# Region 6 “State of the Ozone” Report for 2014

June 11, 2015

Mark Sather EPA Region 6 Ai r Quality Analysis Section

# Acknowledgements

 

# Many thanks to Jason Smith and Diana Grei ner (RCRA) f or the construction of the GIS maps in this presentation.

 

# Additional thanks to Alan Shar, Carrie Paige and Kathleen Ai sling for their va luable input on the Midlothian NO x 

# trends graphic.

## Purple: + 14 areas Blue: + 24 more areas Gray: + 8 more areas

# In 2014 the DFW a rea met the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard, and the Houston area also went back under the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard. Tulsa, OKC, Little Rock, and Crittenden Co., AR all went under the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard in 2014. San Antonio remained over the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard in 2014. 97- 99 98- 00 99- 01 00- 02 01- 03 02- 04 03- 05 04- 06 05- 07 06- 08 07- 09 08- 10 09- 11 10- 12 11- 13 12- 14



# Ye **ar s**  60 70 80 90 100 110 120**p p** **b** 

# 8- hour

O zo ne Tr ends

Ho ust on DF W El P aso Ba to n Ro uge OK C Tul sa Al buquer

que Li ttle R ock Be aum ont Cr itte nden Co ., A R Sa n An to ni o Oz ar k NF Bi g Be nd NP 1997 st andar d (8 4 ppb) 2008 st andar d (7 5 ppb) 

# Se le ct R egi on 6 Ci tie

s; 3 -y ear ru nni ng desi gn val ues

## 99- 01 00- 02 01- 03 02- 04 03- 05 04- 06 05- 07 06- 08 07- 09 08- 10 09- 11 10- 12 11- 13 12- 14 

# Ye **ar s**  60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86**p p** **b** 

# 8- **hour O**  **zone Co**  **ncent ra**  **tio n**  **Tr ends**  **(D esi**  **gn Val**  **ues)**
**T**

**rib al**  **S ite**  **s, O**  **K**

Ch er okee Ta hl equah Ch er okee St ilw

el l Ch er okee Pr yor Qu apaw T ri bal De la wa re T ri bal NAAQ S Ch er okee Ne wk ir k Ch er okee Ro la nd

2008 8- hour

o zone Na tio nal A mb ie nt A ir Q ual ity S ta ndar d (N AAQ S) = 7 5 p pb
De si gn Val ues = 3-

year a ve ra ge of a nnual 4 th h ig hest 8 -h our o zone dai ly

m axi ma

# Houston continued to meet the old 1

- hr 124 ppb standard with a design value of 1 11 ppb for the 2012

– 2014 time period. 97- 99 98- 00 99- 01 00- 02 01- 03 02- 04 03- 05 04- 06 05- 07 06- 08 07- 09 08- 10 09- 11 10- 12 11- 13 12- 14



# Ye **ar s**  90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210**p p** **b** 

# 1- hour O zo ne Tr ends
Se le ct R egi on 6 Ci ti es ; 3

-y ear ru nni ng des

ig n val ues

Ho

ust on DF W El P aso Bat on Ro uge Beaum ont ol d 1- hour

s ta ndar d (1 24 ppb)

# Baton Rouge Long

**- term VOC and NO**  **x** 

# Concentration **Trends**

**June**

**- August weekday;**  **5**

**- 8**  **AM LST for NO x**  

# ; **3**

**- 9**  **AM LST for 3**

**- hour integrated**  **canisters** For 2014, TNMOC, propane, n
- butane and

propylene concentrations declined, while ethane and ethylene increased in concentration. NO x 

# concentrations in 2014 were similar to 2013, remaining lower

.

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

## Year 0 10 20 30 40 50**p p** **b** 

### Bat **on Rouge**  **Me**

**an Mo**  **rn in**  **g NOx**  **C oncent**  **ra tio**  **ns**

Capi to l Por t A lle n 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

## Ye **ar** 0 10 20 30 40**p p** **b C** 



## 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400**t n** **m o** **c (** **p p** **b C** **)**



### tn mo c et hyl ene pr opyl ene
n- but ane et hane pr opane 

### Bat **on Rouge**  **Ca**

**pi to**  **l M ean**  **Mo rn**  **in g**  **VOC Concent** 

**ra tio**  **ns**

# Beaumont Long

**- term VOC and NO**  **x** 

# Concentration Trends **June**

**- August weekday;**  **5**

**- 8**  **AM LST**

Long

- term NO x 

# concentrations have significantly declined. VOC concentrations have generally declined from 2010

- 2014 at the Downtown site, and from 201 1

- 2014 at the Nederland site. 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

### Year 0 10 20 30 40 50**p p** **b C** 



### 0 100 200**t n** **m o** **c (** **p p** **b C** **)**

tn mo c et hyl ene propyl ene n-but ane et hane propane **Be aum**  **ont D**  **ow nt**  **own Me**  **an Mo**  **rn in**  **g VOC**  **Concent**

**ra tio**  **ns**

07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

## Ye **ar** 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100**p p** **b C** 



## 0 100 200 300 400 500 600**t n** **m o** **c (** **p p** **b C** **)**

tn mo c et hyl ene pr opyl ene
n- but ane et hane pr opane **Be aum**  **ont N**  **eder la**  **nd Me**  **an Mo**  **rn in**  **g VOC**  **Concent**

**ra tio**  **ns**

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

### Year 0 10 20 30**p p** **b Be**  **aum ont**  **M ean**  **Mo rn**  **in g**  **NOx C**  **oncent ratio**  **ns**

Do wn to wn Ne der la nd Ha ms hi re Or ange Sabi ne Pass NOy

# El Paso Long

**- term VOC and NO**  **x** 

# Concentration **Trends**

**June**

**- August weekday;**  **5**

**- 8**  **AM LST**

Long

- term VOC and NO x 

# concentrations have significantly declined, although VOC concentrations have generally gradually increased since 2010, except for ethylene which has continued to decrease. 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

## Ye **ar** 0 10 20 30 40 50 60**p p** **b**



### UTEP 

### El **P aso**  **Me an**  **Mo rn**  **in g**  **NOx C**  **oncent ratio**  **ns**

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

## Year 0 10 20 30 40**p p** **b C** 



## 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400**t n** **m o** **c (** **p p** **b C** **)**



### tn mo c et hyl ene propyl ene n-but ane et hane propane 

### El **P aso**  **Cha mi**  **zal M**  **ean Mo**  **rn in**  **g VO**  **C Co**  **ncent ra**  **tio ns** 

# Houston Long

**- term VOC and NO**  **x** 

# Concentration **Trends**

**June**

**- August weekday;**  **5**

**- 8**  **AM LST**

VOC concentrations have been increasing at the Deer Park and Clinton Drive sites since 201 1, but NO x 

# concentrations at the long

- term sites remained lower in 2014, except for an uptick at the Clinton Drive site. 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

## Year 0 10 20 30 40 50**p p** **b C** 



## 0 100 200 300 400**t n** **m o** **c (** **p p** **b C** **)**

tn mo c et hyl ene pr opyl ene
n- but ane et hane pr opane **Houst on**  **De er**  **P ar**  **k Me**  **an Mo**  **rn in**  **g VO**  **C Concent** 

**ra tio**  **ns**

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

### Ye **ar** 0 10 20 30 40**p p** **b C** 



### 0 100 200 300**t n** **m o** **c (** **p p** **b C** **)**

tn mo c et hyl ene pr opyl ene
n- but ane et hane pr opane **Houst on**  **Cl in**  **to n**  **Dr iv**  **e Me**  **an Mo**  **rn in**  **g VOC**  **Concent**

**ra tio**  **ns** 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

## Ye **ar** 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100**p p** **b** 

### Houst **on Me**  **an Mo**  **rn in**  **g NOx**  **C oncent**  **ra tio**  **ns**

Cl in to n Dr iv e Al di ne Lang Ma e Dr iv e

# DFW Long

**- term VOC and NO**  **x** 

# Concentration **Trends June** 

**- August weekday;**  **5**

**- 8**  **AM LST**

VOC concentrations (alkanes only) have increased at the Dallas Hinton site since 2011. At the Fort Wo rth Meacham site, TNMOC and alkane concentrations declined in 2014 after generally increasing since 2009. NO x 

# concentrations continued to decrease in 2014 at all three long

- term area monitoring sites. 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

### Ye **ar** 0 10 20**p p** **b C** 



### 0 50 100 150**t n** **m o** **c (** **p p** **b C** **)**

tn mo c et hyl ene propyl ene n-butane et hane propane **Dal la**  **s Hi**  **nt on**  **Me an**  **Mo rn**  **in g**  **VOC Concent** 

**ra tio**  **ns**

03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

### Ye **ar** 0 10 20 30 40**p p** **b C** 



### 0 50 100 150**t n** **m o** **c (** **p p** **b C** **)**

tn mo c et hyl ene pr opyl ene
n- but ane et hane pr opane **For t W**  **orth Me**  **acham M**  **ean Mo**  **rn in**  **g VOC**  **Concent**

**ratio ns**  86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

## Year 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70**p p** **b** 

### DFW **M ean**  **Mo rn**  **in g**  **NOx C**  **oncent ratio**  **ns**

Hi nt on Me acham Nu est ra D riv e

# 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14



# Year 0 5 10 15 20 25**p p** **b** 

# Midlothian NOx Concentration Trends

5-8 AM LST w eekday June-August means

Four older kilns at TXI idled late 2008 (permanently shut down in 2010); One kiln at Holcim idled in 2009

Two older kilns at Ash Grove shut down; Holcim applying for new NOx controls permit June 15, 2004: effective date of DFW nonattainment designation for 1997 8

- hour ozone standard; Holcim SNCR 12/05H- L H- CL H- CH H- H H- W H- MP H- DP H-

CV H- D H-

TC H- LJ B- N B- D BR- C BR- PL BR- D BR- PR D- H D- DE D- DI D- ME D- EF D- UTA D- JB D- EM

L D- K D- R D- FM D- E D- G D- BL D- M SA- F EP- C 

# Si te 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660SumMIRxppbC 

# Ci **ty C**  **om pa**  **ri son**  **of m**  **ean V**  **OC Re**  **act iv**  **ity (**  **28- 30**  **sp eci**  **es exam** 

**in ed**  **pe r**  **ci ty**  **)**
Ho us to n, B eaum ont , B at on Ro uge, D al la s- For t W or th , S an An to ni o, E l P as o

Su mme r (J une- August ) w eekday 5-

8 AM L ST (B at on Ro uge si te s sum me r w eekday 3-

9 AM L ST 3- hour

c ani st er s)



# 2014 data

Houston

– purple Beaum ont

– ye llow Baton Rouge

– dark blue DFW

– green San Antonio

– light blue El Paso

– brown
Red outline = oil/gas compounds dom inate

# City Comparison of Mean VOC Reactivity

**Top 3 Species**

 

# Houston: All HRVOC, dominated by ethylene and propylene, and no alkanes in top 3.

 

# Beaumont: Alkanes at Nederland si te, combi nati on of HRVOCs and is opentane at Dow ntown si te.

 

# Baton Rouge: ethylene, propylene and isoprene.

 

# DFW : reacti ve VOCs at ci ty si tes, but at low er concentrati ons than Houston; alkanes at Barnett Shale sites, dominated by ethane, propane and n

- butane.

 

# San A ntoni o: n

- butane, propane, is opentane

.

 

# El Paso: ethylene, propylene and toluene, but at low er concentrati ons than Houston.

# Long

**- term Temperature Trends**  **June**

**- August; 5 AM** 

**– 7**  **PM LST**

DFW a nd Houston high tem peratures were significantly b elow the long

- term average in 2014, while Baton Rouge recorded a third consecutive y ear below the long

- term average. El Paso recorded near long

- term average amounts of high degree (i.e. >= 90 deg ) day s in 2013 and 2014



# . 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 Ye ar 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70%oftotal



### 80 85 90 95MeanTemp.(deg.F)

% Hour ly T em p. > = 90 deg. F Long-t er m avg. T > = 90 deg. F Me an Tem p. (d eg. F ) **For t W**  **or th**  **M eacham**  **A mb**  **ie nt**  **T em**  **per at**  **ur e** 



### 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 Ye ar 0 10 20 30 40 50 60%oftotal



### 80 85 90 95MeanTemp.(deg.F)

% Hour ly T em p. > = 90 deg. F Long-t er m avg. T > = 90 deg. F Me an Tem p. (d eg. F ) **Houst on**  **Al di**  **ne Amb** 

**ie nt**  **T em**  **perature** 

### 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Ye ar 0 10 20 30 40 50%oftotal



### 80 82 84 86 88 90MeanTemp.(deg.F)

% Hour ly T em p. > = 90 deg. F Long- term a vg. T > = 90 deg. F Me an Tem p. (deg. F

) **Ba to**  **n Rouge**  **Ca**

**pi to**  **l A mb**  **ie nt**  **T em**  **per at**  **ur e** 



### 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 Ye ar 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70%oftotal



### 80 85 90 95MeanTemp.(deg.F)

% Ho url y T em p. > = 90 deg. F Long-t erm a vg. T > = 90 deg. F Me an Temp. (d

eg. F ) **El P**  **aso UT**  **EP Amb**  **ie nt**  **T em**  **per at**  **ur e** 

# Long

**- term Wind Speed**  **Trends June** 

**- August; 5 AM** 

**– 7**  **PM LST**

There was less stagnation in 2014 compared to 2013 in DFW

. Mean wind speeds have generally b een rising in Houston since 2006. El Paso mean wind speeds have generally

b een falling since 2011. Baton Rouge m ean wind speeds have generally s tay ed level since 2006



# . 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 

### Year 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100**% o** **f t** **o t** **a l** 

0- 4 mp h 5- 9 mp h
>= 10 mph

me an rw s (m ph) 

### 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9**m e** **a n** **r w** **s (** **m p** **h )**  **For t W**  **or th**  **M eacham**  **H our**  **ly R**  **esul ta**  **nt W**  **in d**  **Speed Pr** 

**of ile** 

82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 

### Year 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100**% o** **f t** **o t** **a l** 

0-4 m ph 5-9 m ph
>= 10 mp

h

me an rw s (m ph) 

### 0 1 2 3 4 5 6**m e** **a n** **r w** **s (** **m p** **h )**  **Houst on**  **Al di**  **ne Hour** 

**ly R**  **esul ta**  **nt W**  **in d**  **Speed Pr** 

**of ile**  93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 

### Ye **ar** 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100**% o** **f t** **o t** **a l** 

0-4 m ph 5-9 m ph
>= 10 mp

h

me an rw s (m ph) 

### 0 1 2 3 4 5 6**m e** **a n** **r w** **s (** **m p** **h )**  **Bat on**  **Rouge Capi**  **to**

**l H our**  **ly R**  **esul ta**  **nt W**  **in d**  **Speed Pr** 

**of ile** 

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 **Year** 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100**% o** **f t** **o t** **a l** 

0-4 m ph 5-9 m ph
>= 10 mp

h

me an rw s (m ph) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8**m e** **a n** **r w** **s (** **m p** **h )**  **El P**  **aso Hour** 

**ly R**  **esul tan**  **t W in**  **d Speed**  **Pr**

**of ile** 

# State **of the Ozone Report for Region 6, 2014 Highlights**

 

# At the end of 2014 there were 3 areas in Region 6 not attaining the 2008 75 ppb 8

**- hour**  **ozone standard, down from 13 areas in 2013.**

 

# Houston continued attaining the old 1

**- hour ozone standard (124 ppb) with a 2012** 

**- 2014**  **design value of 111 ppb.**

 

# NO **x** 

# precursor concentrations either continued to decrease, or remained at lower levels, **in all of the cities, but VOC concentrations continued to increase in Houston. Total VOC, including alkane concentrations from signature oil/gas VOC compounds, decreased in**  **2014 at the Fort Worth Meacham site after increasing since 2009.**  **NO x**  

# concentrations at **the Midlothian site in the SE DFW area have significantly declined over the long**

**- term.** 

 

# Houston has the highest overall VOC reactivity, followed by Beaumont, Baton Rouge, **DFW, San Antonio and El Paso. In DFW, the second highest VOC reactivity site is Decatur, located in the Barnett Shale oil/gas production area, due to an abundance of alkane**  **concentrations. The Floresville VOC site in the Eagle Ford Shale south of San Antonio is similar to the Decatur VOC site in the Barnett Shale in terms of VOC concentrations**  **and reactivity.** 

 

# Summer daytime high ambient temperatures (i.e. # hours > 90 deg. F) in 2014 continued **to stay below average in Baton Rouge and were significantly below average in DFW and Houston. Less stagnant winds were recorded in DFW in 2014,**  **while Houston’s wind speed distribution in 2014 was similar to 2013.** 

# Region 6 Air Program **Topics of Concern**

 

# San Antonio 8

**- hour ozone concentrations rising from the 2008** 

**- 2010**  **time period to the 2012** 

**- 2014**  **time period, going over the 8**

**- hour ozone standard from 75 ppb (08** 

**- 10) to 80**  **ppb (12**

**- 14).** 

 

# VOC concentrations, generally the common alkane compounds ethane, propane and **n -**  **butane, rising in El Paso from 2010**

**- 2014,**  **rising in Houston from 2011**

**- 2014,**  **and rising at the Dallas Hinton site from 2011** 

**- 2014.**  **These compounds are not highly reactive VOCs such as ethylene and propylene, but they can still react with sufficient amounts of NO**  **x** 

# to **form ozone.**