trend translates

in

to a site being a “Buyer” or a “Seller” for a certain number of years depending on the

total number of completed compliance years for each program (4 out of 5 years for the CAIR program, 5 out of 6 times for the HECT program and 8 out of 10 times for th e MECT program).

4. If a site exhibited a trend and the site’s behavior for the latest projection

- base year followed the trend

, then the annual emissions for the projection

- base year was assigned as future year emissions to the site. This is because if a site exhibited a trend then it can be reasonable expected to have a similar behavior in the future year

, i.e., a site with a “Seller” trend can be expected to have a positive site cap gap in the future year and a site with a “Buyer” trend can be expected to ha ve a negative cap gap in the future year. Since

the annual emissions from the projection

- base year were representative of the trend behavior, the future year site emissions were represented by the projection

- base year

emissions. The projection

- base year us ed for HECT sources is 2012 and the projection

base year used for CAIR is 2013. For MECT, the 2012 projection

- base year was used for all sources including those that were also in CAIR, since this was the latest year for which MECT compliance related inform ation was available from the EBT database.

14 Data regarding annual emissions and allocations was obtained from the TCEQ’s EBT database for
MECT and HECT programs and from EPA’s AMPD web query tool for CAIR

. 15 The 80% cut

- off was chosen qualitatively based on the number of completed compliance years for the
three programs (at the time of SIP development). CAIR had the smallest number of years completed compliance years (5 years compared to 6 years for HECT and 10 years for MECT), a trend of 4/5 years equals 80%.5. Sites below the 80% threshold were termed as “Neither.” S ites that did not have an

identifiable trend or sites that had a trend but the behavior in the projection

- base year did not follow the identified trend, the n the future year site emissions w ere represented using future allocations of allowances.

6. To be conservative and to account for possible yearly variations, the assigned caps were proportionally scaled up such that total annual modeled emissions for sources subject to these programs equal the program’s respective 2018 available caps . The available program caps for MECT and HECT are those listed in Table 2

- 11 . For CAIR, the available program cap was reduced from the 150,845 tons to accommodate newly permitted ( but not yet constructed ) EGUs

.

The historical trend analysis was performed individually for each of the three program s . For sources subject to both CAIR and MECT

, the 2018 annual site emissions determined using the historical trend analysis for the MECT program was used as it is the more stringent program

. Detailed tables with the results of the historical trend analysis for each program are available at

the TCEQ FTP modeling web site at ( ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/TX/ei/fy2018/point/cap_trade/ )

.

2.3.1.5. Ellis County ( Midlothian ) Cement Kiln s

Site

- wide (by account) NO X caps were modeled based on this Chapter 117 rule that applies to each of the kilns in Ellis County (in the DFW nonattainment area

, city of Midlothian )

. The rule applies ozone season (March 1 through October 3 1) caps, totaling 17.6 tpd to the ten kilns at the

three sites

. Slight modification to the modeled distribution of this cap among a few of the kilns

has been made in this SIP revision, based on c onsen t d ecrees and permit modifications. The details regarding the current implementation of this cap are described in Section 2.3.3 below

.

2.3.2. Attainment Areas of Texas

Th e attainment areas of Texas include all of Texas ex cept DFW and HGB. The subsections below address growth and control implementation separately. S ubs ection 2.3.2.1.2

, N ewly

- Permitted

EGUs

, below, includes new units in attainment and non

- attainment areas

.

2.3.2.1. Attainment Area 201 8 Growth Projections

Different growth projection techniques were applied to the EGUs that have AMPD hourly data

versus the non

- EGUs (NEGU). The techniques used are similar to EPA projection methods for modeling future cases , except that the TCEQ does not use the Integrated Planning Model (IPM).

2.3.2.1.1. EGUs

To develop the AMPD EGU 20 13 projection

- base, the TCEQ averaged the AMPD NO X for each

hour of t he day for each unit for the June through September time period , similar to the procedure that generated the 2006 baseline EGUs

. The TCEQ chose the more recent dataset from which to project because it is newer and contains more of the actual emissions growth from

newer units. Not all EGUs have hourly AMPD data and not all NO X point sources at EGU

facilities are AMPD point sources. The non

- AMPD EGUs were projected from their 20 12 emissions along with the N EGU point sources

, as discussed below in S ubsection 2.3.2.1.3

, Non

EGUs (NEGU)

.

The TCEQ generates hourly emissions records for the non

- AMPD pollutants ( NH 3 , CO, PM 2.5 , and VOC ) for A MP D point sources using 2013 heat input data. From STARS, the TCEQ obtains annual emissions for each pollutant and computes a pollutant

- to

- heat input ratio from the

annual totals. Computationally, the heat input and emission totals need to be from the same year, but a given year’s set of ratios can be used for another year if, for example, one of thedatasets (STARS, for example) is not available. With a valid set of pollutant

- to

- heat ratios, the TCEQ computed hourly emissions for each pollutant based on th e AMP hourly heat input.

The complete set of 201 8 Texas EGUs , for future case modeling, consists of the 2013 AMPD

EGUs, the post

- 20 13 new EGUs (a.k.a., newly

- permitted EGUs) discussed in the following section, and the projected 2012 non

- AMPD EGUs. As with previous SIP revisions, the TCEQ assumes that the EGU growth in the s tate comes from newly

- permitted EGUs.

2.3.2.1.2. Newly

- Permitted EGUs

It is always better to provide known growth/expansions at the physical locations where they are projected to occur, rath er than growing existing emissions in place. Growth in EGUs in Texas is accomplished with the addition of newly

- permitted EGUs since the projection

- base year , all

within the constraint s described in the controls subsection below , in addition to TCEQ New

So urce Review permitting requirements

. This subsection describes the procedures for developing the newly

- permitted EGU EI

. It includes the ne w units in attainment and non

attainment areas.

Texas EGU emissions for 201 8 were developed by researching and compil ing data from various

sources. These sources include:

• Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT): http://www.ercot.com/ ;

• TCEQ air permitting projects with combustion

turbines ; http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/air/memos/turbine_lst.pdf ; and

• TCEQ New Source Review Permits Information Management System (NSRP IMS) interna l

document server

.

Information from these sources include s individual units’ disposition (i.e., operating status), new units coming online, units to be mothballed, and units to be shut down or retired

. The criteria the TCEQ uses for adding new units are: ( 1) the units are expected to be operational by

the end of 201 8 , (2) the owners applied for, and were granted, a TCEQ air permit , and (3) the

owners obtained an Interconnection Agreement (IA) from ERCOT (for those units planned

with in the ERCOT grid)

. All t hree of these conditions must be met in order for the unit(s) to be included in the future case modeling. The TCEQ assumed that by the 2018 ozone season, all

current (as of October 2013 ) mothballed and reliability

- must

- run (RMR) units would be retired.

A ll data sources w ere reconciled to ensure all units were accounted for, and that their status as

of May 201 4 was modeled. As the most recent EGU emissions data for modeling is from 2013

AMPD , new EGUs are based on additions and changes subsequent to 20 13

.

ERCOT covers approximately 85% of the power grid in the state. For the five years between

December 2013 and December 2018

, a comparative analysis was performed to verify that all

new units planned by ERCOT are accounted for

, and there is ample generation p roposed from the newly permitted units to meet the projected demand in electricity

. ERCOT projects approximately 3800 megawatts of new non

- wind resources with a reserve margin of approximately 12.5%

. T he modeled new units meet this projection.

For the newly

- permitted EGUs, emissions were calculated based on the permit Maximum
Allowable Emission Rates Table (MAERT) , which is always greater than the actual operating

emissions. P ollutants acquired from the permits were NO X , VOC, and CO. The m ethod of

deter mining the allowable emission s differ s based on the type of unit and its primary purpose for being constructed. For example, coal plants may have a 30

- day rolling average emission rate

,while gas turbines may have a short term allowable emission rate in p o unds per hour (pph) and/or a long term allowable emission rate in tpy

. In some cases, a unit may have a combination of the above, in addition to maintenance, startup and shutdown (MSS) emission limits.

When available, the 30

- day pph emissions limitation wa s used. These have most often been

available for solid fuel

- fired units. This time frame represent s a good compromise between th e standard short

- term allowable , which sometimes includes MSS, and the standard long

- term permit allowable. The short term allow able in pph , when converted to tpd

, is often substantially more than a unit would realistically emit in any day; the long

- term allowable in tpy, when converted to tpd

, may under

- represent what a unit could emit during any one day, especially during a summer day during the ozone season.

MSS permitting has be come more routine in the last several years

. T he se activities help provide a more realistic operating scenario than the maximum of the short

- term or long

- term emission

rates. This is especially important for those units that have many MSS events during a typical

summer, such as the peaking units

, which operate only during the peak demand times. MSS limits vary between permits

, depending on specific represent ation in permit applications

. E xamples of permitted MSS and how they are modeled are described in previous SIP

documentation.

The emission rates calculated represent worst case for some units, but for most, they repr esent a typical summer day during the ozone season, corresponding to some of the highest days of electricity demand. Some facilities on the “new” list may have operating data in the 2013 base year but, if the AMPD reported emissions are not reasonable for a complete year of operation, these facilities are modeled at their permitted values

. The complete list of newly

- permitted EGUs added as the EGU growth in the s tate sorted b y area is provided as Table 2

- 12 : Newly Permitted EGUs (post 2013) in Texas as of May 2014

.

Table 2

- 12 : Newly Permitted EGUs (post 2013) in Texas as of May 2014

Area Sitename County Permit NO X (tpd) Operating

in 2013

ELP Montana Power Station El Paso 0.105

ELP Montana Power Station El Paso 0.105

ELP Montana Power Station El Paso 0.105

ELP Montana Power Station El Paso 0.105

ETX Panda Temple Power Bell 0.454

ETX Panda Temple Power Bell 0.454

ETX Panda Temple Power Bell 0.454

ETX Panda Temple Power Bell 0.454

ETX Panda Sherman Grayson 0.675

ETX Panda Sherman Grayson 0.675

ETX Woodville Renewable Power Project Tyler 0.890

HGB W. A. Parish Fort Bend 0.310 Y

HGB Deer Park Energy Center Harris 1.226

HGB Channel Energy Center Harris 0.880Area Sitename County Permit NO X (tpd) Operating

in 2013

SAN Guadalupe Generating Station Guadalupe 1.017

SAN Guadalupe Generating Station Guadalupe 1.017

WTX Jones Peaking Facility Lubbock 1.380 Y

WTX Mustang 6 Yoakum 0.822 Y

WTX TC Ferguson Power Plant Llano 0.365

WTX TC Ferguson Power Plant Llano 0.365

WTX FGE Texas Mitchell 0.309

WTX FGE Texas Mitchell 0.309

Table 2

- 12 includes (1) the calculated NO X emissions from permit applications and MAERTs, representing realistic average day emissions

, and (2) the NO X emission rates after incorporating the existing ru les that may apply to AMPD EGUs

. The TCEQ assumed NO X controls, offsets, or credit purchases will be used to meet these NO X emissions rates

. VOC and CO rates are modeled at their permitted levels

. There were sufficient CAIR and MECT allowances available for all new EGUs to be modeled at their permitted rate.

The temporal distributions of the newly

- permitted EGU emission s are based on those of existing units of similar equipment type or SCCs. For each SCC included in the newly

- permitted EGU list, an averag e temporal distribution was calculated, based on diurnal profiles of existing units

with the same SCC within the s tate

. For some units on the new EGU list, a corresponding SCC did not exist for existing units. In these cases, the default flat profile was a ssigned. A n example of the profile used for a natural gas turbine is discussed in previous SIP documentation

.

2.3.2.1.3. Non

- EGUs (NEGU)

When the AMPD units are removed from the point source EI for hourly treatment, the

remainder is OSD. T he TCEQ refers to these rema ining units as NEGUs. The basis for future growth (projection base year) for NEGUs in the Texas attainment areas was the most current complete and quality control checked year of STARS emissions : 20 12 OSD emissions, already an

avera ge OSD from STARS.

The TCEQ estimated projection base (2012) to future case (2018) growth projections using growth factors developed via contract to TCEQ by ERG. The ERG growth factors we bpage

at ( ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/TX/ei/fy2018/point/AFS/ERG_growth_factors/ ) are based on county (FIPS ) and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS ). To manage the growth factors, TCEQ developed a table that assigned growth factors f or all 2012

STARS emission paths. The ER G data provided growth factors for most of the STARS pa ths (uniquely identified by FIPS , plant, stack and point). In situa tions where there was not a

FIPS /NAICS match, the pathway was assigned a growth factor equal t o the NAICS average for

the state. If there was no NAICS match, the next default was the county ( FIPS ) average growth, and then the State average. All pollutants for a path were assigned the same growth factor

.

Projection factors were assigned individually to each NEGU path that does not have a recent rule applied to it

. No factor was applied to a path that must comply with a recent rule, since the rule provides a n emission limit on that path. A summary of the EGU and NEGU growth in the

Texas attainment areas is provided as Table 2

- 13 : Summary of Texas Attainment Area GrowthProjections to 2018

. I n Table 2

- 13

, a Growth Method of 1 indicates ERG growth factors were applied to points that do not have recent existing rule limitations; and a Growth Method of 2

indicates the addition of post

- 2012 point sources and CAIR applied to all p oints

.

Table 2

- 13 : Summary of Texas Attainment Area Growth Projections to 2018

EI Future

Case

Baseline

Data Future

Case

Baselin

e #

points Future

Case

Baseline

NO X (tpd) Growth

Method 2012

Future

Case

#points 2012

Projecte

d NO X (tpd) Baseline

to 2012

Growth

NEGUs 2012

STARS 9469 389 1 9469 4 13 6 %

EGUs 2013

STARS/

AMPD 2 57 387 2 2 68 4 30 11 %

2.3.2.2. Texas Attainment Areas 201 8 Control Implementation

For this SIP revision, all of the e xisting TCEQ on

- the

- books controls are accounted for in the

2012 projection base. To develop the future case, emissions from EGUs in the s tate are controlled via EPA’s CAI R program. For the NEGUs in attainment areas of the s tate, several existing controls were modeled, as described in following subsections.

2.3.2.2.1. EGUs

The TCEQ model ed the CAIR source emissions , using the trend analysis described above in

S ection 2.3.1.4 , after accounting for the ozone season peak in AMPD EGU NO X emissions. The CAIR caps are annual limits, and CAIR participants will collectively use more of their CAIR NO X emission credits dur ing the summer ozone season months when electric demand is higher. To capture this seasonal variation, the TCEQ scaled historical emissions for each point to match the cap, thereby applying the cap over the total time span while preserving emission variati ons within the span.

As noted above, in S ection 2.3.2.1.2 , the newly

- permitted units can be modeled at their permitted values using the CAIR cap remaining after di stributing the cap to existing EGUs. A summary of the distribution of the general and new CAIR pools to areas of Texas is provided as

Table 2

- 14 : Distribution of NO X CAIR Allowances in Texas

.Table 2

- 14 : Distribution of NO X CAIR Allowances in Texas 16

Area Emissions

Basis Modeled Allowance

for 2013 Units, tpd Modeled Allowance for

Post

- 2013 Units, tpd

DFW CAIR A MPD 16.76

MECT MECT OSD 0.61

HGB MECT A MPD 36.09

Attainment CAIR OSD 10.06

Attainment CAIR ARD 420.01

T he EGU portion s of the HGB MECT program also count against the CAIR budget. Overall

, MECT is more restrictive than CAIR , i.e., lower controlled allowable emission rate, ignoring trading, so the difference between CAIR and MECT was distributed to CAIR EGUs not subject to the MECT program.

2.3.2.2.2. NEGUs

On e existing program expected to further reduce emissions between the future base and 2018 in

the attainment areas of the state is t he Refinery Initiative. The reductions are in attainment counties as well as nonattainment counties throughout the state. Unfortunately, the emi ssions reductions are not easily quantifiable (see the description below).

2.3.2.2.2.1. Refinery Initiative Since the late 1990s, petroleum refineries have been the focus of an EPA enforcement initiative. This initiative alleges that, in general, petroleum refineries v iolated and/or continue to violate one or more of the regulatory Clean Air Act provisions

. In the interest of settling these allegations, without admitting to the alleged violations, many petroleum refiners entered into

consent decrees with EPA. Since Marc h 2000, the EPA has entered into settlements with 32 petroleum refiners that, collectively, represent 9 0 percent of U.S. petroleum refining capacity. According to EPA, these settlements, covering 109 refineries in 32 states, including Texas, will

result in a reduction of approximately 93 ,000 tp y of N O X and 2 56 ,000 tp y of SO 2 upon full implementation. See EPA’s Petroleum Refinery Initiative webpage

at http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/petroleum

- refinery

- national

- case

- results for more

details.

The TCEQ has not modeled any reductions for these consent decrees, because mos t of the agreements do not require NO X reductions, and most of them lack enforceable requirements of quantified reductions. The TCEQ can verify that several refineries (some in HGB and BPA) have modified permits to comply with their consent decrees, but pe rmit reductions do not always result in actual reported emission reductions.

2.3.3. Nonattainment Areas (NAA) of Texas

T his section describes the specific growth and control implementation applied to the two ozone

NAA s

, DFW and HGB. The NAAs were modeled similarl y

, although HGB is more complex due to the number of TCEQ programs that apply to it. T he growth projections to 201 8 and any existing controls that will affect the are a

s between the projection base year(s) and 2018 are

16 The tpd includes seasonal adjustments of CAIR and MECT caps based on AMPD data.described in subsections below

. Since emissions growth in NAAs is strictly limited by

nonattainment New Source Review ( NSR ) rules , t he subsections below address growth and

control implementation together.

2.3.3.1. 2018 NAA Growth Projections and Control Implementation

Growth projections were applied to th e 2012 and 2013 projection base EI s to obtain the 2018

future case EI. Different techniques were applied to the EGUs (2013 projection base year) and

the NEGUs (2012 projection base year)

.

2.3.3.1.1. NAA EGU s Projections and Control Implementation

As with the attai nment areas of the s tate , the projection into the future begins with a projection

base EI for NAA EGUs that is the typical (average) summer day calculated from AMPD hourly

emissions for all days in the June through September 2013 time period

. N ot all EGUs are AMPD

units. The projection base fo r non

- AMPD EGUs is their 20 12 OSD emissions, as if they were

NEGUs.

The complete set of 201 8 Texas EGUs , for future case modeling, consists of the 2013 AMPD

EGUs, the post

- 20 13 newly

- permitted EGUs , and the projected 2012 non

- AMPD EGUs. As with previous SIP revisions, the TCEQ assumes that the EGU growth in the s tate comes from newly

permitted EGUs. Similarly, the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) that EPA used for its future case EGU projections would add new units when it calculates that new capacity (to meet
demand) is needed. The growth of EGUs in Texas is spatially allocated based on permit applications.

2.3.3.1.1.1. Existing EGUs in NAAs All AMPD EGUs in DFW must comply with the control program, CAIR, and those in HGB must comply with CAIR and the more stringent MECT. Just as with the attainmen t areas, as

described above in S ection 2.3.2.2.1 , an ozone season scaling factor is c alculated and applied to CAIR because CAIR is an annual cap, yet we are modeling the higher electrical demand ozone

season.

Similarly, MECT is an annual cap, and account holders do not use the se NO X allowances uniformly across the year

– they use more duri ng the peak electrical demand ozone season. To compensate for this seasonal variation, the TCEQ computes a set of scaling factors by numerically dividing the annual MECT cap for each account by the sum of its emissions over the

entire year. This factor is a multiplier that, when applied to the projection base (2013) average summer emissions, yields a future case set of emissions that are at their MECT cap for the ozone

season.

2.3.3.1.1.2. Newly

- Permitted EGUs in NAAs

Table 2

- 12 , in S ection 2.3.2.1.2 above, lists all of the newly

- permitted EGUs in each area of the

s

tate. Again, these new unit s represent all of the EGU growth in all areas of Texas. T here are no new planned units in DFW and three newly

- permitted units in HGB. These new units were assumed to fit into the Texas CAIR cap, except in HGB, where the new units must also fit into

the MECT cap limit. There was enough CAIR and MECT allowances available [ due to shutdowns, units that drop from the program, and Discrete Emission Reduction Credits
( DERCs ) that can be used for MECT allowances] to easily model the new units at their permitted

allowables

.

2.3.3.1.2. NAA NEGU Projections and Control ImplementationAs with the attainment areas of the s tate, the projection into the future begins with a projection

base EI for Texas NAA N EGUs

-- the 20 12 OSD emissions. No individual new NEGU permits

were modele d as growth , as such a process would be extremely resource intensive for all NEGU permit actions in the state. Emissions from NEGUs in the NAAs of the state were projected to

201 8 using the lesser of the ERG growth factors or the emission credits in the ba nk

, described in the following paragraphs, except for HGB NO X , which is additionally subject to the MECT

program. The ERG g rowth factors are discussed in S ection 2.3.2.1.3 Non EGUs (NEGUs).

NAAs cannot grow in major sources of emissions of ozone precursors, NO X and VOC, except by purchasing from the bank to obtain emissions offsets during New Source Review of permit applications or by sitewide contemporaneous period reductions. The TCEQ assume s that the emissions in the TCEQ EBT Registry , i.e., bank, are availab le to come back into the airshed in the future, but are limited by the projected growth of point sources within the NAA

. In other words, sources will only purchase from the bank what they actually need, and that need is projected by TCEQ with the ERG growt h factors. Conversely, sources in need of large emissions growth in the future (predicted by ERG ), can only purchase as much credit as exists in the bank.

For 2018 future case NO X emissions, there were sufficient bank credits to allow grow t h with the

ERG f actors. 2018 future case VOC growth, however, was limited by the available bank credits.

The procedure for potentially incorporating the banked emissions in the future c ase begins with extracting the b anked emissions from the TCEQ’s EBT Emission Reduction Credit (ERC) and

D ERC Registries, which can be found on EBT’s Registry webpage

at http://www2.tceq.texas.gov/airperm/index.cfm?fuseaction=registry.registry

.

ERC and DERC totals for each of the NAAs, as of Ju ne 1 9

, 201 3 were extracted, tabulated, and

summarized. Table 2

- 15 : Banked Emissions as of June 2013 summarizes these results.

M odelable emissions in Table 2

- 15 refers to the maximum amount of emissions that could be added as growth to the area from banked emissions

, with the exception of HGB as noted below.

Table 2

- 15 : Banked Emissions as of Ju ne 2013

NAA NO X

ERCs

(tpy) VOC

ERCs

(tpy) NO X

DERCs

(tons) VOC

DERCs

(tons) CO

DERCs

(tons) Total

Model

- able

NO X Bank

(tpd) Total

Model

- able

VOC

Bank

(tpd) Total

Model

- able

CO

Bank

(tpd)

HGB Registry 47.3 788.5 39018.9 1837.4 0 .0 6.2 0 .0

HGB Model ed Bank

(Growth) 36.4 606.5 25894.6 1653.7 60.8 6.2 0.0

HGB Model Bank used

for MECT Compliance 1247.1 3.4

DFW Registry 363.0 153.2 6343.7 4.0 0 .0

DFW Model ed Bank 315.7 133.2 5703.3 3.6 0 .0 17.0 0.6 0 .0

Chapter 101 of 30 TAC requires that an ERC must be surplus to any federal, state or local rule. Also, the Chapter 101 MECT program DERC

- use restrictions for HGB were incorporated in the

NO X total. 30 TAC Chapter 101.379, DFW DERC Flow Control Rule for 2018

, did not offer a limitation on the growth for this SIP revision, because the ERG growth projected for DFW was less than the DFW banked emissions.As a worst case, the Modelable bank totals indicated in Table 2

- 15 incorporate the designated eight

- ho ur ozone offset ratios used for the TCEQ NSR program for each of the NAAs as of June

19, 2013 , where an offset ratio of 1.15:1 for moderate areas indicates that the purchaser of ERCs must buy 11.5 ton per year of credits for each 10 tpy of increase propose d. Additionally, the modelable bank took into account the requirement of Chapter 101 to retire 10 percent of the DERCs, as an environmental contribution, upon DERC usage.

Table 2

- 16 : Texas NEGU “No

- Rules” Growth Summary shows the growth projected in each of

the NAAs

. Again, the growth was only applied to the sources that were not already limited by existing TCEQ rules

.

Table 2

- 16 : Texas NEGU “No

- Rules” Growth Summary

Area Projection Index 2012

STARS

NO X , tpd 2018

NO X , tpd 2012

STARS

VOC,

tpd 2018

VOC,

tpd

DFW ERG with bank limit 23.72 23.17 46.69 49.29

HGB ERG with bank limit 17.63 20.73 109.27 115.48

Attainment from ERG factors 409.00 412.94 285.90 316.96

T he DFW bank ed emissions and growth from the ERG factors were compared on a path

- by

- path basis, automated with SAS programming. The bank growth in each NAA was the bank divided by the total emissions in the NAA. A path’s share of the bank was based on its fractional emissions of the total, and was added to that path. O nly the paths no t already limited by rule s were allowed to grow v ia the bank or the ERG factors.

2.3.3.1.2.1. HGB MECT NEGU NO X Control Imp lementation The HGB MECT program also limits the amount of NO X from all applicable NEGU sources with

a cap. The application of this program and its limits are discussed in S ections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.1.4

above.

2.3.3.1.2.2. HGB HECT NEGU HRVOC Control Implementation The other cap

- and

- trade program within HGB that applies to NEGUs is the HECT program. No EGUs are in the HECT program. This rule only applies in Harris County. The application of this program and its limits are discussed in Sections 2.3.1.3 and 2.3.1.4 above. T he HRVOC modeling procedure adopted by the TCEQ does not affect the mass flow rates of other non

- HR VOC compounds in HECT qualifying point sources

.

2.3.3.1.2.3. DFW Ellis County ( Midlothian ) Cement Kiln Cap Control Implementation As previously discussed in Section 2.3.1.5 , th e DFW Cement Kilns Source Cap remains 17.6 tpd. In the past, these have been modeled as shown in Table 2

- 17 : Ellis County Cement Kiln NO X Caps , below. The table below also shows the projected 2012 NO X emissions from the December

2011 DFW SIP Revision 17 and t he 2012 STARS Annual emissions. Thus, by modeling the

Cement Kiln Cap we are modeling approximately twice the emissions the kilns actually emitt ed

. Doubling of kiln emissions by 2018 is very unlikely; t herefore, the modeled future case for these

sources is a conservative projection.

17 December 7, 2011 DFW Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 Eight

- Hour Ozone Standard at
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/dfw_revisions.htmlTXI received a permit modification June 30, 2011 to cease operation of its four wet kilns (future emissions of 0.00 tpd) in exchange for increasing clinker production in its newer dry kiln

process.

On August 14, 2013, Ash Grove entered into a Consent Decree with EPA that would require Kiln

1 and Kiln 2 t o be shutdown/retired by September 2014 and Kiln 3 reconstructed as a dry kiln. Emissions limits were specified for Kiln 3’s NO X , SO 2 and PM emissions in this agreement, but this does not change the enforceable NO X Source Cap for the entire site of 4.4 tpd

.

Table 2

- 17 : Ellis County Cement Kiln NO X Caps

Sitename FIN EPN Projected

2012 NO X

E missions

from

December

2011 DFW

SIP

(tpd) 2012

STARS

Annual

Emissions

(tpd) 2018

Updated

Allocation

NO X
Emissions

(tpd)

Ash Grove 2

- 1 2 1.43 1.13

-

Ash Grove 2

- 2 6 1.51 1.39

-

Ash Grove 2

- 3 12 1.45 1.38 4.4

Holcim 62* 62* 2.10 0 .00 2.61

Holcim 07* 07* 3.20 1.64 2.69

TXI Operations E

- 2

- 2 E2

- 2 0 .00

- -

TXI Operations E

- 2

- 4 E2

- 4 0 .00

- -

TXI Operations E

- 2

- 6 E2

- 6 0 .00

- -

TXI Operations E

- 2

- 8 E2

- 8 0 .00

- -

TXI Operations E2

- 22 E2

- 22 7.90 3.45 7.9

2.3.3.1.2.4. DFW 2018 EI Summary

T he future case EI is composed of two datasets

, hourly average 3Q2008 for the ARD source s and 2008 OSD for the remainder of the point sources. The 2012 future base is built upon these datasets by incorporating the changes expected due to growth, emission caps, and on

- the

- books

controls. Table 2

- 18 : Detailed NO X 201 8 Emissions Summary by Region provides a 2012
emissions summary.

Table 2

- 18 : Detailed NO X 201 8 Emissions Summary by Region

Region Projection Affected Sources 2012

STARS

NO X ,

tpd 2013

AMPD

NO X ,

tpd 2018

NO X Projection,

tpd

DFW CAIR EGUs 7.23 16.77

DFW Controls Midlothian Kilns 6.47 14.91

DFW Growth NEGUs 23.73 23.17Region Projection Affected Sources 2012

STARS

NO X ,

tpd 2013

AMPD

NO X ,

tpd 2018

NO X Projection,

tpd

HGB MECT OSD point sources 52.48 75.35

HGB MECT Growth under the cap 1.78

HGB MECT A MPD point sources 28.72 46.22

HGB MECT New EGU Growth 2.42

HGB Growth/bank NEGUs 17.62 20.73

Rest of TX CAIR AMPD point sources 375.70 420.01

Rest of TX Growth OSD point sources 388.7 412.94

2.3.4. 2018 Regional (Outside of Texas) Point Sources

R egional emissions include states outside of Texas within the modeling domain, offshore Gulf of Mexico, and the parts of Mexico and Canada within the modeling domain.

2.3.4.1. States Outside of Texas

2.3.4.1.1. EGUs

T he TCEQ distinguishes between EGUs and AMPD units. Not all EGUs are AMPD units, e.g.,
true cogeneration units are not AMPD units, but large cogen eration unit s that supply more than

one

- third of their electricity to the public electrical grid are AMPD units. Non

- AMPD EGUs are

treated as NEGUs. This is the same definition t hat the EPA applies to EGUs for CAIR purposes, i.e., an EGU, as defined by CAIR, is an AMPD unit

.

To develop projection base USA AMPD, the TCEQ compiled and maintains a USA cross

reference file that links AMPD identifiers to a record NEI identifiers, where the NEI also carries

FIPS , plant, stack, point, location parameters, stack parameters, and (in some instances) site

name. Thus, the USA AMPD

- to

- NEI cross reference provides enough information to make an AFS record without matching another (OSD type) emiss ion record. The USA cross reference file matches a high percentage (over 99%) of the USA AMPD units. The cross reference is based on a variety of sources, primarily the NEI which, for 2011, also provided ORIS and BOILER

identifiers, For these points source s, TCEQ was able to attach total heat input values from the (same year) 2011 AMPD and, from the composite, compute emission

- to

- heat input ratios for many EGUs in the 2011 NEI. TCEQ used these emission ratios to compute hourly pollutant

emissions for select ed points in the 2013 projection base year using the hourly heat inputs. For the unmatched points, TCEQ distributed the unmatched NO X emissions proportionally to all the matched points within the respective state.

To develop the 2018 future case EGUs for s tates outside of Texas, the TCEQ used CAIR Phase II for states subject to the CAIR program and 2013 AMPD data. TCEQ used the CAIR state budgets specified in 40 CFR Part 96 for each state and a historical trend analysis to determine the future
year state emissions

. The historical trend analysis looked at which states where below or above their assigned state budgets to better estimate future year state emissions for CAIR states. Scaling st atewide emissions to match the assigned cap took into account the effect of seasonal

variation.The TCEQ did not account for growth outside Texas. An alternative to TCEQ’s approach that includes growth and controls is to use EGU emission projection tools s uch as the EPA’s IPM or the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC) EGU Forecasting Too l

. A comparison was made to the total state emissions predicted by IPM and ERTAC EGU Forecasting Tool for 2018 with TCEQ’s method and it was found that TCE Q’s method resulted in a more conservative regional emissions total with most of the CAIR regional cap (93%) have

been modeled

.

Table 2

- 19 : 2018 Modeled Emissions for States in the Modeling Domain gives the future year emissions along with modeled CAIR (o z one or annual) emissions , where applicable, for each

state outside Texas in the modeling domain. An empty cell indicates CAIR is not applicable for

that state.

Table 2

- 19 : 2018 Modeled Emissions for States in the Modeling Domain

State Ozone Season CAIR Cap,

NO X tons per ozone season Annual CAIR Cap,

NO X tpy 2018 Modeled

E missions,

NO X tpd

AL 22095.52 146.45

AR 17339.36 117.53

AZ 155.72

CA 14.59

CO 131.21

CT 578.983 4.12

DC 94 0.67

DE 912.096 6.24

FL 27081.29 182.16

GA 35599.31 103.67

IA 15253.83 106.55

ID 0.74

IL 18671.13 126.10

IN 39273 258.63

KS 86.80

KY 30587 201.93

LA 17788.95 121.20

MA 1607.635 11.38

MD 5303.099 36.61

ME 1.34

MI 24142 160.86

MN 73.63

MO 22231 153.14

MS 11320.76 80.17

MT 46.89

NC 22633.86 157.38

ND 128.82State Ozone Season CAIR Cap,

NO X tons per ozone season Annual CAIR Cap,

NO X tpy 2018 Modeled

E missions,

NO X tpd

NE 79.62

NH 4.93

NJ 2679.769 18.60

NM 162.78

NV 27.56

NY 10856.86 73.04

OH 37150.73 248.28

OK 160.48

OR 12.34

PA 57246.25 378.14

RI 1.92

SC 7361.666 51.00

SD 32.82

TN 11252.72 74.80

UT 163.01

VA 13328 91.38

VT 0.51

WA 25.35

WI 10864.1 73.93

WV 25470.17 172.27

WY 134.45

2.3.4.1.2. NEGUs

For 2018 NEGUs for other states, the TCEQ used the EPA’s 2018 non

- IPM (non

- EGU) files from EPA’s 2018 Emissions Modeling Platform 18

. The non

- IPM portion of the platform consists of several emissions files including the primary points file containing emissions for all states

, plus

additional files f or ethanol and biodiesel plants and cement kilns. These files were already grown and controlled, but for the most part represent the 2011 NEI for the country with federal rules

and some state rules applied. After extracting Texas from the list, the TCEQ generated a n AFS

formatted file

, including all necessary and relevant modeling parameters for EPS3 processing. The associated temporal allocation file was utilized to create the daily te mporal distribution

. A June day was selected to represent a typical ozone season day. Summary files provided by EPA
contain individual state totals for NEGU (non

- IPM) emissions. These summaries can be found

at the EPA Emissions Inventory website

at ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2011v6/v1pl atform/reports/2018_emissions/

.

Table 2

- 20 : 2018 Regional States Emissions Summary provides an overall summary of the 201 8

emissions for all the states within the mod eling domain (continental USA) , outside of Texas

18 From EPA’s Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse page: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/emch/ , the TCEQ
chose the link “2011 and 2018 Emissions Modeling Platform Data Files and Summaries” which takes the

reader to ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2011v6/v1platform/2018emissio ns/Table 2

- 20 : 2018 Regional States Emissions Summary

Model Year Source

Category NO X Emissions,

tpd VOC

Emissions,

tpd CO

Emissions,

tpd

2006 Baseline EGU 7757 88 885

2018 Future Case EGU 4602 76 1673

200 6 Baseline NEGU 19 4539 2457 5953

201 8 Future Case NEGU 3820 2248 4883

2.3.5. Offshore, Mexico, and Canada

For lack of projections data, the 201 8 EIs for the Gulf of Mexico offshore area, Mexico, and

Canada were the same as those used in the 2006 baseline and the base case, as described in

previous sections. T he TCEQ used the EPA’s 2018 modeling platform for Mexico. These files were already grown, based on 1999 NEI.

2.3.6. Summary of Future Case Point Source Data Files

T he point source emission files that were processed with EPS3 for CAMx are presented in Table

2

- 21 : AFS Files for the 201 8 Future Case Episode

. The regional AFS file for the GWEI contains monthly emissions for June only and the regional AFS file for Canadian emissions contains

annual emissions. The version number on each dataset ind icates a change from the previous version (e.g., “v8”). The FTP download web site for these files

is ftp://amdaft p.tceq.texas.gov/pub/TX/ei/fy2018/point

.

Table 2

- 21 : AFS Files for the 201 8 Future Case Episode

Area AFS Point Source Emissions Dataset Hourly Daily Special

Texas afs.ard_JUN2SEP_2018_MECT_ NO X _aver_day_RPOlcp_v8 X

Texas afs.ard_JUN2SEP_2018_non NO X _aver_day_RPOlcp_v9 X 1

Texas afs.ard_JUN2SEP_2018_CAIR_ NO X _aver_day_RPOlcp_v10 X

Texas afs.osd_no_controls_grown_to_2018.RPOlcp_v8 X

Texas afs.2018_HECT_cap_n_trade_HarrisCo_2012_basis_all_pts_v3 X

Texas afs.osd_hgb_dfw_growth_with_bank_v12 X

Texas a fs.osd_new_egus_2013_to_2018_v7 X

Texas afs.osd_mect_2018_based_on_2012_RPOlcp_v8 X

Texas afs.osd_2018_CAIR_ NO X _records_v11 X

Texas afs.midlokilns_2018_ NO X _emissions.RPOlcp X

Regional afs.amp_USA_JUN2SEP_2018_CAIR_avg_day_all_pols_RPOlcp X

Regional afs.2018_USA_noTX_noEGU.RPOlcp X

Regional afs.gwei.2008.lcpRPO Monthly

Regional afs.Mexico_2018_from_EPA2011Platform_1999NEI.RPOlcp X

Regional afs.canada_2006_all_pols.RPOlcp Annual

19 Based on EPA’s 2008 NEI.Table 2

- 22 : 2018 Future Case Po int Source Emissions Summary summarizes the future case

emissions. These tabulated emissions are AFS totals input to EPS3. CAMx input values may

differ. The U.S. minus Texas column includes some points outside the modeling domain. The TX minus DFW column includes some points in Texas outside the modeling domain. As noted

earlier in S ection 2.1.1.4.1 , VOC emission totals incl ude acetone and ethane.

Table 2

- 22 : 2018 Future Case Po int Source Emissions Summary

Emission Source DFW

NO X (tpd) DFW

VOC

(tpd) TX minus

DFW

NO X (tpd) TX minus

DFW

VOC (tpd) U.S. minus

TX NO X

(tpd) U.S. minus

TX VOC

(tpd)

NEGUs (OSD) 40.8 47.3 523.3 461.9 3820.4 2248.1

EGUs (ARD) 16.8 4.4 466.2 27.3 4601.8 76.5

2.4 20 18 Point Source Control Strategy and/or Sensitivity Analyses

Existing controls with compliance dates that were in the past, were between the baseline and the projection base year, or were included in the projection base year, were modeled in the future

case identified above. Any new control strategies, RACT, RACM, other rules, potential rules, or sensitivity analyses that are modeled are appli ed on top of the future case modeling in order to determine the efficacy in the future. The point source sensitivity analyses performed for this

DFW attainment demonstration are (1) a DERC Flow Control sensitivity, and (2) a Cross State

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) sensitivity.

3. ON

- ROAD MOBILE SOURCE M ODELING EMISSIONS DE VELOPMENT

3.1 On

- Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventories for 10

- County DFW

This section provides a brief overview of the development of the 10

- county DFW area on

- road mobile source emissions inventory files that were input into the photochemical model for the

2006 base case, the 2006 baseline case, and the 2018 future case. The 2 010b version of

the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2010b) model was available at the time on

- road inventory development began for this SIP revision. A MOVES2014 update is currently being develop ed by the EPA and is anticipated for release sometime during 2014. The on

- road emission estimates presented here based on MOVES2010b will be revised provided that the MOVES2014 update is made available with sufficient lead time for on

- road inventory

develo pment.

These inventory datasets were developed under contract by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) and the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). NCTCOG developed

2006 link

- based on

- road emission estimates using MOVES2010a and travel d emand model (TDM) output for the DFW area. TTI developed 2006 and 2018 on

- road emission estimates using MOVES2010b and highway performance monitoring system (HPMS) data as the source for vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Previously developed 2012 link

- based in ventories for the DFW area using MOVES2010a were adjusted to the 2018 non

- link HPMS emission totals by county, vehicle type, and pollutant. This approach allowed for reasonable estimates of emissions while maintaining the improved spatial and temporal reso lution of a link

- based inventory from TDM output. After MOVES2014 is released, a 2018 link

- based inventory will be developed for the DFW area to replace these temporary estimates that rely on MOVES2010b and HPMS data sets for vehicle activity. All versions of the MOVES model output nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen
dioxide (NO 2 ), which are components of oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) . The tables in this sectionreport NO, NO 2 , and NO X separately. The emission rate differences between MOVES2010a and

MOVES2010b are negligible, so there was no need to revise existing inventories developed with

the former version of the model. For both the 2006 base case and the 2018 future case, school

and summer season on

- road emission inventories were developed for the four day type s of weekday (i.e., Monday through Thursday average), Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. For the on

road category, base case and baseline emissions are the same.

Table 3

- 1 : VMT and Emissions by Day Type for 2006 DFW On

- Road Inventory and Table 3

- 2 : VMT and Emissions by Day Type for 2018 DFW On

- Road Inventory provide summaries of the

to

tal VMT, NO, NO 2 , NO X , volatile organic compound (VOC), and carbon monoxide (CO)

emissions for the 10

- county DFW area for each day type for the 2006 base case and 2018 future case, respectively. As shown, Fridays have the highest total VMT of the week, whi le Saturdays and Sundays have the lowest total daily VMT. While overall VMT increases with future growth, total emissions decrease from 2006 to 2018 as a result of more stringent emissions standards for newer vehicles entering the fleet, combined with the simultaneous attrition of older, higher

emitting vehicles. Consistent with current federal and state rules, the on

- road inventories from

NCTCOG and TTI include the benefits of:

• reformulated gasoline (RFG) in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties;

• lo w Reid vapor pressure (RVP) gasoline in Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and

Wise counties;

• the inspection and maintenance (I/M) Program in Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson,

Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant counties; and

• Texas low emi ssion diesel (TxLED) fuel for all 10 DFW area counties.

Table 3

- 1 : VMT and Emissions by Day Type for 2006 DFW On

- Road Inventory

Season and

Day Type Vehicle Miles

Traveled NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

Summer Weekday 154,045,613 244.61 21.26 265.87 113.15 1,237.75

Summer Friday 170,936,527 249.23 22.22 271.45 116.77 1,338.20

Summer Saturday 139,619,754 178.95 16.38 195.33 105.36 1,161.40

Summer Sunday 115,271,466 160.96 14.30 175.26 98.97 1,024.54

School Weekday 154,807,847 245.31 21.33 266.64 113.45 1,241.61

School Friday 169,946,530 247.84 22.09 269.93 116.45 1,332.39

School Saturday 137,924,661 176.81 16.17 192.97 104.84 1,150.29

School Sunday 113,933,657 159.15 14.12 173.27 98.56 1,015.67

Table 3

- 2 : VMT and Emissions by Day Type for 2018 DFW On

- Road Inventory

Season and

Day Type Vehicle Miles

Traveled NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

Summer Weekday 197,875,806 95.95 17.41 113.36 55.63 671.77

Summer Friday 217,240,975 101.26 18.44 119.70 57.08 717.45

Summer Saturday 175,164,191 73.44 12.74 86.18 48.99 570.85

Summer Sunday 146,757,799 61.24 10.14 71.37 46.61 506.48

School Weekday 194,600,115 94.67 17.15 111.81 55.39 664.54

School Friday 216,824,488 101.13 18.40 119.54 57.07 716.98

School Saturday 174,811,945 73.37 12.72 86.09 48.98 570.76Season and

Day Type Vehicle Miles

Traveled NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

School Sunday 143,559,807 60.27 9.95 70.22 46.39 499.95

Even though all of the day type on

- road inventory datasets were used for photochemical model input, only the summer weekday emissions will be detailed here. For the 2006 base case and

2018 future case, the summaries of the VMT, NO, NO 2 , NO X , VOC, and CO emissions for each of

the 10 counties in the DFW area are sh own in Table 3

- 3 : VMT and Emissions by County for

2006 DFW On

- Road Inventory and Table 3

- 4 : VMT and Emissions by County for 2018 DFW

On

- Road Inventory , respectively.

Table 3

- 3 : VMT and Emissions by County for 2006 DFW On

- Road Inventory

DFW Area

County Vehicle Miles

Traveled NO

(tpd ) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

Collin 15,622,536 21.98 1.97 23.94 10.69 108.65

Dallas 62,826,353 96.45 8.38 104.83 46.41 510.76

Denton 13,205,166 20.69 1.81 22.50 9.33 93.29

Ellis 5,503,696 11.46 0.97 12.43 3.68 46.63

Johnson 4,448,585 8.61 0.74 9.35 3.72 44.95

Kaufman 4,460,300 8.71 0.77 9.48 2.60 36.24

Parker 3,723,312 8.13 0.68 8.81 2.71 34.02

Rockwall 1,891,799 3.41 0.30 3.71 1.32 15.59

Tarrant 39,676,458 58.94 5.11 64.05 30.58 318.99

Wise 2,687,409 6.22 0.54 6.76 2.13 28.63

Total 154,045,613 244.61 21.26 265.87 113.15 1,237.75

Table 3

- 4 : VMT and Emissions by County for 2018 DFW On

- Road Inventory

DFW Area

County Vehicle Miles

Traveled NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

Collin 23,945,248 11.29 2.03 13.32 7.06 80.29

Dallas 75,918,385 34.16 6.05 40.22 19.36 245.31

Denton 17,562,973 8.51 1.49 10.01 5.60 62.16

Ellis 6,126,909 3.63 0.69 4.32 1.72 22.75

Johnson 4,472,371 3.08 0.54 3.63 1.63 18.72

Kaufman 4,882,244 3.13 0.68 3.80 1.27 17.93

Parker 4,431,282 4.05 0.91 4.96 1.52 17.65

Rockwall 2,438,898 1.93 0.43 2.36 0.91 10.38

Tarrant 54,990,660 23.47 4.00 27.47 15.53 183.21

Wise 3,106,836 2.70 0.58 3.28 1.04 13.36

Total 197,875,806 95.95 17.41 113.36 55.63 671.77

Summaries for 2006 and 2018 of the VMT, NO, NO 2 , NO X , VOC, and CO emissions for the gasoline and diesel fuel source use type (SUT) c ombinations from the MOVES model are presented in Table 3

- 5: VMT and Emissions by Vehicle Type for 200 6 DFW On

- Road Inventory

and Table 3

- 6 : VMT and Emissions by Vehicle Type for 2018 DFW On

- Road Inventory

.Table 3

- 5 : VMT and Emissions by Vehicle Type for 2006 DFW On

- Road Inventory

Fuel and Source

Use Type Combination VMT NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

Gasoline

- Motorcycle 115,494 0.09 0.01 0.09 1.65 2.28

Gasoline

- Passenger Car 114,995,649 85.44 8.93 94.37 66.25 710.52

Gasoline

- Passenger Truck 22,697,315 36.37 3.54 39.91 27.07 341.46

Gasoline

- Light Commercial Truck 5,976,926 10.37 1.03 11.40 7.67 98.36

Gasoline

- Transit Bus 384 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03

Gasoline

- School Bus 12,025 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.79

Gasoline

- Refuse Truck 3,814 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.18

Gasoline

- Single Unit Short

- Haul Truck 987,307 3.62 0.22 3.84 1.39 34.40

Gasoline

- Single Unit Long

- Haul Truck 135,940 0.48 0.03 0.51 0.18 4.21

Gasoline

- Motor Home 121,190 0.49 0.03 0.52 0.18 4.25

Gasoline

- Combination Short

- Haul Truck 822 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.08

Diesel

- Passenger Car 383,052 0.66 0.05 0.71 0.05 0.21

Diesel

- Passenger Truck 76,577 0.38 0.03 0.41 0.06 0.36

Diesel

- Light Commercial Truck 1,158,474 5.80 0.40 6.21 0.86 5.29

Diesel

- Intercity Bus 140,127 2.72 0.19 2.91 0.12 0.86

Diesel

- Transit Bus 39,048 0.61 0.04 0.65 0.04 0.24

Diesel

- School Bus 145,653 1.38 0.10 1.47 0.12 0.58

Diesel

- Refuse Truck 91,543 0.94 0.07 1.01 0.06 0.33

Diesel

- Single Unit Short

- Haul Truck 2,184,787 13.84 0.96 14.80 1.57 6.60

Diesel

- Single Unit Long

- Haul Truck 305,838 1.88 0.13 2.01 0.23 0.89

Diesel

- Motor Home 70,569 0.50 0.03 0.54 0.06 0.19

Diesel

- Combination Short

- Haul Truck 1,815,580 27.85 1.94 29.78 1.36 8.67

Diesel

- Combination Long

- Haul Truck 2,587,498 51.09 3.55 54.64 4.18 16.98

Total 154,045,613 244.61 21.26 265.87 113.15 1,237.75

Table 3

- 6 : VMT and Emissions by Vehicle Type for 2018 DFW On

- Road Inventory

Fuel and Source

Use Type Combination VMT NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

Gasoline

- Motorcycle 145,430 0.08 0.00 0.09 2.57 1.53

Gasoline

- Passenger Car 144,311,696 25.87 3.33 29.20 30.88 369.83

Gasoline

- Passenger Truck 27,227,682 16.75 2.14 18.89 12.73 167.64

Gasoline

- Light Commercial Truck 8,287,581 6.06 0.82 6.87 4.21 61.04

Gasoline

- Transit Bus 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Gasoline

- School Bus 2,044 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06

Gasoline

- Refuse Truck 18,404 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.57

Gasoline

- Single Unit Short

- Haul Truck 1,696,944 3.85 0.67 4.52 1.03 32.47

Gasoline

- Single Unit Long

- Haul Truck 200,156 0.43 0.08 0.51 0.11 3.22

Gasoline

- Motor Home 92,611 0.26 0.03 0.29 0.08 1.92

Gasoline

- Combination Short

- Haul Truck 404,078 1.61 0.28 1.89 0.35 9.36

Diesel

- Passenger Car 579,590 0.19 0.03 0.23 0.02 1.15

Diesel

- Passenger Truck 583,736 0.83 0.20 1.03 0.09 1.04

Diesel

- Light Commercial Truck 982,869 1.78 0.34 2.12 0.23 2.07

Diesel

- Intercity Bus 174,875 0.98 0.13 1.11 0.05 0.40Fuel and Source

Use Type Combination VMT NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

Diesel

- Transit Bus 50,126 0.20 0.03 0.23 0.02 0.12

Diesel

- School Bus 192,201 0.55 0.07 0.62 0.06 0.33

Diesel

- Refuse Truck 39,828 0.15 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.07

Diesel

- Single Unit Short

- Haul Truck 3,727,479 2.80 1.13 3.93 0.32 3.72

Diesel

- Single Unit Long

- Haul Truck 413,947 0.31 0.12 0.43 0.04 0.36

Diesel

- Motor Home 201,377 0.44 0.08 0.51 0.07 0.26

Diesel

- Combination Short

- Haul Truck 3,595,175 9.33 2.22 11.55 0.51 3.89

Diesel

- Combination Long

- Haul Truck 4,947,976 23.39 5.68 29.08 2.22 10.72

Total 197,875,806 95.95 17.41 113.36 55.63 671.77

The MOVES2010a run specification files used to develop these inventories for 2006, along with detailed reports and summary output data, can be found on the 2006 DFW on

- road FTP site

a

t ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/DFW/mvs/2006/ . The MOVES2010b run specification files used to develop these inventories for 2018, along with detailed reports and

summary output data, can be found on the 2018 Texas on

- road FTP site

at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/M obile_EI/Statewide/mvs/2018/

.

3.2 On

- Road Mobile Source Emissions Processing

The on

- road emissions inventory data provided by NCTCOG and TTI were prepared for input into the photochemical model using version 3 of the Emissions Processor System (EPS3). When

inp ut into EPS3, the inventory data are in a readable text

- based format. However, the emissions data are maintained in a binary format within EPS3. Table 3

- 7

: EPS3 Modules for Processing

On

- Road Emissions summarizes the EPS3 modules that were used to process the 10

- county

DFW on

- road inventories.

Table 3

- 7 : EPS3 Modules for Processing On

- Road Emissions

EPS3

Module Description

LBASE Spatially allocate link

- based emissions among grid cells.

PREAM Prepare non

- link “roadway type” emissions for further processing.

PREPNT Prepare stationary extended idling emissions for further processing.

CNTLEM Apply controls to model strategies, apply adjustments, etc.

TMPRL Apply temporal profiles to extended idling emissions.

SPCEMS Chemically speciate VOC emissions into olefins, par af f ins, etc.

GRDEM Sum emissions by grid cell for photochemical model input.

MRGUAM Merge and adjust multiple gridded files for photochemical model input.

The MOVES2010a and MOVES2010b model s only estimate extended idling emissions for the

diesel fuel combina tion long

- haul truck category. Using a combination of SAS and LINUX code,

the extended id ling emiss ions were aggregated into a 10

- county total and spatially assigned to known truck stop locations. The extended idling emissions were then processed through EPS3 as if they were stationary low

- level point sources

. The summer weekday extended idlin g emissions by county are presented below in Table 3

- 8 : 2006 and 2018 DFW Area Long

- Haul Truck Extended Idling Emissions

. Greater detail on heavy

- duty vehicle idling activity specific to Texas metropolitan areas can be found in a report entitled Heavy

- Duty Vehicle Idle Activity an dEmissions Characterization Study , which is available

at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/airmod/project/pj_report_mob.html

.

Table 3

- 8 : 2006 and 2018 DFW Area Long

- Haul Truck Extended Idling Emissions

Calendar

Year NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

2006 7.04 0.49 7.53 2.22 3.31

2018 4.99 2.26 7.25 1.28 3.84

3.2.1. Texas Low Emission Diesel Fuel Benefits

Based on the EPA memorandum Texas Low Emission Diesel (LED) Fuel Benefits (September
27, 2001), a 4.8% NO X TxLED reduction should be claimed for 2002

- and

- newer diesel vehicles

an d a 6.2% NO X TxLED reduction should be claimed for 2001

- and

- older diesel vehicles. In order to determine the specific TxLED adjustment factors that should apply to each of the twelve diesel fuel source use types, MOVES2010a and MOVES2010b runs were perform ed to

determine NO X emissions rates by model year. By using these data, the 4.8% and 6.2% TxLED reduction factors were weighted according to the model year specific diesel NO X emission rates.

The TCEQ TxLED factors FTP site

at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/Statewide/mvs/txled/ contains more detail on this analysis. The resulting TxLED ad justment factors and benefits for both 2006 and 2018 are

summarized in Table 3

- 9 : 2006 DFW On

- Road TxLED Benefits by Vehicle Type and Table 3

- 10 :
2018 DFW On

- Road TxLED Benefits by Vehicle Type , respectively. The TxLED adjustment factors were incorporated by NCTCOG and TTI into the on

- road inventories by post

- processing

the MOVES d iesel fuel source use type NO X emission rates.

Table 3

- 9 : 2006 DFW On

- Road TxLED Benefits by Vehicle Type

Diesel Fuel

Source Use Type NO X Reduction Adjustment

Factor NO X Benefit

(tpd)

Passenger Car 5.06% 0.9494 0.04

Passenger Truck 5.68% 0.9432 0.02

Light Commercial Truck 5.56% 0.9444 0.37

Intercity Bus 5.97% 0.9403 0.18

Transit Bus 5.94% 0.9406 0.04

School Bus 5.92% 0.9408 0.09

Refuse Truck 5.85% 0.9415 0.06

Single Unit Short

- Haul Truck 5.31% 0.9469 0.83

Single Unit Long

- Haul Truck 5.35% 0.9465 0.11

Motor Home 5.77% 0.9423 0.03

Combination Short

- Haul Truck 5.82% 0.9418 1.84

Combination Long

- Haul Truck 5.83% 0.9417 3.38

Total 7.0 1

Table 3

- 10 : 2018 DFW On

- Road TxLED Benefits by Vehicle Type

Diesel Fuel

Source Use Type NO X Reduction Adjustment

Factor NO X Benefit

(tpd)Diesel Fuel

Source Use Type NO X Reduction Adjustment

Factor NO X Benefit

(tpd)

Passenger Car 4.84% 0.9516 0.01

Passenger Truck 5.05% 0.9495 0.05

Light Commercial Truck 5.10% 0.9490 0.11

Intercity Bus 5.63% 0.9437 0.07

Transit Bus 5.54% 0.9446 0.01

School Bus 5.59% 0.9441 0.04

Refuse Truck 5.45% 0.9455 0.01

Single Unit Short

- Haul Truck 4.89% 0.9511 0.20

Single Unit Long

- Haul Truck 4.92% 0.9508 0.02

Motor Home 5.34% 0.9466 0.03

Combination Short

- Haul Truck 5.21% 0.9479 0.63

Combination Long

- Haul Truck 5.15% 0.9485 1.58

Total 2.77

3.3 10

- County DFW Photochemical Modeling Input

The summer weekday on

- road emissions by county that were input into the photochemical

model are summarized below in Table 3

- 11 : 2006 DFW Area Summer Weekday On

- Road Emissions by County and Table 3

- 12 : 2018 DFW Area Summer Weekday On

- Road Em issions by County . The se on

- road inventory summari es are a combination of running exhaust, evaporative,

off

- network, and extended idling emissions

. Differences by individual counties betwee n these figures and those referenced above in Table 3

- 3 and Table 3

- 4 are due to the spatial reallocation of extended idling emissions presented above in Table 3

- 8 . Howeve r, the 10

- county total on

road emission estimates do not differ.

Table 3

- 11 : 2006 DFW Area Summer Weekday On

- Road Emissions by County

DFW Area

County NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

Collin 21.98 1.96 23.94 10.68 108.64

Dallas 95.80 8.33 104.13 46.20 510.45

Denton 20.59 1.80 22.39 9.29 93.24

Ellis 11.54 0.97 12.51 3.71 46.67

Johnson 8.38 0.72 9.10 3.65 44.85

Kaufman 9.51 0.82 10.33 2.85 36.61

Parker 8.90 0.74 9.63 2.95 34.38

Rockwall 3.73 0.32 4.06 1.42 15.74

Tarrant 58.19 5.06 63.26 30.34 318.65

Wise 5.99 0.53 6.51 2.06 28.53

Total 244.61 21.26 265.87 113.15 1,237.75

Table 3

- 12 : 2018 DFW Area Summer Weekday On

- Road Emissions by County

DFW Area

County NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)DFW Area

County NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

Collin 11.07 1.94 13.01 7.01 80.24

Dallas 34.23 6.08 40.32 19.38 245.69

Denton 8.54 1.50 10.04 5.60 62.24

Ellis 3.75 0.75 4.50 1.75 22.88

Johnson 3.11 0.55 3.65 1.63 18.74

Kaufman 3.44 0.82 4.26 1.35 18.20

Parker 4.17 0.96 5.13 1.55 17.77

Rockwall 1.88 0.40 2.29 0.89 10.35

Tarrant 23.48 4.00 27.48 15.53 183.47

Wise 2.27 0.42 2.69 0.93 12.19

Total 95.95 17.41 113.36 55.63 671.77

The total 10

- county DFW on

- road emissions input to the photochemical model by day type are

summarized below in Table 3

- 13 : 2006 DFW Area On

- Road Emissions by Season and Day Type

and Table 3

- 14 : 2018 DFW Area On

- Road Emissions by Season and Day Type

. Slight differences by day type between these figures and those prese nted i n Table 3

- 1 and Table 3

- 2 are due to the

on

- road emission inv entories being developed in Central Daylight Time (CDT), but processed for photochemical model input in Central Standard Time (CST)

. For example, the 11 PM

– 12 AM CST emissions on a Friday evening are based on 12

- 1 AM CDT emissions from a Saturday.

Table 3

- 13 : 2006 DFW Area On

- Road Emissions by Season and Day Type

Season and

Day Type NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

Summer Weekday 244.61 21.26 265.87 113.15 1,237.75

Summer Friday 249.64 22.28 271.92 116.97 1,343.06

Summer Saturday 179.13 16.40 195.53 105.38 1,161.81

Summer Sunday 160.23 14.21 174.44 98.68 1,017.86

School Weekday 245.31 21.33 266.64 113.45 1,241.61

School Friday 248.24 22.14 270.38 116.65 1,337.14

School Saturday 177.00 16.18 193.18 104.87 1,150.74

School Sunday 158.39 14.02 172.42 98.26 1,008.85

Table 3

- 14 : 2018 DFW Area On

- Road Emissions by Season and Day Type

Season and

Day Type NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

Summer Weekday 95.95 17.41 113.36 55.63 671.77

Summer Friday 101.18 18.36 119.54 57.21 719.92

Summer Saturday 73.32 12.68 86.01 48.95 570.29

Summer Sunday 61.04 10.21 71.26 46.41 501.41

School Weekday 94.67 17.15 111.81 55.39 664.54

School Friday 101.57 18.34 119.91 58.27 726.52Season and

Day Type NO

(tpd) NO 2 (tpd) NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd)

School Saturday 73.74 12.69 86.43 49.99 577.13

School Sunday 60.60 10.04 70.65 47.25 501.76

The EPS3 message files for 2006 DFW along with the gridded files input into the photochemical

model are available on the TCEQ DFW 2006 FTP site

at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/DFW/eps3/2006/ . The EPS3 message files for 2018 DFW along with the gridded files input into the photochemical model are available on

the 2018 DFW FTP site at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/DFW/eps3/2018/

.

Similar on

- road mobile EPS3 mess age and gridded files for the Texas

- only portion of the modeling domain are available for both 2006 and 2018

at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/Statewide/eps3/2006/

, and ftp://amdaf tp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/Statewide/eps3/2018/ , respectively.

Similar on

- road mobile EPS3 message and gridded files for the non

- Texas U.S. portions of the modeling domain are available for both 2006 and 2018

at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/USA/eps3/2006/

, and ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/USA/eps3/2018/ , respectively.

Similar 2006 and 2018 on

- road mobile EPS3 message and gridded files for the Canada

and Mexico portions of the modeling domain are available

at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas. gov/pub/Mobile_EI/CAN/eps3/

, and ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/MEX/eps3/ , respectively.

3.4 Attainment Demonstration Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

By definition, the future case on

- road NO X and VOC emission estimates input into the final attainment demonstration photochemical modeling run should establish the motor vehicle

emis sions budget (MVEB). The 2018 s ummer weekday on

- road emissions are the most

representative season and day type for this purpose, and are presented below in Table 3

- 15 : Attainment Demonstration MVEB for the 10

- County DFW Area . As shown, these 2018 figur es match those provided by TTI as summarized above in Table 3

- 2

, Table 3

- 4 , and Table 3

- 6

. No emission reduction credits were taken for local transport ation control measures (TCMs) and voluntary mo bile source emission reduction program (VMEP) strategies . As mentioned above in

Section 3.1 , it is expected that a 2018 link

- based inventory based on TDM output for the DFW area will be developed by NCTCOG using MOVES2014. When it is available, these attainment demonstration MVEB figures will change.

Table 3

- 15 : Attainment Demonstration MVEB for the 10

- C ounty DFW Area

10

- County DFW Area

On

- Road Emissions NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd)

2018 On

- Roa d Inventory Fr om TTI ( Table 3

- 2 )

Includes RFG, Low RVP, I/M, and TxLED 113.36 55.63

The following pages contain graphical plots of the spatial and temporal distribution of 2006 and

2018 on

- road summer weekday NO X and VOC emissions for the greater DFW area. The plots show that the morning rush hour peak is appropriately allocated to 6

- 7 AM CST, which is 7

- 8 AM CDT. These plots are respectively entitled Figure 3

- 1 : 2006 Summer Weekday DFW On

Ro ad NO X Emissions Distribution

, Figure 3

- 2 : 2006 Summer Weekday DFW On

- Road VOCEmissions Distribution

, Figure 3

- 3 : 2018 Summer Weekday DFW On

- Road NO X Emissions

Distribution , and Figure 3

- 4 : 2018 Summer Weekday DFW On

- Road VOC Emissions

Distri bution

.Figure 3

- 1 : 2006 Summer Weekday DFW On

- Road NO X Emissions DistributionFigure 3

- 2 : 2006 Summer Weekday DFW On

- Road VOC Emissions DistributionFigure 3

- 3 : 2018 Summer Weekday DFW On

- Road NO X Emissions DistributionFigure 3

- 4 : 2018 Summer Weekday DFW On

- Road VOC Emissions Distribution3.5 On

- Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventories for Non

- DFW Areas

For the Texas counties outside of the DFW area, on

- road emissions were developed by TTI using

HPMS data as the basis for VMT estimates. Both school and summer season emission estimates were developed for the four day types of weekday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Hourly emission rates from MOVES2010b were coupled with county

- level VMT estimates by roadway type for 2006 and 2018. More detail on the development of these HPMS

- based on

- road datasets

can be found on the TCEQ Texas 2006 FTP site and the TCEQ Texas 2018 FTP site

at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/Statewide/mvs/2006/

, and ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/Statewide/mvs/2018/ , respectively.

On

- road emission estimates for non

- Texas states within the photochemical modeling domain were developed for both 2006 and 2018 using default runs from the MOVES2010b model,

which is available on EPA’s MOVES web page at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/ . For

both 2006 and 2018 , default on

- road emissio ns were estimated for the July weekday option available with MOVES2010b. These summer weekday emission totals were then adjusted with EPS3 to obtain inputs for the other season and day type combinations. More detail on the development of the MOVES2010b on

- road datasets can be found on the TCEQ U.S. 2006 FTP

site and the TCEQ U.S. 2018 FTP site

at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/USA/mvs/2006/

, and ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Mobile_EI/USA/mvs/2018/ , respect ively.

More detail on this analysis is documented in a presentation entitled Using the MOVES Model in Inventory Mode to Develop Regional On

- Road Emission Inputs for Air Quality Modeling Applications , which was presented at an EPA workshop in J une of 2011 and is available

at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/mo ves/conference2011/inventory

- regional

- moves

2011.pdf

. A summary of the different on

- road emission estimation approaches by geographic

area taken for this DFW SIP revision is provided in Table 3

- 16 : On

- Road Inventory Development Method ologies by Geographic Area

.

Table 3

- 16 : On

- Road Inventory Development Methodologies by Geographic Area

On

- Road Inventory

Development Parameter DFW

Area Non

- DFW

Texas Counties Non

- Texas

States and Counties

VMT

Source TDM HPMS MOVES2010b

Defaults

VMT

Resolution Roadway Links

From TDM 19 Roadway

Types 12 Roadway

Types

Season Types School and Summer School and Summer School and Summer

Day

Types Weekday, Friday,

Saturday, and Sunday Weekday, Friday,

Saturday, and Sunday Weekday, Friday,

Saturday, and Sunday

Hourly Variation in

VMT? Yes Yes Yes

Roadway Speed

Distribution Varies by Hour

and Link Varies by Hour and

Roadway Type MOVES2010b

Default s
Spatial

Resolution Excellent Very

Good Good

Temporal

Resolution Excellent Very

Good Good

MOVES Fuel and

Source Use Types Gasoline and Diesel

13 Source Use Types Gasoline and Diesel

13 Source Use Types Gasoline and Diesel

13 Source Use Types4. NON

- ROAD, OFF

- ROAD, AND AREA SOURC E MODELING EMISSIONS

4.1 Oil and Gas Production and Drilling Emission Inventory Development

Oil and gas production emission estimates were developed based on activity data from

the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) multiplied by emission factors for specific operations and types of equipment from an Eastern Research Group (ERG) study entitled Characterization of Oil and Gas Production Equipment and Develop a Methodology to Estimate Statewide

Emissions . This report is available on the TCEQ Air Quality Research and Contracts Reports: Emissions Inventory web page

at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/airmod/p roject/pj_report_ei.html . Activity data from the RRC specific to 2006 and 2013 were obtained for production of natural gas, crude oil, and condensate, along with additional information for parameters such as the total number of operational gas wells, opera tional oil wells, etc. These activity figures were then multiplied by appropriate emission factors from the ERG study to obtain oil and gas production emission estimates. For example, compressor engine emissions are a function of natural gas production,

so compressor engine emission rates were multiplied by total natural gas produced. Condensate storage tank emission estimates were calculated as a function of condensate production. In a similar manner, emissions from crude oil storage tanks are a function o f crude oil production. The ERG study referenced above contains a summary of how each calculation is performed. The 2006 oil and gas production emission estimates for the 10

- county DFW area are summarized in

Table 4

- 1 : 2006 DFW Area O il and Gas Production Emissions by Equipment Type . Emission estimates for nitrogen oxides (NO X ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO),
sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and 2.5 micron particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) are provided.

Table 4

- 1 : 2006 DFW Area Oil and Gas Production Emissions by Equipment Type

Oil and Gas Production Equipment NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Rich Burn Compressors 50 To 499 HP 56.19 0.10 2.54 0.00 0.01

Natural Gas Well Heaters 2.11 0.12 1.77 0.00 0.16

Natural Gas 2

- Cycle Lean Burn Compressors 50 To 499 HP 1.45 0.14 0.21 0.00 0.03

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Rich Burn Compressors 500+ HP w/NSCR 0.84 0.16 7.25 0.00 0.05

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Lean Burn Compressors 500+ HP 0.71 1.43 6.77 0.01 0.03

Oil Production

- Artificial Lift 0.32 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00

Oil Production

- Heater Treater 0.14 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.01

Natural Gas Well Dehydrators 0.08 1.65 0.23 0.00 0.00

Oil Production

- All Processes 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Rich Burn Compressors 50 To 499 HP w/NSCR 0.00 0.01 0.61 0.00 0.02

Natural Gas Condensate

- Storage Tanks 0.00 18.06 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Well Pneumatic Devices 0.00 7.07 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Exploration

- Well Completion, All Processes 0.00 3.34 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil and Gas Production

- Produced Water 0.00 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Fugitives

– Other 0.00 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Fugitives

– Valves 0.00 1.73 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Well Venting 0.00 1.19 0.00 0.00 0.00

Crude Oil Storage Tanks 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Condensate

- Tank Truck/Railcar Loading 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production

– Wellhead 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Well Pneumatic Devices 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Fugitives

– Flanges 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00Oil and Gas Production Equipment NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Natural Gas Fugitives

– Connectors 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Well Completion

- All Processes 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Fugitives

- Open Ended Lines 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production Fugitives

– Other 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00

Crude Oil Truck/Railcar Loading 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Fugitives

– Pumps 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production Fugitives

– Valves 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production Fugitives

– Pumps 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Production

- Compressor Engines 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.01

Oil Production Fugitives

– Connectors 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production Fugitives

- Open Ended Lines 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas 2

- Cycle Lean Burn Compressors < 50 HP 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Oil Production Fugitives

– Flanges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Rich Burn Compressors <50 HP 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Oil and Gas Production Total 61.84 43.72 20.09 0.03 0.32

2018 future year emission estimates for oil and gas production were projected using 2013 RRC data, which is the latest full year for which such activity information is available. The 2013

- to

2018 projection factors were obtained from an ERG study entitled Forecasting Oil and Gas

Activities , which is also available on the TCEQ Air Quality Research and Contracts Reports: Emissions Inventory web page . ERG evaluated several methodologies for the purposes of projecting oil and gas production levels, and recommended t he best one to be the Hubbert peak theory, which relies on a bell

- shaped curve to predict the rate of fossil fuel extraction over time from a specific region. Table 4

- 2 : Barnett Shale Emission Projection Factors from 2013 to 2018 summarizes these projection factors from the ERG study for natural gas, crude oil, and condensate. The 2013 emission estimates, based directly on historical RRC data, were then multiplied by th ese factors to obtain the 2018 estimates by equipment type presented in Table

4

- 3 : 2018 DFW Area Oil and Gas Production Emissions by Equipment Type

. Table 4

- 1 and Table

4

- 3 show that compressor engine emissions are the primary source of NO X fro m oil and gas activity in the Barnett Shale, but that the 2018 levels are much lower than 2006. This is primarily due to the introduction of rules for compressor engines above 50 horsepower that were not in place during 2006. Without these rules, the avera ge natural gas compressor engine

emission rate would be 6.94 NO X grams/horsepower

- hour (gm/hp

- hr). Introduction of this rule lowered this emission rate by roughly 91% to 0.61 NO X gm/hp

- hr.

Table 4

- 2 : Barnett S hale Emission Projection Factors from 2013 to 2018

Fossil Fuel

Type Barnett Shale Projection

Factor from 2013 to 2018

Natural Gas 47.69%

Crude Oil 52.13%

Condensate 13.67%

Table 4

- 3 : 2018 DFW Area Oil and Gas Production Emissions by Equipment Type

Oil and Gas Production Equipment NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Rich Burn Compressors 50 To 499 HP 4.49 0.05 1.73 0.00 0.01Oil and Gas Production Equipment NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Rich Burn Compressors 50 To 499 HP w/NSCR 1.11 0.05 2.10 0.01 0.09

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Rich Burn Compressors <50 HP 0.68 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Rich Burn Compressors 500+ HP w/NSCR 0.51 0.02 0.81 0.00 0.04

Oil Production

- Artificial Lift 0.13 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Rich Burn Compressors 500+ HP 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Lean Burn Compressors 50 To 499 HP 0.06 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Lean Burn Compressors <50 HP 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas 2

- Cycle Lean Burn Compressors 50 To 499 HP 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.01

Natural Gas 2

- Cycle Lean Burn Compressors 500+ HP 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Well Dehydrators 0.01 1.57 0.16 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Well Heaters 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Lean Burn Compressors 500+ HP 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Production

- Compressor Engines 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

Oil Production

- All Processes 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00

Oil Production

- Heater Treater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil and Gas Production

- Hydraulic Fracturing Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Well Pneumatic Devices 0.00 6.68 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Exploration

- Well Pneumatic Pumps 0.00 5.27 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Condensate

- Storage Tanks 0.00 2.72 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Fugitives

- Other 0.00 1.93 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Well Venting 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Fugitives

- Valves 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil and Gas Production

- Produced Water 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00

Crude Oil Storage Tanks 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Exploration

- Well Completion, All Processes 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Fugitives

- Flanges 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Fugitives

- Connectors 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production

- Wellhead 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Fugitives

- Open Ended Lines 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Well Pneumatic Devices 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Fugitives

- Pumps 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Condensate

- Tank Truck/Railcar Loading 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production Fugitives

- Other 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Well Completion

- All Processes 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Exploration

- Mud Degassing 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Well Pneumatic Pumps 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Crude Oil Truck/Railcar Loading 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production Fugitives

- Valves 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production Fugitives

- Pumps 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production Fugitives

- Connectors 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas Exploration

- Mud Degassing 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production Fugitives

- Open Ended Lines 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oil Production Fugitives

- Flanges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Natural Gas 4

- Cycle Rich Burn Compressors 50 To 499 HP 4.49 0.05 1.73 0.00 0.01Oil and Gas Production Equipment NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Oil and Gas Production Total 7.15 23.79 5.41 0.03 0.15

The 2006 and 2018 oil and gas production emissions presented in Table 4

- 3 do not include those from large point sources that are required to report emissions directly to the TCEQ. Table

4

- 4 : 2006 DFW Area Point Source Oil and Gas Emission by Industry Type and Table 4

- 5 : 2018 DFW Area Point Source Oil and Gas Emissions by Industry Type present respective 20 06 and 2018 summaries of the point source emission estimates by industry type associated with oil and gas production. Additional detail on point source emissions inventory development and processing can be found in Chapter 2 of this Appendix.

Table 4

- 4 : 2006 DFW Area Point Source Oil and Gas Emission by Industry Type

Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Description SIC

Code NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 1311 4.78 15.67 4.88 0.00 0.20

Natural Gas Liquids 1321 5.43 2.70 2.58 0.01 0.17

Natural Gas Transmission 4922 1.03 0.81 0.96 0.00 0.04

Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals 5171 0.08 1.89 0.12 0.00 0.00

Mixed, Manufactured, LPG Production 4925 0.21 0.00 0.19 0.04 0.01

Refined Petroleum Pipelines 4613 0.01 0.74 0.02 0.00 0.00

DFW Area Total NA 11.53 21.82 8.74 0.05 0.42

Table 4

- 5 : 2018 DFW Area Point Source Oil and Gas Emissions by Industry Type

Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Description SIC

Code NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 1311 10.74 16.70 8.44 0.03 0.67

Natural Gas Liquids 1321 4.48 5.01 3.24 0.01 0.20

Natural Gas Transmission 4922 1.06 2.29 0.79 0.01 0.19

Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals 5171 0.06 1.66 0.15 0.00 0.00

Mixed, Manufactured, LPG Production 4925 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.01

Refined Petroleum Pipelines 4613 0.01 0.37 0.02 0.00 0.00

DFW Area Total NA 16.37 26.02 12.75 0.07 1.07

Daily average drilling rig emission estimates for 2006 and 2018 are summarized in Table 4

- 6 : 2006 and 2018 DFW Area Drilling Rig Emission Estimates

. The 2006 estimates were based on an ERG study entitled Development of Texas Statewide Drilling Rigs Emissi on Inventories

, which is available on the TCEQ Air Quality Research and Contracts Reports: Emissions Inventory web page

.

Table 4

- 6 : 2006 and 2018 DFW Area Drilling Rig Emission Estimates

Calendar Year for Drilling Rig Activity NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

2006 Drilling Rig Emissions 18.23 1.16 3.57 1.65 0.59

2018 Drilling Rig Emissions 2.82 0.21 0.45 0.00 0.06The 2018 drilling rig emission estimates were obtained by applying 2018 emission factors to the 2013 drilling activity summarized in Table 4

- 7 : 2013 DFW Area Oil and Gas Drilling Activity

. Different emission rates apply based on average well depth and whether conventional “vertical only” drilling is being done versus the horizontal drilling commonly associated with fracturing. Since drilling rig equipment is subject to federal non

- road emission standards, average emission rates decline over time due to fleet turnover. Drilling rig emission rates for each year from 1999

- 2040 are summarized in Chapter 4: Emissions Inventory Devel opment and Results of

the Development of Texas Statewide Drilling Rigs Emission Inventories ERG study.

Tab le 4

- 7 : 2013 DFW Area Oil and Gas Drilling Activity

Type and Depth of

2013 Drilling Levels 2013 Feet

Drilled

Vertical/Horizontal Drilling 5,556,499

Vertical Drilling less than 7,000 Feet 17,608

Vertical Drilling greater than 7,000 Feet 16,073

Figure 4

- 1 : Barnett Shale Drilling and Natural Gas Production from 1993

- 2014 summarizes Barnett Shale drilling and productio n levels from 1993 through the present based on regularly updated information available on the RRC Barnett Shale Information web page . The blue line in Figure 4

- 1 is the daily average natural gas production rate from 1993 through April 2014. As shown, Barnett Shale natural gas production has followed a bell

- shaped curv e with production levels peaking in 2012 when the daily average extraction rate was 5,748 million cubic feet (MMcf) per day. From this 2012 peak, the 2013 daily average was 5,335 MMcf/day (7% lower) and the current 2014 daily average is 4,751 MMcf/day (17% lower).

The black line in Figure 4

- 1 is the Henry Hub natural gas spot price, which hovered in the $7

- 9 range during the Barnett Shale drilling boom years of 2005 thr ough 2008, and then dropped to

the $3

- 4 range where it has remained since. The red line in Figure 4

- 1 shows how the number of drilling permits issued reached a peak of roughly 4,000 in 2008, declined steeply through 2009 as natural gas prices fell, and since 2012 have been in the range of roughly 1,000 per year, similar to the pre

- drilling boom years of 2001

- 2004. A University of Texas at Austin study

entitled Barnett Study Determines Full

- Field Reserves, Production Forecast evaluated historical production data per well to determine that the natural gas extraction rate is highest in the first year and then begins to decline exponentially. For an average production span of 25 years per well, roughly 50% of the natural gas is e xtracted in the first five years, with the remaining 50% extracted within the subsequent twenty years. The decline in natural gas production since 2012 is expected because wells that began producing during the drilling boom years of 2005 through 2008 are n ow past this five

- year mark, and drilling levels from 2009 onwards have not been sufficient to keep production either at or near the 2012 peak. The TCEQ will continue to monitor the monthly updates provided by the RRC to determine if any changes

occur in t hese recent drilling and production trends.Figure 4

- 1 : Barnett Shale Drilling and Natural Gas Production from 1993

- 2014

The production and drilling rig emission estimates presented above were prepared fo r photochemical model input using version 3 of the Emissions Processor System (EPS3). Spatial allocation of these emission estimates was based on the latest available activity data from the RRC. For example, 2013 natural gas production data for each operat ional well were used to develop a weighted surrogate for allocating 2018 natural gas production emissions. A similar approach was used to develop separate weighted surrogates for emissions associated with crude oil and condensate production. 2018 drilling rig emissions were allocated to locations where 2013 wells were drilled. Even though it is unlikely that 2018 drilling will occur in the exact same

locations as 2013, low

- level emissions are evenly distributed within 4 kilometer (km) grid cells for photoch emical model input. Since 2018 production and drilling is likely to be concentrated near currently operational wells, this spatial allocation approach is reasonable. 2006 production and drilling rig emissions were allocated based on available RRC data spec ific to that year.

For the non

- DFW areas of Texas, all of the steps described above are similar for the development and EPS3 processing of emissions associated with drilling rigs and production of natural gas, crude oil, and condensate. For projecting to 2 018, the latest available RRC activity data from 2013 were obtained for every Texas county. The ERG Forecasting Oil and Gas

Activities study provided different projection factors for the Barnett, Eagle Ford, and Haynesville Shale formations. The EPS3 processing streams for emissions from oil and gas activities are divided into seven separate str eams for: $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000Henry Hub Spot Price(Dollars per Million BTU)Well Counts, Drilling Permits Issued, and Daily Average Production(MMCF)

Calendar Year Well Count Divided by Two - Through March 2014

Drilling Permits Issued - Through June 2014

Daily Average Production - Through April 2014

Henry Hub Spot Price - Annual Average• the 10

- county DFW area;

• the eight Barnett Shale counties of Cooke, Erath, Hill, Hood, Jack, Montague, Palo Pinto,

and Somervell not included within the 10

- county DFW area;

• the eight counties in the Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria (HGB) area;

• the 10 co unties comprising the Texas portion of the Haynesville Shale;

• 26 counties within the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas;

• 45 counties within the Permian Basin in West Texas; and

• the remaining 147 Texas counties.

The complete EPS3 processing streams for all of these areas are available for both 2006

and 2018 at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Oil_Gas_EI/2006/

and ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Oil_Gas_EI/2018/ . The following pages contain graphical plots of the 2006 and 2018 oil and gas production and drilling NO X and VOC emissions for the DFW area. As shown, these emissions are concentrated in the western portion of the DFW area where oil and gas production occurs. These plots are respectively entitled Figure 4

- 2 : 2006 DFW Oil and Gas Production NO X Emissions Distribution

, Figure 4

- 3 : 2006

DFW Oil and Gas Production VOC Emissions Distribution

, Figure 4

- 4 : 2018 DFW Oil and Gas

Production NO X Emissions Distribution , and Figure 4

- 5 : 2018 DFW Oil and Gas Production

VOC Emissions Distribution . Spatial allocation of dr illing rig emission estimates for 2006 and 2018, respectively, are provided in Figure 4

- 6 : 2006 DFW Drilling Rig NO X Emissions

Distribution and F igure 4

- 7 : 2018 DFW Drilling Rig NO X Emissions Distribution . Since diesel

powered drilling rig equipment emits low levels of VOC, only NO X plots are provided here. As shown, drilling rig em issions are also concentrated in the western half of DFW where oil and gas
activity occurs.

For the non

- Texas U.S. areas of the modeling domain, oil and gas production and drilling rig

emission estimates from the EPA National Emissions Inventory (NEI) were used. The 2008 NEI was used for the 2006 inputs, and the 2011 NEI was used for the 2018 inputs. The emission estimates from these NEI datasets were processed through EPS3 in a manner similar to that

described above for Texas.Figure 4

- 2 : 2006 DFW Oil and Gas Production NO X Emissions DistributionFigure 4

- 3 : 2006 DFW Oil and Gas Production VOC Emissions DistributionFigure 4

- 4 : 2018 DFW Oil and Gas Production NO X Emissions DistributionFigure 4

- 5 : 2018 DFW Oil and Gas Production VOC Emissions DistributionFigure 4

- 6 : 2006 DFW Drilling Rig NO X Emissions DistributionFigure 4

- 7 : 2018 DFW Drilling Rig NO X Emissions Distribution4.2 Airports

The TCEQ contracted with the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) to develop DFW area airport emission inventories for several years from 1996 through 2029. The report and associated electronic files are available on the TCEQ DFW airport emissions FTP site

at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Offroad_EI/Airports/DFW/ . Emission estimates were

prepar ed for DFW International, Love Field, and 59 regional airports. The 2006 base case and 2018 future year inventories were not developed under this study, but estimates were obtained by interpolating the results between 2002 and 2008 for 2006, and between 20 17 and 2020 for 2018. An Excel spreadsheet available on the TCEQ DFW airport emissions FTP site summarizes this interpolation work. A separate study to update Love Field emission estimates was funded by the City of Dallas Aviation Department and contracted to the consulting firm Leigh Fisher. This study and associated electronic files are also available on the T CEQ DFW airport emissions FTP

site . Love Field emission estimates were prepared directly by Leigh Fisher for both the 2006 and
2018 years.

At the time both the NCTCOG and Leigh Fisher work was performed, the latest version of

the Emissions Dispersion and Modeling System (EDMS) from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was used. For past years, historical flight activity for each airport is input

to the EDMS model. Future year flight activity projections are based on Terminal Area Forecast
(TAF) datasets available from FAA. In addition to estimating emissions from aircraft activity, the EDMS model outp uts estimates for auxiliary power units (APUs) and ground support equipment (GSE) at major airports. 2006 summaries of aircraft, APU, and GSE emission estimates for DFW International, Love Field, and the 59 smaller regional airports throughout
DFW are pres ented in Table 4

- 8 : 2006 DFW International Airport Emissions by Source Type

, Table 4

- 9 : 2006 Love Field Airport Emissions by Source Type , and Table 4

- 10 : 2006 DFW Area Regional Airport Emissions by Source Type , respectively. The EDMS model estimates emissions associated with parking garage activity and routine construction at major airports, but these are already included in the comprehensive TCEQ on

- road and non

- road construction emission

inventories. 2006 emission totals for DFW International, Love Field, and the 59 smaller regional airports are presented in

Table 4

- 11 : 2006 DFW Area Major and Regional Airport Emissions

.

Table 4

- 8 : 2006 DFW International Airport Emissions by Source Type

DFW International Airport

Source Category NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Aircraft Operation 8.73 2.05 8.07 0.97 0.18

Auxiliary Power Units 0.10 0.01 0.20 0.02 0.02

Ground Support Equipment 1.01 0.30 8.42 0.05 0.03

DFW International Airport Total 9.84 2.37 16.69 1.04 0.23

Table 4

- 9 : 2006 Love Field Airport Emissions by Source Type

Love Field Airport

Source Category NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Aircraft Operation 1.12 0.55 3.06 0.14 0.03

Auxiliary Power Units 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.01

Ground Support Equipment 0.07 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.00

Love Field Airport Total 1.22 0.57 3.39 0.16 0.04Table 4

- 10 : 2006 DFW Area Regional Airport Emissions by Source Type

59 Regional Airports

Source Category NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Aircraft Operation 0.89 1.32 22.60 0.19 0.02

Auxiliary Power Units 0.09 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.01

Ground Support Equipment 0.75 0.20 5.20 0.04 0.02

59 Regional Airports Total 1.72 1.52 28.01 0.24 0.06

Table 4

- 11 : 2006 DFW Area Major and Regional Airport Emissions

DFW Area Airport or

Airport Group NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

DFW International 9.84 2.37 16.69 1.04 0.23

Love Field 1.22 0.57 3.39 0.16 0.04

59 Regional Airports 1.72 1.52 28.01 0.24 0.06

DFW Area Total for 61 Airports 12.78 4.46 48.09 1.44 0.33

2018 summaries of aircraft, APU, and GSE emission estimates for DFW International are shown

in Table 4

- 12 : 2018 DFW International Airport Emissions by Source Type

, Table 4

- 13 : 2018 Love Field Airport Emissions by Source Type , and Table 4

- 14 : 2018 DFW Area Regional Airport Emissions by Source Type , respectively. 2018 emission totals for DFW International, Love Field, and the 59 smaller regional airports are presented in Table 4

- 15 : 2018 DFW Area Major and Regional Airport Emissions

.

Table 4

- 12 : 2018 DFW International Airport Emissions by Source Type

DFW International Airport

Source Category NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Aircraft Operation 10.31 1.96 9.12 1.14 0.18

Auxiliary Power Units 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

Ground Support Equipment 0.18 0.06 1.50 0.01 0.01

DFW International Airport Total 10.50 2.02 10.65 1.15 0.19

Table 4

- 13 : 2018 Love Field Airport Emissions by Source Type

Love Field Airport

Source Category NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Aircraft Operation 1.62 0.41 2.03 0.17 0.03

Auxiliary Power Units 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00

Ground Support Equipment 0.05 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.00

Love Field Airport Total 1.70 0.42 2.43 0.18 0.03

Table 4

- 14 : 2018 DFW Area Regional Airport Emissions by Source Type

59 Regional Airports

Source Category NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Aircraft Operation 0.69 1.07 20.01 0.15 0.02

Auxiliary Power Units 0.06 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.01

Ground Support Equipment 0.12 0.03 0.83 0.00 0.0159 Regional Airports

Source Category NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

59 Regional Airports Total 0.86 1.10 20.99 0.16 0.03

Table 4

- 15 : 2018 DFW Area Major and Regional Airport Emissions

DFW Area Airport or

Airport Group NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

DFW International 10.50 2.02 10.65 1.15 0.19

Love Field 1.70 0.43 2.43 0.18 0.03

59 Regional Airports 0.86 1.10 20.99 0.16 0.03

DFW Area Total for 61 Airports 13.06 3.55 34.07 1.49 0.25

The airport emissions were prepared for photochemical modeling input using EPS3. The emissions were allocated to grid cells using spatial surrogates based on the respective areal extent of each airport location. For the non

- DFW areas of Texas, 2011 airport emission estimates

from the Texas Air Emissions Repository System (TexAER) were backcast to 2006 and projected to 2018. The EPS3 processing for Texas airport emissions is divided into streams for:

• the 10

- county DFW area;

• the eight

- county HGB area; and

• the remaining 236 Texas counties.

The complete EPS3 processing streams for the se areas are available for 2006 and 2018

at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Offroad_EI/Airports/2006/

and ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Offroad_EI/Airports/2018/ . The following pages contain graphical plots o f the 2006 and 2018 airport NO X emissions for the DFW area. These plots are respectively entitled Figure 4

- 8 : 2006 DFW Airport NO X Emissions Distribution and Figure

4

- 9 : 2018 DFW Airport NO X Emissions Distribution

. Since airports are not significant

contributors of VOC emissions , only NO X plots are provided here

.

For the non

- Texas U.S. areas of the modeling domain, airport emission estimates from the

EPA NEI were used. The 2008 NEI was used for the 2006 inputs, and the 2011 NEI was used for the 2018 inputs. The airport source emission estimates from these NEI datasets were processed through EPS3 in a manner similar to that described above for the airport source emissions

within Texas.Figure 4

- 8 : 2006 DFW Airport NO X Emissions DistributionFigure 4

- 9 : 2018 DFW Airport NO X Emissions Distribution4.3 Locomotives

Locomotive emission estimates were developed for the 2011 calendar year and are included

within T exAER at http://www5.tceq.state.tx.us/texaer/index.cfm . A summary of the line

- haul

and rail

- yard switcher categories is provided in Table 4

- 16 : 2011 DFW Area Line

- Haul and

Switcher Locomotive Emissions . Ammonia (NH 3 ) emission estimates were available in this dataset and are included in the locomotive emissions summaries provided below.

Table 4

- 16 : 2011 DFW Area Line

- Haul and Switcher Locomotive Emissions

Locomotive Source

Classification Description NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Class I 16.67 0.91 3.02 0.18 0.01 0.48

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Classes II and III 0.57 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01

Rail

- Yard Switcher Locomotives 7.02 0.44 0.79 0.05 0.00 0.18

DFW Area Total 24.26 1.37 3.87 0.24 0.01 0.66

The locomotive emissions data output from TexAER were prepared for photochemical modeling using EPS3. Table 4

- 17 : EPS3 Modules for Processing Locomotive Emissions summarizes the steps that were taken to process the 2006 and 2018 locomotive inventories.

Table 4

- 17 : EPS3 Modules for Processing Locomotive Emissions

EPS3

Module Description

PREAM Convert text

- based input files to binary format for further processing.

LBASE Assign line

- haul emissions to known railway segments (not for switchers).

CNTLEM Apply activity, emission rate, and temperature/humidity NO X correction.

TMPRL Apply profiles to temporally allocate daily emission totals.

SPCEMS Chemically speciate VOC emissions into olefins, pa raf f ins, etc.

GRDEM Spatially allocate switcher emissions with surrogates.

MRGUAM Merge and adjust multiple gridded files for photochemical model input.

The 2011 locomotive emission estimates were backcast to 2006 and forecast to 2018 with the

EPS3 CNTLEM module based on c hanges in both emission rates and activity levels. Fleet average emission factors from 2006 through 2040 for NO X , VOC, and PM were obtained from an April 2009 EPA document entitled Emission Factors for Locomotives, EPA

- 420

- F

- 09

- 025

, which accounts for fleet turnover effects from locomotive engines as new ones entering the fleet must comply with more stringent standards. The changes in SO 2 emission rates were obtained from an April 2 009 EPA document entitled Suggested Nationwide Average Fuel Properties,

EPA

- 420

- B

- 09

- 018

, which accounts for required changes in diesel fuel sulfur levels. The relative changes in these emission rates by locomotive category from both 2011

- to

- 2006, and 2011

- to

2018 are summarized in Table 4

- 18 : 2011

- to

- 2006 Locomotive Emis sion Rate Adjustment

Factors and Table 4

- 19 : 2011

- to

- 2018 Locomotive Emission Rate Adjustment Factors

, respectively. A value of 100% indicates no change, while values lower than 100% indicate a

reduction in emissions, and values above 100% indicate an emissions increase.Table 4

- 18 : 2011

- to

- 2006 Locomotiv e Emission Rate Adjustment Factors

Locomotive Category

Description NO X Change VOC

Change SO 2 Change PM

Change

Large Line

- Haul 120.81% 123.38% 7006.25% 145.45%

Large Switchers 106.38% 107.14% 7006.25% 122.64%

Small Railroads 100.00% 100.00% 7006.25% 114.04%

Passenger/Commuter 146.11% 119.75% 7006.25% 144.44%

Overall Average 119.75% 121.95% 7006.25% 142.22%

Table 4

- 19 : 2011

- to

- 2018 Locomotive Emission Rate Adjustment Factors

Locomotive Category

Description NO X Change VOC

Change SO 2 Change PM

Change

Large Line

- Haul 72.48% 54.55% 34.38% 61.36%

Large Switchers 85.96% 82.14% 34.38% 83.02%

Small Railroads 97.52% 100.00% 34.38% 94.74%

Passenger/Commuter 62.87% 50.62% 34.38% 57.78%

Overall Average 74.52% 58.54% 34.38% 62.22%

The activity levels were backcast to 2006 and forecast to 2011 with the EPS3 CNTLEM module based on a U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) table entitled Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption . These annual tables provide historical estimates and future projections of locomotive activity. The 2006 and 2018 activity adjustments

relative to 2011 are shown in Table 4

- 20 : 2006 and 2018 Locomotive Activity Adjustments

Relative to 2011

.

Table 4

- 20 : 2006 and 2018 Locomotive Activity Adjustments Relative to 2011

Activity Change

Description Change

Activity Change from 2011 to 2006 106.36%

Activity Change from 2011 to 2018 105.79%

Application of these emission factor and activity adjustments resulted in the 2006 and 2018

locomotive emission estimates summarized in Table 4

- 21 : 2006 DFW Area Line

- Haul and

Switcher Locomotive Emissions and Table 4

- 22 : 2018 DFW Area Line

- Haul and Switcher

Locomotive Emissions , respectively.

Table 4

- 21 : 2006 DFW Area Line

- Haul and Switcher Locomotive Emissions

Locomotive Source

Classification Description NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Class I 21.42 1.19 3.22 13.41 0.01 0.74

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Classes II and III 0.60 0.02 0.06 0.29 0.00 0.02

Rail

- Yard Switcher Locomotives 7.95 0.51 0.84 3.86 0.00 0.23

DFW Area Total 29.97 1.72 4.12 17.57 0.01 0.98Table 4

- 22 : 2018 DFW Area Line

- Haul and Switcher Locomotive Emissions

Locomotive Source

Classification Description NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Class I 12.78 0.52 3.20 0.07 0.01 0.31

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Classes II and III 0.59 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01

Rail

- Yard Switcher Locomotives 6.39 0.39 0.84 0.02 0.00 0.15

DFW Area Total 19.76 0.93 4.10 0.09 0.01 0.48

The 24

- hour locomotive emission totals reported in TexAER do not account for the effects of hourly variation in temperature and humidity on NO X emissions. Greater detail on the development of correction equations to account for these effects can be found in Appendices F.4 : Humidity a nd Temperature Correction Factors f or N O X Emissions f rom Diesel Engines and F.5 : Humidity a nd Temperature Correction Factors f or N O X Emissions f rom Spark Ignited Engines of the December 2004 HGB SIP revision . During EPS3 processing, the CNTLEM module is also used to apply an hourly temperature/humidity NO X correcti on and the impacts on the 2006 and 2018 locomotive DFW inventories are presented in Table 4

- 23 : Temperature/Humidity NO X Correction for Locomotive Emissions

.

Table 4

- 23 : Temperature/Humidity NO X Correction for Locomotive Emissions

Locomotive Source

Classification Description 2006 NO X Change (tpd) 2018 NO X Change (tpd)

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Class I

- 0.94

- 0.56

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Classes II and III

- 0.03

- 0.03

Rail

- Yard Switcher Locomotives

- 0.34

- 0.27

DFW Area Total

- 1.31

- 0.86

The activity level for locomotive activity does not vary much by day type, so there are negligible differences in weekday versus weekend emissions for this source category. The line

- haul emissions were spatially allocated to individual railway segments bas ed on gross ton miles (GTM) activity data. The switcher emissions were allocated to known rail yards within the DFW

area. Table 4

- 24 : 2006 DFW Adjusted Locomotive Emissions and Table 4

- 25: 2018 DFW Area Adjusted Locomotive Emissions present the 2006 and 2018 DFW area locomotive emission inputs for the photochemical model for each episode day in these respective years.

Table 4

- 24 : 2006 DFW Adjusted Locomotive Emissions

Locomotive Source

C lassification Description NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Class I 20.48 1.19 3.22 13.41 0.01 0.74

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Classes II and III 0.58 0.02 0.06 0.29 0.00 0.02

Rail

- Yard Switcher Locomotives 7.61 0.51 0.84 3.86 0.00 0.23

DFW Area Total 28.67 1.72 4.12 17.57 0.01 0.98

Table 4

- 25 : 2018 DFW Area Adjusted Locomotive Emissions

Locomotive Source

Classification Description NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Class I 12.22 0.52 3.20 0.07 0.01 0.31Locomotive Source

Classification Description NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Line

- Haul Locomotives

– Classes II and III 0.56 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01

Rail

- Yard Switcher Locomotives 6.11 0.39 0.84 0.02 0.00 0.15

DFW Area Total 18.90 0.93 4.10 0.09 0.01 0.48

For the non

- DFW areas of Texas, all of the steps described above are similar for the TexAER extraction and EPS3 processing of locomotive emission estimates for 2006 and 2018. The EPS3 processing for Texas non

- road emissions is divided into streams for:

• the 10

- county DFW area;

• the eight

- county HGB area; and

• the remaining 236 Texas counties.

The complete EPS3 processing streams for all of these areas are available for both 2006

and 2018 at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Offroad_EI/Locomo tives/2006/

and ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Offroad_EI/Locomotives/2018/ . The following pages contain graphical plots of the 2006 and 2018 locomotive NO X emissions for the D FW area. These plots are respectively entitled Figure 4

- 10 : 2006 DFW Locomotive NO X Emissions

Distribution and Figure 4

- 11 : 2018 DFW Locomotive NO X Emissions Distribution

. Since the diesel engines that power locomotives are not significant contributors of VOC emissions, only

NO X plots are provided here.

For the non

- Texas U.S. area s of the modeling domain, locomotive emission estimates from the

EPA NEI were used. The 2008 NEI was used for the 2006 input s, and the 2011 NEI was used for the 2018 inputs. The locomotive emission estimates from these NEI datasets were processed through EPS3 in a manner similar to that described above for the locomotive emissions within

Texas.Figure 4

- 10 : 2006 DFW Locomotive NO X Emissions DistributionFigure 4

- 11 : 2018 DFW Locomotive NO X Emissions Distribution4.4 N on

- Road/Tex N

Non

- road emissions for 2006 and 2018 for the 10

- county DFW area were estimated with a

customized version of EPA’s NONROAD model called Texas NONROAD (TexN) . The full EPA web page address is http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm and the full TCEQ TexN FTP site

address is ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Nonroad_EI/TexN/ . For each county specified in a TexN scenario, 25 separate runs of the NONROAD model are performed for the following non

road categories outline d in Table 4

- 26 : Texas NONROAD Model Subsector Categories . Runs 1 through 25 (excluding 24) are for specific diesel construction equipment (DCE) categories, while

the numeric code of 0 is for all non

- DCE categories.

Table 4

- 26 : Texas NONROAD Model Subsector Categories

Numeric

Code NONROAD Model Subsector Description

(Diesel Construction Equipment for 1

- 24)

0 Other

- Non

- Diesel Construction Equipment

1 DCE

- Agricultural Activities

2 DCE

- Boring and Drilling Equipment

3 DCE

- Brick and Stone Operations

4 DCE

- City and County Road Construction

5 DCE

- Commercial Construction

6 DCE

- Concrete Operations

7 DCE

- County

- Owned Construction Equipment

8 DCE

– Cranes

9 DCE

- Heavy Highway Construction

10 DCE

- Landfill Operations

11 DCE

- Landscaping Activities

12 DCE

- Manufacturing Operations

13 DCE

- Municipal

- Owned Construction Equipment

14 DCE

- Transportation/Sales/Services

15 DCE

- Residential Construction

16 DCE

- Rough Terrain Forklifts

17 DCE

- Scrap/Recycling Operations

18 DCE

- Skid Steer Loaders

19 DCE

- Special Trades Construction

20 DCE

- Trenchers

21 DCE

- TxDOT Construction Equipment

22 DCE

- Utility Construction

23 DCE

- Mining and Quarry Operation

25 DCE

- Off

- Road Tractors, Miscellaneous, and Equipment Under 25 Horsepower

2006 and 2018 summer weekday scenarios were run with the TexN model for all 10 counties in the DFW area. 25 DCE subcategories for each of the 10 counties resulted in a total of 250 NONROAD model runs for each calendar year. The results of this work are ava ilable on

the TCEQ non

- road emissions FTP site

at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Nonroad_EI/TEX/ . The NO X , VOC, CO, SO 2 , and PM 2.5 emissions by county along with associated non

- road equipment population figures are presentedfor 2006 and 2018, respectively, in Table 4

- 27 : 2006 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by County and Table 4

- 28 : 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by County

.

Table 4

- 27 : 200 6 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by County

DFW Area

County Equipment

Population NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Collin 211,293 10.44 7.52 87.99 1.18 0.98

Dallas 835,572 36.06 27.47 376.72 3.22 2.94

Denton 170,405 6.78 5.48 58.07 0.75 0.62

Ellis 42,800 4.13 1.93 20.45 0.36 0.28

Johnson 40,996 3.79 1.18 14.84 0.48 0.33

Kaufman 28,391 3.78 1.32 14.36 0.48 0.34

Parker 33,695 3.00 1.30 11.19 0.42 0.29

Rockwall 24,234 1.06 1.46 10.24 0.13 0.12

Tarrant 523,567 20.96 14.98 199.90 1.79 1.59

Wise 22,591 3.25 1.21 8.77 0.46 0.29

DFW Total 1,933,542 93.25 63.84 802.52 9.26 7.79

Table 4

- 28 : 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by County

DFW Area

County Equipment

Population NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Collin 263,763 5.28 4.09 64.55 0.01 0.52

Dallas 1,048,081 16.75 14.10 275.94 0.05 1.64

Denton 211,950 3.45 2.81 42.39 0.01 0.29

Ellis 54,050 1.66 0.97 12.37 0.00 0.14

Johnson 50,941 1.57 0.59 9.21 0.00 0.13

Kaufman 35,892 1.63 0.73 9.40 0.00 0.14

Parker 42,628 1.24 0.75 8.37 0.00 0.11

Rockwall 29,241 0.62 0.74 7.83 0.00 0.07

Tarrant 653,304 9.31 7.38 141.78 0.03 0.87

Wise 27,926 1.15 0.62 5.78 0.00 0.09

DFW Total 2,417,776 42.65 32.80 577.61 0.11 3.99

Even with overall growth in the non

- road equipment population from roughly 1.9 million in 2006 to 2.4 million in 2018, total emissions decrease due to the more stringent emissions standards for new equipment purchases, combined with the simultaneous attrition of older, higher

- emitting pieces of non

- road equipment. The 10

- county DFW non

- road emissions inventory includes 193 different types of equipment referenced by source classification code
(SCC). The files available on the TCEQ non

- road emissions FTP site include a complete set of estimates by county and SCC. The 10

- county DFW aggregate equipment categories for 2006 and 2018, respectively, are summarized in Table 4

- 29 : 2 006 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Equipment Group and Table 4

- 30 : 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Equipment Group

.Table 4

- 29 : 2006 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Equipment Group

Equipment

Category Equipment

Population NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Agricultural Equipment 9,117 12.74 1.43 20.31 1.74 1.10

Commercial Equipment 207,441 8.60 14.09 292.06 0.68 0.77

Construction and Mining Equipment 76,616 37.38 7.56 71.23 5.06 3.76

Industrial Equipment 46,923 31.33 8.01 123.00 1.62 1.09

Lawn and Garden Equipment 1,509,143 2.64 22.30 257.18 0.14 0.83

Pleasure Craft 37,985 0.27 4.50 12.21 0.01 0.06

Railroad Equipment 101 0.08 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.01

Recreational Equipment 46,216 0.20 5.94 26.46 0.01 0.16

DFW Total 1,933,542 93.25 63.84 802.52 9.26 7.79

Table 4

- 30 : 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Equipment Group

Equipment

Category Equipment

Population NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Agricultural Equipment 11,286 4.95 0.64 5.24 0.01 0.33

Commercial Equipment 281,479 5.91 7.65 250.94 0.02 0.55

Construction and Mining Equipment 95,822 18.88 4.27 47.40 0.03 1.71

Industrial Equipment 59,642 10.65 1.50 30.29 0.04 0.32

Lawn and Garden Equipment 1,860,832 1.73 12.79 204.13 0.01 0.94

Pleasure Craft 41,419 0.31 1.99 9.57 0.00 0.02

Railroad Equipment 137 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01

Recreational Equipment 67,158 0.17 3.94 30.00 0.00 0.10

DFW Total 2,417,776 42.65 32.80 577.61 0.11 3.99

The 10

- county DFW non

- road emissions are summarized by fuel type for 2006 and 2018, respectively, in Table 4

- 31 : 2006 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Fuel Type and

Table 4

- 32 : 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Fuel Type

.

Table 4

- 31 : 2006 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Fuel Type

Equipment

Category Equipment

Population NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Two

- Stroke Gasoline 593,205 0.25 20.10 50.68 0.00 1.13

Four

- Stroke Gasoline 1,201,542 4.67 29.95 601.75 0.03 0.19

Diesel 112,074 65.28 6.94 33.48 9.19 6.32

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 1,998 1.78 1.05 13.76 0.00 0.02

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) 24,723 21.28 5.81 102.85 0.03 0.13

DFW Total 1,933,542 93.25 63.84 802.52 9.26 7.79

Table 4

- 32 : 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Fuel Type

Equipment

Category Equipment

Population NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Two

- Stroke Gasoline 730,319 0.36 13.27 53.98 0.00 1.20Equipment

Category Equipment

Population NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Four

- Stroke Gasoline 1,499,476 2.24 14.50 476.80 0.03 0.23

Diesel 151,907 34.72 3.82 16.32 0.05 2.38

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 2,437 0.32 0.09 1.53 0.00 0.01

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) 33,637 5.03 1.12 28.98 0.03 0.17

DFW Total 2,417,776 42.65 32.80 577.61 0.11 3.99

The 10

- county DFW non

- road emissions for 2006 and 2018, respectively, are summarized by the 25 DCE subcategory codes from Table 4

- 26 in Table 4

- 33 : 2006 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Diesel Subcategory and Table 4

- 34 : 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Diesel Subcategory

.

Table 4

- 33 : 2006 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Diesel Subcategory

Non

- Road

DCE Subsector Equipment

Population NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

N on

- Diesel Equipment 1,883,489 56.52 59.87 782.68 4.20 4.22

Agricultural Activities 888 1.30 0.14 0.71 0.20 0.12

Boring and Drilling Equipment 84 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01

Brick and Stone Operations 107 0.35 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.03

City and County Road Construction 1,576 0.37 0.03 0.15 0.04 0.03

Commercial Construction 12,701 3.40 0.32 1.50 0.37 0.25

Concrete Operations 95 0.25 0.02 0.11 0.04 0.02

Cou nty

- Owned Construction 284 0.23 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.02

Cranes 996 2.33 0.16 0.58 0.29 0.13

Heavy Highway Construction 1,835 2.58 0.22 1.09 0.36 0.21

Landfill Operations 109 0.80 0.05 0.29 0.14 0.05

Landscaping Activities 1,088 0.54 0.11 0.49 0.07 0.08

Manufacturing Operations 168 0.39 0.03 0.17 0.06 0.03

Munici pal

- Owned Construction 1,201 0.72 0.12 0.57 0.10 0.10

Transportation/Sales/Services 1,606 3.33 0.30 1.61 0.50 0.29

Residential Construction 1,853 3.48 0.27 1.34 0.48 0.26

Rough Terrain Forklifts 4,017 4.17 0.42 2.52 0.63 0.45

Scrap/Recycling Operations 127 0.41 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.03

Skid Steer Loaders 8,361 2.84 0.83 3.54 0.36 0.62

Special Trades Construction 9 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Trenchers 3,464 2.85 0.28 1.80 0.44 0.32

TxDOT Construction Equipment 251 0.11 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01

Utility Construction 3,071 1.67 0.13 0.71 0.18 0.14

Mining and Quarry Operation s 328 1.59 0.11 0.52 0.27 0.11

Miscellaneous Equipment 5,836 2.93 0.33 1.68 0.35 0.27

DFW Total 1,933,542 93.25 63.84 802.52 9.26 7.79Table 4

- 34 : 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Diesel Subcategory

Non

- Road

DCE Subsector Equipment

Population NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Non

- Diesel Equipment 2,349,480 24.00 30.53 567.18 0.08 2.48

Agricultural Activities 880 0.37 0.05 0.23 0.00 0.03

Boring and Drilling Equipment 122 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00

Brick and Stone Operations 106 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00

City and County Road Construction 1,953 0.24 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.02

Commercial Construction 16,684 2.29 0.21 0.96 0.00 0.13

Concrete Operations 144 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01

County

- Owned Construction 350 0.12 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01

Cranes 1,472 1.07 0.10 0.29 0.00 0.05

Heavy Highway Construction 2,308 1.03 0.12 0.46 0.00 0.08

Landfill Operations 138 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00

Landscaping Activities 1,396 0.34 0.05 0.25 0.00 0.04

Manufacturing Operations 238 0.14 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.01

Municipal

- Owned Construction 1,481 0.42 0.05 0.27 0.00 0.04

Transportation/Sales/Services 3,169 1.69 0.24 0.94 0.00 0.13

Residential Construction 1,784 0.98 0.11 0.41 0.00 0.07

Rough Terrain Forklifts 6,336 2.01 0.22 1.34 0.00 0.18

Scrap/Recycling Operations 150 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00

Skid Steer Loaders 12,117 2.38 0.46 2.63 0.00 0.39

Special Trades Construction 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Trenchers 4,535 1.67 0.12 0.66 0.00 0.08

TxDOT Construction Equipment 251 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00

Utility Construction 4,665 1.28 0.11 0.50 0.00 0.08

Mining and Quarry Operation s 467 0.30 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.01

Miscellaneous Equipment 7,540 1.82 0.21 0.97 0.00 0.14

DFW Total 2,417,776 42.65 32.80 577.61 0.11 3.99

The non

- road emissions data output from TexN were prepared for photochemical modeling using EPS3. Table 4

- 35 : EPS3 Modules for Processing Non

- Road Emissions summarize s the steps that were taken to process the 2006 and 2018 non

- road inventories.

Table 4

- 35 : EPS3 Modules for Processing Non

- Road Emissions

EPS3

Module Description

PREAM Convert text

- based input files to binary format for further processing.

CNTLEM Apply adjustments for temperature/humidity NO X correction and TxLED.

TMPRL Apply profiles to temporally allocate daily emission totals.

SPCEMS Chemically speciate VOC emissions into olefins, pa ra f fins, etc.

GRDEM Spatially allocate emissions with surrogates and prepare model inputs.

MRGUAM Merge and adjust multiple gridded files for photochemical model input.When running a summer weekday scenario, the NONROAD model reports 24

- hour emission

totals and does not account for the effects of hourly variation in temperature and humidity on

NO X emissions. Greater detail on the development of correction equations to account for these effects can be found in Appendices F.4 and F.5 of the December 2004 HGB SIP revision . During EPS3 processing, the CNTLEM module is also used to apply an hourly temperature/humidity

NO X correction and the impacts on the 2006 and 2018 non

- road DFW inventories are presented

in Table 4

- 36 : Temperature/Humidity NO X Correction for Non

- Road Emissions

.

Tabl e 4

- 36 : Temperature/Humidity NO X Correction for Non

- Road Emissions

Calendar

Year Temperature/Humidity

NO X Correction (tpd)

2006 1.06

2018 1.36

The 2006 and 2018 non

- road NO X emission totals presented above in Table 4

- 27 through Table

4

- 34 exclude the benefits of Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED) fuel. Instead, TxLED benefits were accounted for by applying a NO X reduction to the diesel non

- road equipment categories through use of the EPS3 CNTLEM module. The specific adjustment factors vary by horsepowe r range and certification standard, as summarized in Table 4

- 37 : Non

- Road TxLED Adjustments by Horsepower and Standard . More detail on development of these post

- proce ssing adjustments can be found in a September 27, 2001 EPA memorandum entitled Texas Low Emission Diesel
(LED) Fuel Benefits

.

Table 4

- 37 : No n

- Road TxLED Adjustments by Horsepower and Standard

Non

- Road Diesel Equipment

Standard/Category TxLED NO X Reduction Factor

Under 50 Horsepower 0.0%

Base, Tier 0, Tier 1, and Tier 2 6.2%

Tier 3 and Tier 4 4.8%

The 2006 and 2018 non

- road TxLED benefits for the 10

- county DFW area are presented in

Table 4

- 38 : 2006 and 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road TxLED Benefits

.

Table 4

- 38 : 2006 and 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road TxLED Benefits

Calendar

Year TxLED NO X Reduction (tpd)

2006 3.44

2018 1.42

The activity level for different non

- road equipment varies between weekday and weekend day types. For example, commercial construction equipment is more commonly used on weekdays than weekends. Conversely, recreational boats are more commonly used on weeke nds than on weekdays. The EPS3 TMPRL module is used to adjust the average weekday emissions by equipment type for creating Saturday and Sunday day types. Within each day type, TMPRL also allocates daily totals to each hour. After the CNTLEM and TMPRL adjus tments are made, the EPS3 GRDEM module is used to spatially allocate the non

- road emissions with surrogates that vary based on SCC. The files output from GRDEM are in the binary gridded format required bythe photochemical model. The 2006 and 2018 non

- road emissions output from GRDEM by day type for the 10

- county DFW area are respectively summarized in Table 4

- 39 : 2006 DFW Area

Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Day Type a nd Table 4

- 40 : 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Day Type

.

Table 4

- 39 : 2006 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Day Type

2006 Day Type NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Monday

– Friday Average Weekday 88.75 63.84 802.52 9.26 7.21

Saturday 64.06 93.78 976.15 6.23 5.28

Sunday 47.29 81.99 822.53 4.73 4.16

Table 4

- 40 : 2018 DFW Area Non

- Road Emissions Inventory by Day Type

2018 Day Type NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Monday

– Friday Average Weekday 39.87 32.80 577.61 0.11 3.36

Saturday 29.78 46.95 742.28 0.10 2.56

Sunday 22.91 41.94 644.85 0.08 2.07

Comparing Table 4

- 39 and Table 4

- 40 with Table 4

- 27 through Table 4

- 34 indicates that the weekday VOC, CO, and SO 2 totals remain unchanged, while the weekday NO X totals are reduced by the temperature/humidity and TxLED adjustments presented in Table 4

- 36 and Table 4

- 38

. The PM 2.5 totals are also slightly lower in Ta ble 4

- 39 and Table 4

- 40 because they include only organic carbon, elemental carbon, and sulfate (SO 4 ). The PM 2.5 emissions from gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) equipment were allocated to

these PM 2.5 categories based on profiles from the EPA SPECIAT E Database . The amount allocated to these categories for diesel engines varies based on whether exhaust after

- treatment is needed to meet applicable standards. To obtain these diesel PM 2.5 factors, the MOVES2010b

model was run in default mode to obtain contributions by model year group for 2006

- and

- older

and 2010

- and newer diesel vehicles. The former group did not need after

- treatment while the latter group does, and the 2007 through 2009 model years wer e not included in the analysis because they are transition years for the tighter standards. These PM 2.5 allocation methods are

summarized in Table 4

- 41 : Speciation of Non

- Road PM 2.5 Emissions

.

Table 4

- 41 : Speciation of Non

- Road PM 2.5 Emissions

Non

- Road Fuel Type

and/or Standard PM 2.5 Allocation

Approach

Gasoline SPECIATE profile 92113 for non

- road gasoline exhaust

CNG and LPG SPECIATE profile 92112 for natural gas combustion

Diesel

– Base and Tiers 0

- 3 MOVES2010b default runs for 2006

- and

- older without after

- treatment

Diesel

– Tier 4 MOVES2010b default for 2010

- and

- newer with after

- treatment

For the non

- DFW areas of Texas, all of the steps described above are similar for the TexN development and EPS3 processing of non

- road emission estimates for 2006 and 2018. The EPS3 processing for Texas non

- road emissions is divided into s treams for:

• the 10

- county DFW area;• the eight

- county HGB area;

• the remaining 92 of all 110 eastern Texas counties subject to TxLED; and

• the 144 counties of western Texas not subject to TxLED.

The complete EPS3 processing streams for all of these areas are available for both 2006

and 2018 at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Nonroad_EI/TEX/2006/

and ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Nonroad_EI/TEX/2018/ . The following pages contain graphical plots of the 2006 and 2018 summer weekday non

- road NO X and VOC emissions for the DFW area. These plots are respectively entitled Figure 4

- 12 : 2006 Summer Weekday DFW

Non

- Road NO X Emissions Distribution

, Figure 4

- 13 : 2006 Summer Weekday DFW Non

- Road

VOC Emissions Distribution

, Figure 4

- 14 : 2018 Summer Weekday DFW Non

- Road NO X Emissions Distribution , and Figure 4

- 15 : 2018 Summer Weekday DFW Non

- Road VOC

Emissions Distribution

.

For the non

- Texas U.S. areas of the modeling domain, the EPA National Mobile Inventory

Model (NMIM) was run for 2006 and 2018 to obtain non

- road emission estimates for each county. The NMIM output was processed through EPS3 in a manner similar to that described

above for non

- road emissions within Texas.Figure 4

- 12 : 2006 Summer Weekday DFW Non

- Road NO X Emissions Distribu tionFigure 4

- 13 : 2006 Summer Weekday DFW Non

- Road VOC Emissions DistributionFigure 4

- 14 : 2018 Summer Weekday DFW Non

- Road NO X Emissions DistributionFig ure 4

- 15 : 2018 Summer Weekday DFW Non

- Road VOC Emissions Distribution4.5 Area Sources

Area sources include commercial, small

- scale industrial, and residential activities that use materials or operate processes that can generate emissions. These sources of emissions fall below the point source reporting levels and are either too numerous or too small to identify individually. Emissions from these sources are estimated on a source category basis per county. Area source VOC emissions can result from either evaporation or fuel combustion. Examples of sources of evaporative losses include printing operations, industrial coatings, degreasing

solvents, house paints, underground storage tanks, underground tank filling at gasoline service stations, and vehicle refueling operations. Fuel combustion sources include stationary source fossil fuel combustion at residences and businesses, along with outdoor burn ing and structural fires. With some exceptions, area source emission estimates are obtained by multiplying an established emission factor by the appropriate activity or activity surrogate responsible for generating the emissions. Human population is the mo st commonly used activity surrogate for many area source categories, while other activity data include the amount of gasoline sold in an area, employment by industry type, acres of cropland, etc. Area source modeling estimates were based primarily on data from the 2008 and 2011 periodic emissions inventories, which are

available via T exAER at http://www5.tceq.state.tx.us/texaer/index.c fm

.

The NO X , VOC, CO, SO 2 , NH 3 , and PM 2.5 area source emissions by county from TexAER for 2008 and 2011, respectively, are presented below in Table 4

- 42 : 2008 DFW Area Source Emissions Inventory by County and Table 4

- 43 : 2011 DFW Area Source Emissions Inventory by County

.

Table 4

- 42 : 2 008 DFW Area Source Emissions Inventory by County

DFW Area

County NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Collin 2.57 20.79 9.18 0.54 3.48 11.30

Dallas 12.53 95.66 25.05 3.27 6.36 16.02

Denton 1.75 19.61 8.42 0.29 5.66 8.26

Ellis 0.59 6.89 5.06 0.12 3.59 9.00

Johnson 0.64 7.42 4.82 0.26 3.44 7.88

Kaufman 0.44 4.86 4.47 0.17 2.73 5.52

Parker 0.41 4.81 4.15 0.15 3.23 7.33

Rockwall 0.22 2.48 1.90 0.06 0.59 2.18

Tarrant 7.88 65.05 17.58 2.24 4.47 11.58

Wise 0.28 3.88 4.14 0.09 2.40 4.62

DFW Total 27.32 231.45 84.77 7.19 35.96 83.70

Table 4

- 43 : 2011 DFW Area Source Emissions Inventory by County

DFW Area

County NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Collin 2.59 22.27 8.00 0.45 3.49 10.64

Dallas 12.16 89.24 22.74 2.75 6.40 11.67

Denton 1.65 20.59 5.26 0.25 5.66 7.96

Ellis 0.56 6.90 3.33 0.08 3.58 9.11

Johnson 0.62 6.51 3.75 0.19 3.43 7.96DFW Area

County NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Kaufman 0.43 4.96 3.04 0.13 2.72 5.63

Parker 0.39 4.83 2.29 0.11 3.22 7.31

Rockwall 0.22 2.77 1.81 0.05 0.59 2.20

Tarrant 7.36 62.23 15.42 1.87 4.50 10.72

Wise 0.25 3.71 1.51 0.07 2.38 4.69

DFW Total 26.24 224.01 67.15 5.95 35.96 77.89

The 2008 and 2011 area source emissions data from TexAER were prepared for photochemical modeling using EPS3. Table 4

- 44 : EPS3 Modules for Processing Area Source Emission

Inventories summarizes the steps that were taken to prepare the 2006 and 2018 area source

emission inventories.

Table 4

- 44 : EPS3 Modules for Processing Area Source Emission Inventories

EPS3

Module Description

PREAM Convert text

- based input files to binary format for further processing.

CNTLEM Back

- cast 2008 emissions to 2006, and project 2011 emissions to 2018.

TMPRL Apply profiles to temporally allocate daily emission totals.

SPCEMS Chemically speciate VOC emissions into olefins, para f fins, etc.

GRDEM Spatially allocate emissions with surrogates and prepare model inputs.

MRGUAM Merge and adjust multiple gridded files for photochemical model input.

As shown, the EPS3 CNTLEM module was used to backcast 2008 DFW area source emission estimates from TexAER to 2006, and to project the 2011 DFW area source emission estimates to 2018. In both cases, a study done under contract by ERG was conducted to develo p growth factors from 2005 through 2030 based on data available from Moody’s Analytics and the U.S.

EIA . More detail on this analysis is available within TexAER. The adjusted NO X , VOC, CO, SO 2 , NH 3 , and PM 2.5 area source emissions for 2006 and 2018, respectively, by county are presented

below in Table 4

- 45: 2006 DFW Area Source Emissions Inventories by County and Table 4

- 46 : 2018 DFW Area Source Emission Inventories by County

.

Table 4

- 45 : 2006 DFW Area Source Emissions Inventories by County

DFW Area

County NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Collin 2.60 25.01 8.72 0.55 3.48 11.18

Dallas 13.47 123.06 23.77 3.36 6.39 15.72

Denton 1.76 23.13 8.03 0.30 5.66 8.13

Ellis 0.65 8.90 5.72 0.15 3.60 9.10

Johnson 0.69 9.40 5.61 0.29 3.44 8.00

Kaufman 0.51 6.17 5.88 0.19 2.73 5.69

Parker 0.44 5.79 4.50 0.18 3.23 7.42

Rockwall 0.24 3.08 2.42 0.07 0.59 2.22

Tarrant 8.35 80.82 16.64 2.28 4.49 11.36DFW Area

County NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Wise 0.30 5.08 4.30 0.10 2.40 4.68

DFW Total 29.02 290.46 85.59 7.46 36.01 83.50

Table 4

- 46 : 2018 DFW Area Source Emission Inventories by County

DFW Area

County NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Collin 2.98 27.67 8.79 0.54 3.50 10.99

Dallas 14.31 113.79 25.71 3.31 6.46 12.45

Denton 1.87 26.72 5.82 0.30 5.66 8.23

Ellis 0.67 9.07 4.25 0.09 3.59 9.31

Johnson 0.73 8.15 4.78 0.22 3.44 8.16

Kaufman 0.52 6.55 4.26 0.16 2.72 5.85

Parker 0.45 6.15 2.82 0.13 3.22 7.47

Rockwall 0.26 3.59 2.44 0.05 0.59 2.30

Tarrant 8.68 78.53 17.43 2.26 4.54 11.28

Wise 0.29 4.71 1.79 0.08 2.38 4.79

DFW Total 30.76 284.94 78.09 7.14 36.09 80.82

The 10

- county DFW area source emissions inventory includes 171 different types of SCCs. The

files available on the TCEQ area source FTP site include a complete set of estimates by county

and SCC. Th e 10

- county DFW aggregate SCC categories for the area source emissions are summarized for 2006 and 2018, respectively, in Table 4

- 47 : 2006 DFW Area Source Emission Inventories by Aggregate Category and Table 4

- 48 : 2018 DFW Area Source Emission Inventories by Aggregate Category

.

Table 4

- 47 : 2006 DFW Area Source Emission Inventories by Aggregate Category

DFW Area

County NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Agricultural Production 0.29 0.58 5.51 0.00 23.27 5.40

Catastrophic/Accidental Releases 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Commercial/Institutional 8.34 77.70 5.54 0.39 0.07 0.59

Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.32

Degreasing 0.00 11.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dry Cleaning 0.00 6.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fabricated Metals 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Food and Kindred Products 0.00 1.63 1.50 0.00 0.00 4.06

Graphic Arts 0.00 47.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Incineration, Burning, and Combustion 0.70 2.01 30.21 0.10 0.14 2.87

Industrial 13.42 8.19 8.16 6.86 0.60 0.41

Landfills 0.00 3.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Petroleum Refining, Storage, and Transport 0.00 41.39 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Residential 6.26 5.86 34.65 0.11 0.30 4.99DFW Area

County NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Roads

- Paved and Unpaved 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.86

Rubber/Plastics 0.00 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Secondary Metal Production 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Surface Coating 0.00 80.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Underground Storage Tanks 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Waste Animal Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.57 0.00

Wastewater Treatment 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00

DFW Area Total 29.02 290.46 85.59 7.46 36.01 83.50

Table 4

- 48 : 2018 DFW Area Source Emission Inventories by Aggregate Category

DFW Area

County NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Agricultural Production 0.29 0.58 5.51 0.00 23.27 5.40

Catastrophic/Accidental Releases 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Commercial/Institutional 9.11 95.37 6.55 0.28 0.06 0.15

Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.65

Degreasing 0.00 13.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dry Cleaning 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fabricated Metals 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Food and Kindred Products 0.00 1.70 2.25 0.00 0.00 6.07

Graphic Arts 0.00 44.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Incineration, Burning, and Combustion 0.59 1.19 17.20 0.09 0.00 2.82

Industrial 13.76 8.94 8.95 6.65 0.51 0.44

Landfills 0.00 4.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Petroleum Refining, Storage, and Transport 0.00 40.52 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Residential 7.01 6.31 37.62 0.12 0.33 5.39

Roads

- Paved and Unpaved 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.90

Rubber/Plastics 0.00 2.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Secondary Metal Production 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Surface Coating 0.00 63.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Underground Storage Tanks 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Waste Animal Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.85 0.00

Wastewater Treatment 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00

DFW Area Total 30.76 284.94 78.09 7.14 36.09 80.82

The activity level for different area source categories differs between weekday and weekend day types. The EPS3 TMPRL module is used to adjust the average weekday emissions by SCC for creating Saturday and Sunday day types. Within each day type, TMPRL also allocates daily totals to each hour. After the CNTLEM and TMPRL adjustments are made, the EPS3 GRDEM module is used to spatially allocate the area source emissions with surrogates that vary based on SCC. For example, residential fuel use emissions are spa tially allocated to grid cells as a function of households. The files output from GRDEM are in the binary gridded format required by thephotochemical model. The area source output from GRDEM by day type for the 10

- county DFW

area are summarized for 2006 a nd 2018, respectively, in Table 4

- 49 : 2006 DFW Area Source Emission Inventories by Day Type and Table 4

- 50 : 2018 DFW Area Source Emission Inventories by Day Type

.

Table 4

- 49 : 2006 DFW Area Source Emission Inventories by Day Type

2006 Day Type NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Monday

– Friday Average Weekday 29.02 290.46 85.59 7.46 36.01 83.50

Saturday 22.21 136.92 75.57 5.26 35.81 81.90

Sunday 15.41 88.36 65.69 3.06 35.61 80.34

Table 4

- 50 : 2018 DFW Area Source Emission Inventories by Day Type

2018 Day Type NO X (tpd) VOC

(tpd) CO

(tpd) SO 2 (tpd) NH 3 (tpd) PM 2.5 (tpd)

Monday

– Friday Average Weekday 30.76 284.94 78.09 7.14 36.09 80.82

Saturday 23.61 137.45 67.38 5.03 35.92 79.27

Sunday 16.46 88.12 56.79 2.92 35.75 77.75

For the non

- DFW areas of Texas, all of the steps described above are similar for the area source emissions inventory development where TexAER datasets from 2008 and 2011 were adjusted to create 2006 and 2018 inventories, respective ly. The EPS3 processing for Texas area source

emissions is divided into streams for:

• the 10

- county DFW area;

• the eight

- county HGB area;

• the remaining 236 counties of Texas outside of DFW and HGB.

The complete EPS3 processing streams for all of these areas are available for

both 2006 and 2018 at ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.go v/pub/Area_EI/2006/

and ftp://amdaftp.tceq.texas.gov/pub/Area_EI/2018/ . The following pages contain graphical plots of the 2006 and 2018 area source NO X and VOC emissions for the DFW area. Thes e plots are respectively entitled Figure 4

- 16 : 2006 DFW Area Source NO X Emissions Distribution

, Figure 4

- 17 : 2006 DFW Area Source VOC Emissions Distribution

, Figure 4

- 18 : 2018 DFW Area

Source NO X Emissions Distribution , and Figure 4

- 19 : 2018 DFW Area Source VOC Emissions

Distribution . For the non

- Texas U.S. areas of the modeling domain, area source emission

estimates from the EPA NEI were used. The 2008 NEI was used for the 2006 inputs, and

the 2011 NEI was used for the 2018 inputs. The area source emission estimates from these NEI datasets were processed through EPS3 in a manner similar to that described above for the area

source emissions within Texas.Figure 4

- 16 : 2006 DFW Area Source NO X Emissions DistributionFigure 4

- 17 : 2006 DFW Area Source VOC Emissions DistributionFigure 4

- 18 : 2018 DFW Area Source NO X Emissions DistributionFigure 4

- 19 : 2018 DFW Area Source VOC Emissions Distribution5. BIOGENIC MODELING EM ISSIONS

The TCEQ used version 2 .1 of the Model for Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature
(MEGAN) (Guenther, et al., 2012) . The MEGAN model code, User’s Guide, and default input

data are available at http://lar.wsu.edu/megan/index.html . The MEGAN model requires inputs by model grid cell area of:

• Emission factors for nineteen chemical compounds or compound groups.

• Plant Functional Types (PFTs).

• Fractional Vegetated Leaf Area Index (LAIv).

• Mete orological information including air and soil temperatures, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), barometric pressure, wind speed, water vapor mixing ratio and accumulated precipitation.

5.1 Emission Factor and PFT Inputs

The TCEQ used the default emissio n factors and PFTs that are provided with the model for the entire globe in netCDF format. To process the emission factors and PFTs to the TCEQ air modeling domain structures, raster layers of each emission factor file were created in ArcMap

version 9.3 us ing the Make NetCDF Raster Layer tool. The Zonal Statistics as Table tool was then used to tabulate averages per grid cell for each compound class and CAMx domain.

5.2 Fractional Vegetated Leaf Area Index Input

Leaf Area Index (LAI) is the one

- sided leaf cove rage over the same area of land. Fractional vegetated Leaf Area Index (LAIv) is LAI divided by the fraction of land defined as vegetated, and files for every eight

- day period of 2008 are provided on the MEGAN website. The TCEQ created

2006

- specific LAIv da ta using the level

- 4 Moderate

- Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
( MODIS ) global LAI MCD15A2 product. For each eight

- day period, the satellite tiles covering North America in a Sinusoidal grid were mosaicked together using the MODIS Reprojection
Tool (MRT ). Urban LAI cells, which MODIS excludes, were filled according to a function that follows the North American average for four urban land cover types. An urban LAI maximum

was chosen based on Loughner et a l ( 2012 ). MODIS’ quality control flags were applied to use only the high quality data from the main retrieval algorithm. The resultant LAI was divided by the percentage of vegetated PFT per grid cell to yield the final LAIv.

5.3 Meteorological Input

The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) meteorological mod el provided the meteorological data needed for MEGAN input, except for PAR. The WRF output was processed through the Meteorology

- Chemistry Interface Processor (MCIP). The episode

- specific satellite

based PAR were obtained from the historical data center operated by the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) Continental International Project (GCIP) and GEWEX

Ame ricas Prediction Project (GAPP) at the University of Maryland, which has a full site address

of http://metosrv2.umd.edu/~srb/gcip/cgi

- bin/historic.cgi

. Th e PAR data were derived from

ho urly GOES satellite imagery of cloud cover, which were processed with a solar irradiation
model (Pinker and Laszlo, 1992).

5.4 Biogenic Emission Summary

The MEGAN model was run for each 2006 episode day. Since biogenic emissions are dependent upon the meteorol ogical conditions on a given day, the same episode

- specific emissions for the 2006 baseline were used in the 2018 future case modeling scenarios. The summaries of biogenicemissions by episode day are shown in Table 5

- 1 : Daily Summary of Biogenic Emissions for the June 2006 Episode and Table 5

- 2 : Daily Summary of Biogenic Emissions for the August

September 2006 Episode

.

Table 5

- 1 : Daily Summary of Biogenic Emissions for the June 2006 Episode



### Episode Day Isoprene
(tons/day) Monoterpenes
(tons/day) Other VOC

(tons/day) Nitrogen Oxide

(tons/day) Total VOC

(tons/day)

5/31/2006 215.84 39.72 119.01 11.64 374.58

6/1/2006 210.25 39.11 116.21 11.32 365.56

6/2/2006 377.91 50.29 171.77 13.82 599.97

6/3/2006 380.30 49.70 171.13 13.54 601.13

6/4/2006 467.68 60.58 201.22 17.40 729.48

6/5/2006 571.09 67.15 231.80 19.05 870.03

6/6/2006 622.20 71.68 252.33 20.23 946.21

6/7/2006 575.44 65.30 234.70 17.85 875.44

6/8/2006 564.75 65.14 233.06 17.92 862.94

6/9/2006 624.09 69.99 251.70 19.38 945.78

6/10/2006 687.47 73.64 265.82 20.22 1026.93

6/11/2006 512.00 64.38 214.69 18.59 791.06

6/12/2006 597.85 67.78 238.48 18.86 904.11

6/13/2006 566.64 65.80 230.37 18.45 862.80

6/14/2006 449.82 53.77 187.85 14.67 691.43

6/15/2006 514.22 61.32 209.33 17.25 784.87

6/16/2006 422.29 56.74 184.59 16.72 663.62

6/17/2006 284.39 46.46 137.32 13.58 468.16

6/18/2006 402.37 51.94 172.93 14.62 627.24

6/19/2006 462.57 56.10 190.84 15.55 709.51

6/20/2006 239.06 44.64 130.08 13.26 413.79

6/21/2006 374.30 54.65 174.27 15.97 603.22

6/22/2006 350.19 54.85 171.18 16.41 576.22

6/23/2006 221.58 45.98 129.08 14.18 396.64

6/24/2006 302.64 49.99 149.02 15.17 501.65

6/25/2006 471.44 58.84 200.56 16.66 730.84

6/26/2006 301.26 43.12 142.10 11.70 486.49

6/27/2006 291.39 41.74 134.71 11.49 467.84

6/28/2006 365.02 48.35 158.81 13.42 572.18

6/29/2006 392.48 51.28 170.41 14.23 614.18

6/30/2006 386.33 53.29 171.68 15.17 611.30

7/1/2006 386.03 52.84 169.97 14.83 608.84

7/2/2006 337.00 49.72 153.85 14.12 540.57Table 5

- 2 : Daily Summary of Biogenic Emissions for the August

- September 2006 Episode



### Episode Day Isoprene
(tons/day) Monoterpenes
(tons/day) Other VOC

(tons/day) Nitrogen Oxide

(tons/day) Total VOC

(tons/day)

8/15/2006 588.98 69.50 232.58 18.61 891.05

8/16/2006 683.25 75.31 257.01 19.88 1015.57

8/17/2006 673.03 75.49 255.37 20.22 1003.89

8/18/2006 624.47 74.96 245.79 20.53 945.22

8/19/2006 566.77 70.02 228.30 19.27 865.09

8/20/2006 543.67 68.02 219.99 18.81 831.68

8/21/2006 510.58 63.47 204.54 17.67 778.58

8/22/2006 322.45 51.03 145.91 14.96 519.39

8/23/2006 409.52 53.68 164.71 15.00 627.91

8/24/2006 522.62 64.45 201.85 18.11 788.92

8/25/2006 623.05 70.15 233.54 19.14 926.74

8/26/2006 538.64 65.19 211.70 18.09 815.53

8/27/2006 264.01 44.61 128.78 12.98 437.40

8/28/2006 64.40 28.29 59.85 8.22 152.53

8/29/2006 224.45 38.57 113.42 10.11 376.44

8/30/2006 265.08 40.02 125.45 10.25 430.55

8/31/2006 364.13 49.27 157.06 13.05 570.45

9/1/2006 341.07 49.71 154.27 13.33 545.04

9/2/2006 155.06 37.52 99.47 10.28 292.05

9/3/2006 68.18 27.95 62.04 7.37 158.17

9/4/2006 23.79 20.35 40.23 4.80 84.37

9/5/2006 142.67 30.52 85.08 7.56 258.26

9/6/2006 203.53 33.67 105.31 8.21 342.51

9/7/2006 201.75 34.72 106.52 8.72 342.99

9/8/2006 177.03 36.70 101.28 10.00 315.00

9/9/2006 179.80 38.10 104.43 10.40 322.33

9/10/2006 240.09 42.65 124.92 11.55 407.67

9/11/2006 241.79 42.06 122.53 11.22 406.37

9/12/2006 233.88 39.40 120.21 10.00 393.48

9/13/2006 164.82 29.88 91.07 7.17 285.77

9/14/2006 218.39 35.92 106.26 9.59 360.57

9/15/2006 260.56 46.57 131.23 13.47 438.36

Isoprene and other biogenic VOC emissions were plotted to visually determine the location of

emissions matched to known forested areas as shown in Figure 5

- 1 : Biogenic Isoprene

Emissions on June 12, 2006 for the 4 km Domain . CAMx output concentrations of the same VOC for the same time period are also plotted to ensure concentrations follow emission magnitudes. An example isoprene concentration plot for June 12, 2006 at 12:00 is displayed in Figure 5

- 2 : Modeled CAMx Isoprene Concentrations for June 12, 2006 at 12:00 CST

.Figure 5

- 1 : Biogenic Isoprene Emissions on June 12, 2006 for the 4 km DomainFigure 5

- 2 : Modeled CAMx Isoprene Concentrations for June 12, 2006 at 12:00

CST

6. REFERENCES

Guenther, A., Jiang, X., Heald, C., Sakulyanontvittaya, T., Duhl, T., Emmons, L., et al., 2012.
The Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature version 2.1 (MEGAN2.1): an

extended and updated framework for modeling biogenic emissions. Geoscientific Model Development, 1471

- 1492.

Loughner, Christopher P., Dale J. Allen, Da

- Lin Zhang, Kenneth E. Pickering, Russell R. Dickerson, Laura Landry, 2012. Roles of Urban Tree Canopy and Buildi ngs in Urban HeatIsland Effects: Parameterization and Preliminary Results. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 51, 1775

– 1793.

Pinker, R.T. and I. Laszlo, 1992. Modeling surface solar irradiance for satellite applications on a global scale. J. Appl. Meteor., 31, 1 94

- 211.