# T e chnical S up p o rt Doc u me n t

f o r the



# Texas R e gi o n al H a z e S tate I m ple m entati o n Plan

(TX TSD)

P rep a red a nd R e vi e w ed b y :

Michael Feldman

Joe Kordzi

Erik Snyder

November 2 01 4ii 

### T a b l e of C o nten t s

I. Relationship of this TSD to our Proposal

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

II. Ba c k g r o un d to Re gio n al H a z e

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

III. Eval u a t ion o f S ta t e Sub m it t al

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 A. Identification of Areas: 40 CFR 51.308(d)

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

B. R e aso n a b le P r o g re s s G oals D e v e lo p me n t

................................ ................................ ............. 6 B.1. Establishment of Reasonable Progress Goals: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)

............................ 8 B.2. Reasonable Progress Goals Four Factor Analysis: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)

.......... 10 B.3. Uniform Rate of Progress Determination: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B)

....................... 25

B. 4. Analysis of Reasonable Progress Goal: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii)

- (iii)

........................ 28 B.5. Reasonable Progress Goal To Be Considered by Adm inistrator: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v)

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 31 B.6. Reasonable Progress State Consultation: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv)

............................ 32 B.7. Reasonable Progress Goal Minimum: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi)

................................ . 34 C. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions

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

C.1. Calcul ation of Baseline Conditions: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i)

................................ ...... 35 C.2. Calculation of Natural Visibility Conditions: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i ii)

.................... 38 C.3. Natural Visibility Impairment: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A)

................................ ....... 42 D. Long Term Strategy 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).

................................ ................................ ........ 43 D.1. Long Term Strategy State Consultation: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)

............................... 44 D.2. Share of Reductions in Other States’ Progress Goals: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii)

......... 49

D.3. Technical Basis for the Long Term Strategy: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii)

– (iv)

........... 50 D.4. Consideration of Long Term Strategy Factor s: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)

.................... 67 E. Monitoring Strategy/Other SIP Requirements 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)

................................ . 72 F. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Requirements: 40 CFR 51.308(e)

............... 74 F.1. Identification and Analysis of BART: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)

– (4)

............................... 74

F.2 Altern ate Emission Trading Program: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)

- (3)

............................... 79 F.3. CAIR for BART: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)

................................ ................................ ........ 79

F.4. Reasonable Progress and BART: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(5)

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

F.5 BART: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(6)

................................ ................................ ...................... 81 G. 2018 Regional Haze SIP Revision: 40 CFR 51.308(f)

................................ ....................... 81 H. Five Year Progress Report: 40 CFR 51.308(g)

................................ ................................ ... 82 I. Existing SIP Adequacy Determination: 40 CFR 51.308(h)

................................ ................. 83 J. Federal Land Manager Coordination: 40 CFR 51.308(i)

................................ ..................... 84iii 

### Tables

Table 1. Summary of Texas’ Visibility Impacts at Selected Class I Areas Outside of Texas

....... 6 Table 2. Texas Reasonable Progress Goals for 20% Worst Days

................................ ................. 9

Table 3. Texas Reasonable Progress Goals for 20% Best Days

................................ .................... 9 Table 4. Percentage Source Category Contributions to SO 4 and NO 3 at the Five Class I Areas

Te xas Most Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 11 Table 5. Annualized Cost of Controls for each Class I Area (controls at facilities within each

Class I area’s AOI)

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 13

Table 6. Total Estimated Cost of Texas Control Set

................................ ................................ ... 14 Table 7. TCEQ Projected Visibility Improvement to Selected Class I Areas from the Imposition

of Potential Controls

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 15 Table 8. Comparison of Texas 2002 Baseline S O 2 emissions, 2015 CAIR EGUs Budget and

2018 IPM Predicted S O 2 Emissions

................................ ................................ ............................. 17 Table 9. 2018 Phase 1 EPA source apportionment modeling results, top ten facilities in Texas that impact visibility at Big Bend

................................ ................................ ................................ . 20 Table 10. 2018 Phase 1 EPA source apportionment modeling results, top ten facilities in Texas that impact visibility at Guadalupe Mountains

................................ ................................ ............. 21 Table 11. Summary of Uniform Rate of Progress

................................ ................................ ....... 26 Table 12. Summary of Uniform Rate of Progress based on EPA default Natural Conditions

.... 26

Table 13. Estimated emission reductions and cost to meet the URP

................................ ........... 27

Ta ble 14. EPA correction to TCEQ’s estimated emission reductions and cost to meet the URP 28

Table 15. CENRAP’s PSAT Contribution to Visibility in the Texas Class I Areas on the Worst 20% Days

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 29 Table 16. TCEQ Natural Visibility Calculations

................................ ................................ ......... 40 Table 17: Visibility Metrics for the Class I Areas in Texas

................................ ........................ 43 Table 18. Texas’ 2002 Emissions Inventory (tons/year)

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

Table 19. Texas’ 2002 Biogenic Emissions Inventory (tons/year)

................................ .............. 53 Table 20. Texas’ 2018 Emissions Inventory

................................ ................................ ................ 54 Table 21. Projected light extinction for 20% worst days at Big Bend Wilderness Area in 2002 (Mm

- 1 )

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 57 Table 22. Projected light extinction for 20% worst days at Big Bend Wilderness Area in 2018 (Mm

- 1 )

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 57 Table 23. Projected light extinction for 20% worst days at Guadalupe Mountains in 2002 (Mm

- 1 )

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 60 Table 24. Projected light extinction for 20% worst days at Upper Guadalupe Mountains in 2018 (Mm

- 1 )

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 60 Table 25. Contribution from Texas Emissions to Visibility Impairment (Mm

- 1 ) at Class I areas on 20% Worst Days in 2002

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 63 Table 26. Contribution from Texas Emissions (Mm

- 1) to Visibility Impairment at Class I areas on 20% Worst Days in 2018

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 64iv 

### Figures

Figure 1. Map of Class I Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 2 Fig u r e 2. Loc a tion of t h e Class I A re a in Texas and the Region

................................ .................. 3 Fig u r e 3. M ap of R e gio n al P la nn i n g Organ i z ation Bo u nd a r ies

................................ ..................... 4 Figure 4. Natural Condition and URP estimates for Big Bend

................................ .................... 40 Figure 5. Natural Condition and URP estimates for the Guadalupe Mountains

.......................... 41 Figure 6. 2018 projected percent contribution from all sources at Big Bend

............................... 58 Figure 7. 2018 projected percent contribution from point sources at Big Bend

.......................... 59 Figure 8. 2018 projected percent contribution from all sources at Guadalupe Mountains

.......... 61 Figure 9. 2018 projected percent contribution from point sources at Guadalupe Mountains

...... 62 Figure 10. Projected 2018 total extinction and Texas contribution at Class I areas in Texas and

other states

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 65

### Texas R e gi o n a l Haze SIP Evaluation T e chn i c a l S u p p o rt Do cu m ent ( T S D )

I. Relationship of this TSD to our Proposal

On March 31, 2009, the State submitted a Texas Regional Haze SIP revision to EPA for review

and action. This TSD is our technical analysis of Texas’ SIP submittal under the federal Regional Haze rule requirements at 40 CFR 51.308.

This T S D is not me a nt t o be a c om p lete r a t i on a le f or our dec is i on. I

t m e r e l y p r ovides a ddi t ional

info r mation for some of t he te c hni c a l asp ec ts of t h e b a sis f or th i s a c t i on w h e n n ee d e d. I n some of the no n

- te c hn i ca l a r e a s, our F e d e r a l Re g is t e r n ot i ce (s) pro v ides mo r e d e tail t h a n do e s th i s TSD. Also, t his T S D tr e a ts t he re quir e m e nts of Section 51.308 in t he ord e r in which th e y a pp e a r in t h a t r e g u l a t i on, wh e r e a s our F e d e r a l Re g is t e r n o t i ce (s) g roups the r e quir e ments into r e lat e d

a r e a s so t he c on c e pts c a n be und e rstood more ea s il y

. I n th i s r e g a rd, the T S D ca n s e rve a s a

c h ec kl i st of wh e t h e r the r e quir e ments h a v e b ee n a ddr e ssed. L a st l y , the T S D a t t e mp t s to r e fer the

r e a d e r to the spe c i fic por t ions of the Texas r e g io n a l ha z e S I P that w e r e l i e d upon f

or o u r a n a l y sis

o f p a rticul a r po r t i ons of Section 51.308.

Th r ou g hout t his do c um e nt, we oft e n use la n g u a g e such a s, “ w e f ind ” or ot h e r sim i lar phr a s e s that

on the su r f

a c e would sug g e st a fin a l det e rmin a t i on h a s be e n ma d e . H o w e v e r, a ll a spe c ts of our

T S D should be c onsid e r e d to be p a rt of our p r opos a l and a r e subj ec t t o c h a n g e b a s e d on

c om m e nts and other inf

o rm a t i on we m a y r ece i v e during our p ubl i c c om me nt pe r iod.

II. Ba c k g r o un d to Re gio n al H a z e

I n Se c t i on 169A of the 1 977 Am e ndments to the Cle a n Air A c t (CA A ), Con g r e ss set fo r th a

p r ogr a m for p rot ec t i n g v i sib i l i t y in F e d e r a l C lass I a r e a s whi c h c a l l s for the

― p re v e nt i on of a n y futu re
, a nd the r e me d y

i n g of a n y e x is t in g , i m p a irme n t of vis i bi l i t y in ma n d a to r y F e d e r a l C lass I

a r e a s whi c h i m p a irme n t r e sul t s f r om m a nmade a ir pol l ut i on. Con g r e ss ad o pted the vis i bi l i t y

p r ovis i ons to pr o te c t v i sib i l i t y in 156 Fe d e r a l C la s s I a re a s, which in c lude c e rt a in national p a r ks,

memo r ial p a rks, a nd wil d e rn e ss a r e as o v e r a ce r t a in s iz e
, a nd a ll in t e rn a t i on a l pa r ks. Th e s e a r ea s

a re d e fin e d a t 40 C F R 8 1 .400, a re l i sted b y state a t 40 C F R 81.40 1

- 81.437, a nd a re d e pict e d in

F i g u re 1 . Figure 2 shows the Class I areas within Texas

— Big Bend National Park (Big Bend) and the Guadalupe Mountains National Park (Guadalupe Mountains)

— and those in the surrounding region:2 Figure 1. Map of Class I Areas3 Fig u r e 2. Loc a tion of t

h e Class I A re a in Texas and the Region

On De c e mber 2, 1980, w e p r omu l g a ted re g ulations to add re ss v i sib i l i t y i m p a irme n t t h a t i s

“ r e a so n a b l y a t t ribut a ble ” to a sin g le sou r c e or sm a ll g roup of sou r ce s. (45 F R 80084) Th e se

re g ulations re p r e s e nted t he f irst phase in ad d r e ss i ng vis i bi l i t y i m p a irme n t a nd d e fer re d ac t i on o n

re g ional h a z e that e ma n a tes f rom a v a ri e t y of sou r ce s until mon i torin g , modeling a nd s c ientific

knowl e dge a bout t he r e l a t i onships b e tw ee n pol l utants a nd visib i l i t y i m p a i r ment i m p r ov e d.

I n the 1 9 90 Am e ndments to t he CA A , Con g r e ss a dd e d S ec t i on 169B a nd c a l l e d on us to i ssue
R e g ional H a z e r ules. T h e regional haze r ule th a t we p romul g a t e d on J u l y 1, 1999 (64 F R 35713)

re vised the e x is t ing vis i bi l i t y r e gulations to i nte g r a te p ro v is i ons a ddr e ss i ng re g ion a l ha z e vis i bi l i t y i m p a irme n t and e stablish a c ompr e h e nsive vis i b i l i t y prot e c t i on p r o g r a m f o r Fe d e r a l

C lass I a r e a s. T h e se re g ulations r e p re s e nted the s e c ond p h a se in add r e ss i ng vis i bi l i t y i m p a irme n t. S tat e s w e re r e quir e d to s ubm i t s t a te imp l e ment a t i on plans ( S I P s) to us that set out

e a c h st a t e ’s plan f

or c omp l y

i n g w i th t he regional haze Rul e , including c o nsultation and

c oordin a t i on with o t h e r st a tes a nd with Fe d e r a l L a nd Mana g e rs (F L M s ). S tat e s w e re r e quir e d to

submit a R e g ional H a z e S I P to us with i n thr e e y e a rs a ft e r the d a t e of d e s i g n a t i o n of a re a s und e r

t h e N a t i on a l Amb i e nt Air Qu a l i t y S tand a rd (N A A QS) f or f ine p a rticul a te matter ( P M2.5). W e

p r o mu l g a ted PM2.5 d e si g n a t i ons on D ece m b e r 17, 2004, a nd thus, re gional h a z e S I P s w e re to b e submi t ted to us b y D ece m b e r 17, 2007, wh i c h is also specified a t 40 C F R 51.308 ( b )

.4

The regional haze rule a d d r e ssed t h e c omb i n e d vis i bi l i t y e f f ec ts of v a rious pol l ut i on sour ce s ov e r

a wide g e o g ra phic re g ion. Conse q u e nt l y
, a ll 50 stat e s, including those w i t hout C lass I a r ea s
, W a shin g ton, D.C., a nd the V i r g in I slands, w er e re quir e d to subm i t R e g ion a l H a z e S I P s (40 C F R

51.300 ( b ) (3 ) ). W e d e signat e d five R e g ional P la n ning O r g a ni z a t i ons (R P Os) to assist wi t h the

c oordin a t i on a nd c oo p e rat i on n ee d e d to add r e ss t he vis i bi l i t y is s u e
, a s sh o w n b y F i g u re 3.

Fig u r e 3. M ap of R e gio n al P la nn i n g Organ i z ation Bo u nd a r ies

Texas , th r o u g h the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) jo i n e d st a te a ir

a g e n c ies f rom A r k a nsas, I o w a , K a n s a s, L ouis i a n a , Minn e sota, Missouri, N e b ra ska, a nd

Oklahoma in fo r m i ng CENRA P

, an RPO, in 1999. CENRAP also includ e s f e d e r a l l y re c o g n i z e d

I ndian t r ibes lo c a ted with i n the g e o g r a phic b o und a ri e s of its memb e r st a tes. Texas c hose to

pa r t i c ipate in C E NRAP to jointly dev e lop t he te c hnic a l an a l y s e s n ee d e d to address the

r e quir e ments of the regional haze Rul e

.5

III. Eval u a t ion o f S ta t e Sub m it t al

I n e v a luati n g the Texas regional haze S I P

, we r e vie w e d a ll the p a rts of the do c u ment, including

the bo d y of t h e S I

P i t s e lf, a n d a ll a pp e ndic e s. I n a dd i t i on, we d re w upon the f ol l owing a ddi t ional

do c uments that m a y not h a ve b e e n sp ec if i ca l l y discuss e d in our TSD a nd / or the F e d e r a l R e g is te r publ i ca t i on(s) of o u r de c i sio n :

1. 40 C F R P a rt 51.

2. App e ndix V to 40 C F R Pa rt 5 1

. 3. The B ART Guid e l i n e s‖ i n App e ndix Y to P a rt 5 1

— Guid e l i n e s for B ART D e te r m i n a t i ons Und e r t h e R e g io n a l H a z e Rule, 7 0 F R 39104, J u l y 6, 200 5

. 4. Guid a n c e f

o r T r ac ki n g P rog re ss Und e r the R e g i o n a l H a z e Rule, E P A

- 454/B

- 03

- 004,

S e ptemb e r, 20 0 3.

5. Guid a n c e f

o r De monst r a t i ng Attainment of A ir Q u a l i t y Go a ls f o r PM2.5 a n d Re g ional H a z e
, J a nu a r y 2, 2001.

6. Guid a n c e f

o r E st i mating N a tur a l Vis i bi l i t y Condi t ions Und e r the R e g ional H a z e Rule, EPA

454/ B

- 0 3

- 005, S e p t e mber 2003.

7. The

― B a s e l i ne M e m o
, w hich is e nt i t l e d

, ― 2002 B a se Y e a r E m i ss i on I n v e nto r y S I P P lannin g : 8

- Hour O z on e
, P M2.5 and R e g ional H az e P ro g r a ms, d a ted 11/18/2002, f r om L y d ia We g man to the R e g ional Air Dir e c tors

. 8. Guid a n c e f

o r Setting R ea sona b le Prog re ss G o a ls Und e r the R e g ional H a z e P ro g r a m, d a ted

J une 1, 200 7

. 9. Visibi l i t y Monitoring G u idan ce , EP A

- 454/ R

- 99

- 0 03, J une 1999.

10. Emis s ions I

nv e nto r y Gu i d a n c e f

o r I mp l e ment a t i o n of O z one a nd P a rticul a t e Matter N a t i on a l

Amb i e nt Air Q u a l i t y S tand a rds ( N A A QS ) a nd Re g io n a l H a z e R e g ulations, EPA

- 454/ R

- 0 5

- 001, d a t e d Au g ust, 2005.

11. I nt e rim Air Q u a l i t y P ol i c y on W i l dland a nd P r e s c r ibed F ir e s, A p r i l 23, 1998.

A. Identification of Are as : 40 CFR 51.308(d)

Texas must a ddr e ss r e g io n a l ha z e in e ac h m a n d a to r y Class I F e d e r a l a r e a loc a t e d with i n it a nd in

e ac h m a nd a to r y C lass I Fe d e r a l a rea loc a t e d outside it whi c h m a y b e a f f ec ted b y e m i ss i ons f

r om wi t hin it.

S ta t e Sub m it t al

Chapter 1, Chapter 11

T he TCEQ identified two Class I areas within Texas: Big Bend National Park, in Brewster County, which borders the Rio Grande and Mexico, and the Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Culberson County, which borders New Mexico. The TCEQ is responsible for d eveloping Reasonable Progress Goals ( RPGs ) for these two Class I areas. The TCEQ also determined that emissions from sources in Texas impact visibility at a number of Class I areas outside of Texas. Table 1 summarizes CENRAP source apportionment modeling results the TCEQ presents as Texas’s share of visibility impairment at selected nearby Class I areas, based on the 20% worst days for 2002 and 2018. These CENRAP source apportionment modeling results indicate that6

Texas emissions impact the visibility at a number of Class I areas in other state s, including the Breton Wilderness Area in Louisiana, the Great Sand Dunes in Colorado, Caney Creek and the Upper Buffalo in Arkansas, the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma, and several Class I areas in

New Mexico.

Table 1. Summary of Texas’ Visibility Impacts at Selected Class I Areas Outside of Texas

Class I area State 2002 Impacts (Mm

- 1 ) 2018 Impacts (Mm

- 1 )

Texas total Total, All sources Texas total Total, All sources

Carlsbad Caverns New Mexico 16.62 47.80 15.39 44.43

Salt Creek New Mexico 13.41 52.50 10.24 46.67

White Mountain New Mexico 7.40 32.91 6.22 29.80

Wheeler Peak New Mexico 1.85 21.96 1.59 20.80

Wichita Mountains Oklahoma 28.15 100.03 20.79 75.56

Great Sand Dunes Colorado 1.25 27.88 1.11 26.77 Rocky Mountains Colorado 0.58 32.13 0.51 29.41 Caney Creek Arkansas 14.89 133.93 9.74 85.84 Upper Buffalo Arkansas 5.19 131.79 3.38 86.16

Hercules

- Glades Missouri 6.59 140.05 4.45 92.49 Mingo Missouri 2.01 159.83 1.28 99.24

Breton Louisiana 4.20 123.99 3.23 94.06

T he TSD for the CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State Implementation (TSD for CENRAP modeling) 1 provides additional source apportionment model

results for the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days for 2002 and 2018.

E P A F i nd i n g s : The submittal supports a finding that Texas h as properly identified its own Class I

areas and the Class I areas affected by Texas emissions.

B. R e aso n a b le P r o g re s s G oals D e v e lo p me n t

This section focuses on how Texas established their RPGs for the two Class I areas, Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. We go through each of the RP G requirements of Section

51.308 (d)(1) in the order in which they appear in that regulation , explain the metho dology the

state used in establishing its goals, and then provide our analysis of how the state analyzed those

elements.

Background to Establishing Reasonable Prog r ess Goals :

51.308(d)(1) of the regional haze rule requires that state s establish “ reasonable progress goals ”

for each Class I area. Reasonable progress goals are defined as “interim goals that represent incremental visibility improvement over time toward the goal of natural background conditions and are developed in consultation with ot her affected States and Federal Land Managers.” 2 These

1 See Appendix E of the TSD for CENRAP Emis sions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State Implementation, found in Appendix 8.1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.

2 Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Env ironmental . Protection Agency, Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progr ess Goals Under the Regional Haze Program (June 1, 2007).7

goal s are to be expressed in deciviews and provide for improvement on the 20

- percent haziest days, and provide for no degradation on the 20

- percent clearest days. The guidance on reasonable progress pr ovides an overview of the process for developing RPGs, potential methods for identifying which source categories should be evaluated for controls, and suggestions for evaluating the four statutory factors with respect to potentially affected stationary sou rces. 3

T he Regional Haze Rule requires that for each Class I area, state s (1) determine the amount of progress needed to reach natural background conditions in 60 years; (2) identify the “uniform rate of progress” or “glidepath” over that 60

- year period; (3) identify the amount of progress that would result if the uniform rate of progress were achieved during the planning period; and (4) identify the emissions measures that would be needed to achieve that amount of progress and analyze whether the measure s were reasonable based on four statutory factors listed in the CAA

. If a state found that the amount of progress necessary to achieve the uniform rate of progress (or some greater amount) was reasonab le, then Regional Haze Rule requires the state to adopt that amount of progress as its RPG. 4 If a state found that the amount of progress necessary to achieve the uniform rate of progress was unreasonable, however, then the state could set a different RPG, but only after providing an analysis and rati onale supporting its determination based on the four statutory factors. 5 The four statutory factors that a state must consider to establish its goals under CAA 169(g) are: the cost of compliance; the time necessary for compliance; the energy and non

air qu ality environmental impacts of compliance; and the remaining useful life of existing sources that contribute to visibility impairment. A state must demonstrate how these factors are

taken into consideration in selection of the RPG for each Class I areas i n the state

. In establishing an RPG, the state must consult with other state s with emissions sources that may be reasonably be anticipated to c a use or contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas in that state

. (51.308(d)(1)(iv).

Overall, the imp rovement in visibility resulting from implementation of the measures found to be reasonable, considering the uniform rate of progress, is the amount of progress that represents a

state ’s progress goal. The state should identify key pollutants and source ca tegories for the first planning period that contribute to visibility impairment at the Class I area

. Next, identify source categories responsible for emitting the identified pollutants. Next, identify control measures for contributing source categories th at have the greatest impact of visibility at Class I areas, considering cost and the other factors. ( Reasonable Progress Guidance 4

- 1). State s should factor

in emissions reductions from state , local and federal controls. After reviewing reductions of

visi bility impairing pollutant from other state , local or federal control measures, the state then will identify an y additional measure s that are reasonable , after considering the four statutory
factors. 6 Based on contribution from certain source categories and the magnitude of emissions, a

3 The final also requires that States, in establishing their RPGs, consult with other States that were anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I area under consideration. The rule requires States to describe in their SIPs any actions taken to resolve disagreements over the apportionment of emission measures necessary to achieve the RPGs. 64 Fed. Reg. at 35,732; 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)(iv). This requirement will be discussed i n Section B.6.of this TSD and in the OK TSD.

4 64 Fed. Reg. at 35,732.

5 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)(ii).

6 While visibility is not an explicitly listed factor to consider when determining whether additional controls are reasonable, the purpose of the four

- fa ctor analysis is to determine what degree of progress toward natural visibility8

state has flexibility to decide whether further controls are warranted. (R easonable P rogress Guidance 4

- 2).

B.1. Establishment of Reasonable Progress Goals: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)

For e ac h m an d a to r y Cla s s I Fe d e r a l a rea loc a ted with i n the state

, it must e stablish g o a ls ( e x p re ssed in d ec iv i e w s ) that p r ovide f or r ea sona b le p r ogr e ss t ow a rds ac h i e ving n a tu r a l v i sib i l i t y

c ondi t ions. The rea so n a ble p r ogr e ss g o a ls m ust p rovide f or a n i m p r o v e m e nt i n vis i bi l i t y for the

most i m p a ir e d d a y s o v e r the p e riod of the S I P a nd e nsure no d e g ra d a t i on in vis i bi l i t y f or the l ea st
i m p a ir e d d a y s ov e r t h e s a me p e rio d

.

State Submittal

Chapter 10

The TCEQ states that its RPGs are de rived from the CENRAP modeling and reflect emissions reductions programs already in place, including CAIR and additional refinery SO2 reductions as a result of our refinery consent decrees. The TCEQ states that these RPGs assume that either CAIR will remain in place or will be replaced by a comparable program to reduce visibility impairing pollution from Electric Generating Units (EGUs) in Texas and in the eastern United

States. The CENRAP’s projections for 2018 for the 20% worst and best days for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains , a re also shown in Appendix D to the document titled “ Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State Implementation Plans.” 7

Based on the results of Texas’ required reasonable progress four

- factor analysis (described in the following section) and the results of the CENRAP modeling, the TCEQ adopted the CENRAP modeled 2018 visibility conditions as the RPGs for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains

Class I area s

. TCEQ established a RPG of 16.6 dv for Big Bend and 16.3 dv for Guadalupe

Mountains for the 20% worst days for 2018

.

Texas established the following Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) , as summarized in Tables 2

and 3 8 :

conditions is reasonable. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to consider the projected visibility benefit of the controls when determining if cost

- effective controls are warranted to make reasonable progress.

7 See Appendix D of the TSD for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State Implementation, found in Appendix 8.1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.

8 Reproduced from Tables 10

- 2 and 10

- 3 of the Texas regional haze SIP.9 Table 2. Texas Reasonable Progress Goals for 20% Worst Days

Class I A r ea Baseline

Conditions (dv) Projected

2018 Visibility (RPG) (dv) I m prove m ent

Projected by

2018 using

RPG (dv) I m prove m ent

b y 2 0 1 8

at URP (dv) Date

Natural Visibility

Attained at
RPG Rate

Big Bend 17.30 16.6 0.7 1.7 2155

Guadalupe Mountains 17.19 16.3 0.9 1.2 2081

Table 3 . Texas Reasonable Progress Goals for 20% Best Days

Class I A r ea Baseline

Conditions (dv) Projected 2018 Visibility (RPG) (dv) I m prove m ent

b y 2 0 1 8 (dv)

Big Bend 5.8 5.6 0.2

Guadalupe Mountains 5.9 5.7 0.2

EPA Findings

The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the natural visibility goal is the

submission of a series of regional haze SIPs from the state s that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, one for the “best” and one for the “ worst” days) for every Class I area for each implementation period. See 70 FR 3915; see also 64 FR 35714. See the CENRAP Modeling TSD for our review of the CENRAP emission inventory and modeling that was relied upon in establishing the RPGs for Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains.

Table 3 above demonstrates that t he modeled RPGs for the 20% best days show an improvement in visibility of 0.2 dv at both Texas Class I areas in 2018. TCEQ also submitted RPG s for the

two Texas Class I areas for the 20% worst days , as shown in Table 2 above. Table 2

demonstrates that the modeled RPG s for the 20% worst days show an improvement in visibility

of 0.7 dv and 0.9 dv at Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, respectively. Texas projects that it

will not meet the national goal of restoring natural visibility conditions by 2064 for either of its

two Class I areas. TCEQ calculated that under its RPGs, it would attain natural visibility conditions in 2155 at Big Bend and 2081 at Guadalupe Mountains. 9

Although Texas’ RPGs do provide for some improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period, we believe the overall RPG goals that Texas e stablished for its own Class I

9 As we note elsewhere, this assumes Texas’ calculation for the natural visibility conditions at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains.10

areas of Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains do not provide for reasonable progress based on the four reasonable progress factors that a state is required to consider in selecting a RPG under (d)(1)(i)(A). For the reasons discu ssed below, we believe the record supports a find ing that the RPGs identified for the Texas Class I areas are not reasonable. We address our finding regarding whether the Texas regional haze SIP satisfies the requirements under Section 51.308(d)(1) to set

RPGs below.

B.2. Reasonable Progress Goals Four Factor Analysis: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)

In establishing a RPG for any mandatory Class I Federal area within Texas

, Texas is required by CAA §169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to “[c]onsider the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non

- air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially aff ected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting the goal.” This requirement is often referred to as the reasonable progress “four factor analysis.”

State Submittal

Chapter 10

Chapter 10 of Texas’ submittal describes how the TCEQ evaluated the reasonable progress four factors in analyzing additional controls and establishing the RPGs. Texas assessed the costs of potential controls and reductions for Texas point sources at ten Class I area s, including the two Texas Class I areas and those in nearby state s. Appendix 10

- 1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP

, Analysis of Control Strategies and Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

, provid es Texas’ analysis of how it established these goals

. The analysis contained in Appendix 10.1 is used by Texas in both establishing its RPG, and as discussed later, in the development of its Long

- Term Strategy ( LTS ) for Class I areas outside of Texas. See also Chapter 10, Appendices

10

- 2 and 10

- 4

.

In establ ishing its RPGs for 2018 for the 20% worst days, the TCEQ relied on the improvements in visibility that are anticipated to result from federal, state , and local control programs. Based on the emissions reductions from these measures, CENRAP modeled the projected visibility conditions anticipated at each Class I area in 2018 and the TCEQ used these results to establish its RPGs. The TCEQ states it developed its RPGs after considering the regulatory factors required under Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), discu ssed above. The TCEQ focused its control strategy analysis on point source emissions of SO 2 and NO X , as the sources of these pollutants are the main anthropogenic pollutants that affect visibility at Class I areas in Texas. It examined visibility impairm ent at the Texas Class I areas and Class I areas in nearby state s. The TCEQ stated that source apportionment modeling results, summarized in Chapter 11 of the Texas regional haze SIP, demonstrate that NOx and SO 2 are the main anthropogenic pollutants that affect visibility at the Class I areas in Texas and Class I areas in surrounding state s. Source apportionment modeling also indicated that sulfur emissions that impact visibility are dominated by point sources, while impacts from NOx emissions are more e venly distributed between area, mobile and point sources. The following table 10 summarizes the source category contributions

10 Reproduced from Table 3 in Appendix 10

- 1 of the Texas regional haze SIP.11

from the 2002 base case CENRAP source apportionment modeling for the five Class I areas whose visibility is most impacted by Texas emissions. In evaluating the emission inventory projections, Texas concluded that for SO 2 , point sources are responsible for over 90% of the projected 2018 statewide emissions, and for NOx, point sources comprise over 45 % of the projected statewide emiss ions. The TCEQ noted that NOx emissions are more evenly distributed among point, mobile, and area sources, and that state s have very limited authority to reduce mobile source emissions and are already addressing road and non

- road mobile emissions. The

TC EQ noted the largest category of area source NOx is upstream oil and gas production, and it is taking all steps it has determined are reasonable at this time to control these sources as part of the

Dallas

- Fort Worth ozone SIP and is investing $4,000,000 in a grant program to assist with the retrofitting of gas

- fired, rich burn compressor engines. TCEQ also noted uncertainty in upstream oil and gas emission estimates. Thus, the TCEQ reasoned that since point sources are the single largest pollution category for SO 2 and NOx, it should concentrate its RPG strategy on analyzing controls for point sources.

Table 4 . Percentage Source Category Contributions to SO 4 and NO 3 at the Five Class I Areas Texas Most Impacts

Big Bend Guadalupe Mountains

Point Mobile Area Point Mobile Area

SO 4 67.1 2.8 6.9 75.6 3.5 8.5

NO 3 26.6 28.6 14.3 29.2 36.5 13.9

Wichita Mountains Salt Creek White Mountain

Point Mobile Area Point Mobile Area Point Mobile Area

SO 4 78.2 3.7 9.2 73.8 3.9 8.1 75.2 4.1 8.1

NO 3 28.1 44.7 13.4 35.8 29.9 17.1 27.9 40.3 12.0

Having narrowed the scope of the control analysis to point sources of NOx and SO 2 , the TCEQ developed a list of potential controls and costs associated with those controls to inform their four

factor analysis. It used the control strategy analysis developed by CENRAP as the starting point for its analysis. CENRAP contracted with Alpine Geophysics to conduct an evaluation of possible additional point

- source add

- on controls for sources in CENRAP state s. The Alpine Geophysics evaluation relied on AirControlNET, 11 a database tool we released in 2006 to enable

cost

- benefit analyses of potential emissions control measures and strategies. Alpine Geophysics prepared cost estimates for potential add

- on contr ols for NOx and SO 2 reductions in 2005 dollars for point sources in CENRAP state s. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources and Kansas Department of Health and Environment staff developed Area

- of

- Influence (AOI) data for each Class I area in every CENRAP member state , as well as distance calculations for each source to each Class I area for inclusion in the Alpine Geophysics analysis. Available SO 2 and NOx control strategies in the AirControlNET dataset were applied to EGU and non

- EGU sources to

11 Additional information and a copy of the AirControl NET software can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/AirControlNET.htm12

develop a master list of available incremental control strategies for the CENRAP state s. 12 The TCEQ reviewed this information for Texas sources and made changes based on additional information and past experience. The TCEQ also added some additional sources from source

types not included in the CENRAP AirControlNET dataset. This work resulted in a list of potential add

- on controls for reducing SO 2 and NOx at Texas point sources, an estimate of the costs associated with each control, and identification of the AOI s for each Class I area.

The TCEQ states its analysis focused on moderate cost controls for sources it believed were likely to contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas. In an effort to further narrow the list of potential controls, the TCEQ followed the screening process summarized below and as

detailed in Section 10

- 1.3 of Appendix 10

- 1 of the Texas regional haze SIP:

 Identified controls at sources with potential control strategy costs greater than $2,700 per ton SO 2 or NOx were initia lly screened out.

 Remaining sources were reduced by eliminating those the TCEQ believed were so distant from any of the ten Class I areas that any reduction in emissions would likely not have a perceptible impact on visibility.

 Remaining sources were f urther reduced by eliminating those that did not possess a ratio of the estimated projected 2018 base annual emissions (tons) of SO 2 or NOx to distance (kilometers) of greater than five, to any Class I area.

 Any source with predicted 2018 emissions less than 100 tons per year was excluded.

Separate from the above described screening process, the TCEQ also excluded additional NOx controls on cement kilns from consideration, as it concluded it had already required all the

measures it had determined are r easonable to control NOx emissions from these sources in the

latest Dallas

- Fort Worth ozone SIP revision. The TCEQ reasoned, based on a study performed

for the Dallas

- Fort Worth ozone SIP revision, 13 that a 35 to 50% NOx control range was the most appropriate control level to address ozone formation. The TCEQ developed a source cap that required a reduction of approximately 9.69 tons per day (tpd) of NOx emissions from the cement kilns in Ellis County starting March 2009. The types of controls con sidered by the CENRAP study, based on industrial categories, are listed below:

SO 2 control at 24 facilities from 15 sites

 Natural Gas Transmission

- Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)

 Crude Petroleum

- Sulfur recovery and/or tail gas treatment

 Inorganic ch emical plants

- coal washing and Spray Dryer Absorber (SDA) on boilers, increase efficiency of sulfuric acid plants

 Electric Generating Units (EGU)

- coal washing and FGD wet scrubbing

12 Lists of NOx and SO 2 controls meeting cost thresholds ranging from $1,500/ton to $10,000/ton developed by Alpine Geophysics are available in the docket to this action (See spreadsheets titled “nox_cost_ton__2_” and “so2_cost_ton”)

13 Assessment of NOx Emissions Reduction Stra tegies for Cement Kilns

- Ellis County Final Report, TCEQ

Contract No. 582

- 04

- 65589, Work Order No.05

- 06, Prepared by: ERG, Inc., 10200 Alliance Road, Suite 190, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

- 4716. Available at : http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implemen tation/air/sip/agreements/BSA/CEMENT_FINAL_REPORT_705 14_final.pdf13

 Carbon black

– FGD

NOx control for 24 facilities at 15 sites

 Natural Gas Transmission

- Low NOx Burners (LNB), Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) + LNB

 EGU

- LNB with Close Coupled Over

- Fired Air (LNC1), and with both LNC1 and Separated Over

- Fired Air (LNC3)

 Flat Glass

- LNB, SCR

 Paper Mills SNCR and Oxygen Trim (OT) with water injection

 Chemical Plant Boiler

- SCR

The total cost of controls and the resulting emission reductions were calculated by summing up the individual costs of those identified controls located within the AOI of Big Bend or the Guadalupe Mo untains. The TCEQ also performed this calculation for eight additional Class I

areas in other state s impacted by Texas’ emissions: Breton Island, Caney Creek, Carlsbad Caverns, Salt Creek, Upper Buffalo, Wheeler Peak, White Mountain, and the Wichita

Moun tains. The annualized costs 14 that would result from the imposition of the above controls

within each Class I area’s AOI are shown below.

Table 5

. Annualized Cost of Controls for each Class I Area (controls at facilities within each Class I area’s AOI)

Class I Area NOx SO 2 Big Bend $24,100,000 $215,900,000

Breton Island $27,000,000 $231,000,000 Caney Creek $28,600,000 $245,900,000

Carlsbad Caverns $24,100,000 $255,500,000 Guadalupe Mountains $33,800,000 $254,900,000

Salt Creek $27,000,000 $251,900,000 Upper Buffalo $24,100,000 $233,800,000

Wheeler Peak $22,700,000 $229,500,000

White Mountains $23,000,000 $244,500,000

Wichita Mountains $28,100,000 $269,500,000

Many of these controls are in more than one AOI. The TCEQ reviewed the total cost of all state

wide point source controls identified by TCEQ following the process described above as summarized below (13 facilities with SO 2 controls and 15 facilities with NOx controls).

14 Annualized costs are the total yearly costs, typically the sum of the yearly capital cost (amortized over the life of the control) and the yearly operational cost. In this instance, the TCEQ relied upon our AirControlNET model which for these types of controls typically assumed a 30 year control life.14 Table 6

. Total Estimated Cost of Texas Control Set 15

Pollutant Reduction (tpy) Estimated Cost

Sulfur Dioxide ( SO 2 ) 155,873 $270,800,000

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 27,132 $53,500,000

Total Costs $324,300,000

The TCEQ used the results of the 2018 CENRAP state

- wide photochemical grid modeling analyses (that includes the 2018 modeling and a CENRAP control case modeling scenario) to estimate the visibility benefit that would result in 2018 from controlling those s ources in Texas identified by it following the process described above. CENRAP developed a modeling scenario to estimate the effectiveness of a specific suite of controls on facilities in the CENRAP state s. CENRAP decided to base its control sensitivity analysis on a maximum estimated cost of $5,000 per ton of emissions of NOx or SO 2 reduced estimated in the Alpine Geophysics report and evaluated only those point sources predicted to emit 100 tons or more of SO 2 or NOx in the year

2018. 16 Similar to the T exas analysis, CENRAP further refined the sources for analysis, considering controls only for those sources with emissions of NOx or SO 2 greater than or equal to five tons per year per kilometer of distance to the nearest Class I area. This distance

- weigh ing criterion limited the sensitivity evaluation to sources with the greatest likely influence on visibility. The CENRAP control sensitivity modeling run included emission reductions beyond

CAIR and BART in the CENRAP state s at all point sources where the cost

- effectiveness and Q/d 17 criteria discussed above were met, and projected the resulting visibility conditions in 2018 at the CENRAP Class I areas. This modeling was developed as a starting point for discussion and development of refined analyses as ne eded. 18

The TCEQ used the CENRAP control sensitivity analysis and the CENRAP 2018 visibility projection modeling as the starting point for estimating the visibility benefit of implementing only the controls identified by it above for Texas point sources. The TCEQ used the results of this modeling analysis and the source apportionment modeling results to determine an

“effectiveness ratio” for NOx and SO 2 reductions, which it states provides an estimate of improvement in visibility for every ton of NOx and SO 2 reduced in order to produce “an order of magnitude estimate of the likely visibility improvements resulting from the point source.” See Appendix 10

- 2 and 10

- 4 of the Texas regional haze SIP for additional information on the methodology Texas used to d evelop this estimate.

The TCEQ summarizes the estimated visibility improvement that would result in 2018 from the

15 Reproduced from Table 4 in Appendix 10

- 1 of the Texas regional haze SIP

. 16 See Section 2.14 of the Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State Implementation Plans, September 12, 2007.

17 Q/D is the ratio of annual emissions over distance to a Class I area.

18 “The results of the modeling were not intended to be prescriptive; instea d, they were intended to be a starting point for control discussions that would require much greater refinement.” CENRAP TSD, page 2

- 37.15

imposition of all the above controls as follows 19 :

Table 7

. TCEQ Projected Visibility Improvement to Selected Class I Areas from the Imposit ion

of Potential Controls

Class I Area Visibility

Improvement (dv) Big Bend 0.16

Breton Island 0.05 Caney Creek 0.33

Carlsbad Caverns 0.22 Guadalupe Mountains 0.22

Salt Creek 0.18 Upper Buffalo 0.16

Wheeler Peak 0.04

White Mountains 0.24

Wichita Mountains 0.36

After identification of potential controls for multiple sources, estimation of aggregate costs associated with those controls and estimation of the overall visibility improvement anticipated from implementation of those controls as descri bed above, the TCEQ then weighed the four statutory factors in determining the reasonableness of additional controls and selecting the RPGs for Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. In general, the cost of compliance was the key factor considered by the TCEQ. It determined that the time necessary for compliance was not a critical factor for the determination of applicable additional controls for Texas sources. It stated that to the extent energy impacts are quantifiable for a particular control, they were in cluded in its cost estimates. However, it stated that “including [energy and non

- air quality environmental] impacts

on a source

- by

- source basis would have added further weight against finding that the potential additional controls were reasonable to apply .” 20 The TCEQ also stated that for the purposes of initial analysis, no limited remaining useful life was assumed. The TCEQ describes the cost of compliance as a factor used to determine whether compliance costs for sources are reasonable compared to the emission reductions and visibility improvement they will achieve. The TCEQ weighed the four reasonable progress factors as follows:

B.2. a. Cost of Compliance

The TCEQ concluded that at a total estimated cost of over $300 million and (in its view) no

pe rceptible visibility benefit, it was not reasonable to implement additional controls. All units in Texas that met the emissions over distance threshold were assessed. The TCEQ states it adopted its $2,700 cost threshold to limit the proposed controls gro up to cost

- effective measures. Annualized cost values, and emissions reductions based on proposed efficiencies listed in AirControlNET, were used. Modifications for Texas included the consideration of flue gas

19 Table 5 in Appendix 10

- 1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.

20 Page 10

- 8 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.16

desulfurization for carbon black units.

B.2

. b. Time Necessary for Compliance

The TCEQ determined that the time necessary for compliance was not a critical factor for the determination of applicable additional controls for its sources. It noted that in our CAIR regulatory impact statement, we estimated that approximately 30 months is required to design, build, and install SO 2 scrubbing technology for a single EGU boiler. The TCEQ stated that the total time for a single facility to comply with one of the NOx caps would be about five years. It estimated that completion by 2018 would still be anticipated. For mobile sources, M OBILE and NONROAD model runs were completed for the 2018 emissions inventory. These model runs incorporated the degree of fleet and expected engine replacement prior to 2018. The completion of other proposed controls were anticipated by 2018.

B.2. c. En ergy and Non

- Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance

The TCEQ stated that t o the extent energy impacts are quantifiable for a particular control, they were included in its cost estimates. However, it stated that “ including [energy and non

- air

qua lity environmental] impacts on a source

- by

- source basis would have added further weight against finding that the potential additional controls were reasonable to apply. Source

- by

- source review of the non

- air quality impacts of the potential controls would possibly have led to a different determination about the unreasonableness of the set of potential additional controls.” 21
The TCEQ noted that scrubbers, SCR systems, and Selective Non

- Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) systems installed under the EGU control stra tegies would require electricity to operate fans and other ancillary equipment. However, it noted that estimates were given that the electricity and steam required by controls installed to meet SO 2 and NO X emission caps would be less than

1%of the total e lectricity and steam production of EGUs. The TCEQ noted that s crubbers, coal washing, and spray dryers would require additional safeguards for fuel handling and waste handling systems to avoid additional non

- air environmental impacts such as increased eff luents in waste water discharges and storm water runoff. The TCEQ expected that solid waste disposal and wastewater treatment costs would be less than five percent of the total operating costs of pollution control equipment. It noted that these factors w ould have to be considered specific to

individual sources.

B.2. d. Remaining Useful life

The TCEQ noted that CENRAP considered the remaining useful life in modeling for mobile sources that assumes reduced emissions per vehicle mile traveled due to the turnover of the on

road mobile source fleet. It noted that for sources with a relatively short remaining useful life, this consideration would have weighed more heavily against a determination that controlling

those sources would have been reasonable. Th e TCEQ believed that this factor was not critical for its sector analyses for the 2018 timeline and did not assume any limited useful equipment life. Only units that were scheduled for shutdown under enforceable decrees were eliminated

from the 2018 inven tory and further analysis.

21 Texas Region al Haze SIP, page 10

- 8.17

B.2. e. TCEQ Noted Uncertainty in Visibility Projections Due to CAIR

The TCEQ noted that the majority of the emissions reductions underlying the predicted visibility improvements in 2018 resulting from controls already in effe ct or scheduled to become effective will result from the CAIR program in particular. The CAIR program allows interstate trading of allowances, and does not put specific emission limits on specific sources. Further, it notes that

because emission allowance s can be purchased by EGUs, visibility improvement may be less or more that that predicted by the CENRAP’s modeling. CENRAP used our Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to predict the emissions reductions expected from CAIR in 2018. The TCEQ assumed that any replacement for CAIR will include interstate trading of emissions allowances. The TCEQ presents a comparison 22 of its baseline 2002 S O 2 emissions, the CAIR budget for

EGUs in 2015 and the IPM predicted S O 2 emissions for the 2018 planning year:

Table 8 . Comparison of Texas 2002 Baseline S O 2 emissions, 2015 CAIR EGUs Budget and

2018 IPM Predicted S O 2 Emissions

SO 2 Emissions Texas SO 2 Emissions (tpy)

Current (2002 base case) 550,000

EPA’s CAIR budget for Texas EGUs for 2015 225,000

IPM projection CENRAP modeled for 2018 350,000

The TCEQ notes that the IPM model analysis used by CENRAP predicts that by 2018 EGUs in Texas will purchase approximately 125,000 tpy of emissions allowances from out of state. This represents more than 50% of Texas’ total CAIR SO 2 budget. The TCEQ states that it requested that key EGUs in Texas review and comment on the predictions of the IPM model. However, no EGU made an enforceable commitment to any particular pollution control strategy and preferred

to retain th e flexibility offered by the CAIR program.

B.2. f. The TCEQ Reasonable Progress Conclusion

The TCEQ’s assessment of reasonable progress rested primarily on its calculation of the total cost of the controls it analyzed versus the visibility benefits at the ten Class I areas it analyzed. It concluded, “At a total estimated cost exceeding $300 million and no perceptible visibility benefit, Texas has determined that it is not reasonable to implement additional controls at this

time.” 23

22 Reproduced from Table 10

- 7 in the Texas Regional Haze SIP.

23 Texas Regional Haze SIP, page 10

- 7

.18

EPA Finding

Sec tion 51.308(d)(1)(iii) requires that in determining whether the state ’s goal for visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions, the Administrator will evaluate the demonstrations developed by the state pursua nt to Sections 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii). We perform that evaluation beginning in th is section.

We agree with the TCEQ’s decision to focus the analysis of the four statutory factors on point sources, as the CENRAP modeling results and the TCEQ’s ana lysis in Chapter 11 and appendix

10

- 1 of the Texas regional haze SIP indicate that the predominant anthropogenic pollutants that

affects Texas’ ability to meet the URP goals in 2018 on the worst 20% days at the Texas Class I areas are largely due to sulfat e and nitrate, primarily from point sources. We agree with the TCEQ’s assessment that the cost of compliance is the dominant factor, and its incorporation of the other factors into the cost, where applicable. We note, however, that because the TCEQ did

n ot evaluate controls on a source

- by

- source basis, source

– specific factors related to the evaluation of the reasonable progress four factor analysis could not be considered. We also agree with the TCEQ’s decision to consider visibility benefits in weighing the factors and to assist in its consideration of the cost of compliance. While visibility is not an explicitly listed factor to consider when determining whether additional controls are reasonable, the purpose of

the four

- factor analysis is to determine what degree of progress toward natural visibility conditions is reasonable. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to consider the projected visibility benefit of the controls when determining if cost

- effective controls are warranted to

make reasonable progress. However, the TCEQ did not discriminate between and analyze controls on those source(s) with the highest potential visibility benefit at each Class I area. We disagree with the set of potential controls identified by the TCEQ and how it analyzed and weighed the four reasonable progress factors in a number of key areas , as described below

.

The TCEQ’s Cost

- Effectiveness Threshold Approach

The TCEQ eliminated controls with an estimated cost

- efficiency greater than $2,700/ton from any further an alysis, regardless of their potential visibility benefits. Given the large number of sources and their large geographic distribution, some consideration of location and emissions

data is needed before controls should have been eliminated from further anal ysis. Texas

supports its selection of this value with reference to “EPA estimated cost of implementing CAIR was up to $2700/ton.” However, although we demonstrated that CAIR was acceptable in lieu of BART, CAIR was not designed as a reasonable progress strategy. A state shou ld look beyond BART for additional reductions when developing its long

- term strategy to achieve reasonable progress at its Class I areas. 24 As a result of the application of this $2700/ton threshold, potentially cost

- effective controls were not evaluated a t sources that may result in meaningful visibility benefits at Guadalupe Mountains or Big Bend. For example, potential SO 2 controls for the Tolk Station were estimated in the Alpine Geophysics analysis to cost an average of

24 Per Section 51.308(e)(5), “ After a State has met the requirements for BART or implemented emissions trading program or other al ternative measure that achieves more reasonable progress than the installation and operation of
BART, BART

- eligible sources will be subject to the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section in the same

manner as other sources. ”19

approximately $3,100/ton and re sult in nearly 20,000 tpy reduced across the two units. Applying the $2,700/ton threshold, the TCEQ did not consider potential controls on any EGUs in West Texas to improve visibility at the two Class I areas located in West Texas despite the potential

vi sibility benefits from controlling these large point sources. Sensitivity analysis work performed by CENRAP suggests to us that a threshold in the range of $4,000/ton to $5,000/ton would be reasonable for purposes of identifying potential cost

- effective c ontrols for further analysis. 25

The TCEQ’s Weighing of the Four Factors for Individual Sources.

The TCEQ constructed a large potential control set consisting of a mix of large and small sources, located at various distances from Class I areas, with a larg e geographical distribution. Because of the variation in size, type, and location of these sources, the potential to impact visibility and potential benefit from controls at a given Class I area can vary greatly between the identified sources. This poten tial control set identified by the TCEQ included controls on some sources that would likely result in significant visibility benefits, but also included controls on many sources with much less anticipated visibility benefits. Because it only estimated the visibility benefit of all the controls together, the TCEQ was not able to assess the potential benefit of controlling individual sources with significant, and potentially cost

- effective, visibility benefits. Also, we believe that individual benefits were masked by the inclusion of those controls with little visibility benefit that only served to increase the total cost figures. For example, the TCEQ identified SO 2 controls at Big Brown to be approximately $1,500/ton, significantly less than its $2,700/to n threshold. These controls were estimated to achieve greater than 40,000 tpy SO 2 emission reductions. Despite this evidence in the record of an identified

cost

- effective control that results in large emission reductions, and source apportionment

modelin g identifying large impacts from EGU sources in northeast Texas, the TCEQ did not separately evaluate the visibility benefit from the implementation of this control, or appropriately weigh the four reasonable progress factors in determining the reasonablen ess of this individual

control.

Because individual sources were not considered by the TCEQ, we found it is necessary to conduct an additional analysis to determine whether this approach materially affected the outcome of the TCEQ analysis. As we demons trate in detail in our FIP TSD, by analyzing sources individually, we believe we have identified a small number of sources that are responsible for much of Texas’ collective visibility impact on the Texas’s Class I areas, which if controlled, would provide for visibility benefit at Texas’ Class I areas. That modeling is

summarized below.

Our preliminary modeling study identified those facilities with the largest impacts on the Texas Class I areas on the 20% worst days in 2018. 26 This modeling includes the same projections the

25 See “ Sensitivity Run Specifications for CENRAP Consultation ,” available in the docket for this action

26 As discussed later in this TSD, this study also looked at impacts from Texas sources on Class I areas in other

States.20

TCEQ used to account for predicted reductions due to CAIR. The projected impacts 27 in 2018 from the top ten facilities in Texas that impact visibility at Big Bend and the Guadalupe

Mountains are summarized in Tables 9 and 10 below (se e our FIP TSD for more details). Texas point sources combined are projected in 2018 to contribute approximately 8% (3.56 Mm

- 1 ) to the total visibility impairment at Big Bend, and 9% (3. 84 Mm

- 1 ) to the total visibility impairment at Guadalupe Mountains. T hese results below show that some facilities can have large impacts on certain days and significant impacts on the 20% worst days, even including facilities like Big Brown which is more than 700 km from Big Bend and more than 800 km from the Guadalupe

Moun tains. We note that Texas decided to invite state s to consult using the CENRAP Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) results and included state s with greater than 0.5 inverse megameter impact (from all sources in the state ) on one of T exas’ Class I areas. 28
These results also suggest that controlling a small number of sources will result in visibility benefits at both Class I areas, and that rather than evaluating controls at all facilities identified by Texas combined, a subset of thos e facilities (and some additional facilities not identified) may be

reasonable. See the FIP TSD for our evaluation of costs and potential visibility benefits of controls at selected Texas point sources.

Table 9

. 2018 Phase 1 EPA source apportionment modeling results, top ten facilities in Texas that impact visibility at Big Bend

Rank Facility Name Extinction (Mm

- 1 ) 20% worst days % Contribution

to Total Visibility Impairment 20% worst days Max

extinction during 20% worst days

1 SOMMERS DEELY S 0.27 6 0.57% 1.193

2 COLETO CREEK PL 0.216 0.44% 0.937

3 BIG BROWN 0.212 0.44% 0.923

4 RELIANT ENERGY 1 0.103 0.21% 0.441

5 LIGNITE

- FIRED P 2 0.101 0.21% 0.428

6 MONTICELLO STM 0.096 0.20% 0.413

7 W A PARISH STAT 0.090 0.18% 0.385

8 BIG SPRING CARB 0.084 0.17% 0.356

9 SANDOW STEAM EL 0.080 0.16% 0.342

10 MARTIN LAKE ELE 0.080 0.16% 0.342

1 Limestone

2 San Miguel

27 We occasionally present visibility in extinction, rather than deciviews (dv). Light extinction, in units of inverse megameters (Mm

- 1 ), is the amount of light lost as it travels over one million meters. The haze index, in units of deciviews (dv), is calculated directly from the total light extinction, be xt, as follows: HI = 10 ln(bext /10). Extinction is an appropriate measure for the visibility impairment contribution from individual sources because it avoids the sensitivity of the logarithmic transformation for calculating deciviews to the overall leve l of visibility impairment including the impacts of other sources.

28 See Appendix 4

- 1: Summary of Consultation Calls.21

Table 10

. 2018 Phase 1 EPA source apportionment modeling results, top ten facilities in Texas

that impact visibility at Guadalupe Mountains

Rank Facility Name Extinction (Mm

- 1 )

20% worst days % Contribution

to Total Visibility Impairment 20% worst days Max

extinction during 20% worst days

1 TOLK STATION 0.302 0.65% 1.004

2 BIG BROWN 0.235 0.50% 0.809

3 BIG SPRING CARB 0.226 0.48% 0.775

4 SOMMERS DEELY S 0.208 0.44% 0.688

5 HARRINGTON STAT 0.184 0.39% 0.606

6 MONTICELLO STM 0.114 0.24% 0.391

7 WAHA PLANT 0.113 0.24% 0.387

8 RELIANT ENERGY 1 0.111 0.24% 0.372

9 MARTIN LAKE ELE 0.104 0.22% 0.351

10 COLETO CREEK PL 0.066 0.14% 0.227

1 Limestone

The TCEQ’s Cost of Compliance Analysis Assumed Future CAIR Reductions as a Baseline

We based our determination that CAIR was better than BART in part on a finding that CAIR resulted in an overall improvement in visibility determined by comparing the average differences over all affected Class I areas. We noted at the time that BART is one component of a long

- term strategy to make reasonable progress, but it is not the only component. 29 Thus, when assessing reasonable progress, a sta te should look beyond BART for additional reductions when determining what long

- term strategy will achieve reasonable progress at its Class I areas. A critical decision point in performing cost analysis for potential controls is the determination of an

em ission baseline. As we state above, the TCEQ projected that Texas EGUs would purchase approximately 125,000 tpy of emissions allowances from out of state. The TCEQ relied on the IPM predictions as discussed above to estimate 2018 emission levels for EGUs . The TCEQ also notes that there is uncertainty in the size and distribution in emissions in the future projections. Nevertheless, the TCEQ utilized this future projection of 2018 emissions as the starting point for

its estimation of emission reductions and the associated costs of additional controls.

For example, Big Brown Unit 1’s SO 2 emissions in 2002 were 34,448 tpy. The IPM predictions that were incorporated into the 2018 emission level assume that a roughly 1/3 reduction in these

emissions will occur in response to CAIR by switching to a coal with a lower sulfur content, resulting in a 2018 SO 2 emission level of 23,142 tpy. The TCEQ’s cost

- effectiveness calculation for post

- combustion controls on Big Brown Unit 1 was based on reducing that proje cted 2018

SO 2 emission level of 23,142 tpy by 90%, resulting in a reduction of 20,828 tpy. This results in a cost of $32,766,310/yr, or a cost

- effectiveness calculation of $1,573/ton. However, the

29 70 FR 39137 (July 6, 2005).22

installation of a scrubber would allow Big Brown flexibil ity in fuel choice thus allowing the unit to continue to burn the higher average sulfur fuel it currently burns, instead of moving to the low sulfur coal predicted by IPM.

Big Brown Unit 1’s SO 2 emissions in 2012 were 32,100 tons. The issue of scrubber efficiency aside, a reduction of 90% from these actual emission levels would result in an SO 2 reduction in the range of 29,000 to 31,000 tpy. While the numerator ($) in the cost

- effectiveness metric of $/ton will increase slightly beyond what was estimat ed by Alpine Geophysics due to an increased sulfur loading to the scrubber, the denominator (tons) would increase by roughly 50%, thus improving (lowering) the overall cost

- effectiveness of controlling Big Brown Unit 1 significantly. 30 Estimates for scrubb ers at units at Monticello are similarly impacted by the cost

methodology used by Texas in estimating cost

- effectiveness on a cost

- per

- ton basis.

We believe that in performing its control analysis, the TCEQ should have given greater

consideration to the flexibility in the CAIR trading program and the resulting uncertainty in the projected emissions. In other words, the TCEQ could have recognized that implementation of reasonable controls under the Regional Haze Rule would likely not be in addition to an ticipated reductions due to CAIR predicted by IPM, but would replace or complement any controls predicted by IPM.

The TCEQ’s Assumptions of SO 2 Control Efficiency of Scrubbers

We note that the control efficiency of scrubbers evaluated by CENRAP and Texa s, based on the data from AirControlNET, was assumed to be 90%. As we discuss in detail in our FIP TSD, we

establish that SO 2 scrubbers are capable of achieving emission reductions of at least 95% for dry

scrubbers and 98% for wet scrubbers. T hese additi onal reductions would further reduce the price on a $/ton basis and increase the visibility benefit anticipated due to controls.

The TCEQ’s Evaluation of Potential Visibility Improvements

In considering the cost of compliance to determine whether compli ance costs for sources were reasonable, the TCEQ compared those costs to the emissions reduction and visibility improvement those sources would achieve. While visibility is not an explicitly listed factor to consider when determining whether additional co ntrols are reasonable, the purpose of the four

factor analysis is to determine what degree of progress toward natural visibility conditions is reasonable. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to consider the projected visibility benefit of

the controls w hen determining if the controls are needed to make reasonable progress. We

discuss this in more detail in our FIP TSD.

In evaluating and dismissing the estimated visibility benefit from the control set identified by the TCEQ, the TCEQ states that the est imated benefit is not perceptible (less than 1 dv) and that it is less than 0.5 dv, the threshold used under BART requirements used to determine if a facility contributes to visibility impairment. The 0.5 dv BART threshold referred to applies to the

maxim um anticipated visibility impact on a single day due to the short

- term maximum actual

30 See our cost

- effectiveness calculations for retrofitting Big Brown and other Texas EGU with scrubbers in the FIP

TSD.23

baseline emissions from a single facility, compared to clean background conditions. The reasonable progress analysis presented by the TCEQ contemplates the visibility be nefit anticipated for an average tpy emission reduction (as opposed to the impact from the total short

term maximum emissions from the sources) averaged across the 20% worst days, which would be anticipated to be significantly lower. See our FIP TSD for a detailed discussion of the different metrics and modeling typically used for BART and reasonable progress analyses. Furthermore, in a situation where the installation of BART may not result in a perceptible improvement in visibility, the visibility benef it may still be significant, as explained by the Regional Haze Rule: 31

Even though the visibility improvement from an individual source may not be perceptible, it should still be considered in setting BART because the contribution to haze may be significa nt relative to other source contributions in the Class I area. Thus, we disagree that the degree of improvement should be contingent upon perceptibility.

As we stated in our Oklahoma final decision 32 :

Given that sources are subject to BART based on a cont ribution threshold of no greater than 0.5 deciviews, it would be inconsistent to automatically rule out additional controls where the improvement in visibility may be less than 1.0 deciview or even 0.5 deciviews. A perceptible visibility improvement is no t a requirement of the BART determination because visibility improvements that are not perceptible may still be determined to be significant.

The TCEQ’s “Order of Magnitude Estimate” for Visibility Improvement

The TCEQ produced an “order of

- magnitude estimate” of the visibility improvements resulting from the level of aggregate emission reductions that would result from its point source control strategy using PSAT results and effectiveness ratios. This methodo logy assumes that all emission reductions within a PSAT region have the same effectiveness in reducing visibility impairment. The estimated effectiveness factor applied equally to all emission reductions located in the East Texas source region, including Sommers Deely Spruce (440 km from Big Bend and 680 km from Guadalupe Mountains) and Monticello (850 km from Big Bend and 920 km from Guadalupe Mountains). Given the large difference in distances between these two facilities and the Class I areas, it is re asonable to expect that the effectiveness of emission reductions could vary greatly between the two. We find that the TCEQ’s analysis is insufficient to determine the visibility benefit of controlling the source or subset of sources with the most

effectiv e controls for improving visibility conditions at a Class I area or a number of Class I areas and that the potential visibility benefits from controlling these sources may be significant.

O ur own source apportionment modeling has confirmed that individual sources within the CENRAP modeling PSAT regions had significantly different impacts, leading us to believe that TCEQ’s reliance on an aggregate analysis materially affected its conclusion that existing and

scheduled controls would achieve reasonable progress. 33

31 70 FR 39130 (July 6, 2005)

32 76 FR 81739 (Dec. 28, 2011).

33 See the FIP TSD.24

Upgrades to Existing Controls

The CENRAP analysis and the additional analysis performed by the TCEQ did not consider the reasonableness of control upgrades or increased utilization of existing controls. We note that the

AirContr olNET database does not include general information for the cost and effectiveness of scrubber upgrades as the cost and reductions from these potential upgrades are typically very specific to the existing equipment and site

- specific conditions. Many Texas EGU’s are equipped with older vintage scrubbers and/or have scrubber bypasses that divert a portion of the exhaust gas around the control equipment. In some cases, excess scrubbing capacity is simply not being utilized. Texas includes many of these sour ces with controls in the maps showing area of influence and “high priority” sources for other state ’s Class I areas, as well as in the table of sources within the Class I areas AOI, in their correspondence with other state s (see Appendix 4.3

of the Texas r egional haze SIP). However, Texas did not provide any analysis of the four

- factors on these partially controlled sources or include these sources in a Q/ D analysis to identify those sources with the largest potential to impact visibility due to emissions and distance. There are a number of EGUs with existing controls with 2018 projected emissions large enough to have a Q/D many times greater than threshold (Q/D > 5) used by Texas. Furthermore, even with these existing controls, some of these EGUs are amo ng the largest SO 2 sources in the state . For example, the Martin Lake facility has a Q/ D for Guadalupe Mountains (958 km away) greater than 37 using the projected 2018 SO 2 emissions. 34 The 2018 projected emissions includes predicted emission reductions du e to CAIR at many of these controlled facilities, suggesting some increase in control efficiency and/or burning fuels with a lower average sulfur content is already included in the 2018 projections. Absent any additional analysis, however, it is not possi ble to determine whether additional reductions beyond those included in the 2018 emission inventory for these facilities are cost

- effective, result in visibility benefits at the Class I areas and are reasonable. For example, emissions at Martin Lake unit 1 in the CENRAP emission inventory are projected to decrease from 24,832 tpy in 2002 to 11,351 tpy in 2018. As we discuss in our FIP TSD, based on coal data submitted to the U. S. Energy Information Administration, upgrading the existing scrubber to 95% c ontrol efficiency would result in an approximate emission reduction of an additional 7,000 tpy beyond those reductions projected to occur due to CAIR. Scrubber upgrades across all three Martin Lake units could result in emission reductions of approximatel y 21,000 tpy beyond the level of control assumed in the 2018 projections. Given the size of these sources, the size of the impact from Texas emissions, and the source apportionment data indicating the large impact from SO 2 emissions from EGUs,

we believe it was unreasonable for Texas to not perform any analysis on these sources or request additional information from the facilities concerning potential upgrades. As documented in our FIP TSD, scrubber upgrades are often very cost

- effective on a cost per ton basis. O ur analysis in the FIP TSD demonstrates that many of these older SO 2 scrubbers can be cost

- effectively upgraded. The importance of this omission becomes clear from our analysis that shows that for a

cost

- effectiveness of approximately $600/ton o r less, over 100,000 tpy of SO 2 emission reductions can be achieved from a small number of scrubber upgrades, resulting in cost

- effective visibility benefits at Texas Class I areas and Class I areas in other state s. Thus, we find that this omission by TCE Q materially affected the outcome of its four

- factor analysis. See our FIP TSD

34 We note that recent actual emissions at the facility are roughly twice as large as the 2018 projected value. Based on 2002 emissions, the Q/D for Guadalupe M ountains for SO 2 emissions is approximately 69.25

for a detailed discussion of the visibility benefits anticipated from scrubber upgrades.

Our Conclusion Regarding the TCEQ’s Analysis of the Four Reasonable Progress Factors :

For the reasons described above, we believe the record supports a finding that Texas’ analysis of the reasonable pr ogress factors does not meet the requirements of Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).

B.3. Uniform Rate of Progress Determination: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B)

Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) requires state s to analyze and determine the uniform rate of visibility improvement (measured in dv) that would need to be maintained during each implementation period in order to attain natural visibility con ditions by 2064. Also, in establishing its RPGs, Texas must consider the uniform rate of improvement in visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve it for the period covered by the SIP.

State Submittal

Chapter 5, Chapter 10 , Appendi x 10

- 3

Under Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), as part of its RPGs determination, the TCEQ analyzed and determined the URP needed to reach natural visibility conditions by the year 2064. Also in establishing its RPGs, the TCEQ considered the uniform rate of im provement in visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve this rate for the period covered by the SIP. In so doing, the TCEQ compared the baseline visibility conditions to the natural visibility conditions for Big Bend and the Guadalup e Mountains, and determined the URP needed to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. The TCEQ constructed the URP by plotting a straight graphical line from the baseline level of visibility impairment to the level of visibility conditions

represent ing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for both Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. See Sections III.C.1 and C.2 of this TSD for a discussion on TCEQ’s calculations of baseline and natural visibility conditions

The first benchmark year is 2018 and the calculated improvement required to attain the desired rate of progress is 1.7 deciviews for Big Bend and 1. 2 dv for Guadalupe Mountains. Using the baseline visibility values and natural visibility values discussed above, the TCEQ calculated the URP for Big Bend to be 0.12 dv/year, and that for the Guadalupe Mountains to be 0.08 dv/yr.

Table 1 1 summarizes the c alculations performed by TCEQ. This is demonstrated graphically in Figures 10

- 1 and 10

- 2 of the Texas Regi onal Haze SIP. As discussed in Section C.2 . below, the TCEQ used a “refined” methodology to estimate natural visibility conditions rather than the our default natural visibility conditions. As a reference, we have included alternate calculations using th e EPA default values in the table 12 below. Appendix 10

- 3 of the Texas Regional Haze

SIP presents a comparison of the calculated URP using both the Texas derived natural conditions

and the EPA defa ult natural conditions. This information is summarized be low:26 Table 11 . Summary of Uniform Rate of Progress

Visibility Metric Big Bend Guadalupe Mts.

Baseline Conditions 17.30 dv 17.19 dv Natural Visibility 10.09 dv 12.26 dv Total Improvement by 2064 7.21 dv 4.93 dv Uniform Rate of Progress 0.12 dv/year 0.08 dv/year Improvement needed by 2018 1.7 dv 1.2 dv

Table 12

. Summary of Uniform Rate of Progress based on EPA default Natural Conditions

Visibility Metric Big Bend Guadalupe Mts.

Baseline Conditions 17.30 dv 17.19 dv
Natural Visibility 7.2 6.8 Total Improvement by 2064 10.1 10.39 Uniform Rate of Progress 0.17 dv/year 0.17 dv/year
Improvement needed by 2018 2.36 2.42

The TCEQ notes that the URP calculations above have some degree of uncertainty due to its assumptions in calculating the natural visibility. It notes that because of this, and due to a request from some Federal Land Managers to illustrate how sensitive th is natural visibility estimate is to the assumption of the amount of natural fine soil and coarse mass, it has also generated URPs that assume 80% fine soil and coarse mass is natural. The TCEQ presents the 80% and 100% URP cases as Figures 5

- 2 and 5

- 3 of its Regional Haze SIP. These figures indicate that assuming 80% of the fine soil and coarse mass is natural would lower the natural visibility calculation from 10.09 to 9.2 dv for Big Bend, and from 12.26 to 11.0 dv for the Guadalupe Mountains. The TCEQ notes this calculation is displayed for informational purposes only has no other significance for its SIP.

Based on the estimated cost and visibility benefit from NOx and SO 2 controls identified during the TCEQ’s four

- factor analysis described below in S ection B .2, the TCEQ estimated the costs

and emission reductions of SO 2 and NOx required to enable the Guadalupe Mountains and Big

Bend to achieve the URP.27 Table 1 3

. Estimated emission reductions and cost to meet the URP 35

Class I area Additional

Improvement Needed to meet URP (dv) Approximate

Additional Pollutant

Reductions SO 2 and NOx (tpy) Estimated Cost of

Additional

Reductions

Big Bend 1.0 3,700,000 $6,500,000,000 Guadalupe

Mountains 0.3 1,100,000 $1,900,000,000

The TCEQ states that these results emphasize the need for a better understanding of transport into Big Bend and the need for emission reductions in Mexico and Central America in order to make progress towards the goal of natural visibility conditions.

EPA Findings

As explained in the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule, the URP analysis was adopted to
ensure that state s use a common analytical framework and to provide an informed and equitable decision making process to ensure a transparent process that would, among other things, guarantee that the public would be provided with the information necessary to understand the emission reductions needed, the costs of such measures, and other factors associated with improvements in visibility. 36

It appears that in estimating the emission reductions and costs to meet its URPs in Table 13

, the TCEQ used estimates of visibility benefits from an earlier draft of the Texas Regional Haze SIP. In that draft SIP, the TCEQ estimated the visibility benefit from a certain set of controls to be

0.05 dv at each Class I area. 37 Updating these calculations with TCEQ’s final estimation of the visibility benefit from the TCEQ control set of 0.16 dv at Big Bend and 0.22 dv at Guadalupe

Mountains 38 yields the followi ng updated table. We note that using the EPA default values for

the natural conditions would increase the estimated emission reductions needed and associated costs. Total projected emissions for 2018 are 625,068 tpy of SO 2 and 525,174 tpy of NOx from

all point sources. SO 2 emissions from EGUs are projected to be approximately 350,000 tpy

.

35 Table 10

- 9 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP

36 64 FR 35733 (July 1, 1999)

. 37 “ SIP Narrative comparison of changes from proposal to adoption ” available at: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/haze/4HazeSIPcompare_rev.pdf

38 see Table 10

- 6 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP28

Table 14

. EPA correction to TCEQ’s estimated emission reductions and cost to meet the URP

Class I area Additional

Improvement

Needed to meet URP (dv) Approximate

Additional Pollutant

Reductions SO 2 and NOx (tpy) Estimated Cost of

Additional

Reductions
Big Bend 1.0 1,100,000 $2,000,000,000

Guadalupe Mountains 0.3 250,000 $440,000,000

Errors in its calculation aside, we note that while the TCEQ has, in establishing its RPG, correctly followed the procedures for analyzing and determining the rate of progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions by the year 2064 consistent with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and our 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance

, 39 we find that the TCEQ has calculated this rate of progress, and compared baseline visibility conditions to a flawed estimation of natural visibility conditions for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, as we

describe in Se ction C.2 below . Therefore, we believe the record supports a finding that the TCEQs calculation of the URP needed to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064 does not meet the requirements under Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). In addition, as we discuss in Section

B.2 , we note many problems with the TCEQ’s reasonable progress four factor analysis, which the TCEQ partially relied upon in consideration of the emission reduction measures needed to achieve the natural visibility conditions. For these reasons , we must also find that the record supports a finding that the TCEQ’s estimation of the emission reduction measures needed to achieve the URP for the period covered by the SIP does not meet the requirements under Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).

B. 4

. Analy sis of Reasonable Progress Goal: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii)

- (iii)

Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii) provides that for the period of the SIP, if Texas establishes a RPG that provides for a slower rate of improvement in visibility than the rate that would be needed to attain natural conditions by 2064, it must demonstrate based on the factors in Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) that the rate of progress for the SIP to attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable; and that the progress goal it adopted is reasonable. As part of its SIP assessment, Texas must provide to the public for review the number of years it would take to attain natural conditions if visibility improvement continues at the rate of progress it selected as reasonable.

In determining whether the Texa s’ goals for visibility improvement provide for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions, the Administrator will evaluate the demonstrations developed by it pursuant to Section 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii).

State Submittal

Texas’ RPGs for the 20% worst days establish a slower rate of progress than the URP for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. The TCEQ calculated that under the rate of progress selected as reasonable, natural visibility conditions (as calculated by Texas) would not be

39 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA

- 454/B

- 03

- 004, September 2003.29

attained at Big Bend until 2155 and at the Guadalupe Mountains until 2081. In Appendix 10

- 3 of its regional haze SIP, the TCEQ includes calculations based on our default natural conditions, estimating attainment of natural visibility conditions at the Big Bend in 2215 and Guadalupe

Mountains in 2167.

The TCEQ believes the RPGs it established for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains on the 20% worst days are reasonable, and that it is not reasonable to achieve the glide path in 2018. In support of this conclusion, it included a discussion of the pollutant contributions and the sources of visibility impairment at these Class I areas (see Section 10.6. and Chapter 11 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP and Table 1 5 below). In considering the four reasonable p rogress factors

under Section 51.308(d)(i)(A), as discussed in Section B.2, above, the TCEQ also took other factors into consideration in determining that it is not reasonable to achieve the glide paths in 2018 and that the RPGs adopted by the state are re asonable. The TCEQ indicated that the ability to meet the URP or make additional progress towards reaching natural visibility conditions is impeded primarily by the following: the significant contribution of emissions from Mexico and

other international sources; the uncertainty in the effect of CAIR; and the poor cost

- effectiveness of additional reasonable point source controls.

The TCEQ noted that the CENRAP PSAT analysis indicates that 52% of the impairment at Big Bend and 25% of the impairment at Gu adalupe Mountains is from Mexico and further south. Substantial reductions in emissions from outside the United States are needed to meet the goal of natural visibility at the Texas Class I areas. As discussed in Section B.3, the TCEQ considered

the URP and the emission reductions necessary to meet the URP in establishing the RPG.

Table 1 5

. CENRAP’s PSAT Contribution to Visibility in the Texas Class I Areas on the Worst 20% Days

Contribution by Area Big Bend (%) Guadalupe Mountains (%)

Texas 24.8 34.8

Mexico 26.7 16.5 Boundary Conditions 25.7 8.7

Other US 11.9 18.9

Miscellaneous 5.8 9.6 Neighboring States 5.1 11.5

In addition, with respect to reductions at Texas sources, the TCEQ noted a wide range of measures and programs in place in Texas that result in emission reductions that often go beyond

federal requirements. Chapter 11 and Appendices 11

- 2 (Federal and Texas Programs Related to

On

- Road and Non

- Road Mobile Sources) and 11

- 3 (Major Point Source NOx Rules and Reductions Promulgated in Texas Since 2000) detail additional rules and programs that minimize emissions that can cause or contribute to local and regional visibility impairment. In Section 10.2 of the Texas regional haze SIP, the TCEQ identifies the following programs:

 Opacity limits on grandfathered facilities;

 Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements that typically go beyond

EPA’s New Sourc e Performance Standards (NSPS) for new and modified sources;30

 Extensive NOx emission limits on existing and new sources including major, minor and area sources including some on a statewide basis;

 Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP), which provides fin ancial incentives to accelerate the implementation of new, cleaner diesel engine technologies in on

- road and

non

- road applications; and

 Air Check Texas Repair and Replacement Assistance Program, which provides financial incentives for scrapping older gasol ine

- powered on

- road vehicles.

The TCEQ noted that the established RPGs reflect emissions reductions programs already in place, including CAIR, additional refinery SO 2 reductions as a result of refinery consent decrees, Texas ozone SIP revisions, and the T exas Clean Air Act. It noted that the majority of the emissions reductions underlying the predicted visibility improvements are from the CAIR program or its eventual replacement. The TCEQ assumes that any replacement for CAIR will

include interstate trad ing of emissions allowances and therefore there is uncertainty regarding how visibility will be improved at individual Class I areas. The TCEQ states that because emission allowances can be purchased by EGUs relatively close to the Texas Class I areas fro m EGUs far from the Texas Class I areas, the visibility improvement, may not be as great as predicted by the CENRAP’s modeling. Conversely, nearby EGUs may elect to control beyond their emission caps and sell emission allowances out of state, resulting in reduced emissions

closer to the Texas Class I areas.

The TCEQ concluded that “given the significant impact from international emissions, the uncertainty in the impact of CAIR, and the poor cost

- effectiveness of additional, reasonable point source control s, the TCEQ has determined that additional controls for regional haze are not appropriate at this time.” 40

EPA Findings

We agree that there is uncertainty regarding the size and location of reductions at Texas EGUs due to implementation of CAIR/CSAPR. While reductions at certain facilities within Texas would result in improvements in visibility conditions at the Texas Clas s I areas or Class I areas

in other state s, similar reductions at other facilities may have no impact on visibility conditions at the Class I area. Furthermore, reductions that are seasonal in nature due to decreased operation during the fall and/or winte r reduce annual emissions, contribute towards CAIR/CSAPR compliance, but will not lead to improved visibility during the 20% worst days, which typically occur during the summer months. For example, in recent years the Monticello units have been

shut down for several non

- summer months, which has resulted in reduced annual emissions, while having no impact on summer time emissions or visibility impacts during the summer months. The CENRAP source apportionment results include the projected reductions due to CAIR compliance and show that even after these reductions, impacts from Texas points sources remain the most significant portion of the total visibility impairment with available controls at Big Bend and Guadalupe. Analysis of recent emissions from Texas EGUs shows that in many cases current emission levels are above those predicted in the 2018 CENRAP modeling. In fact, in the case of Martin Lake, current annual emissions are roughly twice those included in the

40 Section 10.7 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP31

2018 modeling, and we are not aware of any u pcoming controls or changes in operation to suggest that future actual emissions will decrease to those predicted levels.

We also agree with the TCEQ’s conclusion that it is not reasonable to meet the URP for the Texas Class I areas for this planning pe riod. We agree with the TCEQ that emissions and transport from Mexico and other international sources will limit the rate of progress achievable on the 20% worst days and that efforts to meet the goal of natural visibility by 2064 would require further em issions reductions not only within Texas, but also large emission reductions

from international sources.

We also note the more recent IMPROVE monitored data at the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains indicate that more progress than anticipated by the CENR AP modeling has

occurred. 41 The most recent five

- year (2009

- 2013) average conditions for the 20% worst days is 16.3 dv at Big Bend and 15.3 dv at Guadalupe Mountains. This is below the level anticipated in the CENRAP projection for 2018 of 16.6 dv for Big Bend and 16.3 dv for Guadalupe Mountains. We believe that this observed improvement from the baseline conditions is the result of meteorological conditions, reduction in the impacts from SO 2 emissions, and a reduction in the impacts from coarse material. More recent emission inventory data shows reductions in

emissions in most state s beyond what was projected in the 2018 modeling, including large

reductions in emissions from the Eastern United States. Emissions from non

- EGU Texas point

sources are lower than have been projected in the modeling. We note that additional reductions are still needed to meet or exceed the URP goals for 2018 as calculated by us in Section VII .M of the Federal Register notice . As discussed above, emission reductions at some of the sources that impact visibility the most are still above the emission level projected in the model and we believe

that cost

- effective controls are likely available at these sources.

However, for the reasons we have discussed above, although we agree w ith the TCEQ that a rate of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064 is not reasonable, we do not believe that the rate of improvement the TECQ has selected is reasonable, because we disagree with its four factor analysis and t he analysis of emission measures needed to meet the

URP. Therefore we believe the record supports a finding that the TCEQ’s RPGs for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains do not meet the requirements under Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii). In so doing, we rely on the specific directive in Section 51.308(d)(1)(iii): “In determining whether the State’s goal for visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions, the Administrator will evaluate the demonstrations developed by the State pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) of this section.” We also find that visibility on the

20% best days will be better than Texas projects, given additional controls in our proposed FIP.

B. 5

. Reasonable Progress Goal To Be Considered by Administrator: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v)

The language under Section 51.308(d)(1)(v) gives EPA authority to review a state ’s RPG stating

,

“ [t] he reasonable progress goals established by the state are not directly enforceable but will be considered by the Administrator in evaluating the adequacy of the measures in the SIP to achieve the progress goal adopted by the state Since it does not require a response from the state , it is not

41 Available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/32

separately evaluated here

.

B. 6

. Reasonable Progress State Consultation : 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv)

In developing each reasonable progress goal, Texas must consult with those state s which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area. In any situation in which Texas cannot agree with another such state or group of

state s that a goal provides for reasonable progre ss, Texas must describe in its submittal the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. In reviewing Texas’ SIP submittal, the Administrator will take this information into account in determining whether its goal for visibility improvement provides for re asonable progress towards natural visibility conditions.

State Submittal

Chapter 4, Appendix 4

- 1, Chapter 11

Pursuant to Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv), Texas consulted with other state s which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at its two Class I areas

. The TCEQ held three conference calls in July, 2007 to which Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,

and Oklahoma were invited.

The TCEQ used CENRAP generated products, such as regional photochemical modeling resul ts and visibility projections, and source apportionment modeling to assist in identifying neighboring state s’ contributions to the visibility impairment at its Class I areas. Specifically, the TCEQ used the results from the CENRAP particulate matter sourc e apportionment technology (PSAT) modeling to determine that New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Louisiana contribute to visibility impairment at the Texas Class I areas. The TCEQ invited those state s with a greater than 0.5 inverse megameter impact on one of its Class I areas to its consultations. Other participants that attended one or more of the calls included CENRAP, us, and the federal land managers. The TCEQ invited tribes in all of the CENRAP state s to the consultation calls, but no tribes particip ated in the consultation on Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. These calls are summarized in Appendix 4

- 1 of the Texas regional haze SIP.

The first consultation call primarily addressed technical papers that discussed the natural conditions, the impacts o f dust storms in Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, our IPM emission projections, and the URP and RPGs for the Texas Class I areas. The second and third

consultation calls consisted of discussions between the state s and federal land managers regarding the dust storm technical papers. The TCEQ presented the URPs for its Class I areas, discussed controls that are in place in Texas, and its decision that no additional controls would be included in its regional haze SIP. The federal land managers suggeste d that the TCEQ revise the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit process to include FLM notification provisions. Texas committed to further consultations with the federal land managers to address their concerns about the Texas PSD program.

The TCEQ discussed the CENRAP PSAT modeling results with the attendees. It noted that the BRAVO study indicated that for SO 4 , which has the largest visibility impact of all pollutants at33

Big Bend, approximately 1/3 comes from Mexico, 1/3 from Texas, and 1 /3 from the Midwest and South beyond Texas. It noted that these results are somewhat inconsistent with CENRAP PSAT modeling results, which indicate that slightly more than half of the visibility impairment at Big Bend comes from Mexico and other areas out side the U.S.

New Mexico and the federal land managers discussed that despite the Guadalupe Mountains in Texas and Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico sharing the same monitor, these Class I areas appeared to have significantly different calculated natural vis ibility values, individually prepared by the two state s. 42 The federal land managers and we both expressed a desire to review the TCEQ’s natural visibility calculation.

The TCEQ concluded its consultations by noting that other state s’ visibility impacts on Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains are relatively small. Texas sources are responsible for 25% and 35% of the visibility impairment at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, respectively. Neighboring state s combined contribute o nly 5% of the visibility impairment at Big Bend and 11.5% at the Guadalupe Mountains. As a result of these consultations, the TCEQ did not request any additional reductions from other state s.

Citing the source apportionment results and results of the BRA VO study, in Section 11.3 of the Texas regional haze SIP, Texas requests in its SIP that we initiate and pursue federal efforts to reduce impacts from international transport. Due to large contributions from international sources, the TCEQ concludes it wi ll be impossible to reach natural conditions without significant reductions in Mexico and other countries, in parallel with reductions within Texas and the rest of the United States. The TCEQ notes that Class I areas in other state s will also benefit from reductions in emissions from international sources. We acknowledge that emissions from Mexico significantly impact the visibility at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. As we state in the Regional Haze Rule, 43 “the EPA does not expect States to restric t emissions from domestic sources to offset the impacts of international transport of pollution. We believe that States should evaluate the impacts of current and projected emissions from international sources in their regional haze programs, particularly in cases where it has already been well documented that such sources are important.”

EPA Findings

We reviewed the CENRAP PSAT data for the Texas Class I areas referred to during the consultation calls, as well as the technical papers discussed during th ose calls and the summary of the calls in Appendix 4

- 1 of Texas’ SIP submittal. Approximately half of the 2002 visibility impairment at Big Bend is due to Mexico and other international sources captured in the modeled boundary conditions, one quarter of t he impairment is due to Texas sources and the remaining quarter is due to all the remaining sources combined, with the largest contributions in this group from the Eastern United States (2.5%) and Louisiana (2.8%). Examining only contributions due to poin t sources in 2002, Texas point sources contribute 10% of the total visibility impairment at Big Bend and Mexico point sources contribute 16.9%. The largest

42 Note that we discuss the difference between the natural visibility value calculated by New Mexico for Carlsbad Caverns and that calculated by Texas for t he Guadalupe Mountains elsewhere in this TSD.

43 64 FR 35736 (July 1, 1999).34

impact from a nearby state is Louisiana at a little more than 2% contribution. All other nearby

st ate s contribute less than 1% to the total visibility impairment at Big Bend. The source apportionment results for 2018 projections at Big Bend show similar levels of contribution with a slight decrease in Texas and Eastern United States contributions. Me xico and other international sources contribute approximately one quarter of the visibility impairment and Texas contributes about one third of the visibility impairment at the Guadalupe Mountains in 2002. The next largest contributing source regions are New Mexico (7.3%, 4.7% from natural sources), Kansas (3.3%), the Eastern United States (3.2%), Western United States (3.0%), and Oklahoma (2.5%). Examining only contributions due to point sources in 2002, Texas point sources contribute 8.7%

of the total v isibility impairment and Mexico point sources contribute 6.8%. The largest impact from a nearby state is New Mexico at a little more than 1% contribution. All other nearby state s contribute less than 1% to the total visibility impairment at Guadalupe Mou ntains. The source apportionment results for 2018 projections at Guadalupe Mountains show similar levels of contribution with a slight decrease in eastern United States contributions. PSAT results show an overwhelming contribution from international sour ces and Texas sources and the technical papers shared by Texas suggest that dust storms significantly impact a number of the worst 20% days at these Class I areas. See Section D.3 below, the CENRAP Modeling TSD, and the technical support document for the CENRAP modeling 44 for additional discussion and PSAT modeling results for Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains.

We find that the TCEQ appropriately identified those state s with the largest impacts on Texas Class I areas and invited them for consultation. We agree with Texas’ determination that it was reasonable not to request additional controls from other state s at this time. Given the small

contributions from individua l nearby state s, especially when only considering anthropogenic sources that can be easily controlled in comparison with the size of impacts from Texas sources and international sources, we find that it was reasonable for the TCEQ to have focused the analy sis of additional controls on sources within Texas. We believe the record supports a find ing that Texas has satisfied the requirement under Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv) to consult with other

state s which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at its

two Class I areas.

B.7

. Reasonable Progress Goal Minimum: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi)

Texas may not adopt a reasonable progress goal that represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from implementation o f other requirements of the CAA during the applicable planning period.

State Submittal

The RPGs established by Texas are based on CENRAP 2018 modeling projections. The modeling projections conducted by CENRAP contain projections of the visibility conditions that are anticipated to be realized at each Class I area between the 2002 base year and the 2018 future year. Th ese projections are based on the emissions reductions resulting from federal and state control programs that are either currently in effect or with mandated future

- year emission

44 Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze SIP, included as Appendix 8

- 1 of the Texas regional haze SIP35

reduction schedules that predate 2018, including the long

- term strategies of T exas, Oklahoma,

and other state s, and presumptive emissions reductions expected to result from the submitted

Oklahoma BART rule.

EPA Findings

The TCEQ ’s RPGs are based on the visibility improvement predicted by CENRAP’s modeling projections to take pla ce between the baseline year and 2018

. Since CENRAP’s 2018 modeling projections are based on local, state , and federal control programs that are either currently in

effect or with mandated future

- year emission reduction schedules, we believe that the TCEQ ’s RPGs represent at least as much visibility improvement as is expected to result from implementation of other requirements of the CAA (i.e., requirements other than regional haze ) during the applicable planning period. We therefore believe the record su pports a finding that

Texas’ submission meets the requirements of Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi) because its RPG s for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend do not represent less visibility improvement than is expected to result from the implementation of other r equirements of the CAA during this planning period.

C. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions

Note: Section 51.308(d)(2)(ii) is not applicable since this SIP was submitted after 2003, and

Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(B) is not applicable since this is the first SIP period.

C.1. Calculation of Baseline Conditions: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i)

For each of its mandatory Class I Federal area s t Texas must determine the baseline visibility

conditions for the m ost impaired and least impaired days. The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000 to 2004. Baseline visibility conditions must be calculated, using available monitoring data, by establishing the average degree of visibility impairm ent for the most and least impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. The baseline visibility conditions are the average of these annual values. For mandatory Class I Federal areas without onsite monitoring data for 2000

– 2004, Texas must est ablish baseline values using the most representative available monitoring data for 2000

– 2004, in consultation with the Administrator or his or her designee.

State Submittal

Chapter 5

As required by Section 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule and i n accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance

, 45 the TCEQ calculated baseline visibility conditions for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. The baseline condition calculation begins with the calculation of light extinction for each day with mo nitoring data, using the IMPROVE equation.

45 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA

- 454/B

- 03

- 005, September 2003.36

The IMPROVE equation sums the light extinction 46 resulting from individual pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates. As with the natural visibility conditions calculation, the TCEQ chose to use

the new IMPROVE e quation described below

.

The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000

- 2004, and baseline conditions must be calculated using available monitoring data, as required under Section 51.308(d)(2). The TCEQ averaged the data from 2001 t hrough 2004 for Big Bend 47 and calculated the baseline conditions at Big Bend to be 17.30 dv on the 20% worst days, and 5.78 dv on the 20% best days. In calculating the baseline conditions at the Guadalupe Mountains, the TCEQ averaged the visibility data f

or 2000

- 2004, and calculated the baseline conditions at the Guadalupe Mountains to be 17.19 dv on the 20% worst days, and 5.95 dv on the 20% best days.

EPA Findings

Baseline conditions represent visibility for the best and worst days at the time the regional haze program is established. Baseline conditions are calculated using multiyear averaging of the 20 percent of monitored days with the highest (most impaired, or worst days) and the 20 percent of monitored days with the lowest (least impaired, or best days) light extinction values, expressed in deciviews (dv), for the years 2000 through 2004. The Regional Haze Rule establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal m etric for measuring visibility. See 70 FR 39104. A deciview is a uniform measure of light extinction caused by regional haze. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in the degree of haze in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. The deciview scale approaches zero for no visibility degradation and increases as visibility is degraded. The deciview scale was designed similar to the decibel scale for sound, so that equal changes in deciview are equally perceptible

. The deciview is a useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detec t a change in visibility of one deciview. Common current values in the west are 15 to 20 dv; common current values in the east are 25 to 30 dv. Visibility is also sometimes expressed in terms of the visual range, which is the greatest distance, in

kilome ters or miles, at which a dark object can just be distinguished against the sky.

The baseline is the starting point for this regional haze submittal, against which progress toward the national visibility goal is measured. Texas calculated its baseline co nditions in accordance with our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance 48 , as required by the Regional Haze Rule . The baseline condition calculation begins with the calculation of light extinction, using the IMPROVE equation. The IMPROVE equation sums the light extinction resulting from individual pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates

46 The amount of light lost as it travels over one million meters. The haze index, in units of deciviews (dv), is calculated directly from the total l ight extinction, b ext expressed in inverse megameters (Mm

- 1 ), as follows: HI = 10 ln(b ext /10).

47 The TCEQ determined that the fourth quarter of 2000 for Big Bend was not sufficiently complete for use in calculating a baseline average for regulatory purpo ses, as it had only ten complete days.

48 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Program, EPA

- 454/B

- 03

- 005, September 2003

.37

In 2005 the IMPROVE Steering Committee made recommendations for a refined equation that modifies the terms of the original equation to account for the most recent data. 49 T he purpose of this refinement is to provide more accurate estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light extinction.

The new IMPROVE equation estimates additive extinction coefficients for each of several

chemical constituents of particulate matter: sulfurous, nitrate, organic carbonaceous, elemental “light

- absorbing” carbonaceous, fine soil, chlorine or chloride, and coarse matter. The equation also accounts for Rayleigh scattering of light and for deliquescence on sulfurous, nit rate, and chlorine or chloride particulates with an estimate of particle

- bound water as a function of relative humidity. It reflects the most recent review of the science 50 and it accounts for the effect of particle size distribution on light extinction ef ficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon (particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea salt

and li ght absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site

- specific values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to atmospheric gases) to account for the site

- specific effects of elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light

- absorbing carbon), fine soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change betwee n the original and new IMPROVE equations.

As with the natural visibility conditions calculation discussed below

, the TCEQ chose to use the new IMPROVE equation. The choice between use of the old or the new equation for calculating the visibility metrics for each Class I area is made by the state in which the Class I area is

located. TCEQ has chosen to use this new equation, referred to in the SIP as a “revised” approach, for calculating both the baseline and natural visibility conditions because it takes into account the most recent review of the science and because it is recommended by the IMPROVE Steering Committee.

The TC EQ calculated the baseline by first summing the light extinction (where the extinction

49 The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the federal land managers ) and regional planning organizations . The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources responsible f or existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility

- related research, including the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and source attribution field studies.

50 The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is summarized in appendix B. 2 of the Oklahoma Regional Haze submittal and in numerous published papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C .,2006, Review of

the IMPR OVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients

- Final Report. March 2006. Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, C olorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm ; and Pitchford , Marc

. , 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/D ata Analysis Workgroup. September 2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt38

coefficient is expressed in Mm

1) for sulfurous, nitrate, organic carbonaceous, elemental “light

absorbing” carbonaceous, fine soil, chlorine or chloride, and coarse matter, using the following equation:

βext = βext S + βext NO3 + βext organic+ βext elemental+ βext SO il+ βext coarse+ βext Cl+ βext Rayleigh

The TCEQ then converted the total light extinction values to deciviews (dv), using the Haze Index (HI) equation:

HI (dv) = 10 ln[βext/(10 Mm

- 1 )]

We have reviewed the TCEQ’s estimation of baseline visibility conditions at Big Bend and

Gua dalupe Mountains and t he submittal supports a finding that Texas has satisfied the requirements of Section 51.308(d)(2)(i)

.

C.2. Calculation of Natural Visibility Conditions: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iii)

For each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the state , the state must determine the natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days. Natural visibility conditions must be calculated by estimating the degree of visibi lity impairment existing under natural conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days, based on available monitoring information and appropriate data analysis techniques.

Natural background visibility, as defined in our 2003 Natural Visibility G uidance 51 , is estimated by calculating the expected light extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle components adjusted by site

- specific estimates of humidity. Our guidance provides

default natural conditions for the 20% worst and 20% best days for each Class I area based on the IMPROVE equation. As documented in our guidance, we allow state s to use a “refined” approach or alternative approaches to the guidance defaults to estimate the values that

characterize the natura l visibility conditions of their Class I areas. Our guidance also states that

state s may wish to use a more refined approach to reduce uncertainty when baseline visibility is already near natural conditions or when there is marked seasonality. These alte rnative approaches can be implemented via alternative estimates of natural concentrations. One alternative approach is to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle components. Another option open to s tate s is to use the “new IMPROVE equation” that was adopted for use by the IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005. The purpose of this refinement to the “old IMPROVE equation” was to provide

more accurate estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light extinction. The default natural conditions in our 2003 guidance were updated by the Natural Haze Levels II Committee utilizing the new IMPROVE equation and included some refinements to the

51 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Program, EPA

- 454/B

- 03

- 005, September 2003

.39

estimates for the PM components

. 52

, 53 Thes e estimates are referred to as the “NCII” default natural visibility conditions.

State Submittal

Chapter 5, Appendix 5

- 2

The TCEQ chose to derive a “refined” estimate of natural visibility conditions rather than using

the default NCII values. Chapter 5 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP and Appendix 5

- 2 provide calculations, methodologies, and a discussion of the reasons for the selection of the alternative methodology utilized by the TCEQ. In calculating natural visibility conditions, the TCEQ used

the new IMPROVE equation and PM concentration estimates (i.e., the NCII values) for most

components , but assumed that 100% of the fine soil and coarse mass concentrations in the baseline period should be attributed to natural causes and that the corresponding estimates in the NCII values should be replaced. The TCEQ has provided data 54 that supports TCEQ’s conclusion that a large portion of dust impacting visibility at these Class I areas is likely due to

natural sources. The TCEQ note d there is some uncertainty with these calculations in the amount of natural fine and coarse mass assumption. The TCEQ also state d that

, to the extent its assumption that 100% of coarse mass and fine soil is natural is an overestimate, it expects that its low organic carbon estimat e will more than compensate for any errors in this assumption at this

time

.

F or the 20% worst days , t he TCEQ calculate d natural visibility conditions f or Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains of 10.09 dv and 12.26 dv, respectively. For the 20% best days , the TCEQ

calculated that natural visibility conditions f or Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains of 2.19 dv, and 2.10 dv , respectively

.

In response to FLM comments, t he TCEQ also performed a n additional calculation for the 20% worst days, assuming only 80% of fine soil and course mass as natural

, in order to demonstrate the sensitivity of its approach to this assumption. Under this approach, the TCEQ estimated natural conditions to be 9.2 dv for the 20% worst days at Big Bend, compared to 10.09 dv usin g the assumption that 100% of fine soil and course mass is natural, and 7. 16 dv using the NCII method. For the Guadalupe Mountains, the TCEQ’s estimate was 11.0 dv under the 80% assumption, compared with 12.26 dv under the 100% assumption and 6. 65 dv usin g the NCII

method. These values are summarized below:

52 Pitchford, Marc, 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species

Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 2006, available at : http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt

. 53 The second version of the natural haze level II estimates based on the work of the Natural Haze Levels II

Committee is available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Docs/IMPROVE/Aerosol/NaturalConditions/NaturalConditionsII_Format2_v2.xls

54 Dust Storms as Natural Eve nts for Regional Haze and Particulate Matter in West Texas (online: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/bart/haze_sip.html ) ; “Investigation of Dust Emission Hotspots in Chihuahuan Desert Playa Basins” (Gill et al. 2005); Kavouras et al. (20 07), “Classification of sources of atmospheric dust in Class I areas of the western United States”; Kavouras et al. (2006), “Assessment of the Principal

Causes of Dust

- Resultant Haze at IMPROVE Sites in the Western United States,”40 Table 16 . TCEQ Natural Visibility Calculations

Guadalupe Mountains Big Bend 20% Worst Days 20% Best Days 20% Worst Days 20% Best Days

100% fine soil

and coarse mass 12.26 2.19 10.09 2.10

80% fine soil

and coarse mass 11.0 Not calculated 9.2 Not calculated

NCII default 6.65 0.99 7.16 1.62

Ultimately, however, the TCEQ stated that it was including the 80% assumption for illustration purposes only and based its calculations of natural conditions on assuming that 100% coarse mass and fine soil assumption are due to natural sources. Similarly, the TCEQ did not utilize our default method to determine natural visibility conditions, but it did provide the default values for comparison (Appe ndix 5

- 2 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP) . These different estimates of natural visibility conditions and the resulting calculated URP are depicted graphically in the figures prepared by TCEQ and reproduced below.

Figure 4 . Natural Condition and URP es timates for Big Bend41 Figure 5 . Natural Conditio n and URP estimates for the Guadalupe Mountains

EPA Findings

Our default procedure has several acknowledged limitations. First, each chemical species can have one of only two possible background concentrations, one for the East and one for the West. Future efforts may provide for a larger number of geographic zone s with differing concentrations. A second potential limitation is that the same approach is used for both natural

and anthropogenic

- dominated species components; EPA guidance mentions the possibility of treating these separately.

We agree that dust st orms and other blown dust from deserts are a significant contributor to visibility impairment at the Texas Class I areas that may not be captured accurately by our default method. However, we find that the TCEQ has not adequately demonstrated that all

coa rse mass and fine soil measured in the baseline period can be attributed to 100% natural sources. Anthropogenic sources of coarse mass and fine soil in the baseline period could have included emissions associated with paved and unpaved roads, agricultural activity, and

construction activities as well. We also note that the impact from dust at Big Bend is less certain than at Guadalupe Mountains and a different assumption may be appropriate in estimating

natural conditions there. Given the significant unc ertainty in the assumptions used in the Texas methodology and the demonstrated sensitivity to the assumption of 100% natural versus 80% soil and coarse mass from natural sources, we believe the record supports a finding that Texas’

calculation of the natur al visibility conditions for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Class I areas does not meet the requirements under Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii).

In its regional haze SIP, the TCEQ state d that it will continue to evaluate data, modeling, and any other sources of information in order to further improve its estimates. Furthermore, the TCEQ plans to work with us and the federal land managers to improve natural conditions estimates for42

future regional haze SIP revi sions. We encourage these efforts

.

As discussed in the Federal Register notice, we propose to rely on the default values that were used for every other Class I area in the country for our proposed FIP to address this deficiency in

the Texas regional haze SIP, but we solicit comment on the acceptability of alternate estimates in the range between the EPA default estimates and Texas’ estimates. The federal land managers commented during the development of the Texas regional haze SIP that an assumption of 8 0%

would be more reasonable than an assumption of 100%. We note that with any of the methodologies for calculating natural conditions discussed above , Texas ’ Class I areas are not projected to meet the URP in 2018 according to the CENRAP modeling and are not projected to meet the goal of natural visibility conditions by 2064.

C.3. Natural Visibility Impairment : 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A)

For the first SIP addressing the requirements of 51.308(d) and (e) of this section, Texas must
calculate the number o f deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days. The natural visibility impairment is calculated by subtracting the natural visibility calculation from the baseline visibility cal culation.

State Submittal

Section 5

- 3

.

As discussed in Section III.C.1 of this TSD, the TC EQ calculated the baseline conditions at its

two Texas Class I areas on the 20 percent worst days and the 20 percent best days. Also

discussed in Section III.C.2, the TC EQ calculated the natural visibility conditions for the 20 percent worst days, and the 20 percent best days. Subtracting the natural visibility condition

values from the baseline values results in the amount of visibility impairment.

As summarized in Table 5

- 3 of its Regional Haze SIP (reproduced below as Table 1 7 ), the TCEQ calculates the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility

conditions at the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains for the most impaired (2 0 percent worst) days and least impaired (20 percent best) days .43 Table 1 7 : Visibility Metrics for the Class I Areas in Texas

Estimate o f Natural Visibility Conditions

Class I Area Haze Index (deciviews) Most Impaired Least Impaired Big Bend 10.09 2.19 Guadalupe Mountains 12.26 2.10

Baseline V isibility Conditions, 2000

– 2004

Class I Area Haze Index (deciviews) Most Impaired Least Impaired Big Bend 17.30 5.78 Guadalupe Mountains 17.19 5.95

Estimate of Extent Baseline Exceeds Natural Visibility Conditions

Class I Area Haze Index (deciviews) Most Impaired Least Impaired Big Bend 7.21 3.59 Guadalupe Mountains 4.93 3.85

EPA Findings

We have reviewed the TCEQ’s estimates of the natural visibility impairment at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains and we find these estimates do not meet the requirements because this calculation depends on the TCEQ’s calculations for natural visibility c onditions, which we also found do not meet the requirements for the reasons discussed in the previous section. See Section VII.L of the Federal Register notice for our calculation of visibility impairment based on the EPA default values (NC II).

D. Long Term Strategy 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).

Under Section 51.308(d)(3), Texas, as with each state listed in Section 51. 300(b)(3), must submit a LTS that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I area

within the state and for each mandatory Class I area located o utside the state which may be

affected by emissions from the state . The LTS must include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progre ss goals

establ ished by the state s having Class I areas.

There are a number of requirements a state must meet when establishing its long

- term strategy. These requirements include: (1) s tates must consult with downwind state s to develop coordinated manag ement strategies that address regional haze visibility impairment; 55 (2) w here multiple state s cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area, each state must demonstrate that it has put all measures necessary to obtain its share of emiss ion reductions needed to meet the progress goal for the Class I area; 56 and (3) e ach state must provide and

55 Section 51.308(d)(3)(i)

56 Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii)44

document the technical basis on which the state is relying to determine its share of emission reductions necessary to achieve reasonable progress for each Class I area it affects. 57

Section 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule requires all state s (both downwind and upwind) to “submit a long

- term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and for each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State which may be affec ted by emissions from the State.” 58 As explained in Section IV of the Federal Register notice , a state ’s long

- term strategy is inextricably linked to the

RPG s

.

D.1

. Long Term Strategy State Consultation: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)

Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that w here Texas has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area located in another

state or state s, it must consult with the other state (s) in orde r to develop coordinated emission management strategies. Texas must consult with any other state having emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal

area within it.

State Submittal:

Ch apter 4, Chapter 11

As detailed in Chapter 11.2.2, the TCEQ reviewed CENRAP modeling to assess how Texas emission might affect other state ’s Class I areas and which Class I areas in other state s might be impacted by Texas’ emissions. In Chapter 11.2.3 Te xas reviews its impacts and 2018 impact reduction for Class I areas outside of Texas. The TCEQ’s review of the CENRAP PSAT modeling results were used to assess how Texas’ emissions might affect other state s’ Class I

areas. The results indicated that Texas’ emissions affect one or more Class I areas in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Arkansas, Missouri, and Louisiana. 59 Texas participated in consultation calls with Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma and through letters with Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, and New Mexico.

Pursuant to the TCEQ’s review of impacts from Texas emissions and in response to comments

fr om us and the federal land managers in March 2008, Texas wrote consultation letters to Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Colorado to ask whether emission reductions projected in Texas by 2018 are sufficient to meet Texas’ apportionme nt of the impact

reduction needed to meet the RPG for each Class I area in each state

. Included with the letters were a discussion and data of the CENRAP Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) modeling determining the contribution from each Texas source area to visibility impairment at Class I areas in the given state . The TCEQ stated it participated fully in the analysis of this data, base period visibility impairment, natural visibility condition estimates,

57 Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii)

- (iv)

58 40 C.F.R Section 51.308(d)(3).

59 See Table 1 above for a summary of CENRAP source apportionment modeling results for Class I areas in other States impacted by emission s from sources in Texas

.45

and 2018 projections based o n current and anticipated future state and federal controls. The PSAT modeling indicates that the probable impact of Texas sources will be reduced by 2018 in all of the affected Class I Areas due to the expected emissions reductions from current and planne d controls. Also included with the consultation letter, where applicable, were area of

influence (AOI) maps for each Class I area in the CENRAP states. Texas identified the significant point sources within each AOI and shared this information with nearby s tates during the consultation process (see Appendix 4

- 3). For reference purposes, the map showed the portions of Texas that are in the first and second order sulfate and nitrate areas of influence for the given Class I Area. The sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide sources shown on the map are Texas sources the TCEQ identified as high priority due to the fact that they have an emissions

over distance equal to or greater than five (Q/D ≥ 5) for one or more of the Class I areas. Also

included was a table of sour ces of particular interest to the affected Class I Area(s) due to their

emissi ons and their positions within AOI.

The TCEQ also requested recipients of the letters to confirm they were not expecting any

additional emission reductions from Texas sources

. These letters and associated documents are included in Appendix 4

- 3 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP . Texas stated in the record that it had completed its consultation with Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Colorado, and

none of these state s has asked it for further emission reductions to help the it meet its reasonable

progress goals for its Class I area(s). Appendix 4

- 3 to the Texas regional haze SIP contains the

official communications from these state s to Texas. The following is a summary of the state

- by

state review of Texas’ consultation under Section 51.308(d)(3)(i):

Colorado (Great Sand Dunes, Rocky Mountains) TCEQ sent Colorado a letter on March 25, 2008 with information of impacts of Texas sources on Colorado Class I areas. On June 19, 2008, Colorado responded in a letter in which it presented its own impact analyses and stated that

Texas sources are below t he criteria identified in the Colorado SIP (based on regional apportionment modeling used to develop the Colorado SIP, PSAT.). In a June 24, 2008

, letter, Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment responded that no further emissions

reduction s were r equested of Texas at this time.

Louisiana (Breton) . On November 29, 2007

, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) sent an email that stated it determined that emissions from Texas do not contribute to visibility impairment at Bre ton Wilderness Class I Area in Louisiana. LDEQ stated

that it will continue to monitor all state and federal rules and control measures and will include the necessary emission factors in future modeling. TCEQ sent LDEQ a letter on March 25,

2008

, with in formation of impacts of Texas sources on Breton.

New Mexico: (Carlsbad Caverns, Salt Creek, White Mountain, Wheeler Peak). On August 8, 2008, TCEQ sent a letter to NMED. As of the date of the submission of the Texas regional

haze SIP, New Mexico had n ot replied. New Mexico’s regional haze SIP provides additional

clarification on its consultations. New Mexico acknowledges that the long

- term strategies adopted by Colorado, Arizona, and Texas in their SIPs and approved by us will include emission

reduct ions from a variety of sources that will reduce visibility impairment in New Mexico’s46

Class I areas. 60

Missouri (Hercules

- Glades, Mingo ) and Arkansas (Caney Creek, Upper Buffalo). On August 26, 2007, Missouri and Arkansas invited state s including Texas to a series of consultation calls concerning visibility at their four Class I areas. During these calls, a URP was developed

for each Class I area in Arkansas and Missouri (Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo in Arkansas,

and Hercules Glades and Mingo in Missouri). The participating state s also determined that the projected 2018 CENRAP modeling and other findings based on existing and proposed controls arising from local, state , and federal r equirements indicated that the two Class I areas in

Arkansas and the two Class I areas in Missouri are on the glidepath and are projected to meet the

URP goals for the first implementation period ending in 2018. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ ) and Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) bot h

determined that additional emissions reductions from other state s were not necessary to address visibility impairment at Caney Creek

, Upper Buffalo , Hercules

- Glades, and Mingo for the first implementation period ending in 2018, and all state s participati ng in its consultations agreed with

this

. 61

. The TCEQ sent Missouri and Arkansas letter s on March 25, 2008

, with information of impacts of Texas sources on Missouri and Arkansas Class I areas. On April 21, 2008, Missouri responded with a letter that stated it had reviewed the TCEQ analysis and attachments and they provided results generally consistent with the CENRAP and Missouri modeling and data analysis used in developing its plan. Missouri indicated at this time, that emissions reductions from Texas were adequate. In an April 21, 2008, letter, Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources responded that no further emissions redu ctions were requested of Texas. Arkansas responde d on June 10, 2008. It concurred with the CENRAP PSAT modeling assessment, and those results were used to set Arkansas’ RPGs for its 2 Class I areas. Arkansas stated it was not depending on

additional reductions at this time to meet its RPGs. In a June 10, 2008, letter, the A DEQ responded that no further emissions red uctions were requested of Texas.

Oklahoma (Wichita Mountains ). The TCEQ attended Oklahoma’s three consultation calls held in August and September 2007. On August 3, 2007, ODEQ sent TCEQ a letter that noted the Wichita Mountains is not projected to be on its glide path and that, from “the work done through the CEN RAP process, it is clear that Wichita Mountains suffers from significant anthropogenic impacts from Texas.” The letter requested that the ODEQ be able to comment on

BACT determinations for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) sources that signific antly impact the Wichita Mountains and request ed that Class I impact reviews b e required for all proposed PSD sources within 300 kilometers of a Class I area. The letter cited several CAA visibility provisions related to PSD visibility requirements and th e visibility

t ransport requirement under Section 110 of the CAA. The ODEQ asked that the TCEQ “fully consider its comments” about applicable CAA provisions. In a response letter dated October 15,
2007, the TCEQ agreed that the modeling shows Texas to be a “significant source of visibility impairing pollution on the Wichita Mountains.” The TCEQ agreed to notify the ODEQ , along with the relevant FLM, whenever modeling indicates that a proposed source significantly impacts Wichita Mountains

. The TCEQ also responded to the ODEQ’s PSD comments on

60 New Mexico Regional Haze SIP, Page 4 at: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/reghaz/documents/Proposed_RH_SIP_309g_03312011.pdf

61 See Appendix 4_3d of the Texas regional haze SIP for July 23, 2007, letter from ADEQ and MDNR to participants in the Central Class I Areas Consultation Process summarizing this series of consultation calls.47

potential impacts of new and modified sources . The TCEQ did not agree to the ODEQ’s 300

kilometer PSD review request, and cited the need for us to adopt significant impact levels for

Class I reviews so that there is a consistent approach to requiring Class I reviews. During the interim, the TCEQ committed to working with the federal land managers on mutually acceptable criteria for determining when a proposed PSD source should conduct a Class I review. The TCEQ als o stated, in conjunction with work being done through CENRAP, that there will be significant reductions in the next few years and visibility at Wichita Mountains would improve

as a result of those reductions.

The TCEQ sent Oklahoma another consultation letter, dated March 25, 2008. In that letter, the TCEQ provides a detailed assessment, based on CENRAP modeling, of the impact of Texas sources on the visibility at the Wichita Mountains. Specifically, the letter contained information

related to the 2002 visibility impacts and the 2018 projected visibility impacts from all source

areas on the one Class I area in Oklahoma and the impacts apportioned to be from Texas’ sources. TCEQ indicated that CENRAP produced these results using particulate matter sourc e apportionment technology (PSAT) modeling and relative response factors according to our regional haze modeling guidance. The data were from the August 27, 2007, version of the PSAT tool that Environ produced for CENRAP. The TCEQ also provided a table of sources of particular interest to Wichita Mountains, identified by the TCEQ due to their emissions and

location within the AOI

, developed as part of the CENRAP planning process. This table included 2002 and 2018 projected annual emissions from CENRAP, as well as the sources

distance from Wichita Mountains. The TCEQ concluded by requesting ODEQ’s concurrence on that assessment, and, “that your State is not depending on any additional reductions from Texas

sources in order to meet your reasonable progress goal(s).”

On May 12, 2008, the ODEQ responded to that letter and concurred with the “information in that

letter.” The ODEQ stated that it developed its RPG through CENRAP deliberation. ODEQ’

stated that it does not anti cipate reductions beyond those that Texas already planned to implement and upon which the CENRAP studies relied. However, the ODEQ stated that its RPG falls short of the uniform rate of improvement necessary to reach the default natural visibility conditi ons in 2064. The ODEQ stated that r eaching its progress goal requires constraints on emissions from new, modified, and existing sources. Referring back to its August 2007 letter, the ODEQ restated its request that the TCEQ perform an analysis of any new or modified PSD subject source within 300 km of the Wichita Mountains to conduct an analysis for its impact on the Wichita Mountains, following FLM guidance, as appropriate. It restated its request to review BACT determinations for proposed sources projec ted to significantly contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains. The TCEQ committed to provide

the ODEQ the opportunity to comment on control determinations for Texas facilities that having the potential to significantly impair visibilit y at the W ichita M ountains

. The ODEQ asked to be

informed of actual emissions reductions achieved from CAIR. Please see our description of the

Texas

- Oklahoma consultations, based on the information in Oklahoma’s record, in our OK TSD

and as summarized in Section VI.B.2 of the Federal Register notice for this proposed action , for

additional consultation details.48

EPA Findings :

Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that Texas consult with other state s if its emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at that state ’s Class I area(s), and

that Texas consult with other state s if those state s’ emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. The TCEQ’s

consultations with other state s that impact Texas Class I areas are described and reviewed in

Section B.6 above and Section V.C.5 of the Federal Register notice.

During consultation, Colorado and Louisiana determined that Texas impacts on their Class I areas were not significant enough to warrant additional controls for this planning period. Based on the 2018 CENRAP projections, Missouri and Arkansas 62 established RPGs for their Class I areas that provide f

or a slightly greater rate of improvement in visibility than needed to attain the URP, and determined that the projected emission reductions included in the model were adequate, and that it was not reasonable to request additional controls from Texas at th is time. The record supports a finding that these consultations are acceptable.

The CENRAP source apportionment modeling indicates that Texas emissions

, particularly SO 2 emission s from point sources

, impact a number of Class I areas outside of Texas. Te xas SO 2 emissions are projected in 2018 to have the largest visibility impacts, in terms of both absolute contribution to extinction and percent contribution to total extinction, at the Wichita Mountains

in Oklahoma. 63 As we discuss above, both the ODEQ and the TCEQ agreed that sources in Texas significantly impact the visibility at the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma , and that the impact s from point sources in Texas is several times greater than the impact from Oklahoma ’s

own point sources . Furthermore, the ODEQ asserted in its consultations with the TCEQ, and

elsewhere in its regional haze SIP, that it would not be able to reach natural visibility by 2064

without additional reductions from Texas sources. During consul tations, the ODEQ specifically requested additional information on controls identified through the CENRAP process that were

cost

- effective and had the potential to result in visibility improvements due to their location and size. In addition, the ODEQ had information that other sources with existing controls still have a large potential to impact visibility and should be analyzed for control upgrades.

Ultimately, however, Texas determined that no additional controls at its sources were warranted during the first planning period to help achieve reasonable progress at the Wichita Mountains, and Oklahoma did not specifically request any additional reductions from Texas sources. As a result, Oklahoma set RPGs for the Wichita Mountains that do not reflect an y reasonable emission reductions from Texas beyond those that will be achieved by compliance with other requirements of the CAA. During the notice

- and

- comment period on Oklahoma’s proposed SIP, several commenters criticized Oklahoma for not requesting add itional reductions from Texas. They argued that without such reductions, Oklahoma would not make reasonable progress toward the national goal at the Wichita Mountains. In responding to these comments, Oklahoma acknowledged that sources in Texas had signif icant impacts on visibility in the Wichita

62 We note, however, that we disapproved Arkansa s’ RPGs because it did not perform an adequate four

- factor analysis of their own sources and because we disapproved BART determinations in the State. See 76 FR 64186 (October 17, 2011).

63 See Tables 25 and 26 and Figure 10 below in Section D.3.49

Mountains, but maintained that it did not have the regulatory authority to require emission

reductions in other state s. Oklahoma asserted that only Texas and we could require such

reductions. We believe that the technical analysis developed by Texas (See Section B.2. for a description and our review of the technical analysis developed by Texas to evaluate controls for Texas sources) did not provide the information necessary to identify reasonable reductions from its sources, and inform consultations in order to develop coordinated management strategies with

Oklahoma. As a result, we believe that Texas did not incorporate those potential reasonable reductions into its long

- term strategy and those reductions were n ot included in the reasonable progress goal established by Oklahoma for Wichita Mountains. Consequent ly, we believe the submittal supports a finding that TCEQ did not adequately address the requirement in Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) to “consult with the other state (s) in order to develop coordinated emission management strategies

. ”

D.2

. Share of Reductions in Other States’ Progress Goals: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii)

Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that if Texas emis sions cause or contribute to impairment in

another state ’s Class I area, it must demonstrate that it has included in its regional haze SIP all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the progress goal for that Class I area. Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) also requires that since Texas participated in a regional planning process, it must ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that proces s. As we state in the Regional Haze Rule, Texas’ commitment to participate in CENRAP bind it to secure emission reductions agreed to as a result of that process, unless it proposes a separate or supplemental process and performs its consultations on the b asis of that process.

State Submittal :

Chapter 4, Chapter 11

As stated elsewhere, Texas relied on implementation of existing and ongoing control measures for their LTS, consistent with the CENRAP projections for Texas emissions relied upon in establishing the RPGs on the member states.

EPA Findings

As mentioned in Section IV of the Federal Register notice , the control measures in an upwind

state ’s long term strategy should be sufficient to obtain its share of reductions needed to meet an approved, or approvable, progress goal in a downwind state’s SI P. In this instance, the CENRAP technical analysis was sufficient to demonstrate that Texas as a whole, and particular source categories such as EGU point sources, had a significant impact on the visibility at the

Wichita Mountains and other Class I areas . The analysis also estimated that large emission reductions could be achieved at some of these sources by implementing potentially cost

- effective

controls. For example , Alpine Geophysics 64 estimated the cost of SO2 controls at the two units at Big Brown to be approximately $1,500/ton. They also projected that these controls would

64 CENRAP c ontracted with Alpine Geophysics to conduct an evaluation of possible additional point

- source add

- on controls for sources in CENRAP State s. See Section B.2 for more information.50

achieve greater than 40,000 tpy in SO2 emission reductions. Alpine Geophysics estimated the cost of SO2 controls at two units at Monticello to be approximately $1,850/ton. The y also projected that these controls would achieve greater than 35,000 tpy in SO2 emission reductions. The TCEQ recognized that some aspects of CENRAP’s technical analysis were limited and therefore attempted to supplement that analysis, which it used as t he technical basis for both its reasonable progress and long

- term strategy demonstrations, as we describe in Section V.C of the Federal Register notice . As it states with regard to the development of its long

- term strategy on page 10

- 4 of its regional haz e SIP, “[t]he TCEQ used the control strategy analysis completed by the CENRAP as the starting point for the analysis of additional controls.” In fact, the TCEQ went beyond the CENRAP analysis by contemplating additional controls, applying a lower cost

eff ectiveness threshold and estimating the visibility benefit from the identified control set. The TCEQ incorporated this supplemental analysis in the development of its RPG and its long

- term
strategy . It used this analysis to inform its decision not to con trol any additional sources, including those that impact the visibility at the Wichita Mountains and other Class I areas in

other state s

.

However, we believe the technical analysis developed by CENRAP and supplemented by the TCEQ did not provide the i nformation needed to evaluate the reasonableness of controls on those

source s with the largest potential to impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains. 65 We believe this information was critical for ODEQ to use in setting the RPG and critical for TCEQ when determining its fair share of reductions.

We find that Texas did not develop an adequate technical basis to inform consultations with Oklahoma and to identify reasonable reductions from its sources . As a result, we find that Texas

did not incorporate those reasonable reductions into its long

- term strategy. Texas’ “share of the emission reductions needed to meet the progress goal” for the Wichita Mountains was not properly established because of the inadequacies in its technical analyses , which comprom ised

its consultations with Oklahoma. F or these reasons we believe the record supports a finding that TCEQ did not adequately meet the requirement in Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii)

.

D.3

. Technical Basis for the Long Term Strategy : 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii)

– (iv)

Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that Texas document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which it is relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving r easonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. It may meet this requirement by relying on technical analyses developed by the regional planning organization and approved by all state participants. Texas must identify the baseline e missions inventory on which its strategies are based. The baseline emissions inventory year is presumed to be the most recent year of the consolidated periodic emissions inventory.

Section 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires that Texas identify all anthropogenic s ources of visibility impairment considered by it in developing its long

- term strategy

. Texas should consider major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources.

65 See Section B.2. for a detailed description and our review of the CENRAP a nd TCEQ analyses.51

The TCEQ addressed the requirements of Sections 51.308(d)(3)(iii)

– (iv) ma inly by relying on technical analyses developed by CENRAP and approved by all state participants, but it also performed an additional analysis building upon the work of the regional planning organization in order to evaluate additional controls, as described in Section B .2 above and Section V.C.2 of the Federal Register notice . The emis sions inventory used in the regional haze technical analyses was developed by CENRAP with assistance from Texas. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and applying reductions expected from federal and state regulations af

fecting the emissions of the visibility

- impairing pollutants NOx, PM, SO 2 , and

VOCs

. By analogy, with regard to development of the long

- term strategy, t he BART Guidelines

direct state s to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOCs and NH 3 impair visibilit y in their Class I area(s). 66 CENRAP performed modeling sensitivity analyses, which demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NH 3 do not significantly impair visibility in the CENRAP region. Therefore, Texas did not consider NH 3 among visibilit y

- impairing pollutants and did not

further evaluate NH 3 and VOC emissions sources for potential controls under BART or reasonable progress.

State Submittal

D.3.a. Emission Inventory

D.3.a. i. Texas’ 2002 Emission Inventory

The TCEQ and CENRAP developed an emission inventory for five inventory source classifications: point, area, non

- road and on

- road mobile sources, and biogenic sources for the baseline year of 2002. Texas’ 2002 emissions inventory provides estimates of annu al emissions for haze producing pollutants by source category , based on information in Section 7.0 of Texas’ regional haze SIP.

Methodologies used in developing the 2002 emissions inventory are documented in Appendix 7

- 1 of the Texas regional haze SIP and the technical support document for the CENRAP emission inventory development. 67 See the CENRAP Modeling TSD for a summary and our review of how the 2002 emissions inventory was constructed. State, tribal, and local agencies submitted

information to the n ational emissions inventory for 2002 which formed the basis of the CENRAP emissions inventory. A CENRAP contractor supplemented this inventory with non

- point source inventories developed for CENRAP. These CENRAP

- specific inventories addressed agricultura l and prescribed burning, on

- road and non

- road mobile sources, agricultural tilling and livestock dust, and agricultural ammonia. The Texas point sources are defined as industrial, commercial, or institutional sites that meet the reporting requirements of 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §101.10. Permitted point sources in Texas are required to submit annual emissions inventories. The reported data are drawn from TCEQ’s computer

- based State of Texas Air Retrieval system (STARS). This data, along with similar data available from other states make the basis of the point source inventory. A CENRAP contractor provided further refinement of

the information. Emissions from area sources are typically estimated on a source category or

66 70 FR 3911 4 (July 6, 2005)

. 67 Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze SIP, included as Appendix 8

- 1 of the Texas regional haze SIP52

group basis. The area source inventory includes data from the EPA 2002 NEI and inventories prepared by TCEQ, CENRAP and other CENRAP states. Sonoma Technology prepared additional inventories of prescribed burning, agricultural dust, and soil agricultural ammonia for

the CENRAP region. 68 The TCEQ also prepared an inventory of oil and gas production area sources based on county

- level production data and emission estimates for gasoline distribution, dry cleaning and wildfires. The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) provided an oil and gas production inventory for states within the WRAP that included a number of states in the CENRAP modeling domain. These emissions were consolidated by Pechan and CEP. 69 A

CENRAP contractor consolidated the area

- source inventories from these v arious inventory sources, conducted additional quality assurance, and worked with the TCEQ to revise this consolidated inventory. Another CENRAP contractor removed selected sources from the consolidated area inventories to process them as separate subcate gories to allow specialized processing to facilitate particulate source apportionment within the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) model.

The TCEQ notes that the area source SO2 emissions used by the CENRAP in their modeling are

si gnificantly higher than the 15,633 tons per year (tpy) reported by the TCEQ for 2002 . The difference is industrial and residential coal combustion which was erroneously included in the CENRAP inventory. Texas determined that CENRAP’s modeled emissions es timate s are not expected to significantly impact visibility estimates for 2018 because of the relatively small

contribution from these Texas sources on Class I areas. 70

To enhance accuracy of transportable dust estimates, the contractor also applied road and fugitive dust transport factors 71 to appropriate area source emissions. The TCEQ and CENRAP developed the on

- road mobile source emissions inventory for 2002 with contractor support on a county basis. For Texas counties, county

- level Highway Performanc e Monitoring System (HPMS) annual average VMT data were used. CENRAP contractors used our NONROAD model to prepare and develop broad emissions estimates for the non

- road mobile source inventory generated the non

- road emissions inventory. A CENRAP contrac tor ran our Biogenic Emissions Inventory System 3 (BEIS3) model to generate a biogenic emissions inventory.

68 Reid, S.B. et al. 2004 . Emission Inventor y Development for Mobile Sources and Agricultural Dust Sources for the Central States. Sonoma Technology, Inc.

( http://cenrap.sonomatech.com/CENRAP_Mobile/FinalReport.pdf)

. ; Reid, S.B et al. 2004

. Research and Development of Planned Burning Emission Inventories for the Central States Regional Air Planning Association. Sonoma Technology, Inc.

( http: //cenrap.sonomatech.com/CENRAP_PlannedBurnData/FinalReport.pdf) .; Coe, D.L. and S.B. Reid. 2003. Research and Development of Ammonia Emission Inventories for the Central States Regional Air Planning Assoc iation. Sonoma Technology, Inc.

69 Pechan and CEP. 2005. Consolidation of Emissions Inventories (Schedule 9; Work Item 3). E.H. Pechan and

Associa tes, Inc. and Carolina Environmental Program (CEP) , University of North Carolina (UNC)

, ( http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php?mode=subcatdownload&id=50 ); Pecha n and CEP. 2005 . Refinements of CENRAP’s 2002 Emissions Inventories (Schedule 9; Work Item 3). E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc. and
CEP, UNC

. ( http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/appendixh

- 3.pdf )

70 See page 7

- 1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP

71 Using Methodology to Estimate the Transportable Fraction of Fugitive Dust Emissions for Regional and Urban Scale Air Quality Analyses

, Thompson G. Pace, US EPA (8/3/2005 Revision) , available at http ://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/dustfractions/transportable_fraction_080305_rev.pdf53

Texas’ 2002 emissions inventory is summarized in Tables 18 and 19:

Table 18. Texas’ 2002 Emissions Inventory (tons/year)

CO NOx SO 2 TOG 72 PM 2.5 PM 10 NH 3

Area 908,407 280,811 111,853 1,163,549 347,490 1,552,824 380,057

Point 498,467 600,725 821,961 207,695 46,789 80,947 2,609

Non

- road

mobile 1,210,158 242,551 21,828 148,952 15,089 15,556 56

On

- road

mobile 4,098,391 664,163 18,814 309,707 11,275 15,476 21,599

Total 6,715,423 1,788,250 974,457 1,829,902 420,642 1,664,803 404,321

Table 19. Texas’ 2002 Biogenic Emissions Inventory (tons/year)

Biogenic NOx CO VOC

184,896 755,941 4,033,760

D.3.a. ii. Texas’ 2018 Emission Inventory

In general, the TCEQ used a combination of our Economic Growth Analysis System ( EGAS 5), our mobile emissions factor model (MOBILE 6), our off

- road emissions factor model (NONROAD), and the IPM for electric generating units. 73

More specifically, CENRAP dev eloped emissions for five inventory source classifications: point,

area, non

- road and on

- road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. CENRAP used its 2002 emission inventory, described above, to estimate emissions in 2018. CENRAP contractors, with input fr om us, compiled the growth and control assumptions and factors used to estimate point

source emissions in 2018 from the inventory for 2002. This included EGUs, internal combustion engines and other non

- EGU point sources. CENRAP states provided data for t he area source and

non

- road mobile emissions inventory for 2018, to which a CENRAP contractor applied area source growth and control factors. Similarly, CENRAP states provided data for the emissions inventory for 2018, to which a CENRAP contractor applied source growth and control factors for locomotives, aircraft, and commercial marine vessels. These control factors accounted for federal standards for commercial marine vessels and locomotives. For the remaining non

- road mobile categories, the contractor ran our NONROAD 2004 model for 2018. This accounted for estimated growth in equipment populations and incorporated anticipated effects of most final federal standards, including the Tier 4 compression

- ignition engine standards and the exhaust

emissions s tandards for large spark

- ignition engines, compression

- ignition marine engines, and

land

- based recreational engines. The TCEQ and CENRAP also developed the on

- road mobile

72 TOG is total organic gas, which includes total hydrocarbons.

73 Appendix 7

- 2 of the Texas regional haze SIP: Integrated Planning Model Projections of Electric Generating U nit Emissions for the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan54

source emissions inventory for 2018 with contractor support. Biogenic emissions wer e held constant from the 2002 emission inventory.

All control strategies expected to take effect prior to 2018 are included in the projected emission inventory. See the CENRAP Modeling TSD for a summary and our review of how the 2018 emissions inventory was constructed. Texas’ 2018 emissions inventory is summarized in Table 20, based on information in Section 7.0 of the Texas regional haze SIP.

Table 20. Texas’ 2018 Emissions Inventory

CO NOx SO 2 TOG 74 PM 2.5 PM 10 NH 3

Area 899,497 274,663 114,138 1,420,681 354,712 1,557,089 562,379

Point 542,128 525,174 625,068 283,290 80,577 121,733 6,790

Non

- Road 1,921,674 167,451 6,988 119,855 10,588 11,498 239

On

- Road 2,710,631 148,387 2,925 125,234 5,337 5,337 32,191

Total 6,073,930 1,115,676 749,119 1,949,060 451,214 1,695,657 601,598

Methodologies used in developing the 2018 emissions inventory are documented in Appendix 7

- 1 of the Texas regional haze SIP and the technical support document for the CENRAP emission inventory development. CENRAP and the TCEQ used this and other state ’s 2018 emission inventories to construct visibility projection modeling for 2018

.

D.3.b. Visibility Projection Modelin g

Chapter 8

Chapter 8 of the Texas regional haze SIP discuss the modeling methods and protocol used by the TCEQ and CENRAP in developing the assessment. Chapter 7 describes the baseline and 2018 emission inventories used by the TCEQ. A detailed description and discussion of the model selection, modeling protocol, quality assurance, performance evaluat ion, emission inventory development and data used in the regional haze analysis can be found in the CENRAP Modeling

TSD and references therein . A short summary is provided below:

CENRAP performed modeling for the regional haze long

- term strategy for its member state s, including Texas. The modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the modeling system. CENRAP used the following modeling system :

 Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (PSU/NCAR) Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) is a

non

- hydrostatic, prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban

- and regional

- scale photoch emical, PM 2.5 , and regional haze regulatory modeling studies.

74 TOG is total organic gas, which includes total hydrocarbons.55

 Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of mobile, non

road mobile, area, point, fire and biogen ic emission sources for photochemical grid

models.

 Air Quality Model: Our Models

- 3/ Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through CENRAP with a module for Secondary Organics Aerosols (SOA) in an open and transparent manner that was also subjected to outside peer review. The Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) Version 4.40 model, applied using similar options as used by CMAQ, was used as a secondary corroborative model. CAMx was also utilized with its Particulate Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool to provide sou rce apportionment of predicted nitrate and sulfate aerosol concentrations.

CMAQ and CAMx modeling of regional haze in the CENRAP region for 2002 and 2018 was carried out on a grid of 36x36 kilometer (km) cells that covers the continental United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east

and west coasts. Selection of a representative period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes in emissions of visibility

- impairing pollutants. CE NRAP conducted an in

- depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of 2002 (January 1

- December 31) as the best period of meteorology available for conducting the modeling. The CENRAP states’ modeling, described

in Section 8 of the Texa s Regional Haze SIP, was developed consistent with our guidance. 75

, 76

CENRAP examined the model performance of the regional modeling for the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results were suitable for use in the regional haze

asses sment of the LTS and for use in the modeling assessment. The 2002 modeling efforts were used to evaluate air quality/visibility modeling for a historical episode

— in this case, for calendar year 2002

— to demonstrate the suitability of the modeling systems f or subsequent planning, sensitivity, and emissions control strategy modeling. Model performance evaluation is performed by comparing output from model simulations with ambient air quality data for the same time period to determine whether the model’s perf ormance is sufficiently accurate to justify using the model for simulating future conditions. In keeping with the objective of the CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated using graphical and

statistical assessments based on ambient measurements of PM species, gas

- p hase species and wet deposition from various monitoring networks and databases for the 2002 base year. CENRAP

75 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

- 454/B

- 07

- 002), April 2007, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final

- 03

- pm

- rh

- guidance.pdf

E missions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, August 2005, updated November 2005 (“ our Modeling Guidance”)

, located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA

- 454/R

- 05

- 001

76 Modeling protocol for the CENRAP 2002 Annual Emissions and Air Quality Modeling

, included as Appendix 8

- 2 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.56

used a diverse set of statistical parameters from our Modeling Guidance to stress and examine

the model and modeling inputs

. Once CENRAP determined the model performance to be acceptable, it used the model to determine the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year a ir quality modeling predictions , and compared the RPGs to the URP

. The modeling assessmen t predicts future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those on the URP. The results of CENRAP’s visibility projection modeling are discussed in the section that fol lows and in the CENRAP Modeling TSD

. 77

Visibility impairment in Class I areas is the result of local air pollution as well as transport of regional pollution across long distances. CENRAP used CAMx with its Particulate Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool to provide source apportionment by geographic region and major source category. A PSAT Visualization Tool was developed that can be used by

state s, Tribes and others to generate displays of the contributions of source regions and categories to visibility impairment for the average of the worst 20 percent and best 20 percent days at each CENRAP and nearby Class I areas. 78 The pollutants causing the highest levels of light extinction are associa ted with the sources causing the most visibility impairment.

D.3.b. i . Sources of Visibility Impairment in Big Bend National Park

Tables 21 and 22 summarize the modeled contributions to total extinction at Big Bend for each source category and species for 2002 and 2018, respectively. 79 Visibility impairment at Big Bend in 2002 on the worst 20% days is largely due to SO 4 from point sources that contributes

17.7 Mm

- 1 of the total extinction of 47.79 Mm

- 1 . The largest contributions of SO 4 come from Texas (5.50 Mm

- 1 from all source categories), boundary conditions outside the modeling domain (5.82 Mm

- 1 ) and Mexico (8.28 Mm

- 1 ). Overall, the largest source region contributions to visibility impairment in 2002 are from Mexico (12.75 Mm

- 1 ) , Te xas (11.87 Mm

- 1 ), and outside the modeling domain (12.27 Mm

- 1 ).

In 2018, Texas, Mexico and sources outside the modeling domain are projected to continue to contribute the most to visibility impairment at Big Bend. The 2018 projection shows the total

exti nction at Big Bend for the worst 20% days is estimated to be 44.06 Mm

- 1 , a reduction of approximately 8% from 2002 levels. Anticipated reductions of SO 4 emissions primarily from point sources in Texas, the E astern United States, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Alabama and Ohio

will account for a decrease of 2.73 Mm

- 1 in total light extinction (1.55 Mm

- 1 decrease from Texas point sources). Even with these expected reductions in SO 4 emissions from point sources in 2018, extinction due to point sources will conti nue to be the highest contributor to visibility impairment on the worst 20% days, accounting for over one third of the total extinction.

77 See the Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional
Haze SIP, included as Appendix 8

- 1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP for further detail on the modeling analyses performed by CENRAP.

78 Data downloaded from http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php

. And available in the docket for this action as CENRAP_PSAT_Tool_ENVIRON_Aug27_2007.mdb

79 The species contributing to visibility extinction at Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, shown on Tables 21, 22, 23 and 24, are the following: sulfate (SO 4 ), nitrate (NO 3 ), primary organic aerosols (POA), elemental carbon (EC), soil dust, and coarse mass (CM). These species’ precursors are SO 2 , NO

x , and in some cases, NH 3 and VOCs.57

Visibility impairment from all Texas sources will decrease by 1.90 Mm

- 1 , primarily due to expected re ductions from poi nt sources. Figure 6 below shows the CENRAP 2018 projection PSAT results in percent contribution to total extinction for each source region and each source type. Figu re 7 shows the percent contribution to total extinction from point sources in each

sourc e region. 80

Table 21 . Projected light extinction for 20% worst days at Big Bend Wilderness Area in 2002 (Mm

- 1 )

Total 1 Point Natural On

- Road Non

- Road Area

SO 4 26.10 17.70 0.02 0.28 0.45 1.82

NO 3 2.05 0.55 0.33 0.36 0.23 0.30

POA 5.81 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.83

EC 2.12 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.32 0.45

SOIL 2.54 0.28 1.14 0.01 0.00 1.00

CM 7.03 0.02 5.52 0.00 0.07 1.23

Sum 47.79 18.66 7.12 0.80 1.16 5.63

1 Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but

exclude contribution from Rayleigh scattering

Table 22 . Projected light extinction for 20% worst days at Big Bend Wilderness Area in 2018 (Mm

- 1 )

Total 1 Point Natural On

- Road Non

- Road Area

SO 4 23.00 15.15 0.01 0.04 0.20 1.84

NO 3 1.99 0.63 0.38 0.12 0.16 0.35

POA 5.61 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.67

EC 1.81 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.29

SOIL 2.54 0.32 1.13 0.01 0.00 0.97

CM 7.03 0.02 5.42 0.00 0.07 1.33

Sum 44.06 16.27 7.03 0.20 0.74 5.46

1 Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but

exclude contribution fro m Ra yleigh scattering

80 Data downloaded from http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php

. And available i n the docket for this action as CENRAP_PSAT_Tool_ENVIRON_Aug27_2007.mdb58 Figure 6 . 2018 projected percent contribution from all sources at Big Bend59 Figure 7

. 2018 projected percent contribution from point sources at Big Bend

D.3.b. ii

. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Guadalupe Mountains National Park

Tables 23 and 24 summarize the contributions to total extinction at Guadalupe Mountains for each source category and species for 2002 and 2018, respectively. Visibility impairment at

G uadalupe Mountains in 2002 on the worst 20% days is largely due to SO 4 from point sources and course material from natural and area sources. The largest contributions of SO 4 come from Texas (4.28 Mm

- 1 from all source categories), boundary conditions outside the modeling domain (1.90 Mm

- 1 ) and Mexico (3.21 Mm

- 1 ). Overall, the largest source region contributions to visibility impairment in 2002 are from Texas (16.62 Mm

- 1 ), New Mexico (3.49 Mm

- 1 ), Mexico (7.90 Mm

- 1 ), and source outside the modeling doma in (4.16Mm

- 1 ).

In 2018, sulfate and course material from Texas, Mexico, New Mexico and sources outside the modeling domain are projected to continue to contribute the most to visibility impairment at the Guadalupe Mountains. The 2018 projection shows th e total extinction at the Guadalupe Mountains for the worst 20% days is estimated to be 44.32Mm

- 1 , a reduction of approximately 7% from 2002 levels. Anticipated reductions of SO 4 emissions primarily from point sources in Texas, the E astern United States, Indiana, Alabama and Ohio will account for a decrease of 2.02

Mm

- 1 in total light extinction (0.68 Mm

- 1 decrease from Texas point sources). Even with these60

expected reductions in SO 4 emissions from point sources in 2018, extinction due to point sources

wi ll still be a significant contributor to visibility impairment on the worst 20% days, accounting for over one fourth of the total extinction. Visibility impairment from all Texas sources will decrease by 1.29 Mm

- 1 , primarily due to expected reductions fro m point sources. Figure 8 below

show s the CENRAP 2018 projection PSAT results in percent contribution to total extinction for each source region and each source type. Figure 9 shows the percent contribution to total extinction from point sources in each source region. 81

Table 2 3 . Projected light extinction for 20% worst days at Guadalupe Mountains in 2002 (Mm

- 1 )

Total 1 Point Natural On

- Road Non

- Road Area

SO 4 15.94 12.10 0.02 0.22 0.33 1.36

NO 3 3.67 1.09 0.40 0.79 0.55 0.52

POA 2.75 0.24 0.19 0.10 0.16 1.61

EC 1.19 0.01 0.04 0.15 0.34 0.51

SOIL 4.37 0.41 1.29 0.02 0.00 2.41

CM 16.04 0.19 7.75 0.02 0.39 6.60

Sum 47.80 14.05 9.68 1.31 1.76 13.00

1 Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but

exclude contribution from Rayleigh scattering

Table 2 4 . Projected light extinction for 20% worst days at Upper Guadalupe Mountains in 2018 (Mm

- 1 )

Total 1 Point Natural On

- Road Non

- Road Area

SO 4 13.65 10.11 0.02 0.03 0.10 1.40

NO 3 3.32 1.18 0.44 0.27 0.37 0.65

POA 2.38 0.29 0.15 0.05 0.13 1.30

EC 0.86 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.23 0.37

SOIL 4.37 0.51 1.29 0.02 0.00 2.31

CM 16.02 0.20 7.69 0.03 0.38 6.65

Sum 44.32 12.31 9.62 0.43 1.22 12.68

1 Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but

exclude contribution from Rayleigh scattering

81 Data downloaded from http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php

. And available in the docket for this action as
CENRAP_PSAT_Tool _ENVIRON_Aug27_2007.mdb61

Figure 8 . 2018 projected percent contribution from all sources at Guadalupe Mountains62

Figure 9 . 2018 projected percent contribution from point sources at Guadalupe Mountains

D.3.b. iii . Texas’ Contribution to Visibility Impairment in Class I Areas Outside the State

CAMx PSAT results were also utilized to evaluate the impact of Texas emission sources in 2002 and 2018 on visibility impairment at Class I areas outside of the state . Texas sources are modeled to have contributions to the Class I areas in a number of nearby state s . Tables 25 and 26 summarize the contribution from Texas emissions of sulfate, nitrate and total visibility degradation at nearby state s’ Class I areas for the 20% worst days in 2002 and 2018, as modeled by CENRAP and shown in Section 11.2 of the Texas regional haze SIP

, 82 and compares them to

the total extinction due to all emissions of sulfate and nitrate from all source regions. The contributions from Texas sources on total visibility impairment decreases from 2002 to 2018 at all impacted Class I areas shown in the tables below. Texas’ impacts on other Class I areas in these nearby state s are less than the impacts for the areas th at are shown in the tables below for

each state

. Figure 10 below is constructed from the data in Table 26.

82 See Appendix E of the Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze SIP, included as Appendix 8

- 1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP for PSAT modeling results63

Table 2 5

. Contribution from Texas Emissions to Visibility Impairment (Mm

- 1 ) at Class I areas on 20% Worst Days in 2002

Sulfate Nitrate Total

Class I area State Texas Total, all

source

areas Texas Total, all

source

areas Texas Total, all

source

areas

Salt Creek New Mexico 4.79 16.75 3.05 11.15 13.41 52.50

White Mountain New Mexico 2.78 10.51 0.53 3.05 7.40 32.91

Wheeler Peak New Mexico 0.76 5.27 0.22 1.64 1.85 21.96

Wichita Mountains Oklahoma 13.98 49.12 7.89 23.72 28.15 100.03

Great Sand Dunes Colorado 0.66 5.84 0.02 1.94 1.25 27.88

Rocky Mountains Colorado 0.30 7.69 0.08 5.17 0.58 32.13

Caney Creek Arkansas 11.55 87.05 1.49 13.78 14.89 133.93

Upper Buffalo Arkansas 4.41 83.18 0.27 13.30 5.19 131.79

Hercules

- Glades Missouri 3.48 87.94 2.56 17.91 6.59 140.05

Mingo Missouri 0.69 102.52 1.18 27.24 2.01 159.83

Breton Louisiana 3.55 96.83 0.15 8.29 4.20 123.9964

Table 26. Contribution from Texas Emissions (Mm

- 1) to Visibility Impairment at Class I areas on 20% Worst Days in 2018

Sulfate Nitrate Total

Class I area State Texas Total,

all

source

areas Texas Total, all

source

areas Texas Total, all

source

areas

Salt Creek New Mexico 3.50 13.75 2.43 9.81 10.24 46.67

White Mountain New Mexico 2.37 8.92 0.47 2.68 6.22 29.80

Wheeler Peak New Mexico 0.79 5.00 0.19 1.48 1.59 20.80

Wichita Mountains Oklahoma 9.68 33.33 6.08 18.10 20.79 75.56

Great Sand Dunes Colorado 0.65 5.32 0.02 1.83 1.11 26.77

Rocky Mountains Colorado 0.30 6.52 0.06 4.28 0.51 29.41

Caney Creek Arkansas 7.24 48.95 0.83 7.57 9.74 85.84

Upper Buffalo Arkansas 2.74 45.38 0.18 9.22 3.38 86.16

Hercules

- Glades Missouri 2.51 50.63 1.51 12.35 4.45 92.49

Mingo Missouri 0.53 54.45 0.64 19.14 1.28 99.24

Breton Louisiana 2.66 68.63 0.16 8.20 3.23 94.0665

Figure 10 . Projected 2018 total extinction and Texas contribution at Class I areas in Texas and

other states

EPA Findings :

We find that the record supports a finding that the TCEQ’s 2002 and 2018 emission inventory

are acceptable and that Texas has satisfied the requirement of Section 51.30 8 (D)(3)(iv) regarding identifying all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment consid ered by it in developing its long

- term strategy , and that it considered major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources,

and area sources.

However, as we discuss in Section IV.C . of the Federal Register notice for this proposed action, given the plai n language of the CAA , we believe Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires state s to consider the four factors used in determining reasonable progress in developing the technical

basis for both their own Class I areas and downwind Class I areas

. . This documenta tion is necessary so that the interstate consultation process can proceed on an informed basis

, and so

that downwind state s can properly assess whether any additional upwind emission reductions are necessary to achieve reasonable progress at their Class I areas

. Therefore, in determining its66

long

- term strategy under Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii), we believe that Texas had an obligation to conduct an appropriate technical analysis, and demonstrate through that technical analysis (required under (d)(3)(ii)), that it provided its fair share of emissions reductions to Oklahoma. In addition, we believe that Texas was required through consultation under Section 51.308(d)(3 ) (i) to provide a reasoned technical analys is, on which it based its long

- term strategy , to Oklahoma. The regulations further provide that :

The State must document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which the State is relying to determine its apporti onment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. States may meet this requirement by relying on technical analyses developed by the regional planning organization and a pproved by all State participants. 83

Thus, States may meet this requirement by relying on reasonable progress four

- factor analyses and associated technical documentation prepared by a regional planning organization on behalf

of its member States , to the ex tent that such analyses and documentation were conducted. If the technical analysis performed by the regional planning organization was missing, flawed, or incomplete, it could not be solely relied upon by a state when developing or documenting the

techni cal basis of its long

- term strategy. The technical data prepared through the regional planning organization process is typically designed to inform the member state s of their apportionment of the visibility impact at Class I areas, project future visibili ty conditions, and to provide high

- level information on potential control strategies to inform consultations and the

four

- factor analysis necessary to establish RPGs. These analyses may require additional refinements by the state s in development of their regional haze SIPs to address impacts and potential controls of specific sources or source categories. As we discuss in Sections V.C., and

V.E.2 of the Federal Register notice

, the TCEQ recognized that some aspects of CENRAP’s technical analyses were limi ted because it supplemented that analysis with its own. It used this analysis to inform its decision not to control any additional sources, including those that impact the visibility at the Wichita Mountains and other Class I areas in other state s. For the reasons discussed at length in Section V.C.2 of the Federal Register notice and Section B.2 above , we believe this analysis was inadequate and did not provide the information necessary to determine

the reasonableness of controls at those sources in Tex as that significantly impact visibility at the

Wichita Mountains or other Class I areas

. Based on CENRAP data and information shared during consultations, included in the record, the ODEQ and the TCEQ had evidence of some potential controls at certain EGU s in Northeast Texas that were estimated to be cost

- effective even according to the TCEQ’s own cost threshold and would result in large emission reductions within the source type and region with the largest projected impacts at Wichita Mountains

. The ODEQ and the TCEQ were also aware of additional large emission sources in Texas that should

have been further evaluated for potential controls. Although both the ODEQ and the TCEQ had

abundant evidence that Texas coal fired EGUs had a significant impact on th e visibility at Oklahoma and Texas Class I areas, the development of this technical information by either party did not progress to the point where the impacts of individual sources could be determined or to the point where the information on cost

- effectiv e controls identified for some sources could be

refined from a high level state

.

83 40 C.F.R. Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii).67

Consequently, we find that the record supports a finding that Texas did not adequately address the requirements in Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) to “document the technical basi s, including modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which the state is relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.”

To determine whether additional controls were reasonable in Texas, we believed it necessary to undertake a cost/control and visibility analysis which is presented in our FIP TSD. In the FIP
TSD, w e provide detailed information concerning which sources within Texas are the largest contributors to the visibility degradation at the Wichita Mountains and at other Class I areas, and

w hich sources we believe have cost

- effective controls

.

D.4

. Consideration of Long Term Strategy Factors: 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)

As required by Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)

, Texas must consider, at a minimum, the following factors in developing its long

- term strategy :

(A) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including

measures to address RAVI ; (B) Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (C) Emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal; (D) Source retirement and replacement schedules; (E) Smoke management techniques for agricultural and for estry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (F) Enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (G) The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the long

- term strategy

.

State Submittal :

Chapter 11

Texas’ long

- term strategy incorporates emission reductions due to a number of ongoing air pollution control programs. This includes enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, administrative orders, the issuance and enforcement of permits limiting emissions

from a ll known major sources in Texas state ru les which specifically limit targeted emissions sources and categories, and several other ongoing air pollution control programs. The TCEQ has promulgated rules in order to administer these programs. These rules govern the TCEQ’s permitting process, incl uding PSD and BACT requirements, and implementation of federal requirements. The TCEQ also has promulgated rules that limit emissions in order to comply

with the NAAQS , which have ancillary benefits of visibility improv ements . Other air pollution

control programs, including federal mobile emissions programs, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, Maximum Achievable Control Technology, and Refinery Consent Decrees are implemented by TCEQ, have similar ancillary benefits of visibility improvements

.68

The TCEQ addr esses the long term strategy LTS factors in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A)

- (G) as

follows:

D.4.a. Reductions due to ongoing air pollution programs

The Texas long

- term strategy incorporates emission reductions due to a number of ongoing air pollution control programs, which are summarized below.

Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR )

Texas implements CAIR . See the Federal Register notice for this proposed action for a

discussion of CAIR and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).

Mobile Source Emissions

Texas implements a number of federal and state rules related to mobile source emissions, which are summarized in Appendix 11

- 2 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP, and include:

• Federal Phase II reformulated gasoline Dallas

- Fort Worth and Houston

Galveston

- Brazoria.

• Tier 2 vehicle emission standards and federal low

- sulfur gasoline

• National low emissions vehicle standards (NLEV)

• Heavy

- duty diesel standards

• Lawn and garden equipment

• Tier 2 heavy

- duty diesel equipment

• Locomotive engine standards

• Compression ignition standards for vehicles and equipment

• Recreational marine engine standards

• Texas Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs

• The Low Income Vehicle Re pair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program

Point Source NOx Emissions

Texas implements some major point sources NOx rules, which are summarized in Appendix 11

- 3 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP, and include:

• Texas Senate Bill 7, which required emission reductions at EGUs built before Texas BACT emission control requirements went into effect in 1972. This bill required a 50% reduction in NOx from 1997 levels and a 25% reduction in SO2 for 1997 levels by May 1, 2003 at grandfath ered EGUs.

• NOx emission reductions related to ozone SIP revisions for the Houston

Galveston

- Brazoria area, Beaumont

- Port Arthur area, Austin, Northeast Texas,

and East Texas.69

Miscellaneous Programs

• SO2 reductions under EPA refinery consent decrees

• Texas Low Emissions Diesel (TxLED) Program to reduce pollutants from diesel engines

• Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) to reduce NOx and PM emissions by encouraging older road and non

- road engine replacement.

• Rules to control opacity and sulfur e missions, such as 30 TAC Chapters 111 and

112.

• Texas Best Available Control Technology (BACT ).

The TCEQ states that the FLMs for Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, or other Class I areas that are impacted by emissions from Texas sources, have not identified any Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) caused by Texas sources. Consequentl y, Texas does not have any measures in place or a requirement to implement RAVI.

D.4.b. Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities

Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) requires that Texas consider measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities in developing its long

- term strategy. The TCEQ notes that State Rule 30 TAC 111.145, Construction and Demolition, requires precautions to control dust emissions from construction operations and other activities. 84 It also notes tha t water pollution control requirements to prevent pollution from storm runoff and mud and dirt tracked from construction sites reduces the amount of fine soil material suspended in the air from traffic in these areas. The TCEQ determined that no additiona l measures were needed to mitigate the impacts of construction activities for purposes of visibility improvement.

D.4.c. Emissions limitations and schedules for compliance

Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) requires that in developing its long

- term strategy, Te xas consider emissions limitations and schedules of compliance to achieve the RPGs. No newly adopted source specific measures were identified to achieve the RPGs established by Texas. The TCEQ determined that implementation of existing and ongoing contro l measures are adequate to achieve the RPGs established by it and other CENRAP state s.

D.4.d. Source retirement and replacement schedules

Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) requires that Texas consider source retirement and replacement schedules in developing its long

- term strategy. Retirement and replacement schedules were taken into account, to the extent possible, when developing inputs for the IPM that was used in the CENRAP modeling analysis. Units that the TCEQ knew were going to be shut down under

enf orceable actions at the time the modeling was performed were removed from the future year emission inventory.

84 A pproved into the S IP on January 18, 1994, at 59 FR 02532.70

D.4.e. Smoke management techniques

Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires that Texas consider smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes in developing its long

- term strategy. The TCEQ examined the data and modeling for the worst 20% days at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains and determined that smoke from agricultural burning and wildfires in Texas are not a large contributor to visibility impairment at these Class I areas. The TCEQ also determined that agricultural burning and wildfires in Texas are not significant contributors to visibility impairment at Class I areas in nearby state s. Because of the relat ively low contribution of smoke from Texas to visibility impairment, Texas decided that certifying a smoke management plan as part of this SIP revision was unnecessary. The Texas Forest Service (TFS) coordinates fire and smoke management issues in Texas a nd have developed a voluntary plan under which all land managers in Texas, including the National Park Service, inform the TFS prior to performing prescribed burns. Texas also has an outdoor burning rule (30 TAC Chapter 111, subchapter B) 85

that includes r equirements for allowable prescribed burning. Texas counties also have the authority to prohibit open burning in times of drought. Appendix 11

- 1 of the Texas Regional

Haze SIP provides information on the following smoke management plans and the outdoor

b urning rule:

 Texas Wildfire Protection Plan

 Texas Forest Service Smoke Management System

 30 TAC Chapter 111, Subchapter B: Outdoor Burning

 Big Bend National Park Fire Management Plan

 Guadalupe Mountains National Park Fire Management Plan

 Big Thicket National Preserve Fire Management Plan

 Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park Fire Management Plan

 Padre Island National Seashore Fire Management Plan

 San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Fire Management Plan.

The TCEQ found that the current rules, policies, and plans (including smoke management plans of the NPS and other federal agencies) are adequate to meet the long

- term strategy.

D.4.f. Enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures

Sectio n 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) requires that Texas ensure the enforceability of emission limitations and control measures used to meet RPGs. The TCEQ has rules in place to ensure the enforceability of its emission limitations. This includes rules that govern TCEQ’ s permitting process for major and minor sources, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions,

and BACT. The TCEQ has the authority to issue permits to all major and minor point sources in Texas, as they are currently defined at 30 TAC Ch. 11 6. Each permit must contain enforceable limitations on emissions of various defined pollutants, including those which cause or contribute to regional haze at the Texas Class I areas and Class I areas in other state s. The TCEQ included

information describ ing their legal authority and applicable laws in the submitted Texas regional

haze SIP fol lowing the executive summary.

85 A pproved into the SIP on April 28, 2009

, at 74 FR 19144

.71

D.4.g. The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in emissions

Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(G) requires that in de veloping its long

- term strategy, Texas consider the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the long

- term strategy. In developing its regional haze SIP, the TCE Q relied on the CENRAP’s 2018 modeling projections. As described above, CENRAP used its 2002 emissions inventory as the starting point for its 2018 emissions inventory. The 2018 emissions inventory was designed to capture the anticipated changes in point , area, and mobile sources emissions over the period addressed by the long

- term strategy.

EPA Finding :

For the reasons describe above in this section, we find the following:

We believe that the record supports a finding that Texas has satisfied Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A), regarding the consideration of emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment.

We believe that the record supports a finding that T exas has satisfied Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B), regarding measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities.

We believe the record supports a finding that Texas has not satisfied this requirement under Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C), regarding emissi ons limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPGs for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. Please see the technical

disc ussion we present in Section B and Section V.C. of the Federal Register notice regarding the development of the Texas R PGs, as the TCEQ applied the same technical basis to the development of its long

- term strategy. As with its RPGs, we believe the record supports a finding that this analysis is inadequate as it does not provide the information necessary to

determine the r easonableness of controls at those sources in Texas that significantly impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains.

We believe the record supports a finding that Texas has satisfied Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D), regarding sources retirement and replacement s chedules.

We believe the record supports a finding that Texas has satisfied Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E), regarding smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these p urposes.

We believe the record supports a finding that Texas has satisfied Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F), regarding the enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures.

As we discuss in Section E , we believe the record supports a finding that the TCEQ has met its obligation to develop a statewide inventory of emissions , including future projected emissions

. We believe that these projected changes in emissions were adequately implemented in CENRAP’s 2018 modeling, and therefore believe the rec ord supports a finding that Texas has72

satisfied Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(G )

.

E. Monitoring Strategy/Other SIP Requirements 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)

Texas must submit with the SIP a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within it. This monitoring strategy must be coordinated with t he monitoring strategy required in Section 51.305 for reasonably attributable visibility impairment. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments network. The SIP must al so provide for the following:

(i) The establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I Federal areas within Texas are being achieved.

(ii) Procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within Texas to regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside

the state

.

(iii) For a sta te with no mandatory Class I Federal areas, procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of

emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas in o ther state s.

(iv) The SIP must provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the

state . To the extent possible, Texas should report visibility monitoring data electronically.

(v) A statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, emissio ns for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected

emissions. The state must also include a commitment to update the inventory periodically.

(vi) Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measu res, necessary to assess and report on visibility.

State Submittal

Chapter 6 and 7

As Section 51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this requirement may be met through73

participation in the IMPROVE network, which applies to the monitor s at the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains

. The TCEQ stated its intention to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring requirement in our Regional Haze Rule for the current and future regional haze implementation periods. The primary monitoring network for regional haze in CENRAP is the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. FLMs responsible for Class I areas joined us in 1985 in response to the 1977 CAA Amendments to form the IMPROVE Program. The IMPROVE Steering Committee consists of representatives from the FLMs, us, and regional

- state agencies At the direction of the National Park Service, the Cooperative Institute f or Research in the Atmosphere, at Colorado State University’s Foothills Campus in Fort Collins, Colorado, maintains the network plan on the

IMPROVE Internet Web site. 86 The primary objectives of the IMPROVE Web site are to provide federal, state, and air q uality regulatory agencies as well as the general public access to IMPROVE data, data products, and metadata fully describing the IMPROVE database, including characteristics and history of all network sites. The w eb site allows users to query data, review reports, and communicate with different members of the IMPROVE Program.

Section 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires the establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state are being achieved

. Section 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that TCEQ establish procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within Texas to regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the state

. The IMPROVE program provides an IMPROVE monitor at each of the two Class I areas in Texas, Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. Because of their locati on, the monitors are appropriate for determining progress in reducing visibility impairment in the Texas Class I areas. The monitoring strategy relies on continuation of IMPROVE monitoring at these sites. The TCEQ plans to continue to participate in the IM PROVE network through the financial support of the EPA. The IMPROVE monitoring program is national in scope, and other states have similar monitoring and data reporting procedures, ensuring a consistent and robust monitoring data collection system.

Section 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that the SIP must provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each mandatory Class I Federal area in

the state . To the extent possible, Texas should report visibi lity monitoring data electronically. Section 51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that TC EQ provide for other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility. Again, Texas’ participation in the IMP ROVE network ensure the monitoring data is reported at least annually

and is available for download from the site referenced above.

Section 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that TCEQ maintain a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably an ticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected

e missions. The TCEQ must also include a commitment to update the inventory periodically.

Please refer to Section D.3

, above, where we discuss how the TCEQ has constructed its emission inventory. The TCEQ discusses updat ing the Texas statewide emissions inventories periodically

86 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/74

and review periodic emissions information from other states and future emissions projections in

Section 6.5, Chapter 7 and Appendix 7

- 1 of the T exas R egional H aze SIP

. Texas also presents

the 2005 emission inv entory, the most recent data available at the time of SIP submittal , in Appendix 7

- 1.

EPA Findings

We find that the submittal supports a finding that Texas has satisfied the requirements of section 51.308(d)(4).

F. Best Available Retrofit Technology (B ART) Requirements: 40 CFR 51.308(e)

F. 1

. Identification and Analysis of BART: 40 CFR 51.308(e)( 1 )

– ( 4 )

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for regional haze visibility impairment. Texas must submit a SIP containing identifying all potential BART eligible sources, determine if sources screen out or are subject to BART and include emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART for each BART eligible source that may reasonably be anticipat ed to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area, unless it demonstrates that an emissions trading program or other alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions.

T he evaluation of whether the Texas Regional Haze SIP contains “adequate emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART for each BART eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area” is conducted within different modeling approaches to screen groups or individual sources as further discussed in the BART TSD for each BART eligible source based on visibility impacts.

State Submittal and EPA Findings

Texas promulgated, and submitted, rule sections that add engineering and control requirements

for BART on certain affected sources. Texas’s BART rules are codified at 30 TAC 116.1500

– 116.1540 and were included in the TX RH SIP in Appen dix 9

- 2. The rules establish definitions, applicability, exemptions, BART, and exemption from BART to implement the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e).

We propose to approve the provisions in Texas’s BART rules at 30 Tex. Admin. Code (TAC)

116.1500

– 116.1540, with the exception of 30 TAC 116.1510(d)

. Please refer to the BART

TSD for a detailed explanation of the TCEQ’s BART analyses submittal and our analysis of it. In summary, we find that:

 Texas has satisfied Section 51.308(e)(1)(i), regarding th e identification of all BART

eligible sources within the state

.

 Texas has satisfied Section 51.308(e)(1)( i i), regarding the determination of BART.

 S ection s 51.308(e)(1)( i i i )

– (v) , regarding alternatives to BART emission limits, the75

installation of BART not later than 5 years from approval, and the maintenance of BART control equipment, do not apply, since no sources were determined to be subject to

BART.

 Sections 51.308(e)(2)

– (3) concernin g the use of a trading program or other alternative to BART are not applicable to this SIP.

 W e propose a FIP to replace Texas’s reliance on CAIR in 30 TAC 116.1510(d) with

reliance on CSAPR

. See below, in our BART TSD and the Federal Register notice for

d etail ed explanation of Texas’ reliance on CAIR for SO2 and NOx BART for BART

eligible EGUs under Section 51.308(e)(4)

We propose to approve Texas’ determination of which sources in the State are BART

- eligible. We also propose to approve Texas’ determination that none of the State’s BART

- eligible non

EGUs are subject to the BART requirements because they are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I areas. We propose to approve the provisions

in Te xas’s BART rules at 30 Tex. Admin. Code (TAC) 116.1500

– 116.1540, with the exception of 30 TAC 116.1510(d), which relies on CAIR. With respect to EGUs, we previously issued a limited disapproval of the Texas regional haze SIP due to Texas’ reliance on CAI R to satisfy the BART requirements. This action does not impact the limited disapproval.

F.1.1 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i)

Texas must submit a SIP containing a list of all BART

- eligible sources within the State.

Note: This section is intended to cover the general question of whether the state identified which sources were subject to BART. Subsequent sections treat this determination in more detail.

State Submittal Texas’s BART rule, 30 TAC 116.1500 and 116.1510 , and companion definitions related to the

BA RT rule, implement the BART requirements of our regional haze rule 51.308(e)(1)(i) . The Texas BART rule sets out the criteria for identifying BART

- eligible sources and incorporates by reference the guidelines contained in Appendix Y to 40 C.F.R. Part 51. TCEQ identified sources that were BART eligible if they: belonged to one of twenty

- six industry source categories (see list below) ; did not operate before 7 August 1962 but were in existence on 7 August 1977 . The final test for inclusion is based on poten tial to emit 250 tons per year or more of any visibility

impairing pollutant in 51.308(e)(1)(i)

. TCEQ determined that the visibility

- impairing pollutants in Texas include sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). As a result of CENRAP modeling, TCEQ concluded that ammonia was not a significant visibility

- impairing pollutant. TCEQ did not have a good database of sources with potential emissions, so they relied on the annual emission data that point sources provide on actual emissions and identified sources as BART eligible if actual emissions were 80% or more of the 250 tpy threshold. TCEQ also used a distance threshold from EPA’s two model plants and modified the 50km/500tp y and 100km/1000 tpy. TCEQ used the distance of each county to a Class I to determine whether to include a source on the BART eligible list. TCEQ used actual emissions and 80% of the applicable threshold test. If the Class I area was less than 500 km fr om the county they used a 200 tpy actual emissions threshold, 500

– 1000 km they used a 400 tpy actual emissions threshold, and for beyond a 1000 km they used76

800 tpy actual emissions threshold. While TCEQ’s use of actuals differs with the use of potentia l emissions, we think the use of 80% and the model plant thresholds is acceptable and conclude that TCEQ has adequately identified all BART eligible sources. TCEQ initially determined which sources were BART eligible by screening its emissions inventory d atabase to identify major facilities with emission units in one or more of the BART categories:

1. Fossil

-

fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units (BTU) per hour heat input,

2. Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers),

3. Kraft pulp mills,

4. Portland cement plants,

5. Primary zinc smelters,

6. Iron and steel mill plants,

7. Primary aluminum ore reduction plants,

8. Primary copper smelters,

9. Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day,

10. Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants,

11. Petroleum refineries,

12. Lime plants,

13. Phosphate rock processing plants,

14. Coke oven batteries,

15. Sulfur recovery plants,

16. Carbon black plants (furnace process),

17. Primary lead smelters,

18. Fuel conversion plants,

19. Sintering plants,

20. S econdary metal production facilities,

21. Chemical process plants,

22. Fossil

-

fuel boilers of more than 250 million BTUs per hour heat input,

23. Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000
barrels,77

24. Taconite ore processing facilities,

25. Glass fiber processing plants, and

26. Charcoal production facilities.

TCEQ then sent surveys to all the identified sources to obtain or confirm pertinent data and information. These emissions units comprise the “BART

- eligible sources” listed in Table 2 of

t he TX BART TSD.

EPA Findings

We propose to approve that TCEQ has adopted regulations to meet and implement the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i). We find that TCEQ has adequately identified all BART

eligible sources within the State. For full det ails and our review see Section B of the TX BART

TSD.

F.1.2 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i i )

A determination of BART for each BART

- eligible source in Texas that emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area. All such sources are subject to BART.

State Submittal Texas’s BART rule, 30 TAC 116.1500, 116.1510 and 116.1520 , and companion definitions related to the BART rule, implement the BART requirements of our regional haze rule 51.308(e)(1)(ii)

. Chapter 9 of TCEQ’s SIP included TCEQ’s analysis of all the BART eligible

sources visibility impacts at Class I areas in Texas and surrounding states. TCEQ used a number of different approaches that included CAMx or CALPUFF modeling to assess the impacts and determined that all sources were below the screening level and did not cause or contribute to impair ment of visibility in any mandatory Class I area and thus were screened out from full BART applicability/analysis.

EPA Findings We propose to approve that TCEQ has adopted regulations to meet and implement the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). We find that TCEQ has adequately screened out all

BART

- eligible sources within the State. For full details and our review see Sections C, D, E, and F of the TX BART TSD.

BART Determination: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)( A )

The determination of BART must be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each

BART

- eligible source that is subject to BART within the State. In this analysis, the State must

take into consider ation the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visi bility which78

may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.

State Submittal

TCEQ did not identify any BART eligible sources that required a BART determination.

EPA Findings We concur with TCEQ’s conclusions.

BART for Larger Fo ssil Fuel Power Plants: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B)

The determination of BART for fossil

- fuel fired power plants having a total generating capacity greater than 750 megawatts must be made pursuant to the guidelines in appendix Y of this part (Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule).

State Submittal

TCEQ screening of primary PM2.5 emissions did not identify any BART eligible sources that required a BART determination under this provision.

EPA Findings We concur with TCEQ’s con clusions.

De Minimis BART: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(C)

Texas is not required to make a determination of BART for SO 2 or for NOx if a BART

- eligible source has the potential to emit less than 40 tons per year of such pollutant(s), or for PM10 if a

BART

- eligible source has the potential to emit less than 15 tons per year of such pollutant.

State Submittal

TCEQ utilized t hese minimum emission levels in screening of sources. No sources were identified as subject to BART analysis, so this provision was not utilized.

EPA Findings We concur with TCEQ’s conclusions.

F.1.3 Design, Equipment, or Work Practice BART: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iii)

Texas’s BART rule, did not include this specific provision.

State Submittal

Not Applicable

- TCEQ did not prescribe a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, or combination thereof, as BART

.79

EPA Findings

Not Applicable.

F.1.4 Installation of BART: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)

– (v)

Each source subject to BART must (1) install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the SIP revision, and (2) maintain the control equipment required by this subpart and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained.

State Submittal

Texas ’s BART Rule, 30 TAC 116.1530(a) , requires that “each BART

- eligible source subject to BART shall install and operate BART no later than five years after EPA approves the Texas Regional Haze SIP.” 30 TAC 116.1530(b) of the RH SIP requires that sources shall obtain appropriate permits bef

ore installing BART controls.

EPA Findings

We propose to approve that TCEQ has adopted regulations to meet and implement the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)

- (v). We note that TCEQ did not find any sources subject to BART. We find that TCEQ ha s demonstrated it has the authority and enforceable mechanisms in place to ensure each source subject to BART will (1) install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the SIP revision, and (2) maintain the control equipment required by this subpart and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained.

F.2 Alternate Emission Trading Program : 40 CFR 51.308(e)( 2 )

- (3)

Texas’s BART rule, did not include this specific provision.

State Submittal

Not Applicable

.

EPA Findings

Not Applicable.

F. 3 . CAIR for BART: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) Texas also promulgated, and submitted, rule sections that add engineering and control requirements for BART on certain affected sources. Texas’s BART rules are codified at 30 TAC

116.1500

– 116.1540. The rules establish definitions, applicability, exemptions, BART, and exemption from BART. On September 22, 2006, we provided substantive comments on Texas’80

proposed BART rules. 87 I n its final adoption of the rules, the TCEQ adequately addressed all of our comments. However, at the time of our comments, CAIR had not yet been vacated by the D.C. Circuit. One provision in Texas’s BART rule, 30 TAC 116.1510(d), provides an exemption

f rom BART based on CAIR. Specifically, it states “BART

- eligible electric generating units participating in the Clean Air Interstate Rule Trading Program are not subject to the requirements

of Section 116.1520 or Section116.1530 of this title for NO X and SO 2 .” 88 W e have already issued a limited disapproval of the Texas regional haze SIP for its reliance on CAIR. However,

we determined that CSAPR provides for greater reasonable progress towards the national goal

than would BART and Texas is included in CSAPR for NO X and SO 2 . Therefore, o ur proposed FIP to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on the trading programs of CSAPR as an alternative to BART includes a FIP to replace Texas’s reliance on CAIR in 30 TAC 116.1510(d)

with reliance on CSAPR

.

Our propos ed regional haze FIP relies on the already promulgated CSAPR FIP for Texas at 40

CFR 52.2283

- 84 to satisfy the BART requirement for SO 2 and NOx emissions from EGUs. We more fully explained the basis for our limited disapproval in that rulemaking and are no t taking comment on our limited disapproval of Texas’ regional haze SIP in this action.

Background

- Our Prior Limited Disapproval of Texas’ Regional Haze SIP Concerning

CAIR In 2005, we promulgated CAIR, which required 28 States and the District of Colum bia to reduce

emissions of SO 2 and NO X that significantly contribute to, or interfere with maintenance of, the 1997 NAAQS for ozone and PM 2.5

. 89 Also in 2005, we determined that States could rely on CAIR to meet certain requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. 90 In particular, we amended our regulations to provide that States participating in the CAIR cap

- and

- trade programs under 40 CFR part 96 pur suant to an EPA

- approved CAIR SIP or States that remain subject to a CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected BART

- eligible EGUs to install, operate and

maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. 91 A number of States, including Texas, relied

o n CAIR in their regional haze SIPs as an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX and as an element of their long

- term strategy.

Following our determination in 2005 that States could rely on CAIR in their regional haze SIPs,

the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on several petitions challenging CAIR and remanded

CAIR to us. 92 We issued a new rule in 2011 to replace CAIR. 93 The Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which replaced CAIR, also requires a number of States to improve air quality by reducing SO2 and NOX emissions that cross State lines and significantly contribute to ozone and/or fine particulate pollution in other States. We amended our regulations in 2012 to allow

CSAPR to serve as an alternative to SO2 and NOX BART for EGUs in States in the CSAPR

87 See Letter from Thomas Diggs, EPA, to Lola Bro wn, TCEQ (Sept. 22, 2006), attachment W

- 16 in the TCEQ’s
March 19, 2009, SIP s ubmittal.

88 30 TAC 116.1510(d).

89 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).

90 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).

91 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (Aug. 6, 2012 ).

92 North Carolina v. EPA , 531 F3d 896 ; modified by 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

93 76 FR 48208 (Aug

. 8, 2011).81

region. 94 In that same rulemaking, we also finalized a limited disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of 14 States, including Texas. Although at the time that we completed our limited disapproval of these SIPs, CAIR remained in place pu rsuant to an order of the D.C. Circuit, we explained that as CAIR had been remanded, it remained in place temporarily. We also finalized FIPs replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR as an alternative to BART for several

States but not for Texas. 95 We more fully explained the basis for our limited disapproval in that rulemaking and are not taking comment on our limited disapproval of Texas’ regional haze SIP

in this action.

F. 4

. Reasonable Progress and BART: 40 CFR 51.308(e)(5)

After a state has met the requirements for BART or implemented emissions trading program or other alternative measure that achieves more reasonable progress than the installation and operation of BART, BART

- eligible sources will be subject to the requirements of paragraph (d)

of this section , regarding reasonable progress and LTS, in the same manner as other sources.

State Submittal

As described in Section B above, the TCEQ analyzed a number of sources for additional reductions under Section 51.308(d), including Texas EGUs that have met the BART requirements through participation in CAIR. Texas determined that no source subject to BART

should be further controlled for r easonable progress or LTS.

EPA Findings

For the reasons we have discussed in the Section s above and in other TSDs , we find that TCEQ did not adequately a d dress certain portions of Section 51.308(d), in part, because we do not

believe the affected BART so urces were properly analyzed for inclusion within Texas’ LTS and

hence its RPGs and Oklahoma’s RPG

.

F.5 BART: 40 CFR 51.308(e)( 6 )

Any BART

- eligible facility subject to the requirement under paragraph (e) of this section to install, operate, and maintain BART may apply to the Administrator for an exemption from that requirement. An application for an exemption will be subject to the r equirements of §51.303(a)(2)

- (h).

Note: This provision of the regional haze rule was not used by TCEQ in the preparation of its

RH SIP.

G. 2018 Regional Haze SIP Revision: 40 CFR 51.308(f)

Each state identified in Section 51. 300(b)(3),which includes Texas , must revise and submit its regional haze SIP revision to EPA by July 31, 2018 and every ten years thereafter. In each SIP

94 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).

95 77 FR 33642, 33643 . (June 7, 2012)82

revision, Texas must evaluate and reassess all of the elements required in paragraph (d) of this section, taking into account improvements in monitoring data collection and analysis techniques, control technologies, and other relevant factors. In evaluating and reassessing these elements,

Texas must address the following:

(1) Current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days, and actual progress made towards natural conditions during the previous implementation period. The period for calculating current visibility conditions is the most recent five year period preceding the required date of the SIP su bmittal for which data are available. Current visibility conditions must be calculated based on the annual average level of visibility impairment for the most and least impaired days for each of these five years. Current visibility conditions are the

ave rage of these annual values.

(2) The effectiveness of the LTS for achieving reasonable progress goals over the prior implementation period(s); and

(3) Affirmation of, or revision to, the reasonable progress goal in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. If Texas established a

RPG for the prior period which provided a slower rate of progress than that

needed to atta in natural conditions by the year 2064, it must evaluate and determine the reasonableness, based on the factors in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section, of additional measures that could be adopted to achieve the degree of visibility improvement projecte d by the analysis contained in the first SIP described in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section.

State Submittal

TCEQ acknowledged this requirement in Chapter 12 of their Regional Haze SIP.

H. Five Year Progress Report : 40 CFR 51.308(g)

Each state identified in Section 51. 300(b)(3), which includes Texas , must submit a report to the Administrator every 5 years evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within it and in each mandatory Cla ss I Federal area located outside it which may be affected by emissions from within it. The first progress report is due 5 years from submittal of the initial SIP addressing paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. The progress reports must be in the form of SIP revisions that comply with the procedural requirements of Section 51.102 and Section 51. 103. Periodic progress reports must contain at a minimum the following elements:

(1) A description of the status of implementation of all measures included i n the SIP for achieving reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas both

within and outside Texas

.

(2) A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout Texas through83 implementation of the measures described in paragraph (g)(1) o f this section.

(3) For each mandatory Class I Federal area within Texas , it must assess the following visibility conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and least impaired days expressed in terms of 5

- year averages of these annual values.

(i) The current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days;

(ii) The difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions;

(iii) The change in visibil ity impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5 years;

(4) An analysis tracking the change over the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within Texas

. Emissions changes should be identified by type of source or activity. The analysis must be based on the most recent updated emissions inventory, with estimates projected forward as necessary and appropriate, to account for emissions changes during the app licable 5

- year period.

(5) An assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or

outside Texas that have occurred over the past 5 years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility.

(6) An assessment of whether the current SIP elements and strategies are sufficient to

enable Texas , or other state s with mandatory Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from it, to meet all established reasonable progress goals.

(7) A review of T exas’ visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the

strategy as necessary.

State Submittal

The TCEQ acknowledged this requirement in Chapter 12 of their Regional Haze SIP. TC EQ

submit ted the first five

- year report i n March 201 4

. We are not including our analysis of this SIP within this proposed action.

I. Existing SIP Adequacy Determination : 40 CFR 51.308(h)

At the same time Texas is required to submit any 5

- year progress report to us in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, it must also take one of the following actions based upon the information presented in the progress report:

(1) If Texas determines that the existing SIP requires no further substantive revision84 at this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, it must provide to the Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of the existing SIP is not needed at this time.

(2) If Texas determines that the SIP is or may be inadequate to ensur e reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in another state (s) which participated in a regional planning process, it must provide notification to the Administrator and to

the other state (s) which participated in the regional planning process with the

state s. Texas must also collaborate with the other state (s) through the regional planning process for the purpose of developing additional strategies to address the plan’s deficiencies.

(3) Where Texas determines that the SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in another country, it shall provide notification, along with available information, to the Administrator.

(4) Where Texas determines that the SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources within the state , the state shall revise its SIP to address the plan’s deficiencies within one year.

State Submittal

TCEQ acknowledged this requirement in Chapter 1 2 of its Regional Haze SIP. TCEQ submit ted

the first five

- year report required by Section 51.308(g) March 2014

. We are not including our analysis of this SIP within this proposed action.

J. Federal Land Manager Coordination : 40 CFR 51.308(i)

(1) By November 29, 1999, TCEQ must identify in writing to the Federal Land Managers the title of the official to which the Federal Land Manager of any mandatory Class I Federal area can submit any recommendations on the implementation of this subpart includin g, but not limited to:

(i) Identification of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area(s);

and

(ii) Identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring strategy required by Section 51.305 and this section.

(2) Texas must provide the Federal Land Manager with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on a SIP (or plan revision) for regional haze required by this subpart. This consultation must include the opportunity for the affected Federal Land Managers to discuss their:

(i) Assessment of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area; and85

(ii) Recommendations on the development of the reasonable progress goal and on the development and im plementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.

(3) In developing any SIP (or plan revision), Texas must include a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the Federal Land Managers.

(4) The SIP (or SIP revision) must provi de procedures for continuing consultation between

Texas and Federal Land Manager(s) on the implementation of the visibility protection program required by this subpart, including development and review of SIP revisions and

5

- year progress reports, and on t he implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

State Submittal

Chapter 4, Appendix 2

- 2, Appendix 4

- 3(g)

Under Section 51.308(i)(2), Texas was obligated to provide th e Park Service with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding a public hearing on its regional haze SIP. In practice, state environmental agencies have usually provided all federal land

managers

– the Forest Service, the Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, copies of their regional haze SIP, as the federal land managers collectively have reviewed these regional haze SIPs. The TCEQ followed this practice and sent its draft of this implementation plan

revis ion to the federal land manager staff. The federal land managers were provided a comment period of from November 16, 2007, through January 16, 2008. Their comments were provided to the public 30 days prior to the public hearing, which the federal land ma nagers were notified of, and which occurred on February 19, 2008.

Section 51.308(i)(3) requires that the TCEQ provide in its regional haze SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the federal land managers. The TCEQ has provided t hat information in Appendix 2

- 2 of its regional haze SIP.

Lastly, Section 51.308(i)(4) specifies the regional haze SIP must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and federal land managers on the implementation of the visibility protection program required by Section 51.308, including development and review of implementation plan revisions and 5

- year progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in the mandatory Class I

Federal areas.

The TCEQ acknowledges the requirement that FLMs must be consulted in the following instances: development and review of implementation plan revisions; review of five

- year progress reports; and development and implementation of other programs that may contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas in Section 4.1 of the Regional Haze SIP.

EPA Findings

Big Bend National Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park are managed by the National86

Park Service , which is the Federal Land Manager (FLM) for this Class I area. Although the FLMs are very active in participating in the RPOs, the Regional Haze Rule grants the FLMs a special role in the review of the Regional Haze SIPs. We view both the FLMs a nd the state environmental agencies as our partners in the regional haze process.

We acknowledge that Section 51.308(i)(1) has been satisfied by all states via communication prior to this SIP.

We find that the TCEQ has satisfied the requirements of Sec tion 51.308(i)(2)

- (3) by providing the FLMs with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on its Regional Haze SIP, and the TC EQ has addressed the FLM comments in

its SIP.

W e find that TCEQ has satisfied Section 51.308(i)(4) by acknowledging the requirement to
continue consultation between it and the FLMs on the implementation of the visibility protection program required by Section 51.308(i), including development and review of SIP revisions and

5

- year progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.