Buddy Garcia, Chairman Larry R. Soward, Commissioner Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Commissioner Mark R. Vickery, P.C., Executive Director 

## RtiEi'kE.L~ - l;i'F,~ 

## AIR PLAPY'IBIFiG SEC 

## O9PIRR30 

## PM 1: I-1


# TEXAS COMMISSION ON 

# ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution March 19,2009



### Docket No. 2007-1539-SIP Project No. 2007-016-SIP-NR

Docket No. 2006-0228-RUL Project No. 2006-022-116-EN

Lawrence E. Starfield Acting Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

## - Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Dear Mr. Starfield:

On February 25, 2009, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) adopted a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address visibility impairment due to regional haze in Class 

### I federal
areas. 

### In addition, on January 10, 2007, the Commission adopted rules to add new sections to Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution by Pennits for New Construction or Modification. These new rule sections add engineering and control requirements for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) on certain affected sources and are intended to fulfill a regional haze plan requirement under the Federal Clean Air Act and federal rules.

The Commission adopted these SIP revisions to meet the requirement of Federal Clean Air Act section 169A that Texas submit a plan to make reasonableprogress in reducing visibility impairment at Class 

### I federal areas, including Big Bend and GuadalupeNational Parks, resulting from anthropogenicair pollution.

Enclosed are the proposed revisions to the SIP, adopted rules, public hearing certifications, a complete record of the public hearings, and the accompanying orders. 

### I look forward to your expeditious approval of these SIP revisions. Sincerely,

Buddy ~arcia' 

### I Chairman

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor of Texas Mr. Toby Baker, Office of Budget, Planning and Policy, Office of the Governor Mr. Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

P.O. Bos 13087 

# . Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

# . 512-239-1000 Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx us

li llllill ll ill ll l ll 1 111- (1 8 1 1111

### THE STATE OF TEXAS 

## 6

COUNTY OF TRAVIS 

## 6

This is to certify that the attached are true and correct copies of documents for a revision to the Texas

State Implementation Plan, adopted on February 25, 2009, pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 

## 6 51.104. 

### I am the records administrator for the Air Quality Division of the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (Commission).



# F Susana M. 

### Hildebrand,P.E. Director, Air Quality Division Texas Commissionon EnvironmentalQualityTexas Commission on Environmental Quality Public Hearing February 19,2008 Concerning Revisions to the State Implementation Plan to Address Visibility Impairment Due to Regional Haze in Federal Class IAreas Rule Project No. 2007-016-SIP-NR
Volume 1 of 2INTRODUCTION

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) held a public hearing inAustin, on February 19, 2008, to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP)to meetthe requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) 169A and 169Baddressing visibility impairment due to regional haze in Federal Class I areas.

These revisions implement Federal Clean Air Act requirements to make reasonable progress in reducing visibility impairment at Class I Federal areas, including Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, resulting from anthropogenic pollution.

The comment period closed on February 22, 2008. All testimony and comments have been reviewed and seriously considered. This hearing record, which istwovolumes, contains a complete
record of the public hearing and is divided into the following four sections:

Volume 1:

0 Public Notification and Proposal

0 Evaluation of Testimony

0 Staff Recommendations/Order

Volume 2:

o Written and Oral Testimony

Additional copies of this hearing record are maintained inthe TCEQ central office at 121 00 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. Forfurther information, please contact Margaret Earnestat (512)239-

4581.

# PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PROPOSALPUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notificationto the public of the proposed revisionswas conducted by the following procedures:

1. Publicationof notice of public hearing in the following newspapers on the date listed: Alpine Avalanche, December21,2007 Austin American-Statesman, December21,2007 

### El Paso Times, December 21,2007 

### El Paso 

### Y Mas, December 22,2007 Fort Worfh Star-Telegram, December 21,2007 Houston Chronicle, December 21, 2007 Midland Reporfer-Telegram, December 21,2007



### 2. Publication of the Public Hearing Notice in the December 21, 2007, issue of the Texas Register (32 TexReg 9843).



### 3. Correspondence forwardingthe notice of public hearing to the following officials and agencies: Speaker of the House Lieutenant Governor Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town Alamo Area Council of Governments Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Caddo Indian Tribe of Oklahoma Capital Area Planning Council Central Regional Planning Organization Cherokee Nation Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma Chickasaw Nation Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Citizen Potawatomi Nation City of Beaumont, Mayor's Office City of El Paso City of Victoria Planning Department Comanche Nation of Oklahoma Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Dallas Department of Environmental and Health Services Dallas Department of Aviation Delaware Nation (West) East Texas Council of Governments Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Eastem Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Eight Northern Indian Pueblo Council El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization Federal Highway Administration Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Fort Worth Environmental Management DepartmentGalveston County Health District Houston Department of Health and Human Services Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services Houston-Galveston Area Council Inter-Tribal Environmental Council of Oklahoma Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Jefferson County Judge Jena Band of Choctaw lndians Jicarilla Apache Nation Kaw Nation Kialegee Tribal Town Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma Mescalero Apache Tribe Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma Muscogee Creek Nation North Central Texas Council of Governments Okhay Owingeh Osage Nation Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Oklahoma Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of lndians of Oklahoma Ponca Tribe of lndians of Oklahoma Pueblo of Acoma Pueblo of Conchiti Pueblo of lsleta Pueblo of Jemez Pueblo of Laguna Pueblo of Nambe Puebloof Picuris Puebloof Pojoaque Pueblo of San Felipe Pueblo of San lldefonso Pueblo of Sandia Pueblo of Santa Ana Pueblo of Santa Clara Pueblo of Santo Domingo Pueblo of Taos Pueblo of Tesuque Pueblo of Zia Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma Sac & Fox Nation Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma Shawnee Tribe South East Texas Regional Planning Commission Texas Department of Transportation Texas Transportation Institute Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Tonkawa Tribe of lndians of Oklahoma Tunica-Biloxi lndians of Louisiana United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee lndians of Oklahoma Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Wyandotte Nation Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas Zuni Tribe Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology Kansas Department of Health and Environment Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality New Mexico Environmental Department Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality National Parks Service Land Managers U. S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Land Managers U.S. Forest Service Federal Land ManagersExample of Newspaper Classified Ad
Austin American-Statesman, December21, 2007

The Texas Commission on Environmenlal Quality (commission or TCEQ) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions lo the state implementation plan (SIP) to meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). ~110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll). 169A and 1690 addressing visibility impairment due to regional haze in Federal Class I areas. The proposed revisions reference existing conlrol strategies to reduce haze causing emissions in Texas, as well as reference the state's participation in the Federal BeslAvailable

The proposed revision demonstrates the federal requirements towards reasonable progress in reducing visibility impairment at Federal Class I areas, including Big Bend and Guadalupe.Mountains Nalional Parks, resulting from man-made pollution. If adopled, the proposed revisions would lulfill Texas' obligation under sections 169A and 1698 of the Federal Clean Air Act to submit a SIP revision to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There is no associated rulemaking with this SIP revision. A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin, on February 19, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., at TCEQ's Austin Headquarters Office, 12100 Park 35 Circle, B~iilding E. Room 201-5. The hearing will be structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Registration will begin 30 minutes prior to the hearing. Individuals may present orai statements when called upon in order of registration. There will be no open discussion during the hearing; however, TCEQ staff will be available to answer questions on the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing. A summary of the Federal Land Managers' conclusions and recommendations on the proposed SIP revision, if any, will be available after
commission's hffp://www.tceq.state.~.us/implementat~odair/s~p/Ho~op.html. Persons who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the Air Quality Division at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. Comments may be submitted to Margaret Earnest, MC 206. Air Quality Division, Chief Engineer's Office, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. or faxed to (512) 239-5687. Eiectronic comments may be submitted at www5.tceq.sfate.k.us/ruledemmmentsl. File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the ecomments system. All comments pertaining to the proposed Regional Haze SIP revision should reference Project Number 2007-016-SIP-NR. The comment period closes on
tceq.state.tx.us/implemsntatIo~aIr/sip/baNha~e~sip.htmf. For further

### Example of 

### Newspaper Classified Ad

El Paso YMas, December 22,200

>re&i6n, 31f,.ia ;la &encici "is2f'r-mbe fiGibnq-zdra'l 'k(iiabarnb7efit&-de 910s :@$Jiggi$db+~ lihah!~u~~#lAihj @k"tf

rnasoaodd;jb$Ta. f&Gi6ri 'SIP ~-i-la~2?.~eniiaAJ< YP ;o-t:e c C-ib n d.e.1Legal Services, Texas Com-



### . Box 13087, Austin, Texas Electronic comments may be itted through the ecomments e Project Number 2007-036-

TRD-200706196 Robert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Divisio Texas Commission on Environment I Quality Filed: December 7, 2007 

# I

Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to the State Implementation Plan The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission or TCEQ) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) to meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), Q 1lO(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 169A and 169B addressing visibility impairment due to regional haze in Federal Class I areas. The proposed revisions reference existing control strategies to reduce haze causing emissions in Texas, as well as reference the state's participation in the Federal Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) process and the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The proposed revision demonstrates the federal requirements towards reasonable progress in reducing visibility impairment at Federal Class I areas, including Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, resulting from man-made pollution. If adopted, the proposed revisions would fulfill Texas' obligation under sections 169A and 169B of the Federal Clean Air Act to submit a SIP revision to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There is no associated rulemaking with this SIP revision. A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin, on February 19, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., at TCEQ's Austin Headquarters Office, 12100Park 35 Circle, Building E, Room 201-S. The hearing will be structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Registration will begin 30 minutes prior to the hearing. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. There will be no open discussion during the hearing; however, TCEQ staff will be available to answer questions on the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing. 4 summary of the Federal Land Managers' conclusions and recommendations on the proposed SIP revision, if any, will be available after January 18, 2008. Notification of the availability of this information will be posted on the commission's web site at http://www.tceq.s tate.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/Hottop. html. Persons who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the Air Quality Division at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. Comments may be submitted to Margaret Earnest, MC 206, Air Quality Division, Chief Engineer's Office, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-5687. Electronic comments may be submitted at www5.tceq.state.tx.us/rules/ecomments/. File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the ecomments system. All comments pertaining to the proposed Regional Haze SIP revision should reference Project Number 2007-016-SIP-NR. The comment period closes on February 22, 2008. Copies of the proposed revision may be viewed at the commission's web site at http://www.tceq.state. h.

us/implementation/air/sip/bart/haze-sip. html. For further information, please contact Margaret Earnest, Air Quality Planning Section, (512) 239-458 1.

Robert Martinez Director, Environmental Law Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Filed: December 11,2007

Notice of Water Quality ~~~1icJhorn The following notices were issued wing the period of November 20, 2007 through December 3, 2007. 

# P

NOTICE. INFORMATION SECTION



### IN ADDITION December 21,2007 32 

### TexReg 9843 AUC GROUP LP as applied fol Pollutant Discharge Elimination WQOO14724002, to authorize the d a new permit, proposed Texas System (TPDES) Permit No. scharge oftreated domestic waste-Buddy Garcia, Chairman Larry R. Soward, Commissioner Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Commissioner Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director 

# TEXAS COMMISSION ON 

# ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution



### NOTICE OF PUBLIC

### HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission or TCEQ) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) to meet the requirements of the Federal Clean 

### Air Act (FCAA), 

## 5 1 1 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 169A and 169Baddressing visibility impairment due to regional haze 

### in Federal Class 

### I areas. The proposed revisions reference existing control strategies to reduce haze causing emissions 

### in Texas, as well as reference the state's participation in the Federal Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) process and the Federal Clean 

### Air literstate Rule (CAIR).

The proposed revision demonstrates the federal requirements towards reasonable progress in reducing visibility impairment at Federal Class 

### I areas, including Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, resulting from man-made pollution. If adopted, the proposed revisions would fulfill Texas' obligation under sections 169A and 169B of the Federal Clean 

### Air Act to submit a SIP revision to the EPA. There is no associated rulemaking with this SIP revision.

A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin, on February 19, 2007, at 2:00 p.m., at TCEQ's Austin Headquarters Office, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building E, Room 201-S. The hearing will be structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Registration will begin 30 minutes prior to the hearing. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. There.wil1be no open discussion during the hearing; however, TCEQ staff will be available to answer questions on the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing. A summary of the Federal Land Managers' conclusions and recommendations on the proposed SIP revision, if any, will be available after January 18, 2008. Notification of the availability of this information will be posted on the commission's web site Jtttp://www. tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/Hottop. html.

Persons who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the Air Quality Division at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

Comments may be submitted to Margaret Earnest,MC 206, Air Quality Division, Chief Engineer's Office, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality,P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 7871 1-3087,or faxed to (512) 239-5687. Electronic comments may be submittedat www5.tceq.state.tx.us/rules/ecomments/. File size restrictionsmay apply to comments being submitted via the ecomments system. All comments pertaining to the proposed Regional Haze SIPrevision should reference Project Number 2007-016-SIP-NR. The comment period closes on February 22,2008. Copies of the proposed revision may be viewed at the commission's web site at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/bart/haze-sip. html. For further information, please contact Margaret Earnest, Air Quality Planning Section, (512) 239-458 1.

P.O. Box 13087 

# . Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

# . 512-239-1000 Internet address: ~~4w.tceq.state.tx.us

IREVISIONSTO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) CONCERNING REGIONAL 

### HAZE

TEXAS COMMISISON ON ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY P.O. 

### BOX 13087 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3087

PROJJ3CT NO. 2007-016-SIP-NR



### Proposed
December 5,2007

### SECTION

### VI. CONTROL STRATEGY

A. Introduction (No change.)



### B. Ozone (No change.)

C. 

### Particulate Matter (No change.)


### D. Carbon Monoxide (No change.)


### E. Lead (No change.)


### F. Oxides ofNitrogen (No change.)

G. Sulfur 

### Dioxide (No change.)



### H. Conformity with the National Ambient Air 

### Quality Standards(No change.)

I. Site 

### Specific (No change.)

J. Mobile Source Strategies (No change.)


### K. Clean Air Interstate Rule (No change.)


### L. Transport (Proposed.)

M. 

### Regional Haze (New.)

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and EPA regulations require states to submit SIPSto make "reasonable progress" in reducing visibility impairment at Class 1Federal areas resulting from anthropogenicpollution. FCAA, 169A(a)(l), "declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I 

### Federal
areas which impairment results from man-made airpollution." Class 

### I areas are national parks
over 6,000 acres and wilderness areas over 5,000 acres that Congress has recognized-at significant sites. These SIPSmust "contain such emission limits, schedulesof compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal" including requiring installation, operation, and maintenance of Best Available Retrofit Technology(BART), "as determined by the State" on certain existing stationary sources.
The EPA Regional Haze Rule strongly encourages statesto work together in regional partnershipsto reduce haze. There are five regional planning organizationsin the United States. Texas is a member ofthe Central Regional

### Air Planning Association (CENRAP), which includes nine states, Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri,Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota. CENRAP provides analysis, modeling results, and informational exchange among states,but each state submits its own regionalhaze SIP.

The FCAA, Section 169A and B require the EPA to adopt regulationsto reduce visibility impairment resulting "from man-made air pollution" in 156 Class I Federal areas. The regulationsrequire each state SIP to contain controlmeasures, including BART, to make reasonable progress toward the national goal ofnatural visibility conditionsby 2064 in all Class I
areas. The two Class I areas in Texas are Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. Each statebordering Texas has one or more Class I 

### Federal areas designated for visibility protection. Where Texas' emissions impact visibility in Class I 

### Federal areas in other states,the Texas SIP must include plans to reduce Texas' visibilityimpacts 

### in those areas too.
The EPA adoptedRegional Haze regulations in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, subpart

### P, on July 1, 1999,and adopted amendmentsto Subpart P and a new Appendix

### Y (BART guidelines) to Part 5 1 on July 6,2005.
The 1990FCAA Amendments together with EPA's Regional Haze 

### Rule set the goal of reducing "man-made" impacts on visibility in 

### Class I 

### areas to zero (i.e., to "natural" conditions)by 2064 for the worst 20 percent visibility days and preventing any degradationfor the best 20 percent visibility days. CENRAP and other Regional Air Planning Organizations have cooperated to calculate the base period (2000-2004)worst 20 percent and best 20 percent visibility for each Class 

### I area. CENRAP is contractingprojections of visibility impairment in 2018, 

### the initialyear for which each state's long-term strategy is to be evaluated. The statemust reduce its visibility impairment impact at all Class I 

### areas it impacts by as much as is reasonable. The formatof this 

### SIPrevision follows a prescribed template developed by the CEW states.
The TCEQ used a refined estimateof natural conditions for ClassI areas in Texas and other states
as permitted by EPA guidance. These refined estimates account for natural dust storms,which explain a significant number of impaired days at the Texas Class I 

### areas.
The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)program is expected to reduce regional haze impact. Followingthe legislature's statutory direction,the TCEQ adopted CARrequirements applicable to electricgenerating units in Texas. Interstatetrading of CAIR emission reduction credits makes theprediction ofCAIR's visibility improvement benefits uncertain for each Class I 

### area. Additionally, the commission adopted the requirements ofthe BART program, which requires certain older sources with a visibility impairment impact on a Class I 

### area to apply BART to the source to reduce its impact on a nearby Class I 

### area. This SIP revision contains a list of BART-eligible sources and the determination of BART for each source that is reasonably anticipated to contributeto visibility impairment (BART-subject).

Each state must evaluate and determine if additional emissions reductions are necessary. The statute and EPA rules and guidance set criteria for determining whether additional reductions are reasonable. These criteria are based on the cost of controls and other related factors. The TCEQ has determinedthat no additional controls will be implemented with this SIP revision.

Reductions at Big Bend are dependent upon reducing emissions from Mexico and Central America. The TCEQ specifically asks the EPA for federal efforts to reduce the international transport impacts on regional haze coming into the United States across Texas' southern border. CENRAP modeling estimates of the base period visibilityimpairment at the two Texas Class I
areas fiom the United States and foreign contributionsindicate 

### 52percent of the visibility impairment at Big Bend National Park and 20 percent ofthe visibility impairment at Guadalupe Mountains National Park on the worst 20 percent ofregional haze days comes fiom international transport. The preamble to the July 1, 1999, issuance ofthe Regional Haze Rule clearly says that states are not required to carry out compensatory overcontrol to make up for the lack of progress in reducing the impacts of international transport.

In conclusion, the TCEQhas implemented rules that limit and minimize emissions causing both local and regional visibility impairment. The Texas SIP includes numerous rules that minimize emissions that cause or contribute to local and regional visibilityimpairment. The TCEQ plans to continue to implement all these rules that protect visibility at Class I areas in Texas and other states.

### SECTION V: LEGAL AUTHORITY

A. 

### General The TCEQ has the legal authority to implement, maintain and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to control the quality of the state's air, includingmaintaining adequate visibility.

The first air pollution control act, known asthe Clean

### Air Act of Texas, was passed by the Texas Legislature in 1965. In 1967,the Clean Air 

### Act of Texas was supersededby a more comprehensivestatute, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), found in Article 4477-5, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. The Legislatureamended the TCAA in 1969, 197 1, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1987,1989,1991,1993,1995,1997,1999,2001,2003 and 2005. In 

### 1989,the TCAA was codified as Chapter 382 of the TexasHealth & 

### SafetyCode. Originally, the TCAA stated that the TexasAir ControlBoard (TACB) is the state air pollution control agency and is the principal authonty in the state on matters relating to the quality of air
resources. In 1991,the Legislature abolished the TACB effective September 1, 1993,and its powers, duties,responsibilities and functions were transferred to the Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission (TNRCC). With the creation of the TNRCC, the authority over air quality is found in 

### both the Texas Water Code and the TCAA. Specifically, the authority of the TNRCC is found in Chapters 5 and 7. Chapter 5, SubchaptersA

# - F, 

### H 

### - J, 

### and L, include the general provisions, organization and general powers and duties of the TNRCC, and the responsibilities and authority of the Executive Director. This Chapteralso authorizes the TNRCC to implement actionwhen emergency conditions arise and to conduct hearings. Chapter7 gives the TNRCC enforcement authority. 

### In 2001, the 77thTexas Legislaturecontinued the existence of the TNRCCuntil September 1,2013,and changed the name of the TNRCC to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

The TCAA specifically authorizesthe TCEQ to establish the levelof qualityto be maintained in the state's air and to control the quality of the state's air by preparing and developing a general, comprehensive plan. 33eTCAA, Subchapters

### A 

## - D, also authorize the TCEQ to collect information to enable the commission to develop an inventory of emissions; conduct research and investigations; enterproperty and examine records; prescribe monitoringrequirements; institute enforcement proceedings; enter into contracts and executeinstruments; formulaterules; issue orders taking into considerationfactors bearing upon health, welfare, social and economic factors, and practicabilityand reasonableness; conduct hearings; establish air quality control regions; encouragecooperation with citizens' groups and other agenciesand political subdivisionsof the 

### state 

### as well as with industries and the Federal Government; and establish and operate a system of permits for construction or modification of facilities. Local government authority is found in 

### Subchapter

### E ofthe TCAA. Local governments have the same power as the TCEQ to enterproperty and make inspections. They also may make recommendations to the commission concerning any action of the TCEQ that affects their territorialjurisdiction, may bring enforcement actions, and may execute cooperative agreements with the TCEQ or other local governments. In addition, a city or town may enact and enforce ordinances for the control and abatement of air pollution not inconsistentwith the provisions of the TCAA or the rules or orders of the commission. Subchapters F, G, and H 

### of the TCAA authorize the TCEQ to establish low emission vehicle requirements formass transit authorities,local government fleets, and private fleets; create a mobile emissions reduction creditprogram; establish vehicle inspection and maintenance programs in certain areas of the state, consistent with the requirements of the federal Clean 

### Air Act; establishgasoline volatility and low emission diesel standards; and fund and authorize participatingcounties to implementlow-incomevehiclerepair assistance, retrofit and accelerated vehicle retirement programs.B. Au~licable Law The following statutes and rules provide necessary authority to adopt and implement the SIP. The rules listedbelow have previouslybeen submitted as part of the SIP.

Statutes TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE, Chapter 382 September 1,2005
TEXAS WATER CODE September 1,2005

All sections of each subchapter are included, unless otherwise noted. Chapter 5: TexasNatural Resource Conservation Commission SubchapterA: General Provisions Subchapter B: Organization of the TexasNatural Resource ConservationCommission SubchapterC: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission SubchapterD: General Powers and Duties of the Commission SubchapterE: Administrative Provisions for Commission Subchapter

### F: Executive Director (except 

### 55 5.225,5.226,5.227, 5.2275,5.232, and 5.236) Subchapter

### H: Delegation ofHearings Subchapter

### I: JudicialReview SubchapterJ: Consolidated Permit Processing SubchapterL: Emergency and Temporary Orders (55 5.5 14,5.5145 and 5.515 only) Chapter 7: Enforcement SubchapterA: General Provisions (44 7.001,7.002,7.0025,7.004,7.005 only) Subchapter

### B: Corrective Action and Injunctive Relief (4 7.032 only) Subchapter C: Administrative Penalties SubchapterE Criminal Offenses and Penalties: 

## 56 7.177,7.179-7.181

Rules All of the following rules are found in Title 30, TexasAdministrative Code, as of the following effective dates: Chapter 7, Memoranda of Understanding, 

## 55 7.110 and 7.119 May 2,2002 Chapter 35, Subchapters A-C, 

### K: Emergency and Temporary Orders and Permits; Temporary Suspension or Amendment of Permit Conditions Chapter 39, Public Notice, 

## 55 39.201; 39.401; 39.403(a) and (b)(8)-(10); 39.405(f)(l) and (g); 39.409; 39.411 (a), (b)(l)-(6) and (8)-(10) and (c)(l)-(6) and (d); 39.413(9), (ll), (12) and (14); 39.418(a) and (b)(3) and (4); 39.419(a), (b),(d) and (e); 39.420(a), (b) and (c)(3) and (4); 39.423 (a) and (b); 39.601; 39.602; 39.603; 39.604; and 39.605 Chapter 55, Request for Contested Case Hearings; Public Comment, 

### 55 55.1; 55.21(a) 

### - (d), (e)(2), (3) and (12), (f) and (g); 55.lOl(a), (b), (c)(6) 

### - (8); 55.103; 55.150; 55.152(a)(l), (2) and (6) and (b); 55.154; 55.156; 55.200; 55.201(a) 

### - (h); 55.203; 55.205; 55.206; 55.209 and 55.21 1 December 10, 1998

August 15,2002

August 29,2002

Chapter 101: General Air Quality Rules August 16,2007Chapter 106: Permitsby Rule, SubchapterA June 30,2004 Chapter 111: Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter July 19,2006

Chapter 112: Control of Air Pollution from Sulfur Compounds July 12,2001 Chapter 113: Standardsof Performance for Hazardous Air Pollutants June 15,2005 and for Designated Facilities and Pollutants Chapter 114: Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles July 19,2007 Chapter 115: Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds July 19,2007 Chapter 116: Permits for

### New Constructionor Modification March 15, 2007 Chapter 117: Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds June 14,2007 Chapter 118: Control of Air Pollution Episodes March 5,2000 Chapter 122, $ 122.122: Potentialto Emit December 11,2002 Chapter 122,$ 122.215: Minor Pennit Revisions June 3,200 1 Chapter 122, $ 122.216: Applications for Minor Permit Revisions June 3,2001 Chapter 122,

## 6 122.217: Procedures for Minor Permit Revisions December 11,2002 Chapter 122,

### 6 122.218: Minor Permit Revision Procedures for Permit Revisions June 3,2001 Involvingthe Use of Economic Incentives, Marketable Permits, and Emissions Trading

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES



### ..................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES



### ................................................................................................................... vii



### ... LIST OF APPENDICES



### ..........................................................................................................VIU LIST OF ACRONYMS



### ............................................................................................................ ix CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL-REGIONAL HAZE REGULATION



### ....................................................................................................... 1-1



### . 1 1 GENERAL BACKGROUND



### .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 VISIBILITY-IMPAIRING EMISSIONS



### ........................................................................ 1-1 1.3 HISTORY OF FEDERAL REGIONAL HAZE RLLE



### ................................................... 1-4 1.4 CLASS I AREAS



### .............................................................................................................. 1-4 CHAPTER 2: GENERAL PLANNING PROVISIONS



### ....................................................................2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION



### ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 PUBLIC HEARING 

### AND COMMENT INFORMATION



### ............................................. -2-1 CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL PLANNING



### ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 OVERVIEW



### ...................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 HISTORY OF TEXAS PARTICIPATION



### ....................................................................... 3-3 CHAPTER4: STATE, TRIBE, 

### AND FEDERAL LAND MANAGER CONSULTATION



### ............ 4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION



### ............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 CONSULTATIONON CLASS I AREAS IN TEXAS



### ..................................................... 4-1 4.3 CONSULTATIONS ON CLASS I AREAS 

### IN OTHER STATES



### .................................. 4-2 CHAPTER 5: ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE

### AND CURRENT CONDITIONSAND ESTIMATE OF NATURAL CONDITIONSIN CLASS I AREAS



### ........................ 5-1 5.1 VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS



### ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Default and RefinedValues for Natural Visibility Conditions



### .................................. 5-2 5.1.2 ConsultationRegarding the Visibility Metrics



### ........................................................... 5-2 5.2 BASELINE VISIBILITY CONDITIONS



### .........................................................................5-3 5.3 NATURAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS



### ......................................................................... 5-3 CHAPTER 6: MONITOIUNG STRATEGY



### .............................................................................. 6-1 6.1 INTRODUCTION



### ............................................................................................................. 6-1



### .......................................................... 6.2 MONlTORING AT CLASS I AREAS IN TEXAS 6-1



### ................... 6.3 ASSESSMENT OF VISIBILITY LMPROVEMENT AT CLASS I AREAS 6-1



### ....... 6.4 REPORTING VISIBILITY MONITORING DATA TO THE ADMINISTRATOR 6-1



### ......... 6.5 ASSESSING 

### THE IMPACT OF EMISSIONS FROM TEXAS CLASS I AREAS 6-2



### ....................................................................................... CHAPTER 7: EMISSIONS INVENTORY 7-1



### .................................................................................... CHAPTER 8: MODELING ASSESSMENT 8-1 8.1 OVERVIEW



### ...................................................................................................................... 8-1



### ............................................................................................................... 8.2 BACKGROLTND 8-1



### ......................................................................................... 8.3 CENRAP MODELING TEAM 8-2



### ........................ 8.4 THE 2002 ANNUAL EMISSIONS 

### AND AIR QUALITY MODELING 8-3



### ...................................................................................................... 8.4.1 ModelingProtocol 8-3



### ................................................................... 8.4.2 QualityAssurance Project Plan (QAPP) 8-3 8.4.3 Model Selection



### ......................................................................................................... 8-3



### ............................................................... 8.4.4 MM5 MeteorologicalModel Configuration 8-4 8.4.5 SMOKE Emissions Model Configuration



### .................................................................. 8-5 8.4.6 CMAQ 

### Air Quality Model Configuration



### .................................................................. 8-5



### .................................................................... 8.4.7 CAMx Air Quality Model Configuration 8-5



### ..................................................................................................... 8.4.8 Modeling Domains 8-6



### ..................................................................... 8.4.9 Vertical Structureof Modeling Domain 8-7 8.4.10 2002 CalendarYear Selection



### .................................................................................. 8-8 8.4.11 Initial Concentrations and Boundary Conditions



### ..................................................... 8-9



### .................................................................................... 8.4.12 Emission Input Preparation 8-10



### .................................................................. 8.4.13 Meteorological Data Input Preparation 8-11



### .................................................................................. 8.4.14 Photolysis Rate Model Input 8-12

### ....................................................................... 8.4.15 Air Quality Data Input Preparation -8- 12



### ............................ 8.4.16 2002 Base Case Modeling andModel Performance Evaluation 8-14



### .............................................................. 8.4.17 2018 Modehg and Visibility Projections 8-16 8.4.18 Additional Supporting Analysis



### .............................;;


### ....................................... 819 CHAPTER 9: BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY



### ..................................................9-1



### ....................................................................... 9.1 BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES INTEXAS 9-1 9.2 DETERMINATION OF SOURCES SUBJECTTO BART



### ............................................. 9-5 9.2.1 Cumulative Modeling Using CAMx PSAT



### ....................;

### .......................................... 9-5 9.2.2 Individual Source AttributionApproach



### .................................................................. ..9-8 9.3 DETERMINATION OF BART FOR SOURCES SUBJECTTO BART



### ....................... 9-10



### ........................... ...................................... 9.4 POST-BART EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 9-11



### ............................. 9.5 SITESREMOVEDFROM FURTHER BART CONSIDERATION 9-12 CHAPTER 10: REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS



### .................................................................. 10-1



### ........................................................................................................ 10.1 INTRODUCTION 10-1



## .................... 10.2 REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS FOR TEXAS CLASS I AREAS .I0-1



## .............................. 10.3 UNCERTAINTY IN THE REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS 10-5



### .............................. 10.4 INTERNATIONAL SOURCES OF VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT 10-5



### .... 10.5 REDUCTIONS REQUIRED TO MEET THE UNIFORM 

### RATE OF PROGRESS 10-6 10.6 CONSULTATION



### ....................................................................................................... 10-7 10.7 REPORTING



### ................................................................................................................. 10-7



### .................................................................................. CHAPTER 1 1: LONG-TERM STRATEGY 11-1 11.1 INTRODUCTION



### ........................................................................................................ 11-1 11.1.1 Reasonably ~ttributable Visibility Impairment



### ..................................................... 11-3 11.2 CONSULTATION



### ........................................................................................................ 11-3 11.3 REQUEST FOR FEDERAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT



### ......................................................................................................... 11-8 1 1.4 MINIMIZING VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENTFROM TEXAS EMISSIONS



### ............... 11-9 11.4.1 Opacity Limitations



### .................... :



### ........................................................................... 11-9 11.4.2 SulfurEmission Limitations



### ................................................................................ 11-9 1 1.4.3 Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Requirements



### .................................. 11-9 11.4.4 Programs to Manage Smoke Impacts on Class I Areas



### ................................... 11-10 11.4.5 Program to Lower the Impact of Construction Activity on AirlWater Quality



### .... 11-10 11.5 FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS



### ........................................ 1 1-11 1 1.5.1 Texas Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs



### ......................................... 1 1 

### - 1 1 11.5.2 Air Check Texas Repair and Replacement Assistance Program



### .......................... 11-1 1 11.6 EMISSION REDUCTIONS SINCEISSUANCE OF REGIONAL HAZE RULE



### .... 11-12 1 1.6.1 NOx Emission ReductionRequirements 

### in Texas Ozone SIP Revisions



### ............11-12 1 1.6.2 SO2 and NOx Reduction Requirements under Senate Bill 7



### ................................ 11-12 1 1



### . 6.3 CAIR Reductions for NOx and SO2



### .................................................................... 1 1-12 11.6.4 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Requirements



### .............................. .1 1-14 11.6.5 Comparisonof the NOx Emission Limits for EGUs with CAIR Limits



### .............. 11-15 11.6.6 Sulfur Dioxide Reductions under the EPA Refinery Consent Decrees

............... .1 1-16 11.6.7 Texas Low Emissions Diesel (TxLED)Program



### .............................................1 1-16 11.6.8 The Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP)



### ...................................................... 11-16 CHAPTER 12: COMPREHENSIVE PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS AND ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING PLAN



### ..................................................12-1

### LIST OF 

### TABLES

Table 1



### . 1: Visibility-Impairing Pollutants



## ................................................................................ 1-2 Table 1-2: Comparison of Ambient Fine Particles (Ultrafine plus Accumulation-Mode) and Coarse Particles



### .................................................................................................. 1-3 Table 4- 1: Consultation Calls



### ......................................................................................................4-1



### ................................................................................................. Table 5- 

### 1: Baseline Haze Indices 5-3 Table 5-2: Visibility Metrics for the Class

### I Areas in Texas



### ....................................................... 5-4 Table 7-1: CENRAP's 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory Summary for Texas



### .................... 7-1 Table 7-2: Statewide Biogenic Emissions



### ................................................................................... 7-2 Table 7-3: CENRAP's 2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for Texas



### ...................................... 7-2 Table 8-1: Federal Mandated Class I Areas in the CENRAP States



### ............................................ 8-2 Table 8-2: MM5 34 Vertical Layer Def~tions



### ........................................................................... 8-8 Table 8-3: Ground-levelAmbient Data Monitoring Networks and Stations for 2002



### .............. 8-14 Table 9-1: BART-Eligible SourcesBased on Results of TCEQ Survey



### ..................................... 9-2 Table 9-2: BART-Eligible Sources Screened Out Using Cumulative CAMx Modeling



### ............ 9-6 Table 9-3: BART-Eligible Sources Exempt Based on CALPUFF Modeling Results



### ................. 9-9



### ............ Table 9-4: BART-Eligible Sources Exempted Using Single Source CAMxModeling 9-10 Table 9-6: Post-BART Emissions Reductions at Texas Sources



### ............................................... 9-11 Table 9-7: SitesRemoved From BART Due to Exemption Requests per TCEQ BART Rule and Updated Site Information



### ...................................................................................... 9-13



### .... Table 10-1: Uniform Rate of Progress for Class I Areas in Texas (Worst 20 Percent Days) 10-1



### ................ Table 10-2: Reasonable Progress Goals for Class I Areas (Worst 20 Percent Days) 10-1



### ................... Table 10-3: Reasonable Progress Goals for Class 

### I Areas (Best 20 Percent Days) 10-3



### .......................................... Table 10-4: The TCEQ's Point Source Control Strategy Summary 10-4



### ......................................................................... Table 10-5: Estimated Visibility Improvement 10-4



### .............................................................. Table 10-6: Comparisonof Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 10-5



## ... Table 10-7: Contributions to Visibility 

### in the Texas Class 

### I Areas (Worst 20 Percent Days) 10-6



### ...................... Table 10-8: Emissions Reductions Required to Meet Uniform Rate of Progress 10-6



### . 

### ......................... Table 1 1 

## - 1: 

### EGU Emission Allowances 

### in Texas under the CAIR Program -11 13 Table 11-2: Texas Electric Generating Utility 

### NOx Control Strategies Comparedto CAIR



### ..11-15



### .............................. Table 1 1-3: Annual SO2 Emissions at Consent Decree Impacted Sources 11-16

### LIST OF FIGURES



### .............................................................................................. Figure 1



### . 1: 

### Regional Class I Areas 1-5



### ........................................................... Figure 3- 1: 

### Map ofthe Regional Planning Organizations 3-2



### ............................... Figure 5-1: Generic Glide Path to Achieve Natural Conditions in 60 Years 5-2



### ............ Figure 7-1: Comparisonof Base and Projected Annual Emissions by Source Category 7-3 Figure 8-2: National Inter-RPO Modeling Domain



### ..................................................................... 8-7



### ............................. Figure 8-4: Observed and Base Case Modeled Concentrationsat Big Bend 8.15



### ......... Figure 8-5: 

### Observed and Base CaseModeled Concentrations at Guadalupe Mountains 8.16 Figure 8-6: 20 18Visibility ProjectionsExpressed as Percent of Meeting the 20 18 URP 8- 1 8 Figure 10-1 : 

### GlidePath for Big Bend Worst 20 Percent Days



### .................................................. 10-2



### .............................. Figure 10-2: Glide Path for Guadalupe Mountains Worst 20 Percent Days 10-3 Figure 1 1



### . 1

: 

### Comparisonof Extinction, Deciviews and Visual Range



### ..................................... 11



## . 1 Figure 1 1-2: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Big Bend



### ................................... 11-2



### ............. Figure 1 1-3: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Guadalupe Mountains .11.2 Figure 11-4: Calculated Regional Haze Impacts of West Texas Emissions at Each Class

### I Area in New Mexico



### .......................................................................................................... 11-4 Figure 11-5: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Salt Creek 

### in New Mexico



## ........1 1.5 Figure 11-6: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Wichita Mountains, Oklahoma



### .11-5 Figure 11-7: Calculated RegionalHaze Impacts of West Texas Emissions at Each Class I 

### Area in Colorado



### ............................................................................................................... 11-6 Figure 11-8: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Great Sand Dunes in Colorado



### .1 

### 1-7 Figure 11-9: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Caney Creek in Arkansas



### ......... 11-7 Figure 1 1

. 

### 10: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Breton in Louisiana



### ................11.8

. 

### Figure 1 1 1 1: 

### CAIR Emission Reduction States



### .................................................................... 1 1

. 

### 13



### viiLIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1 

### - 1 Appendix 2- 1 Appendix 2-2 Appendix 4-1 Appendix 4-2 Appendix 

### 5

### - 1 Appendix 5-2 Appendix 7-1 Appendix 7-2 Appendix 8-1 Appendix 8-2 Appendix 8-3 Appendix 9- 1 Appendix 9-2 Appendix 9-3 Appendix 9-4 Appendix 9-5 Appendix 9-6 Appendix 9-7 Appendix 9-8 Appendix 9-9 Appendix 9- 10 Appendix 9-1 1 Appendix 9- 12 Appendix 10-1 Appendix 1 0-2 Appendix 10-3 Appendix 10-4 Appendix 1 1 

### - 1 Appendix 11-2 Appendix 11-3 EPA Regional Haze Rule 1999 Public Participation Process (afterproposal) Public Comments and Responses on SIP Draft (afterproposal) Summary of Three Texas ConsultationCalls ContactList for ConsultationCalls Discussionofthe Original and Revised IMPROVE Algorithms Estimate of Natural Visibility Conditions Texas Emissions InventoryDevelopment: Base Year 2002 and Projected Year 2018 Integrated Planning Model Projectionsof Electric Generating Unit Emissions for the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to SupportRegional Haze SIP Modeling Protocol for the CENRAP2002 Annual Emissions and Air Quality Modeling QualityAssurance Project Plan for Central Regional Air Planning Association Emissionsand Air Quality Modeling U.S. EPA BART Rule Texas BART Rule CAMx Modeling Protocol, ScreeningAnalysis ofPotentiallyBARTEligible Sources in Texas (online) CAMx Modeling Report, Final Report, Screening Analysis of Potential BART-EligibleSources in Texas (online) CAMx Screening Modeling Report and Addendums 1 and 2 (online) Certificationof Screening ModelingData CALPUFF Modeling Guidelines (online) CAMxModeling Guidelines (online) BART Engineering GuidanceDocuments and Forms DocumentationofEmission Reductions CountyAbbreviations BART-EligibleList Analysis of Control Strategies RPG Estimating Visibility Impacts from Additional Point Source Controls Uniform Rate ofProgress CurvesUsing Default Natural Conditions Estimates Detailed Calculations for EstimatingVisibility Impacts Fire Management Plans Federal and Texas Programs Related to On-road and Non-road Mobile Sources Major Point Source NOx Rules and Reductions Promulgated in Texas Since 2000

### LIST OF ACRONYMS

B20% BACT BADL BAND BART BC BEIS3 Bext BIBE bnatural BOAP BOWA BRAVO BRET bsource CACR CAIR CALPUFF CAMR 

## cm CENRAP CFR CM CMAQ DRI dv EC EGAS EGU ENVIRON EPA f(RH) FCAA FIPS FLAG FLM FR GEOS-CHEM GICL GRSA GUM0 HEGL HI IC IDNR IMPROVE IPM Best 20 percent (days of visibility) Best Available Control Technology Badlands Wilderness Area Bandelier Wilderness Area Best Available Retrofit Technology Boundary conditions Biogenic Emissions Inventory SystemVersion 3 

### Light extinction Big Bend National 

### Park Clean natural conditions Bosque del Apache WildernessArea Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational study Breton Wilderness Area Total light extinction due to a source Caney Creek WildernessArea Clean Air InterstateRule CaliforniaPuffModel Clean Air 

### Mercury Rule ComprehensiveAir QualityModel with extensions Central Regional Air Planning Association Code ofFederal Regulations Coarse mass Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System Desert Research Institute deciviews Elemental carbon Economic Growth Analysis System Electric generatingunit ENVIRON International Corporation United States Environmental Protection Agency Relative Humidity adjustment factor Federal Clean 

### Air Act Federal Information Processing Standard Federal Land Managers' 

### Air Quality Related Values Work Group Federal Land Manager Federal Register GoddardEarth Observing System 

## - Chemistry model Gila Wilderness Area Great Sand Dunes Wilderness Area Guadalupe Mountains National Park 

### Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area Haze Index Initial conditions Iowa Department ofNatural Resources Interagency Monitoring ofProtected Visual Environments Integrated Planning ModelISLE JPROC 

### km LAER LOST LTS MACA MATS rnb MEVE MING ~m' 

### MM5

MOBILE6 MOZI WE MPI 

## mo NAAQS NARSTO



# 9

NO non-EGU NSPS NSR OC OMC PGM PiG PLUVUE PM PM,o

POA PPM PSAT PSD PTE 

### QO QNQC QApp RH ROMO RPG Isle RoyaleNational Park PhotolysisRates Processor kilometers Lowest Achievable Emission Rate LostwoodWildernessArea Long-term strategy Mammoth Cave National Park Modeled Attainment Test Software millibars Mesa VerdeNational Park MingoWilderness Area Inverse Megameters MesoscaleMeteorological Model, 5' Generation (developed by Pe~sylvania StateUniversity I National Center for Atmospheric Research PSLTfNCAR) MOBILE Vehicle Emission Modeling Software Version 6 Mount Zirkel Wilderness Area Model performance evaluation Message passing interface Midwest Regional Planning Organization National ambient 

### air quality standards North American Research Strategyfor Tropospheric Ozone Ammonium Nitrate Nitrogen oxides Non-electrical generatingunits New source performance standards New Source Review Organic carbon Organicmass carbon PhotochemicalGrid Model Plume-in-Grid Plume Visibility Model Particulatematter Particulatematter with aerodynamicdiameters less than 10 microns Particulatematter with aerodynamicdiameters less than 2.5 microns Primary organic aerosol Piecewise-Parabolic Method Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology Preventionof significant deterioration Potential to emit Emissions over distance (to Class I area) Quality AssuranceIQuality Control Quality AssuranceProgram Plan Relative Humidity Rocky Mountain National Park Reasonable progress goal

### RPO 

### RRF SACR SAPE SIP SIPS SMOKE

S02

S04 

### SOA 

## soh4 SOAB TAC TCh4 TCEQ TERP THRO TIP TOMS tPY TSD TW UCR UPBU URE' VISTAS

VOC VOYA W20% 

### WEMl WHIT 

### WHPE 

### WHRl WICA 

### WRAP Regional Planning Organization Relative response factor (s?) Salt Creek Wilderness Area San Pedro Parks WildernessArea State Implementation Plan Sipsey Wilderness Area Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Sulfur dioxide Sulfate Secondary organic aerosol Secondary organic aerosols anthropogenic (human-made) Secondary organic aerosols biogenic (from plants) Texas Administrative Code Texas Clean Air Act Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Emissions Reduction Program Theodore RooseveltNational Park Tribal Implementation Plan Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer satellite data tons per year Technical SupportDocument Tropospheric Ultraviolet and Visible (Radiation Model) University of California at Riverside Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area Uniform rate ofprogress Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast Volatile organic compounds Voyageurs National Park Worst 20 percent (days of visibility) Weminuche Wilderness Area White Mountain Wilderness Area Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area White River National Forest Wind Cave National Park Western Regional Air Partnership

### CHAPTER 

### 1. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF 

### THE FEDERAL REGIONAL 

### HAZE REGULATION

1.1 

### GENERAL BACKGROUND Regional haze isvisibility impairment that is producedby a multitude of sources and activities. These emission sources and activities are located across a broad geographical area. The emissions consist of fine particles and their precursors. Visibility impairment caused by 

### air pollution occurs virtually all of the time at most Class I visibility protected national park and wilderness area monitoring stations. A significant factor in visibilityimpairment is regional transport of fineparticles that contributeto elevatedparticulate matter (PM) levels and regional haze impairment of visibility. Haze-fonningpollution comes from both human and natural sources. Windblown dust and soot ftom wildfires contribute to haze, as do motor vehicles, electric generating facilities, industrial fuel burning, and manufacturing operations. PM and PM precursor emissions are the major cause ofreduced visibility (haze) in the United Statesand at many of our national parks and wilderness
areas. Somehaze-forming particles are directly emitted into the air. The usual term for directly emittedparticles is primary particles. Secondaryparticles, created when emitted gases form particles downwind of the emission sources, usually dominate the causes ofregional haze. Nitrates and sulfates are examplesof secondaryparticles that contribute to regionalhaze.

In many scenicareas, haze substantiallyreduces visual range. In 

### eastern Class I areas, haze from human activityreduces average visual range from the natural condition of approximately 90 miles to 15-to-25 miles. In the West, haze from human activityreduces visual range from the natural condition of approximately 140miles to 35-to-90 miles. Haze is measured in 

### deciviews (dv). A deciview is a unit of visibility impairmentproportional to the logarithmofthe atmospheric light extinction. One deciview is approximatelythe 

### minimum amount of change 

### in visibility impairment that a human observer can detect.

1.2 

### VISIBILITY-IMPAIRING EMISSIONS The Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) and the Texas Commissionon Environmental Quality (TCEQ) data analysis and modeling show that several types of emissions
are involved in reducing visibility, including sulfiu dioxide (SOz), nitrogen oxides (NOx),

### and particulate matter (PM). Table 1 

## - 1: 

### Visibility-lmpairingPollutants and Table 1-2: 

### Comparison of 

### Ambient Fine Particles (Ultrajineplus Accumulation-Mode) andCoarse Particles discuss some of the emissions, different variations of the molecules in the atmosphere, and various sources of the emissions. Visibility improvement is not a national ambient air 

### quality standard (NAAQS) that statesmust not exceed, like the ones for ozone,PM2.5, and carbon monoxide. Instead, the Regional Haze Rule sets out procedures states must follow to decide how much emission reduction is reasonable to move toward the national goal that Congress has established under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCM): returning Class 

### I areas to natural visibility conditions. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set 2064 as the target date to reach the goal set by Congress to reach natural conditions at all Class I areas. Table 1-1 provides information about particulate matter components that contribute to regional haze.Table 1-2provides additional information aboutparticles. The table breaks down the fine particles into ultrafine particles that are less than 0.1 pm in diameter and accumulation mode particles that are generally between 0.1 and 1.0pm in diameter. Some ofthe accumulation mode particles, most notably sulfates, grow above 1.0 pm 

### in diameter, as the humiditybecomes 

### high. A relatively smallpercentage ofthe coarse particles are smaller than 2.5 pm in aerodynamic diameter, so samplers collect them with the fineparticles. Table 1-1 lists only typical, major
sources of each component. Table 1-2 provides a more inclusive listing of sources. 

### Table 1-1: 

### Major Components ofParticles

Sulfates

Nitrates Secondary

Organic Carbon Primary Organic Carbon Elemental

Carbon (i.e., black

carbon)

Fine Soil

Dust

Coarse Mass, which is normally 

# - 100% Coarse Soil Dust *There are few **Volatileorganic compounds 

### Visibility-Impairing
Symbol

SO4

NO3

OC

OC



### Ec

FS



### .

CM

significant, 

### Directly Emitted?

(Yes)*

(No)*

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

direct 

### Pollutants Formed 

### in

the Air?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

NO

No

No

sulfate sources; 

### firmed

From

SO2

NO2

vOC**



### --



### --

--

--

direct 

### In which Size Range? micrometers (pm)

PM2.5

PM2 5

PM2.5

PM2.5

PM2.5

PM2.5

PMCO~~SE, i.e. PMl0-25

nitrate sources are rare. 

### Major Sources

Coal fired power plants, oil fields and

refineries, paper mills


### All combustion Gasoline, organic solvents, evergreen trees

Incomplete combustion
Incomplete combustion

Wind blowing over loose soil, motor vehicles running on paved and unpaved roads Wind blowing over loose soil, motor vehicles running on paved andunpaved roadsTable 1-2: Comparison ofAmbient Fine Particles (Ultrafine plus Accumulation-Mode)and

Formedby: Condensation Coagulation Coarse Particles

Elemental carbon Metal compounds Ultrafine

Sources: Accumulation

Organic compounds with very low saturationvapor pressure at ambient temperature Formation Processes:

Combustion Atmospheric transformation of SO2and some organiccompounds High temperature processes Combustion, high-temperature processes, and atmosphericreactions
Condensation Coagulation Reactions of gases in
or on particles Evaporation of fog and cloud droplets in which gases have dissolved andreacted

Atmospheric half-life: I 

## 1 Sulfate, nitrate

Minutes to hours 

# I ammonium, and hydrogen ions 

# I Elemental carbon Large variety of organic compounds Metals: compounds of Pb, Cd, V, Ni, Cu, Zn, 

### Mn,Fe, etc. Particle-bound water

Combustion of coal, oil, gasoline,diesel &el, wood Atmospheric transformation productsofNO,, SO2, and organic compounds,including biogenic organic species (e.g., terpehes) High-temperature processes, smelters, steel mills, etc. Days to weeks Coarse Break-up of large solidsldroplets

Mechanical disruption (crushing, grinding, abrasion of surfaces) Evaporation of sprays Suspension of dusts Reactions of gases in or on particles

Suspended soil or street dust Fly ash f?om uncontrolled combustion of coal, oil, and wood Nitrates/chlorides/sulfates from HN03,/HCI/S02reactions with coarse particles Oxides of crustal elements (Si, Al, Ti, Fe) CaC03, CaS04,NaCI, sea salt Pollen, mold, fungal spores Plant and animal fragments Tire, brake pad, and road wear debris

and soil tracked ontoroads and streets Suspensionfrom disturbed soil (e.g., farming, mining, unpaved roads) Construction and demolition Uncontrolled coal and oil combustion Ocean spray Biological sources

Minutes to hours

Source: Adapted fromWilson and Suh (1997), CD, p. 2-52. Atmospheric Removal Processes:

Travel distance: Grows into accumulation mode Diffises to raindrops

<1 to 10sof krn Forms cloud droplets andrains out (Organic carbon and elemental carbon particles may not take up water until they have aged.) 

### Dry deposition 100sto 1000sofkrn Dry deposition by fallout Scavengingby fallingrain drops

<1 to 10sofkm (small size tail, 100sto 1000sin dust storms)

### 1.3 HISTORY OF FEDERAL REGIONAL HAZE RULE In the FCAA amendments of 1977,Congress added 

### 4 169 (42 United States Code (USC), $7491), setting forth a national visibility goal of restoring natural conditions in certain national parks and wilderness areas. The EPA designated national parks and wilderness areas meeting certain criteria and containing vistas as an important feature, 

### as Class I areas for visibility protection under regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) provisions.



### In response to the 1977 FCAA amendments, the EPA required control measures to address plume blight and reasonably attributable visibility impairment. These plume blight and reasonably attributable visibility impairment control measures did little to address regional haze throughout the contiguous 48 states.

When Congress amended the FCAA again in 1990, it added $169B (42 USC, $67492)requiring further research and regular assessmentsofthe progress made toward visibility goals. 

### In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences concludedthat "current scientific knowledge is adequate and control technologies are available for taking regulatory action to improve and protect visibility" (NRC 1993). In addition to authorizingthe creation ofvisibility transport commissions and setting forth their duties, 169B(f)of the FCAA specifically mandated the creation ofthe Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC)to make recommendations to the EPA for the region affecting visibility in Grand Canyon National Park. Afterfour years ofresearch and policy development, the GCVTC submitted its report to the EPA in June 1996 (GCVTC 1996). This report, as well as other research reports prepared by the GCVTC, contributed information to the EPA's development ofthe federal Regional Haze Rule. The EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule on July 1, 1999 (Appendix 1-1: EPA Regional Haze Rule 1999). The federal rule's objective is to achievethe national visibility goal of restoring natural visibility conditions to Class I areas by 2064. Generally, the EPA7sdefault estimates ofnatural conditions are 8 deciviews for the western states and 12deciviews for the eastern states. States may calculate the natural conditions for each Class I area instead of using the default goal. Chapter 

### 5: Assessment ofBaseline and Current Conditions and Estimate of Natural Conditionsin ClassIAreas discusses natural conditions in more detail. The rulemaking addressed the combined visibility effects of sources over a broad geographic region, meaning that many states, including all those without Class I areas, must participate in haze reduction efforts.

The EPA designated five Regional Planning Organizations(RPOs) to assist with the coordination and cooperation needed to address visibility and haze issues. Those states and tribes that make up the midsection of the contiguous United States, including Texas, were designated as the CENRAP.

1.4 CLASS I AREAS Texas has two Class I areas within its borders, both located in West Texas (Figure 1-1: Regional ClmsIAreas). Big Bend National Park (Big Bend), 

### in Brewster County, borders the Rio Grande and Mexico. Guadalupe Mountains National Park (Guadalupe Mountains), in Culberson County, borders New Mexico.

# -

,A



### . 

## -

',-



# 2 *-.
kl- ,& f.< '5 4



# . RoteSngTerasby 

# FlzsrA,"tim

-- 

# §!!! Regional %'I d MTl* 5gl-e his Natlmldl %rk 5eMe Units 

### TCEQ Class 

### I Areas hrep sewre ;mts

-=.an Gmrmwnor Bnn,anmnuaiCurah Chl C5q-r r 0- car; 1 DC, m SCum

Ow-n nnp ' rnmzna~ur~ nm ?Or,aalndv,,CB,lLr Lh

PO 3ax 1x157 -1 -,L--,z* 

# - "1 

# -. r. ---I. 0- I-

### - -- &n TX '8-71 YJ3- ,z=- >"-".,A < .A, J.. 

### ".

<- -3 2 -. 

### .-- -**-, ,-"r 

## -- -e -.,,-.s,... \ : ,a- . Figure 1-1: Regional Class 

### I Areas Big Bend National Park Big Bend was authorized as a national park on June 20, 1935,and then established and signed into law on June 12, 1944, as the nation's 27th national park. The park gets its name from the course of the Rio Grande, which makes a great bend from a southeasterly to a northerly direction in the western portion of Texas. Big Bend receives approximately 350,000 visitors annually. The park is slightly larger than Rhode Island and comprises more than 80 1,000 acres (1,252 square miles). The boundary includes 118 miles of the Rio Grande, which is also the internationalborder between the United States and Mexico. 

### In 1978, Congress designated a 196- mile portion of the Rio Grande, from the Chihuahua and Coahuila state line to the Terrell and Val Verde county line, as a Wild and Scenic River. The upper 69 miles are within the boundaries of Big Bend.

The park exhibits dramatic contrasts; its climate is one of extremes. As a result of the range in altitude from 1,700 feet along the river to 7,800 feet in the Chisos Mountains, a wide variation 

### in available moisture and in temperatures exists throughout the park. These variations contribute to the great diversity in plant and animal habitats. Big Bend has national significance as the largest protected area of Chihuahuan Desert in the continental United States. The park's river, desert, and mountain environments support an extraordinary richness of biological diversity and provide unparallel recreation opportunities. Few areas exceed the park's values for the protection and study of geologic and paleontologic resources. Archeologists have discovered artifacts estimated to be 9,000 years old, and historic buildings and landscapes offer graphic illustration of life along the international border at the turn ofthe century. Big Bend is rich in economic, cultural, and military history from its extensive use

### by the Comanches, miners, farmers,ranchers, United States cavalry units, and Poncho Villa's revolutionaries. Big Bend was designated a Biosphere Reserve in 1976, under the Man and the Biosphere Program. Big Bend is one of only 250 such areas in the world whose ecosystems are particularly well preserved (National Park Service (NPS) 

### 2007). 

### GuadalupeMountains National Park 

### Guadalupe Mountains was established on September 30, 1972,and contains Guadalupe Peak, the highest point in 

### Texas at 8,749 feet (2,667 meters) 

### in elevation, as well as the next three highest peaks in 

### the state. Thepark covers 86,416 acres and is in the same mountain range as Carlsbad Caverns National Park, which is located about40 miles to the northeast in 

### New Mexico. The park contains the only congressionally designated wilderness in Texas, the Guadalupe Mountains Wilderness at 46,850 acres. The terrain is rough and natural with mountainpeaks steeply rising up to 3,000 feet above the canyon floors.

The mountains are a "sky island" rising more than a mile above the floor of the Salt Basin on the west. The slopes extend through three major ecological zones from desert to remnants of a high 

### altitude forest. Ponderosa pine, Douglas 

### fir,white pine, and quaking aspen grow sideby side with desert species such as 

### agaves and cacti. The altitude encourages relativelyhigh amounts of rainfallthat quickly drain into the porous limestone bedrock and recharges the Capitan Aquifer. The Guadalupe Mountains preserve the 2,000-foot thick limestone layer ofthe Capitan Reef, one of the finest examples of an ancient marine fossil reef on earth. Outcrops in the park expose rocks from the entire range of associated depositional environmentsfrom shallow lagoon to reef, forereef debris slopes, and deep basin deposits. The park contains the world standard section that represents the middlepart of the PermianPeriod of geologic time. Geologists from around the world study the 280 to 260 million year old rocks preserved there (NPS 2007).

### CHAPTER 2. GENERALPLANNING PROVISIONS

2.1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with 40 CFR §51.308(a)and (b), the TCEQ submits this state implementation plan (SIP) to meet the requirements of the EPA's Regional Haze Rule. This plan addressesthe core requirements of 40 CFR $51.308(d)and the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) components of 40 CFR §50.308(e). In addition, this SIP addresses coordination with regional planning groups, states and tribes, and the Federal Land Managers (FLMs). Texas also commits to plan revisions and adequacy determinationsas outlined in this SIP.

2.2 

### PUBLIC HEARING AND 

### COMMENT INFORMATION The TCEQ will provide notice to the public ofthe opportunity to comment on the proposed Regional Haze SIP after the commission approval forpublication on December 5,2007. The TCEQ will also announce and hold a public hearing. Notice of both the public hearing and the commentperiod will be published in newspapers around the state (Appendix2-1 : Public Participation Process. The public comment period will begin December 21,2007, and end February 22,2008. The public hearing will be held in Austin on February 19,2008. The length of the commentperiod will give sufficienttime for the FLMs to provide recommendationson the proposed SIP revisionthat can be provided to the general public, as well as meet the requirement that FLMs are consulted at least 60 days prior to the public hearing on the SIP revision. The FLM comment period begins on November 16,2007, through January 16,2008. The TCEQ web site will provide a summary of the FLM comments at least 30 days prior to the hearing date. The TCEQ will accept comments electronically through the ecomments system or by fax or mail. All comments should reference the "Regional Haze SIP" and project number 2007-016-SIP-NR. Electronic commentsmay be submitted at <-http:i~~ww5.tceq.state.tx.us/rules/ecomments/>. File size restrictions may applyto commentsbeing submittedvia the ecomments system. All ecomments are acknowledged with a confirmation e-mail.

Fax or mail comments to: Margaret Earnest MC 206 State Implementation Plan Team, Chief Engineer's Office Texas Commissionon Environmental Quality P. 0.Box 13087 Austin TX 78711-3087 Fax: 

### (5 12)-239-5687

ublic 

### Hearing

Public comments, including those made by staff of federal agencies, will be summarized and addressed 

### in Appendix 2-2: Public CommentsandResponses on SIP Draj?. The final SIP will incorporatepublic comments as appropriate and will be published on the TCEQ's web site at <htrp:l/www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementatiodairlsipibartihaze.html>. 

### City Date
Austin 

### Time February 19,2008 

### Location
2:00 PM Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 12100Park 35 Circles, Austin TX 78753 Building E, Room 201S3.1 OVERVIEW In the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule, the EPA acknowledged the key role of regional pollutant transport 

### in contributing to haze in federal Class 1 areas and recognized the value of multi-state coordination for planning and implementing regional haze programs (EPA 1999). The EPA establishedgrant funding for five RPOs as follows:

CentralRegional Air Planning Association Western Regional Air Partnership Midwest Reghnal Planning Organization Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast Mid-AtlanticLNortheastVisibilityUnion. Figure 3-1 :Map ofthe RegionalPlanning Organizations shows the geographic areas of the five RPOs. Texas is a member of CENRAP, as are Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota. Sometribes, including the Alabama Coushatta of eastern Texas, also participate in CENRAP. The CENRAP's planning process was initiated in late 

### 1999with the first in a series of workshops held to develop the organization's charter and bylaws, to conduct initial long-range planning, and to prepare its first grant application. The organization's charter can be found at CENRAP7s web site: <www.cenrap.orP.

The CENRAP defmes the purposes ofthe organizationas follows. Identifyregional, common air management issues, and develop and identify strategies to address these issues. Promote policies that ensure fair and equitabletreatment of all participatingmembers. Coordinate science and technology to support air quality policy issues 

### in the central states. Promote the implementation of federalvisibility rules. Recommend strategieson regional haze and other air quality issues for use by member states and tribes in developing implementation programs, regulations, and laws. Conduct research and undertake other activities as necessaryto provide the membership with information to supportthe development of sound state and tribal air pollution policies.



### In concurrence with EPA policy, the CENRAP's bylaws state that "the CENRAP has no regulatory authority and recognizes that its members, in accordancewith existing law, retain all legal authority" (CENRAP 

### 2000). While Texas participates in CENRAP andbenefits from the technical work coordinated by the RPO, Texas has sole responsibility and authority for the development and content of its Regional Haze SIP.

# Regional 

# Planning Organizations

olihe Southeast 

### '



### L 

# . Figure 3-1: Map of the Regional Planning Organizations

The Policy Oversight Group (I'OG) is the governingbody for CENRAP. The POG establishes internal policies, protocols, strategies, and budgets and provides guidance to the various CENRAP workgroups. Voting membership on the POG includes: designee of governor or environmentalcommissioner from each member state; and
one tribal representative for each of the EPA Regions V, 

### VI, and VII.

Ex-officio membership on the POG includes the following:
United States Secretary of the Interior or designee; United States Secretary of Agriculture or designee; Administrator ofthe EPA or designee; two representatives from local programs that are members ofthe Central States Air Resources Agencies (CenSARA); and additional tribal representatives designated in accordancewith the bylaws

The POG established five CENRAF' workgroups that work in particular disciplines and facilitate the development of the regional haze implementation plans. The workgroups are as follows. Modeling Emissions Inventory Monitoring Implementation and Control Strategies Communications

The Communications workgroup establishes internal communication protocols, assists with contract development,manages the CENRAP web site, and conducts public outreach. The other four workgroups conduct strategic planning for their subject matter areas and conduct and document the work of contractors or the in-kind services of CENW participants. 3-2A Technical Steering Committee comprised ofrepresentatives from the states, tribes, and other stakeholder groups discusses complex technical issues and provides technical guidance to the workgroups. Also, representatives from CENRAP participate in discussions with other RPOs about issues that affect some or all of the RPOs and that require close communication among these organizations. The POG and workgroups meet quarterly or biannually, depending on the need. The technical steering committee meets biannually. The POG usually holds conference calls once per month. The frequency of workgroup and steering committee conference calls varies. The CENRAP may remain active following the initial submissionof implementation plans by the states, since the Regional Haze Rule requires periodic progress reports and implementation plan revisions. The extent to which the CENRAP remains active will depend on the usefulness of the organizationto its members and the availability of continuing, adequate funding to cover the organization's expenses.

3.2 HISTORY OF TEXAS PARTICIPATION The TCEQ has participated in the planning process for regional haze since December 1999, when a workshop was convenedby CenSARA to begin developing the charter, bylaws, and initial longrange plan for the CENRAP. After workgroups were formed, the TCEQparticipated in the Modeling, Emissions Inventory, Monitoring, and Implementation and Control Strategies workgroups. The TCEQ designated appropriate workgroup representatives based on their areas of expertise. For approximately three years, a TCEQ staff member dedicated time as co-chair of the Emissions Inventory workgroup. For more than two years; four TCEQ staff members have dedicated time to monthly CENRAP conference calls with four ofthe technical workgroups and dedicated additional time to activities that include analyzing modeling changes, participating in quality control checks, and more. In addition, the TCEQ has one SIP coordinator dedicated solely to regional haze issues. The TCEQ has represented the state on the POG and technical steering committee from their inceptions. Significant portions of thsSIP were developedbased on emissions inventories, modeling, and SIP protocols created by the CENRAP and its contractors. Through its participation, the TCEQ provided data to the CENRAP in orderto produce emissions inventories and modeling that the states could use when drafting their Regional Haze SIPS.

The Regional Haze Rule does not require states and tribes to participate in RPOs. However, Texas will continue participation in the CENRAP as necessary to fulfillthe state's legal obligations in meeting the requirements of the rule. Texas' continued participation is contingent
on CENRAP's receiving continued, adequate funding fiom the EPA.

### CHAPTER 

### 4. STATE, TRIBE,

### AND FEDERAL LAND MANAGER CONSULTATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION Title 40 CFR $5 1.308(i)requires each state to consult with identifiedFLMs prior to the proposal of the Regional Haze SIP. In development of this plan, the FLMs were consulted in accordance with the provisions of $5 1.308(i)(2). 

### In developing its reasonableprogress goals (RPGs), states
are required to consult with other statesreasonably anticipated to cause or contributeto visibility impairmentin their Class 

### I areas. If a state determinesit has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contributeto visibility impairment in any Class I area in another state, that state must consult with the other states when developing its long-term strategy. The TCEQ provided other states,tribes, FLMs, and other stakeholders an opportunity for consultation through teleconference calls and notified the FLMs of their opportunity to consult in person at least 60 days prior to holding public hearings. During the consultation process, the states, FLMs, and stakeholders were giventhe opportunity to address: assessment of the impairmentof visibility in any Class I areas; materialspresented to stakeholdersprior to the consultation calls;recommendations on the development of RPGs; and recommendations on the development of strategiesto address visibility impairment. Throughout the consultation calls, the TCEQ encouraged participants to continue coordination and consultationduring the development of the SIPprior to adoption. The 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.
4.2 CONSULTATIONON CLASS 

### I AREAS 

### IN TEXAS The TCEQ held Regional Haze SIP consultationmeetingsby conference call with FLMs for the ClassI visibility areas in Texas, Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, other states that impact the Texas Class I areas, the EPA, and stakeholders such 

### as industry and environmental representatives. Table 4-1: Consultation Calls contains the dates and times of the consultation calls.

Table 4-1 : Consultation Calls Call
1 Consultation call

2"*Consultation call

The first consultation call primarily addressed four technical papers. These papers discussed natural conditions, the impacts of dust storms in Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, Integrated PlanningModel (IPM) emission projections, and glidepath and RPGs. A summary paper of these technical papers was provided to consultationparticipants.

3d Consultation call

The second and third consultation calls consisted of open dialogue between the states and FLMs to gather input on the content of the technical papers. Additionally, the FLMs suggested that the TCEQ revise the prevention of significantdeterioration (PSD)pennit process to includeFLM notification provisions. More detailed summaries from all three calls are provided in Appendix 4-1: Summary of Three Texas Consultation Calls. Date July 11,2007

July 18,2007 Time
2:30-4:00 p.m.

10:OO-11:30 p.m.

July 3 1,2007 10:OO-11:30p.m.A list ofpersons or entities contacted to participate in the consultationprocess is provided in Appendix 4-2: ContactListfor Consultation Calls. Chapter 11 of this SIP also discusses the consultation process regarding development of the long-term strategy.
The TCEQ has determined which states contribute to visibility impairment at the Texas Class I
area by using the results from the CENRAPparticulatematter source apportionment technology (PSAT) modeling. These states are New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Louisiana. Appendix 8- 1:TechnicalSupport Document for CEWP Emissions andAir Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze State Implementation Plans shows the pertinent modeling results.

4.3 CONSULTATIONS ON CLASS 

### I AREAS IN OTHER STATES The TCEQ has participated in the CENRAP since its inception in 1999. The TCEQ has cooperated with all CENRAP states, tribes, and FLMs that participated in: developing information on base period 2002 visibility impairment; developing projections of 2018 emissions and visibility impairment considering all adopted emissions reductionsrequired in Texas and federal rules; and developing estimates of 2064 natural conditions.

Texas and federal rules that specifically reduce visibility-impairing pollutants includethe Clean Air InterstateRule (CAIR), BART requirements, the emissions reductions from the federal motor vehicle emission control program (FMVCP), the EPA refinery consent decrees, and the EPA requirements for cleaner non-road diesel and gasoline-powered engines.

The TCEQ participated in the Modeling,Emissions Inventory,Monitoring, and Implementation and Control Strategies workgroups. The TCEQ designated appropriate workgroup representatives based on their areas of expertise. For more than two years, the TCEQ has dedicated time to monthly technical workgroups through CENRAP conference calls. The TCEQ alsoparticipated in inter-regional planning organization calls that related to modeling. The FLMs, EPA, tribes, states, and industry were encouraged to participate in workgroup calls, workshops, and meetings.

Arkansas and Missouri have begun consultation with Texas about the impact of Texas' emissions
on regional haze at the Class I areas in those states. They have accepted Texas' planned emissions and regional haze impact reductions as adequate for their Class 

### I areas.
Oklahoma has invited Texas to consult about Oklahoma's Class I area, the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge. The TCEQ attended Oklahoma's three consultation calls held in August and September 2007.

The TCEQ has reviewed CENRAP modeling to assess which Class I areas in other states might be impactedby Texas' emissions. Modeling indicated that Texas impacts Breton Wilderness Area in Louisiana, the Great Sand Dunes in Colorado,and several Class I sites in New Mexico. At this time, these states have not invitedTexas to formal participation in their consultation process.

### CHAPTER 

### 5. ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE

### AND CURRENT CONDITIONS

### AND ESTIMATE OF NATURAL CONDITIONS

### IN CLASS I AREAS

5.1 VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS The goal of the Regional Haze Rule is to restore natural visibility conditionsto the 156 Class I areas identified in the 1977FCAA Amendments. Title40 CFR 95 1.3 0 1 defines natural conditions as including "naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light extinction,visual range, contrast, or coloration." State regional haze plans must contain measures that make "reasonable progress" toward this goal by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause haze. Three metrics ofvisibility are part of the determination of progress toward this goal:

baseline conditions,i.e., conditions observed during the baseline period, 2000 through 2004; natural conditions, i.e., those conditions existing in the absence of human-induced visibility impairment; and current conditions, i.e., conditionsobserved during the currentperiod, which is the same as the baseline, for this initial period.

To calculate these metrics the concentrations of visibility-impairing pollutants are included as distinct terms in a light extinction algorithm with respective extinctioncoefficientsand relative humidity factors. Total light extinction when converted to a haze index in deciviews is calculated for the average of the best 20 percent and worst 20 percent visibility days. Title 40 CFR 95 1.301 defines a deciview as "a haze index derived fkom calculated light extinction, such that uniform changes 

### inhaziness correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, frompristine to highly impaired."

Texas and other CENRAP states have elected to perform their primary visibility projections using the new Interagency Monitoring ofProtected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) algorithm to calculate visibility metrics for developing RPGs because this algorithm is based on more recent science and updated algorithmbetter fits the observed light extinction values. Appendix 5-1: Discussion ofthe Original and RevisedIMPROEAlgorithms provides a discussion on the choice of the IMPROVE algorithm comparing the old and new equations. For more detailed documentationon the original (old) and revised (new) algorithm changes,please visit the IMPROVE web site at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve. Baseline visibility is the startingpoint for the improvement ofvisibility conditions. It is the average obtained from monitoring data for 2000 through 2004 and represents current visibility conditions for this initialperiod. Comparison of initialbaseline conditionsto natural visibility conditions reveals the improvement necessary to attainnatural visibilityby 2064. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of visibility-impairingpollutants and then calculating total light extinction with the chosen light extinctionalgorithm (Figure 5-1: Generic GlidePath toAchieve Natural Conditions in 

### 60 Years). Each state must estimate natural visibility levels for Class I areas within its borders in consultation with FLMs and other states that impact the Class 

### I areas (40 CFR 95 1.308(d)(2)). Current conditions are assessed every five years as part of the plan review where actual progress in reducing visibility impairment is compared to reductioncommitmentsin the plan.

# Baseline Refwedmmls tor / lstlmplementabon Pellod (VsibilYy impurmen t in deciviws) 

# A. Natural 

# 1

............--...-----------------------. '\ 

# I - UltimateCA4goal



# Year Figure 5-1: Generic Glide Path to Achieve Natural Conditions in 60 Years Source: EPA

5.1.1 Default and Refined Values for Natural Visibility Conditions The EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Program (EPA 2003) provides states a "default" estimateofnatural visibility. The default values of concentrations of visibilitypollutants are based on a 1990National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program report (Trijonis 1990). 

### In the EPA's guidance, the United States is divided into East andWest regions approximately along the western boundary ofthe states one tier west of the Mississippi River. This division divides the CENRAP states into its own East region (Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Missouri),containing seven Class I areas, and West region (Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas), containing three Class I areas. 

### In comparing the two regions, only sulfate (S04) and organic carbonhave different values, but the calculated deciview differenceis significant.
However, the ultimate responsibility for calculatingnatural conditions lies with the state (40 CFR §51.308(d)(2)). The TCEQ determined that the default estimates were insufficiently accurate and that data and methods were availableto improve these estimates, and chose to develop its own refined estimates. 5.1.2 Consultation Regarding the Visibility Metrics Consultationamong states is required by the Regional Haze Rule. As part of a long-term strategy for regional haze, a state whose emissions are "reasonably anticipated" to contribute to impairment 

### in other states' Class 

### I areas must consult with those states (40 CFR $51.308(d)(3)). Likewise, states with Class 

### I areas are to consult with any states whose emissions affect their Class I areas. Consultation among states is facilitated through RPOs, though somerequired consultations cross RPO boundaries. For example, Texas and New Mexico must collaborate on planning for the Guadalupe Mountains,though the two statesparticipate in different RPOs.

A chief purpose of the RPOs is to provide a means for statesto confer on all aspectsof the regional haze issue, including consultation on RPGs and long-term strategies, which are based on the baseline, current, and natural visibility determinations. Thisprocess is described in Chapter 3: Regional Planning. The CENRAP provides a forum for member states and tribes to consult
on determinations of baseline and natural visibility conditions in subject Class I areas. States in the CENRAP have also conferred with neighboring ClassI area states outside CENRAP,both individually and by way ofthe appropriateRPO.Title 40 CFR $51.308(i)requires Class I area states to coordinate with the FLMs, including consultation on implementation, assessment of visibility impairment,and recommendations regarding RPGs and strategies for improvement. This consultation requirement is discussed 

### in Chapter4: State, Tribe,And Federal Land Manager Consultation. Through participation in the CENRAP and individually, Texas has completed this regulatory requirement.

5.2 BASELINE VISIBJLITY CONDITIONS For the five-year baselineperiod, 2000 through 2004, sites are required to have three valid years of data from which baseline conditions can be constructed. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) <http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/>has posted haze index values, based on the revised IMPROVE algorithm, for the 20 percent worst and best days for each complete year of the baseline period. From these values, the baseline haze index is calculatedby averaging over the baselineperiod. Table 5-1: BaselineHaze Indices shows this calculation for both Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. Baseline visibility for the Big Bend Class I area is 5.78 deciviews for the best 20 percent of the sample days and 17.30 deciviews for the worst 20 percent of the sample days. This baseline visibility is based on sampling data collected at the Big Bend IMPROVE monitoring site.

Basehe visibility for the Guadalupe Mountains Class I area is 5.95 deciviews for the best 20 percent of the sample days and 17.19 deciviews for the worst 20 percent of the sample days. This baseline visibility is based on sampling data collected at the Guadalupe Mountains IMPROVE monitoring site.

Table 5-1: Baseline Haze Indices
Class I Area Big Bend

Guadalupe Mountains Site ID
BIBEl

5.3 NATURAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS Using the revised IMPROVE algorithm and the methodology detailed 

### in Appendix 5-2: Estimate ofNatural Visibility Conditions,the TCEQ has determined, subject to significant uncertainties in natural concentrations of organic carbon, that natural visibility conditions for the Big Bend Class I area are best represented by 10.09 deciviews for the worst 20 percent days. The Guadalupe Mountains Class I area is best represented by 12.26 deciviews for the worst 20 percent days. Appendix 5-2 provides calculations, methodologies, a discussion of the reasons for the selection of the methodology, and a demonstration ofthe appropriatenessof these values for both Class I areas. Table 5-2: VisibilityMetrics for the Class IAreas in Texas reports the visibility metrics computed for Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. 

### 1 Average Year
2001 2002 2003

17.30 17.14 16.61 18.12 18.50 15.57 GUM01 

## 1 2004 5.78 6.26 6.34 6.38 5.91 4.83 2000 200 1 2002 2003 2004 16.51 I 4.62 

# ~ Haze Index (deciviews) Most Impaired 17.31 18.21 17.18 Least Impaired 7.09 5.68 5.74Table5-2: Visibility Metrics for the Class 

### I Areas in Texas Estimate of Natural Visibility Conditions

Baseline Visibility Conditions, 2000-2004 Class

### I Area 

### Big Bend Guadalu~e Mountains 

# 1 Class IArea Haze Index (deciviews) ~ost Im~aired Ileast Imoaired Haze Index (deciviews) Most Imoaired l~east Imoaired 10.09 12.26 2.19 2.10



### 'Big Bend Guadalu~e Mountains Estimate of Extent Baseline Exceeds Natural Visibility Conditions

l~uadaluve Mountains 

### 1 4.93 

### 1 3.85 

### 1 17.30 17.19

Class I Area

1 I 5.78 5.95

Haze Index (deciviews) Most Imoaired l~east Imoaired ig Bend 7.21 3.59

### CHAPTER 6. MONITORING STRATEGY



### 6.1 INTRODUCTION Title 40 CFR $51.308(d)(4)of the Regional Haze Rule requires a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibilityimpairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I areas within Texas. The monitoring strategy relies upon data from the IMPROVEprogram. A steering committee with representatives from federal, regional, and state organizations governs the program. These organizationsinclude the EPA, the NPS, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,the United States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, and other entities. The IMPROVE Steering Committee allocates IMPROVE monitoringresources, which come fiom a number of agencies. Much ofthe funding comes from the EPA from funds appropriatedby Congressto support state air quality management programs. Some funding comes from the NPS. The IMPROVE program arranges for the operation of IMPROVE monitors, the analysis of samples from the monitors, and the validation and internetposting of the IMPROVE data.


### 6.2 MONITORING AT CLASS I AREAS IN TEXAS Currently,the IMPROVEprogram provides an IMPROVE monitor at each of the two Class I
areas in Texas, Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. Because of their location, the monitors are appropriate for determining progress in reducing visibility impairment in the Texas Class I areas. The monitoring strategy relies on continuationof IMPROVE monitoring at these sites. The TCEQ will continue to participate in the network through the financial support of the EPA. The TCEQ will also continueto participate in the IMPROVEprogram through its membership in the CENRAP as long as the EPA continues to fund the CENRAP adequately. No additional monitoringis required or necessary for assessingvisibility conditions at the two Class I areas.

The IMPROVEprogram reviewed its aerosol monitoring sites in 2006 to set priorities for maintaining the sites, in the event of federal budget cuts affecting the IMPROVE program. This review determined that the IMPROVE aerosol samplers at Texas' two Class I areas represent conditions different from the conditions at the nearest Class I area IMPROVE monitors. Texas' two Class I IMPROVE monitors are not candidates for discontinuationsince other IMPROVE monitors cannotrepresent conditions at Big Bend or Guadalupe Mountains.
6.3 ASSESSMENT OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENTAT CLASS I AREAS Future assessments of visibility impairment and progress in reducing visibility impairment at Texas' two Class I areas, and at Class I areas in other states that Texas' emissions affect, will use the new IMPROVE equation and will use data as prescribed in the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P). The assessment will follow, as appropriate,the EPA's official guidance including 

### Guidance on the Use ofModels and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,PM2.3, andRegional Haze (EPA 2007).

6.4 REPORTING VISIBILITY MONITORING DATA TO THE ADMINISTRATOR The TCEQ does not directly collect or handle IMPROVE data. The TCEQ will continue to participate in the IMPROVE Visibility InformationExchange Web System (VIEWS) through CENRAP ~htt~://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views>. The TCEQ considersVIEWS to be a core part of the overall IMPROVEprogram. The TCEQ will report IMPROVE data from the two Class I
areas in Texas to the EPA by continuingto support its posting on the VIEWS web system. The TCEQ's support will be through continuing membership

### in CENRAP and through requesting that both the EPA and this multi-state organization continue to support VEWS.

If Texas collects any visibility monitoring data through the state's air quality monitoring networks, the TCEQ will report those data to the EPA as specified under the Performance Partnership Grant agreement negotiated with the EPA Region 6. All validated data and data analysis results from any TCEQ visibility-related special studies are public information. TCEQ will continue its practice of sharing the data and information with the EPA.

### 6.5 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF EMISSIONS FROM TEXAS ON CLASS I AREAS Chapters 5,8, 10, and 11describe the procedures used in developing this SIPrevision. These chapters include the procedures to assessthe quantitative impact of emissions from Texas on Class I areas in Texas and on Class 

### I areas that Texas' emissions affect in other states. Chapter 7 describes the procedures used for th~s SIP revision to produce the statewide emissions inventory of pollutants reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment 

### in all the mandatory Class 

### I areas that Texas' emissions affect. Chapter 12 describesthe plans for the five-year implementationplan review and for the 2018 regional haze SIP revision.

The Performance Partnership Grant agreementnegotiated with the EPA Region 6 and the quality
assuranceprocedures for collecting and reporting periodic emissions inventoriesto the 

### EPA describe the collection, quality assurance,record keeping, maintenance, availability,and reporting of emissions and monitoringdata to the EPA.

### CHAPTER7. EMISSIONSINVENTORY

Title 40 CFR §51.308(d)(4)(v)requires a statewideemissions inventory of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any ClassI area. As specified in this section,the pollutants to be inventoried include volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx),fineparticulate matter (PM2.d, particulatematter less than ten microns in diameter (PMlo), ammonia 

### (NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). In accordance with the EPA guidance, the TCEQ developed a baseline Texas inventory for the year 2002, and submitted the inventory to the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) for use in photochemical modeling supporting the Regional Haze 

### SIP. A summary of the CENRAP developed 2002 Texas inventory is provided 

### in Table 7- 1: CENRAP's 2002 Base YearEmissions Inventory Summaryfor Texas. Details for the 2002 emissions inventory are provided in Appendix 7-1: Texas EmissionsInventoly Development: Base Year 2002andProjected Year 2018.

The 2002 baseline inventory is composed of several different categories. The point sources are defined as industrial,commercial,or institutional sitesthat meet the reporting requirements of 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 

### 5 101.10. Area sources include commercial, small-scale industrial,and residential categories of sourcesthat use materials or operate processes that can generate emissions. These sources of emissions fall below the point sourcereporting levels and
are too numerous or too smallto identify individually. The area source fires inventory is also included in the area source category. This category includes agricultural burning,prescribed burning of forests, andprescribed burning ofrangeland. The fugitive dust inventory includes dust from construction, mining, quarrying, bulk materials storage (such as coal and gravel), and feedlots. Table 7-1: CENRAP's 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

### Summary for Texas

The SO2emissions modeled by the CENRAP are significantly higher than the 15,633tons per year (tpy)reported by the TCEQ. The TCEQ has been working with CENRAP to correct this error for futuremodeling, but there was not sufficienttime to remodel with the more accurate TCEQ-supplied inventory. CENRAP's modeled emissions estimateis not expected to sigtllficantlyimpact visibility estimates for 201 8 because of the relatively small contributionfrom these Texas sources on Class I areas.

Non-road mobile sources include aircraft operations, marine vessels, recreational boats, railroad locomotives, and a broad category ofnon-road equipment that include everything from 600- horsepower enginesmounted on construction equipment to one-horsepower stringtrimmers.
On-road mobile sourcesof emissions consist of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other motor vehicles traveling on public roadways. On-roadmobile source emissions are usually categorized as eithercombustion-related emissions or evaporative hydrocarbon emissions. 7- 1 *TOG is total organic gas, which includes total hydrocarbons. NH3 

### (QY) 380,057
2,609

5 6
21,599
404,32 1 SO2 

### (QY) PM2.5 (tpy) 347,490

46,789
15,089
11,275
420,642 NOX 

### (QY) 280,8 11
600,725
242,551
664,163
1,788,250 Category

Area

PointNOURoad

On-Road

Total TOG* 

## (MY) PMlo 

### (QY) 1,552,824
80,947
15,556
15,476
1,664,803 CO (my) 908,407
498,467
1,210,158
4,098,391
6,7 15,423 111,853 1,163,549

82 1,961

21,828
18,814
974,457 207,695
148,952
309,707
1,829,902Combustion-related emissions are estimated for vehicle engine exhaust. Evaporative hydrocarbon emissions are estimated for the fuel tank and other evaporativeleak sources on the vehicle. Biogenic sources includehydrocarbon emissions from crops, lawn grass, and trees as well as a small amount ofNOx emissions from soils. These emissions are listed in Table 7-2: Statewide Biogenic Emissions.

Methodologies used in developing the 2002 emissionsinventory are documented in Appendix 7-1. Technical support documents compiled by the CENRAP are available at <www.cenrap.org>. - Table 7-2: Statewide Biogenic Emissions

The CENRAP projected the 2002 base year emissions for Texas and other central states to the 2018 futureplanning year primarily using the Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS6) for non-electric generating unit point sources, area sources, and non-road mobile sources; MOBILE6 for on-road mobile sources;and the Integrated Planning ModelVersion (IPM) 2.19 for electric generatingunits (Appendix 7-2:IntegratedPlanning Model Projections ofElectric Generating UnitEmissions for the RegionalHaze State Implementation Plan). Emissions from recently permitted electric generating units were incorporated into the IPM file. Only the units that will be shut down under enforceable actions are removed from the future inventory.

Biogenic

This approach is likely to significantly overpredict Texas point sourceemissions for 2018 and therefore is a conservative approachto the inventory development. Statewidepoint source emissions have declined every year in Texas in an environment of significant economic growth. A summary of Texas emissionsprojected to 2018 is provided in Table 7-3: CENRAP's 2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for Texas. Nitrogen Oxide (QY) 184,896

Area 

# 1 899,497 274,663 

# 1 114,138 

# 1 1,420,681 

# 1 354,712 

# / 1,557,089

# 1 562,379 Table 7-3: CENRAP's 2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for Texas Carbon Monoxide (QY) 755,941

Total 

# 1 6,073,930

# 1 1,115,676 

# 1 749,119 

# 1 1,949,060

# / 451,214 

# 1 1,695,657 

# 1 601,598 

# 1 *TOG is total organic gas, which includes total hydrocarbons Volatile Organic Compounds (tpy) 4,033,760

PointNonRoad

On-Road

Methodologies used by the CENRAP in developing the 2018 emissions inventory are documented in Appendix 7-1. Technical support documents detailingthe inventory development
are available but are not included in Appendix 7- 1. These documents are available at <www.cenraP.orw. A comparisonof the change 

### in emissions by source category is shown in Figure 7- 1: Comparison ofBase andProjectedAnnual Emissions by Source Category. Even though PM2 5 is a subcategory of PMlo, both are shown for purposes of comparison. PMzs (QY) TOG (QY) NOX (QY) SO2 (QY) PMlo (QY)

542,128 

# 1 525,174 NH3 

### (QY)

625,068
6,988
2,925 1,921,674
2,710,631 167,451
148,387 283,290
119,855
125,234 80,577
10,588
5,337 121,733

11,498
5,337 6,790

239
32,191Area 2002 Area 2018 Point 2002 Point 2018 Nowroad Nowroad Owroad Owroad 2002 2018 2002 2018 Figure 7-1: Comparison of Base and Projected Annual Emissions by Source Category

### CHAPTER 8. MODELING ASSESSMENT



### 8.1 OVERVIEW 

### The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)participatedin the Central Regional Air PlanningAssociation (CENRAP)regional planning process, as described in Chapter 3: Regional Planning 

### and is using the technicalwork conducted by CENRAP in supportof this state implementationplan (SIP) revision (Table 8- 

### 1: FederalMandated ClassIAreas in the CENRAP States). 

### The CENRAP 2002 and projected 2018 annual emissions and air quality modeling was performed by the CENRAP modeling team. Where necessary, the TCEQ also conducted analyses specific to Texas. For instance, the TCEQ conductedbest availableretrofit technology (BART) screening modeling analyses independently from CENRAP, but used the databases developedby CENRAP as the basis for the analyses. The BART screening modeling analyses are described further in Chapter 9: BestAvailable RetroJt Technology.



### This chapter describes CENRAP regional emissions and air quality modeling that was conducted to supportthe central states' regionalhaze SIPS. The information contained in this chapter draws from the Technical Support Document (TSD) developed by the CENRAP modeling team. The TSD, contained in Appendix 8-1: TechnicalSupportDocument for CENRAPEmissions andAir QualityModeling to SupportRegionalHaze 

### SIP, provides further detail on the modeling analyses. Chapter 1 ofthe TSDpresents the background,an overview of the approach, and a summary ofthe results of the.CENRAPmeteorological, emissions, and air quality modeling. Appendix A of the TSD contains more details on the meteorological model evaluation. Details on the emissions modeling areprovided in 

### Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

### ofthe TSD. The model performance evaluation is presented in Chapter 3 

### and Appendix C ofthe TSD. The 2018 visibility projections and comparisons with the 2018 -uniform rate ofprogress (URP) 

### point are provided in 

### Chapter4 

### ofthe TSD, with more details given in Appendix D. Chapter 

### 5 of the TSD contains additional supporting analysiswith detailson the particulate matter 

### (PM) source apportionmentmodeling and alternative projections provided in AppendicesE and 

### F of the TSD, respectively. Chapter 6 

### lists the references cited in TSD.

8.2 BACKGROUND 

### The 1977Federal Clean Air 

### Act (FCAA) amendments added the protection ofvisibility in 

### Federal Class I areas and established the national goal for visibility protection. The FCAA requires statesto submit SIPScontainingemission limits and schedules of compliance. In response to these mandates, the United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) promulgatedthe Regional Haze Rule requiring states to establish goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditionsat Class I areas. CENRAP has used regional air quality models to determine the level of visibility improvementexpectedby 2018.

The CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling Team consists of stafffrom ENVIRON and University of 

### California at Rtverside (UCR), with assistance and coordination from the CENRAP states,tribes, federal agencies, and stakeholders. The team performed the emissions and air quality modeling simulations for states and tribes within the CENRAP region, which provided analytical resultsused in developing implementationplans under the Regional Haze Rule. The CENRAP team performed emissions and air quality modeling used by the TCEQ to determinethe 2018 

### reasonableprogress goals (RPGs).Table 

### 8-1: Federal Mandated Class 

### I Areas in the CENRAP States Class 

### I Area Arkansas

Louisiana Acreage

Caney Creek Wilderness Area Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area

Breton Wilderness Area Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Voyageurs National Park

1 Texas I 14,460 12,018 USDA-FS USDA-FS
5,000+ 

## I USDI-FWS 

## 1 93-632

- - - Oklahoma Federal Land Manager

93-622 93-622

Minnesota 8 10,088 114,964

Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area

8.3 CENRAP MODELING TEAM The CENRAP goals included support to states and tribes to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and development of scientifically supportable, cost-effective control strategies that the states and tribes may adopt to reduce anthropogenic effects on visibility impairment at Class I areas. One component of CENRAP's support to states and tribes as part of compliancewith the Regional Haze Rule is performing emissions and air quality modeling. The CENRAP implemented modeling projects to: 

### PublicLaw

Missouri

8,900 

## 1 USDI-FWS 

## I 91-504

- ----

obtain a better understanding of the causes of visibility impairment; identify potential mitigation measures for visibility impairment at Class I areas; evaluate the effects of alternative control strategies for improving visibility; and project future-year air quality and visibility conditions. USDA-FS USDI-NPS

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area Mingo Wilderness Area

The CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling Team performed the following activities:99-577 99-26 1

Big Bend National Park Guadalupe Mountains National Park

emissions processing and modeling; air quality and visibility modeling simulations; 12,314 8,000

708,118

76,292 USDI-NPS USDI-NPS

analysis, display, and reporting ofmodeling results; and storage and quality assurance ofthe modeling input and output files. 74-157 89-667

The team performed work for the CENRAP Modeling Workgroup under the supervision from the CENRAP technical director, the CENRAP executive director, and the chair of the Modeling Workgroup. USDA-FS USDI-FWS 94-557 95-5578.4 THE 2002 ANNUAL EMISSIONS AND 

### AIR QUALITY MODELING The CENRAP 2002 annual emissionsand air quality modeling started on October 16,2004. The effort involved the preparation ofnumerous databases,model simulations, presentations, and reports. Many of the modeling analyses are posted on the CENRAP modeling website at: http://pah.cert.ucr.edu~aam/cenrap/index.shtml.

8.4.1 Modeling Protocol A modelingprotocol following EPA guidance was prepared at the outset of the study to serve as an outline for performing the CENRAP emissions and air quality modeling and to communicate the modeling plans to the CENRAP participants. The modeling protocol took into account CENRAP7s long-term plan (CENRAP 2003) and the modeling needs of the regional haze SIPS. This modeling protocol is included in this SIP revision as Appendix 8-2:Modeling Protocol for the CENRAP2002Annual Emissions andAir QualityModeling.

8.4.2 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) A QAPP was prepared for the CENRAP emissions and air quality modeling study (Appendix 8-3: QualityAssurance Project Plan for Central RegionalAir PlanningAssociationEmissions and Air Quality Modeling)and describesthe quality management functionsperformed by the modeling team. The QAPP is based on the national consensus standards for quality assurance (ANSVASQC 1994). It follows EPAYs guidelines for quality assurance project plans for modeling (EPA 2002) and for QAPPs (EPA 2001), and takes into accountthe recommendations from the North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO) Quality Handbook for modeling projects (NARSTO 1998). The EPA andNARSTO guidance documents were developed specifically for modeling projects, which have different quality assurance concerns than environmental monitoring data collection projects. The work performed in this project involved modeling at the basic research level and for regulatory and planning applications. In order to use model outputs for these purposes, the modeling team must establish that each model is scientifically sound, robust, and defensibleby following a project planning process that incorporates the following elements as described in the EPA modeling guidance document.

A systematic planning process including identificationof assessmentsand related performance criteria. Peer-reviewed theory and equations. A carefully designed life-cycle developmentprocess that minimizes errors. Documentation of any changes from original plans. Clear documentation of assumptions, theory, and parameterization. Input data and parameters that are accurate and appropriate for the analysis. Output data. A key component of the CENRAP emissions and air quality modeling QAPP is the graphical display of model inputs and outputs and multiple peer review of each step of the modeling process. Work products (e.g., emissions plots, model outputs, etc.) have been displayed on the CENRAP modeling website for review by the CENRAP modeling team, modeling workgroup, and others. This website is at: 

### ht~t://pah.cert.ucr.ed~/a~m~cenra~/index.shtml.

8.4.3 Model Selection The selection of the meteorological, emissions, and air quality models for the CENRAP regional haze modelingwas based on a review of previous regional haze modeling studies performed 

### in the CENRAP region (e.g., Pitchford et al. 2004; Pun, Chen, and Seigneur 2004; Tonnesen and Moms 2004) as well as elsewhere in the United States (e.g., Moms et a1 2004a; Tonnesen et al. 2003; Baker 2004). The CENRAP emissions and air quality modeling protocol (Moms et al. 2004a) provides details on the justification for model selection and the formulation of the differentmodels. 

### 8-3Based on previous work by other Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) and EPA, CENRAP selectedthe following models for use in modeling PM and regionalhaze in the central states:

MM5: The Pennsylvania StateUniversity/National Center for Atmospheric Research (PSU/NCAR)MesoscaleMeteorological Model (MM5Version 3.6 Massively Parallel Processing (MPP)) is a non-hydrostatic, prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-scale photochemical, fme particulate, and regional haze regulatory modeling studies (Anthes and Warner 1978; Chen and Dudhia 2001; Stauffer and Seaman 1990, 1991; Xiu and Pleim 2000). 

### SMOKE: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system is an emissionsmodeling system that generateshourly gridded speciated emission inputs of mobile, non-road, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission sourcesfor photochemicalgrid models (Coats 1995;Houyoux and Vukovich 1999). As with most "emissions models," SMOKE is principally an emission processing system and not a true emissions modeling system. With the exception of mobile and biogenic sources,the purpose of SMOKEis to provide an efficient tool for converting existingbase emissionsinventory data into the hourly, gridded, speciated, and formattedemission files required by an air quality model.

a 

### CMAQ: EPA's Models-3lCommunity MultiscaleAu Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a "One-Atmosphere" photochemical grid model capable of simulating ozone,PM, visibility, and acid deposition at a regional scale for extended periods of time (Dennis, et al. 1996; Byun et al. 1998a;Byun and Ching 1999;Pleim et al. 2003).

a 

### CAMx: ENVIRON7s Comprehensive Air QualityModel with Extensions (CAMx) modeling system is also a state-of-science "One-Atmosphere" photochemical grid model capable of simulating ozone, PM, visibility, and acid deposition at a regional scale for extendedperiods of time. (ENVIRON 2006).

8.4.4 

### MM5 Meteorological Model Configuration The Iowa Department ofNatural Resources (IDNR) performed the 2002 a~ual MM5 modeling
on a 36 kilometer (km) grid for the continental United States (Johnson 2007). The TCEQ and EPA Region W carried out 

### MM5 modeling on a 12

### km grid covering the central states for portions of 2002.

The 

### MM5 Version 3.63 configuration used in the generation of the meteorological modeling datasets consists of the following (see Table 8-2:

### MM5 34 VerticalLayer Definitions for more details):

36 

### km grid with 34 vertical layers; 12

### km nested grid for episodic modeling; Two-way nesting (without feedback)within the 36 km grid for 12 km runs; Initializationand boundary conditions were established using analysis fields generatedby the Eta model. The Eta model is a hydrostatic mesoscale model that uses a pressurebased coordinate system, allowing for easier solutions to the equations of motion. The Eta model excelsin capturing small-scalemeteorological phenomena, especially those induced by terrain, thus improving precipitation forecasts compared to previous mesoscale models (Black 1994);
o Eta 3D and surface analysis data (ds609.2);

o NCEP globaltropospheric SST data (ds083.0) not used;

o Observational enhancement (LITTLE-R); NCEP 

### ADP surface obs (ds464.0); NCEP ADP upper-air obs (ds353.4); Pleim-Xiu (P-X) land-surface model (LSM);

a Pleirn-Chang Asymmetric Convective Mixing (ACM) PBL model;

a Kain-Fritsch 2 cumulus parameterization; 

### 8-4

### Mixed phase (Reisner 1)cloud microphysics; Rapid Radiative TransferModel 

### (RRTM) radiation; No shallow convection (ISHALLO=O); standard 3D FDDA analysis nudging outside of PBL; and surface nudging of the winds only.

8.4.5 SMOKE Emissions Model Configuration SMOKE supports area, mobile, fire, and point source emission processing and includes biogenic emissions modelingthrough a rewrite of the BiogenicEmission Inventory System, Version 3 (BEIS3) (see

### http://www.e~a.govlttdchieflsoftware.html#pcbeis).SMOKE has been available since 1996, and has been used for emissions processing in a number ofregional air quality modeling applications. 

### In 1998 and 1999, SMOKE was redesigned and improved with the supportof the EPA, for use with EPA's Models-3ICMAQ (httu://www.e~a.~ov/asmdnerl/models3). 

### The primary purposes of the SMOKE redesign were support of: (a) emissions processing with user-selected chemical mechanisms; and (b) 

### emissions processing for reactivity assessments.

As an emissions processing system, SMOKEhas far fewer "science configuration" options compared with the MM5 and CMAQ models. Appendix 8- 

### 1 summarizes the version ofthe SMOKE systemused and the sources of data used in constructing the required modeling inventories.

8.4.6 CMAQ Air Quality Model Configuration CENRAP used CMAQVersion 4.5 with the "SOAmods enhancement," or modifications to the secondary organic aerosol (SOA) chemical mechanism as 

### described below, and used the model configuration as shown in Table 8-4. 

### The model was set up and exercised on the same 36 km RPO national grid that Western Regional 

### Air Partnership (WRAP) and Visibility Improvements Stateand Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS)used. CENRAP performed 12

### km CMAQ sensitivitytests and found little change in model performance with a large penalty in 

### computationtime. Consequently, on February 7,2006, the CENRAP Modeling Workgroup decidedto proceed with the CENRAP emissions and air quality modeling using just the 36 

### km national RPO grid (Moms et al. 2006a).

Initial CMAQ 2002 simulationsthat VISTAS ran found that the model greatly underestimates organic mass carbon (OMC) concentrations, especiallyin the summer. A review of the CMAQ formulation found that it failed to treat SOA formation from sesquiterpenes and isoprene and also failed to account for the fact that SOA can become polymerized so that it is no longer volatile and stays in the particle form. Thus, VISTAS updated the CMAQ SOA module to include these missing processes and found much improvedOMC model performance (Moms et al. 2006~). CENRAP tested the CMAQ Version 4.5 with SOA modification enhancement and found it performed much better for OMC than the standard versions of CMAQ Version 4.5. Therefore, CENRAP adopted CMAQ Version 4.5, with the enhanced SOA modifications (Moms et al. 2006~). CMAQ Version 4.5 is available from the CMAS center (w~vw.cmascenter.orrr).
8.4.7 CAMx 

### Air Quality Model Configuration The CENRAP used CAMx Version 4.40 options similar to those used for CMAQ. The CENRAP initially ran CAMx in side-by-side comparisons with CMAQ. The CENRAP reviewed comparativemodel performance results and other factors for CAMx Version 4 and CMAQ Version 4.4 with SOA modifications presented at the February 7,2006, CENRAP Modeling Workgroup meeting. The results indicatedthat: No one model consistentlyperformed better than the other over all species and averaging times; Both models performed well for sulfate;

. 8-5CMAQ's winter nitrate over-prediction tendency was not as large as CAMx's; CAMx performed slightly better than CMAQ for elemental carbon (EC); CMAQ performed much better than CAMx for OMC; Both models over-predicted fine soil and under-predicted coarse mass (CM); CMAQ ran faster than CAMx due to message passing interface 

### (MPI) multi-processing capability; CAMxrequired much less disk space than CMAQ (Moms et al. 2006b).

Based on these factors, the CENRAP selected CMAQ as the lead air quality model for the CENRAP regional haze modeling with CAMx as the secondary corroborative model. However, CAMx also contained a PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) capability that was used widely in the CENRAP modeling. CMAQ does not have this capability. Appendix 8-1 lists the main CAMx configuration for the annual modeling. The CENRAP selected it, in part, to be consistent with the CMAQ model configuration. One exceptionwas that the CAMx PSAT simulations used the Bott advection solver rather than the Piecewise-Parabolic Method (PPM) advection solver. The PPM advection solver istypically used in the standard CAMx and CMAQ
runs. However, the Bott advection solver is more computationally efficient and the high computational requirements of the CAMx PSAT runs dictated this choice.

8.4.8 Modeling Domains The CENRAP conducted emissions and air quality modeling on the 36 km national RPO domain as depicted in Figure 8-2: NationalInter-RPO Modeling Domain. This domain consists of a 148 by 112 array of 36 

### kmby 36 km grid cells covering the continental United States. Sensitivity simulations were also performed for episodes on a 12km modeling domain covering the central states; however, the results were very similarto the 36 Ian results so CENRAP elected to proceed with the 2002 annual modeling using the 36 km domain for computational efficiency (Morris et al. 2006a).

### Figure 8-2: 

### National Inter-RPO ModelingDomain Note: 

### 36 

### km grid used for the CENRAP 2002 annual SMOKE, CMAQ, and CAMx modeling

8.4.9 

### Vertical StructureofModeling Domain The Mh45 meteorological model ran using 34 vertical layers from the surfaceto a pressure level of 100millibars (mb) (approximately 15krn above ground level). Both the CMAQ and CAMx air quality models can employ layer collapsing in which vertical layers in the MM5 are combined in the 

### air quality model, which improves computational efficiency. 

### WRAP and VISTAS evaluated the sensitivityofthe CMAQ model estimatesto the number of vertical layers (Tonnesen et al. 2005,2006; Moms et al. 2004a). CMAQ model simulations were performed with no layer collapsing (i.e.,the same 34 layers as used by MM5) and with various levels of layer collapsing. These studies found that using 19vertical layers up to 100mb (i.e., same model top as 

### MM5) and matching the eight lowest MM5 vertical layers near the surface produced nearly identical results as with no layer collapsing. They also found that very aggressive layer collapsing (e.g., 34 to 12layers) produced results with substantial differences comparedto no layer collapsing. Therefore,based on the 

### WRAP and VISTAS sensitivity analysis, CENRAP adopted the 19vertical layer configurationup to the 100mb model top. Figure 

### 8-3 displays the definition ofthe 34 MM5 vertical layers andhow they collapsed to 19vertical layers 

### in the CENRAP air quality modeling.

### Table 8-2: 

### MM5 34 Vertical Layer Definitions MM5 

### CMAQ 19L Layer Sigma Pres(rnb) HeigM(m Depth(m) Layer Sigma Pres(rnb) Height(m) Depth(m) 34 0.000 100 14662 1841 19 0.000 ID0 14662 6536 33 0.050 145 12822 1466 0.050 145 32 0.100 190 11356 1228 0.1 00 190 31 0.150 235 10127 1062 0.150 235 30 0.200 280 9066 939 0.200 280 29 0.250 325 8127 843 18 0.250 325 8127 2966 28 0.300 370 7284 767 0.300 370 27 0.350 415 6517 704 0.350 415 26 0.400 460 5812 652 0.400 460 25 0.450 505 5160 607 17 0.450 505 5160 1712 24 0.500 550 4553 569 0.500 550 23 0.550 595 3984 536 0.550 595 22 0.600 640 3448 506 16 0.600 640 3448 986 21 0.650 685 2942 480 0.650 685 20 0.700 730 2462 367 15 0.700 730 2462 633 19 0.740 766 2095 266 0.740 766 18 0.770 793 1828 259 14 0.770 793 1828 428 17 0.800 820 1569 169 0.800 820 16 0.820 838 1400 1 66 13 0.820 838 1400 329 15 0.840 856 1235 1 63 0.840 856 14 0.860 874 1071 160 12 0.860 874 1071 160 13 0.880 892 911 1 58 11 0.880 892 911 1 58 12 0.900 910 753 78 10 0.900 910 753 1 55 11 0.910 919 675 

## n 0.910 919 10 0.920 928 598 77 9 0.920 928 598 1 53 9 0.930 937 521 76 0.930 937 8 0.940 946 445 76 8 0.940 946 445 76 7 0.950 955 369 75 7 0.950 955 369 75 6 0.960 964 294 74 6 0.960 964 294 74 5 0.970 973 220 74 5 0.970 973 220 74 4 0.980 982 146 37 4 0.980 982 146 37 3 0.985 986.5 109 37 3 0.985 986.5 109 37 2 0.990 991 73 36 2 0.990 991 73 36 I 0.995 995.5 36 36 1 0.995 995.5 36 36 0 1.000 1000 0 0 0 1.000 lo00 0 0 I
Note: Scheme for collapsing the 

### 34 layers down to 19 layers for the CENRAP CMAQ, and CAMx 2002 annual modeling.



### 8.4.10 2002 Calendar Year Selection The CENRAP selected the calendar year 2002 for regional haze annual modeling as described in the modeling protocol (Morris et al. 2004a). The EPA's applicable guidance on PM2,5 and regional haze modeling at that time (EPA 200 1) identified specific goals to considerwhen selecting modeling periods for use in demonstrating reasonable progress in attaining the regional haze goals. Since there is much in common with the goals for selecting episodes for annual and episodicPM2.5 attainment demonstrations as well as regional haze, EPA's current guidance addresses all three in a common document (EPA 2007). At the time of the modeling period selection, EPA had also published an updated summary of PM2.5 and Regional Haze Modeling Guidance (Timin 2002) that served, in some respects, as an interim placeholder until issuance of the final guidance as part of the PM2,5 and regional haze National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

### 8-8

### implementation process published in April 2007 (EPA 2007). The interimEPA modeling guidance for episode selection (EPA 200 1;

### Timin 2002) was consistentwith the final EPA regional haze modeling guidance (EPA 2007).

EPA recommends that the selectionof a modeling period derive fiom three principal criteria:

a variety of meteorological conditions shouldbe coveredthat include the types of meteorological conditionsthat produce the worst 20 percent andbest 20 percent visibility days at Class 

### I areas in the CENRAP states duringthe 2000 through 2004 baseline period; to the extent possible, the modeling data base should include days for which enhanced databases (i.e., beyond routine aerometricand emissions monitoring) are available;and sufficient days shouldbe available such that relative response factors (RRFs) can be based on several (i.e., >15) days.

For regionalhaze modeling, the guidance goes furtherby suggesting that the preferred approach is to model a full,representative 

### year (EPA 2001, pg. 188). Moreover, calculationsof the required 

### RRF values shouldbe based on model results averaged over the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days determined for each Class I 

### area based onmonitoring data from the 2000 through 2004 baseline period. More recent EPA guidance (Timin 2002) suggests that states should model at least the 10 worst and 10best visibility days at each Class 1 area. EPA also lists several "other considerations" to bear in mind when choosing potentialPM and regional haze episodesincluding: choose periodsthat have alreadybeen modeled; chooseperiods that are drawn from the years upon which the current design values are based; includeweekend days among those chosen; and choosemodeling periods that meet as many episode selection criteria aspossible in 

### the maximum number of nonattainment or Class 

### I areas as possible.

Due to limited available resources,CENRAP modeled a single calendaryear. The Regional Haze Rule uses the five-yearbaseline period of 2000 through 2004 as the starting point for projecting future-yearvisibility. Thus, the modeling year should be selected from this five-yearbaseline period. The CENRAP selected the 2002 calendaryear, which lies 

### in the middle ofthe 2000 through 2004 baseline, forthe following reasons.
Based on available information,2002 appears to be a fairly typical year in terms of meteorology for the five-year baselineperiod of 2000 through 2004. 2003 and 2004 appeared to be colder and wetter 

### than typical in the easternUnited States. The enhancedInteragency Monitoring ofProtected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) and IMPROVE protocol sites and supersitesPM monitoring data were fully operational by 2002. Much less IMPROVE monitoring data was available during 2000 through 200 1,especially in the CENRAPregion. IMPROVE data for 2003 and 2004 were not yet available at the time that the CENRAP modeling was initiated. The other RPOs wereusing 2002.

8.4.11 Initial Concentrations and Boundary Conditions 

### The CMAQ and CAMx models were operated separately for each of four quarters ofthe 2002 year using 

### an approximate 15-day spin-up period (i.e., the models started approximately 15 days before the first day of interest in each quarter to limit the influenceof the assumed initial concentrations,e.g., start June 15 for the third quarter, whose first day of interest is July 1).Sensitivity simulationsdemonstrated that with fifteen initialization days, the influenceofinitial concentrationswas minimalusing the 36 

### km Inter-RPO continental United States modeling domain. Consequently, clean initial concentrations were specifiedin the CMAQ and CAMx modeling using a 15-day spin-up period. Boundary conditions (i.e., the assumed concentrations along the later edges ofthe 36 

### km modeling domain, see Figure 8-2) used the results from a 2002 simulation by the GEOS-CHEM global circulation~chernistry model. GEOS-CHEM is a three-dimensional global chemistry model driven by assimilatedmeteorological observationsfrom the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) of the NASA GlobalModeling and Assimilation Office. Research groups around the world apply it to a wide range of atmospheric compositionproblems, including future climates and planetary atmospheres using general circulationmodel meteorology to drive the model. The Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling Group at Harvard University provides central management and support of the model.

VISTAS coordmated ajoint RPO study in which Harvard University applied the GEOS-CHEM global model for the 2002 calendar year (Jacob, Park, and Logan 2005). The University of Houston was retained to process the 2002 GEOS-CHEM output into boundary conditions for the CMAQ model 

### (Byun 2004). There were several quality assurance (QA) checks of the boundary conditions generated from the 2002 GEOS-CHEM output. The first QA check was a range check to assure reasonablevalues. The boundary conditions were compared against the GEOS-CHEM outputs to assure the mapping and interpolation were performed correctly. The University ofHouston supplied the code to map the GEOS-CHEM output to the CMAQ boundary conditions format. Environ reviewed the code and duplicatedgeneration ofthe boundary conditions for several time periods during 2002.

8.4.12 Emission Input Preparation The CENRAP SMOKE emissions modeling used updated 2002 emissions data for the United States (Pechan 2005c,e; Reid et al. 2004a,b), 1999 emissions data for Mexico (ERG 2006), and 2000 emissionsdata for Canada. These data were used to generate a final2002 Base G Typical (Typ02G) annual emissionsdatabase. Numerous iterations of the emissions modeling were conducted using interim databases before arriving at the final Base G emission inventories(e.g., Momset al. 2005). The 2018 Base Gbase case emissions (Base18G) for most source categories in the United States were based on projections ofthe 2002 inventory assuming growth and control (Pechan2005d). 2018 EGU emissions were based on the 

### run2.1.9 ofthe Integrated Planning Model (IPM) updated by the CENRAP states. Canadian emissions for the Basel8G scenario were based on a 2020 inventory. The Mexican 1999 inventory was held constant for 2018.

The Typ02G and Base18G emission inventories represent significantimprovementsto the preliminary emissions modeling CENRAP performed (Moms et al. 2005). While the preliminary 2002 modeling served to develop the infrastructure for modeling large emissions data sets and producing annual emissions simulations,much ofthe input data (both as inventories and ancillary data) were placeholders for actual 2002 data being prepared through calendar year 2005. As actual 2002 data sets became available, they were integrated into the SMOKE modeling and QA system that was developed during the preliminary modeling, to produce a high-quality emissions data set for use in the final CMAQ and CAMx modeling. The addition of entirelynew inventory categories, like marine shipping, added complexity to the modeling. By the end of the emissions data collectionphase, there were 23 separateemissions processing streams covering a variety of source categoriesnecessary to generate model-ready emission inputs for the 2002 calendaryear. Details on the emissionsmodeling are in Chapter 2 and Appendix B ofthe TSD (Appendix 8-1).8.4.13 MeteorologicalData Input Preparation 

### The IDNR conducted the 2002 36 

### km MM5 

### meteorological modeling and also performed a preliminarymodel performance evaluation (Johnson,2007). CENRAP performed an 

### additional MM5 

### evaluation of the CENRPLP 2002 36 km MM5 

### simulation that included a comparative evaluation against the final VISTAS 2002 36 km MM5 

### and an 

### interim

### WRAP 2002 36 

### km simulation (Kemball-Cook et al. 2004). Kernball-Cook and co-workers (2004) found the following in the comparative evaluation of the CENRAP, 

### WRAP, and VISTAS 2002 36 km MM5 simulations (details in Appendix A of the TSD):
SurfaceMeteorolopicalPerformance within the CENRAP Region The threeMM5 

### simulations(CEW, VISTAS, and 

### WRAP) obtained comparable model performance for winds and humidity that were within model performance benchmarks. The 

### WRAP MM5 

### simulation obtained better temperaturemodel performance than the other two simulations due to the use of surface temperature data assimilation.


### o In the fmalWRAPMM5 

### simulationthe use of surface temperature assimilation was droppedbecause it introduced instabilityin the vertical structure ofthe atmosphere. For all three runs, the northern portion of CENRAP domain (e.g. Minnesota) had a cold bias 

### in winter and a warm bias in summer.
Surface Meteoroloaical Performance outsidethe CENRAP Region All three runs had similar surface wind model performance in the western United States that was outsidethe model performancebenchmarks. For temperature, the 

### WRAP MM5 

### simulationhad the best performance overall due to the surface temperature data assimilation that was dropped in the finalWRAP run. The three runs had comparable humidityperformance, althoughWRAP 

### exhibited a larger wet bias in the summer and in the southwesternUnited States. Uvper-Air Meteorological Performance The VISTAS and CENRAP MM5 

### simulationswere better able to reproduce the deep convective summerboundary layers compared to the WRAP MM5 

### simulations, which exhibited a smoother decrease 

### in temperature with increase in altitude. CENRAP and VISTAS MM5 

### simulations better simulated the surface temperature inversionsthan WRAP. WRAP 

### was better able to simulatethe surface temperature. All three models exhibited similar vertical wind profiles. PrecipitationPerformance In winter, all three MM5 

### simulations exhibited similar, fairly good performance in reproducing the spatial distribution and magnitudes of the monthly average observed precipitation. In summer, all runs had a wet bias, particularly in the desert southwestwhere the interim 

### WRAP run had the largest wet bias.
In conclusion,the VISTAS simulation appeared to performbest, and the CENRAP MM5 

### model performance was generally between the VISTAS and WRAP 

### performance, with performance
more similar to VISTAS than WRAP. 

### Although the interim WRAP MM5 

### simulation performed best for surfacetemperature due to the surface temperature data assimilation, the surface temperature assimilation degraded the MM5 

### upper-air performance including the ability to assimilate surface inversions and was ultimately dropped from the finalWRAP 

### MM5 simulations (Kemball-Cooket al. 2005).The 

### IDNR 12km MM5 simulationswere also evaluated and compared with the performance of the 36 

### km MM5 simulation (Johnsonet al. 2007). The IDNR 36 

### km and 12km MM5 model performance was similar (Johnson 2007), which supported the findings of the CMAQ and CAMx 36 and 12

### krn sensitivity simulationsthat there was littlebenefit ofusing a 12km grid for simulating regionalhaze at rural Class I areas (Moms et al. 2006a). However, as noted by Tomesen and co-workers (2005; 2006) and EPA modeling guidance (199 1; 1999; 200 1;2007) this finding does

### not necessarily hold for eight-hour ozone and PM2 5 modeling that is characterizedby sharper concentrationgradients and frequently occurs in the urban environment
as compared to the more rural nature of regional haze.

8.4.14 Photolysis Rate Model Input Several chemicalreactions in the atmosphere are initiated by the photodissociation of various trace gases. To accurately represent the complex chemicaltransformations in the atmosphere, accurate estimates of these photodissociationrates must be made. The Models-3lCMAQ system includes the JPROC processor, which calculates a table of clear-sky photolysis rates (or J-values) for a specific date. JPROC uses defaultvalues for total aerosol loading and provides the option to
use default ozone column data or to use measured total ozone column data. These data come from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer(TOMS) satellite data. TOMS data that is available at 24-hour averages was obtained fiom htt~://toms.~sfc.nasa.oov/e~toms/e~.html. Day-specific TOMS data was used in the CMAQ radiation model (JPROC)to calculatephotolysis rates. The TOMS data were missing or erroneous for severalperiods in 2002: August 2-12, June 10,and November 18-1 9. Thus, the TOMS data for August 1,2002,was used for August 2-7 and TOMS data for August 13was used for August 8-12. Similarly,TOMS data for June 9 was used for June 10 and data for August 17was used for August 18- 19. Note that the total column of ozone in the atmosphereis dominated by stratospheric ozone, which has very little day-to-day variability, so the use of TOMS data within a week or two of an actual day introduces minimal uncertainties 

### in the modeling analysis.

JPROC produces a "look-up" table that provides photolysis rates as a function of latitude, altitude, and time (in terms of the number of hours of deviation from local noon, or hour angle). In the current CMAQ implementation,the J-values are calculated for six latitudinal bands (lo0, 20°, 30°, 40°, 50°, and 60" N), seven altitudes (0 

### km,1km, 2 km, 3 km, 4 km, 5 

### krn,and 10km), and hourly values up to plus or minus 

### 8 hours of deviation from local noon. During model calculations,photolysis rates for each model grid cell are estimated by fust interpolating the clear-sky photolysis rates from the look-up table using the grid cell latitude, altitude, and hour angle, followed by applying a cloud correction (attenuation) factorbased on the cloud inputs from MM5.

The photolysis rates input file was prepared as separatelook-up tables for each simulation day. Photolysis files are ASCII files that were visually checked for selected days to verify that photolysis rates are withm the expected ranges. The Tropospheric Ultraviolet and Visible (TUV) Radiation Model 

### (htt~:ilcvnn.acd.ucar.edu/Models/TUVi~ is used to generate the photolysis rates input file for CAMx. TOMS ozone data and land use data were used to develop the CAMx Albedo/Haze/Ozone input file for 2002. As for CMAQ, the missing TOMS data period in the fall of 2002 was filled in using observed TOMS data on either side ofthe missing period using the
same procedures as described above for CMAQ. Default land use specific albedo values were used and a constant haze value used, correspondingto rural conditions overNorth America.

8.4.15 Air Quality Data Input Preparation Air quality data used with the CMAQ and CAMx modeling systems include: (1) initial concentrations that are the assumed initial three-dimensional concentrations throughout the modeling domain; (2) the boundary conditions that are the concentrations assumed along thelateral edges of the 

### RPO national 36 

### km modeling domain; and (3) air quality observations that
are used in the model performance evaluation (MPE). The MPE is discussed in Chapter 3 and Appendix C of the TSD.

As previously noted, CMAQ default clean initial concentrations were used along with an approximately 15-day spin 

### up (initialization) period to eliminate any significantinfluence of the initial concentrations on the modeled concentrations for the days of interest. The same initial concentrations were used with CAMx. Both CMAQ and CAMx were 

### run for each quarter ofthe year. Each quarter's model 

### run was initialized 15 daysprior to the first day of interest (e.g., for the third quarter,July-August-September, the model was initialized on June 15,2002,with the first modeling day of interest July 1,2002). The CMAQboundary conditions for the inter-RPO 

### 36 

### km continentalUnited States grid (Figure 8-2) were based on day-specific three-hour averages from the output ofthe GEOS-CHEM global simulationmodel of 2002 (Jacob, Park, and Logan 2005). The 2002 GEOS-CHEM output was mapped to the species and vertical layer structure of CMAQ and interpolated to the lateralboundaries of the 36 

### krn grid shown

### in Figure 8-2 

### (Byun 2004).

Table 8-6 summarizes the surface air quality monitoringnetworks and the number of sites available in the CENRAP region that were used in the model performance evaluation. Data from these monitoring networks were also used to evaluate the CMAQ and CAMx models outside of the CENRAP region.Table 

### 8-3: Ground-level Ambient Data Monitoring Networks and Stations for 2002

I Monitoring

Network

EPA-STN IL AIRSIAQS 

### ( CO, NO, 

### NOz, NOx, and Ozone 

# I Hourly; Hourly 25 Note: Available in the CENRAP states for calendar year 2002 and used in the model

CASTNET NADP

performance evaluation.



### IMPROVE Speciated

### PM2.5 and PMlo 1 in 3 days; 24 

### hr Hourly, Weeklv: 1 Chemical Species Measured

8.4.16 2002 Base Case Modeling and Model Performance Evaluation CENRAP's modeling contractors evaluated the CMAQ and CAMx modeling results against ambient measurements of PM species, gas-phase species, and wet deposition. Table 8-6 summarizes the networks used in the model evaluation, the species measured, and the averaging times and frequency of the measurements. CENRAP carried out numerous iterations of CMAQ and CAMx 2002 base case simulations and model performance evaluations during the course of the CENRAP modeling study. Most of them are posted on the CENRAP modeling website (http, and summariesof the work are in previous reports and presentations for CENRAP (e.g.,Morris et al. 2005; 2006a, b). Chapter 3 and Appendix C of the TSD provide details on the final 2002 Base 

### F 36 

### krn CMAQbase case modeling performance evaluation. Because of the similarity between 2002 Base F and 2002 Base G and resource constraints, CENRAP did not repeat the model evaluation for Base G. In general, the model performance of the CMAQ and CAMxmodels for sulfate (SO4)and elemental carbon (EC) was good. Model performance for nitrate (NO3)was variable, with a summer underestimation and winter overestimationbias. Performance for organic carbon mass (OMC)
was also variable,with the inclusion of the SOA modification enhancementin CMAQ Version 4.5 greatly improving the CMAQ summer OMC model performance (Morris et al., 2006~). Model performance for soil and CM was generally poor. Part of the poor performance for fine soil and coarse mass appear to be due to measurement-model incommensurability. The IMPROVE measured values are due, in part, to local blowing dust sourcesthat are not captured in the model's emission inputs and the 

### 36 

### km grid resolution is not conducive to modeling localized events. Also, the model usually fails to simulate locally high winds creating dust clouds in one part of the Chihuahuan Desert that later move with lower speed winds to affect Guadalupe Mountains National Park or other Class I areas. Figures 8-4 and 8-5 show the observed light extinction comparedto the modeled light extinction at Big Bend National Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park. *, SpeciatedPM2.5 and Ozone 

# 1 hr, 1week Sampling Frequency;

Duration

3 Approximate

Number of Monitors

Wet S04, Wet N03, and Wet N& 

### I Weeklv 7 7

# I- Worst 20% Obs (left) vs Typ02g (right) at BlBEl

Julian Day in Worst20% group 

# i

-- Figure 8-4: Observed and Base Case Modeled Concentrations atBig Bend Note: Extinction calculated using the new IMPROVE equation using observed concentrations and base case modeled concentrations at Big Bend National Park. The new IMPROVE equation calculations relied on 2002 IMPROVE data for the worst 20 percent of monitored days and the modeling used the 2002 base 

### F emission inventory.

### Worst 20% Obs (left)vs Typ02g (right) at GUM01

74 83 92 95 122 131 137 146 161 164 167 170 173 176 191 218 221 245 251 254 260 266 272 329 - Avg Jullan Day In Worst 20% group Figure 8-5: Observed and Base Case Modeled Concentrations at Guadalupe Mountains Note: Extinction calculatedusing the new IMPROVE equation using observed concentrations and base case modeled concentrationsat Guadalupe Mountains National 

### Park. The new IMPROVE equation calculations relied on 2002 IMPROVE data for the worst 20 percent of monitored days and the modeling used the 2002 base F emission inventory.
8.4.17 2018 Modeling and Visibility Projections Emissions for the 201 8 base case were generated following the procedures discussedin Chapter 2 of the TSD. Emissions

### in 2018 for electrical generating units (EGUs) were based on simulations of the Integrated Planning Model 

### (IPM) that took into account the effects of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) on emissions from EGUs in CAIR states using an 

### IPM realization of a CAIR cap and trade program. Emissions for on-road and non-road mobile sources were based on activity growth and emissions factors fromthe EPA MOBILE Vehicle Emission Modeling Software Version 6 (MOBILE6) and NONROAD models, respectively. Area sources and nonEGU point sources were grown to 2018 levels using Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) (Pechan 2005d). The Canadian year 2000 emissions inventorywas replaced by 

### a Canadian 2020 emissionsinventory for the 2018 CMAQ/CAMx simulations. The following sources were assumed to remain constantbetween the 2002 and 2018 base case simulations: biogenic VOC and NOX emissions from the Biogenic Emissions Inventory System Version 3 (BEIS3)model; wind-blown dust associatedwith non-agriculturalsources (i.e., natural wind-blown fugitive dust); off-shore emissionsassociated with off-shore

### marine and oil and gas production activities; emissionsfrom wildfires;emissions from Mexico; and global transport (i.e., emissionsdue to boundary conditions from the 2002 GEOS-CHEM global chemistrymodel).

The results from the 2002 and 201 8 CMAQ and CAMx simulations were used to project 2018 PM levels from which 2018 visibility estimates were obtained. The 2002 and 2018 modeling results were used in a relative sense to scale the observed PM concentrations from the 2000 through 2004 baseline and the IMPROVE monitoringnetwork to obtainthe 201 8 PM projections. The modeled scaling factors are called relative response factors (RRFs) and are constructed as the ratio ofmodeling results for the 2018 model simulationto the 2002 model simulation. Two important regional haze metrics are the average visibility for the worst 20 percent and best 20 percent days from the 2000 through 2004 five-yearbaseline. For the 2018 visibility projections, EPA guidancerecommends developing Class

### I area and PM species specific RRFs using the average modeling results for the worst 20 percent days during the 2002 modeling period and the 2002 and 2018 emission scenarios. The results of the CENRAP 2018 visibility projections following EPA guidanceprocedures (EPA 2007a) are provided in Chapter 4 and Appendix D of the TSD in Appendix 8-1 of this SIP revision. CENRAP has also developed alternative procedures for visibility projections that are discussed in Chapter 5 and Appendix D ofthe TSD. For example, much ofthe CM impact at Class I area IMPROVE monitors are believed to be natural and primarily from local sources that are subgrid-scaleto the modeled 36 

### krn grid so are not represented in the modeling. Thus, one alternative visibility projection approach is to set the 

### RRF for CM to 1 .O. That is, the CM impacts in 201 8 are assumed to be the same as in the observed 2000-2004 baseline. Similarly,the soil impacts at IMPROVE monitors are likely mainly due to local dust sources so another alternative approach is to set the RRFs for both CM and soil to 1.0.

The 2018 visibility projections for the worst 20 percent days are compared against a 20 18point
on the uniform rate ofprogress (URP) glide path or the "2018 URP point." The 20 18 URP point is obtained by constructing a linear visibility glide path 

### in deciviews from the observed 2000 through 2004 baseline (EPA 2003a) for the worst 20 percent days to the 2064 natural conditions (EPA 2003b). Where the linear glide path crosses the year 2018 is the 20 18 URP point. States may use the modeled 2018 visibility to help define their 2018 RPG in their Regional Haze SIPS. The 201 8 

### URP point is used as a benchmark to helpjudge the 201 8 modeled visibility projections and the state's RPG. However, as noted in EPA's RPG guidance, "The glide path is not a presumptive target, and states may establish a 

### RPG that provides for greater, lesser, or equivalent visibility improvement as that described by the glidepath" (EPA 2007b). Chapter 4 and Appendix D ofthe TSD present the 2018 visibility projections for the CENRAP Class I areas and their comparisonswith the 20 18 

### URP point using EPA default visibility projection procedures (EPA 2007a) and EPA default

### URP glide paths (EPA 2003a,b; 2007b).

Various techniques have been developed to display the 2018 visibility modeling results including "DotPlots" that display the 2018 visibility projections as a percentage ofmeeting the 2018 point
on the URP glidepath. A value of 100percent on the DotPlot indicates that the Class I area is predicted to meet the 20 1 8 point on the URP glidepath. Over 100percent means the 20 18 visibility projection obtains more visibility improvements (reductions) than required to meet the 2018 point on the URP glide path (i.e., projected value is below the glide path). Less than 100 percent indicates that fewer visibility improvements are projected than are needed to meet the 2018 point URP on the glide path (i.e., above the glide path). Figure 8-4 displays a DotPlot that compares the 20 18 visibility projections from the CENRAP 2018 Base G CMAQ simulation with the 201 8 URP point using the EPA default RRFs and alternative RRFs that set the CM and soil RRFs to unity (i.e., assume CM and soil are natural soremain unchanged from the 2000-2004 baseline). For these results, the 2018 visibility projections at the Hercules Glades (HEGL1) Class I area meets the 2018 point on the URP glide path (100 percent),whereas the 2018 visibility projections at Caney Creek (CACR), Mingo (MING), and Upper Buffalo WBU)achieve morevisibility improvements than needed to meet the 201 8 URP point so are below the 2018 

### LTRP glide path. However, the 2018 visibility projections at Breton come up slightly short (approximately5 percent) ofmeeting the 201

### 8point on the URP glide path and Wichita Mountains WO) comes up approximately40 percent short ofmeeting the 201 8 point 

### on the URP glide path. Class I areas at the northern (e.g., VOYA, BOWA, and ISLE) and southern (e.g., 

### BIBE and GUMO) boundaries of the United States also fall short of achieving the 2018 URP point. High contributionsof international transport andfornatural sources (e.g., windblown dust) affect the ability ofthese Class I areas to be on the URP glide path calculated using the default estimates produced by the Natural Conditions

### I1 Committee (NC-11). Chapters4 and 5 ofthe TSD in Appendix 8-1 discuss these issues 

### in more detail.

CMAQ BaseGa Method 1 predictionsfor CENRAP+ sites

200% .Regular RRF OCM RRF=l 180% - -- $- ACMBSOIL RRFs=l

CENRAP non-CENRAP Figure 8-6: 2018 Visibility ProjectionsExpressed as Percent ofMeeting the 2018 

### URP Point Note: Using the default NC-TI estimates of natural conditions. BADL Badlands Wilderness Area BOWA Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness CACR Caney Creek Wilderness Area HEGL Hercules-Glades WildernessArea ISLE Isle Royale National Park LOST LostwoodWilderness Area MACA Mammoth Cave National Park SIPS Sipsey Wilderness Area THRO TheodoreRoosevelt National Park UPBU Upper Buffalo WildernessArea VOYA VoyageursNational Park WICA Wind Cave National Park8.4.18 

### Additional SupportingAnalysis CENRAP performed numerous supporting analyses of its modeling results including analyzing alternative glide paths and 2018 projection approaches and performing confirmatoryanalysis of the 2018 visibility projections. Details on the additional supporting analysis are contained in Chapter 5 ofthe TSD, which include:

The CENRAP 2018 visibility projections were compared with those generated by VISTAS and MRPO. There was close agreementbetween the CENRAP and VISTAS 20 18 visibilityprojections at almost all common Class I areas, with the exception of Breton Island where the CENRAP's projections were slightly more optimistic than VISTAS'. The MRPO 2018 visibility projections were less optimisticthan CENRAP's at the four Arkansas-Missouri Class I areas. This difference may have been due to CENRAP's BART emission controls in CENRAP states that were not included in the 2018 MRPO inventory. Extinctionbased glide paths were developed and the CENRAP 20 18 visibility projections
were shown to produce nearly identical estimatesof achievingthe 2018 URPpoint when using total extinction glide paths as when the linear deciview glide paths were used. With the extinction based glidepaths the analysis of 2018 

### URP could be made on a PM species-by-species basis where it was shown that 2018 extinctions due to So4 and, to a lesser extent,NO3and EC, achieve the 

### URP,but the other species do not and, in fact, extinction due to soil and CM is projected to get worse. 2018 visibilityprojections were made using EPA's Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS) and the CENRAP Typ02G and Base 18Gmodeling results. The CENW 20 18 visibilityprojections agreed with those generated by MATS with three exceptions: Breton, Boundary Waters, and Mingo Class I areas. At these three Class I areas MATS did not produce any 20 18 visibility projectionsdue to insufficientobserved 2000-2004 data in the raw IMF'ROVE database to produce a valid baseline. CENRAP used filled data for these three Class I areas. PM PSAT modeling was conducted to estimate the contributionsto visibility impairment at Class I areasby source region (e.g., states) and major source category. Source contributionswere obtained for a 2002 and 2018 base case and the PSAT modeling results were implemented in a PSAT VisualizationTool that was provided to CENRAP states and others. Major findings from the PSAT source apportionment modeling include the following:
o Sulfate from elevated point sources was the highest source category contribution to visibility impairment at CENRAP Class I areas for the worst 20 percent days.
o Intemational transport contributed significantly to visibility impairment at CENRAP Class I areas on the southern (BIBE and GUMO) and northern (BOWA and VOYA) borders of the United States and to a lesser extent at WIMO. Alternative visibility projections were made, assumingthat CM alone, and CM and soil
were natural in origin. Visibility projections were made using an alternativemodel (CAMx)that verified the projections made by CMAQ.

0 The effects of international transport were examined severalways indicating that the inability of the 20 18 visibility projectionsto acheve the 2018URP point at the northern and southern border Class I areas was due to high contributions due to Intemational Transport. Visibilitytrends for the worst 20 percent days, best 20 percent days, and all monitored days were analyzed at CENRAP Class I areas using the period of record IMPROVE observations. At most Class 

### I areas there were insufficient years of data to produce a discemable trend. In addition, there was significant year-to-yearvariability in visibility impairmentwith episodic events (e.g., wildfires and windblown dust) confounding the analysis. 

### 8-19

### CHAPTER 9. BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY

On July 6, 2005, the EPA published final amendmentsto its 1999Regional Haze Rule including Appendix 

### Y, the final guidance for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations in theFederalRegister (70 FR 

### 39 104-39172). The BART rule requires the installation of BART
on emission sources that fit specific criteria and "may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute" to visibility impairment in any'class

### I area (Appendix 9- 1: 

### US. EPA BARTRule).


### 9.1 BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES IN 

### TEXAS The TCEQ's BART rule adopted on January 10,2007,identifies potentially affected sources as those: belonging to one of 26 industry source categories; having the potential to emit (PTE) 250 tons per year ormore of any visibility-impairing pollutant; and not operating prior to August 7, 1962,and in existence on August 7, 1977 (Appendix 9-2: Texas BARTRule).

The state is not required to make a determination of BART for SO2 or NOx if a BART-eligible
sourcehas the PTE less than 40 tons per year of such pollutant(s) or less than 15tons per year for PMlo.


### A state that opts to participate 

### in the CAIR program need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for SO2 or NOx. Texas is 

### participating in 

### CAIR. The TCEQhas also adopted the model plants, or option 2, developedby the EPA; this is an approach for using model plants to exempt individual sources with common characteristics (70 FR 39162-3). Any BART-eligible source that has the PTE less than 500 tons per year of combined SO2 and NOx and that is located more than 50 kilometers from any Class 

### I area is not subject to BART for SO2 and NOx. Any BART-eligible sourcethat has the PTE less than 1,000 tonsper year of combined SO2and NOx and that is located more than 100kilometers from any Class

### I area is not subject to BART for SO2and NOx.

The TCEQ reviewed its emission inventory data and used the EPA's model plants as an initial screening tool for identifying potentially BART-eligible sources. Surveyswere sent to approximately 250 potentially BART-eligible sources. Based on results from the surveys completed by potentially BART-eligible sources and submittedto the TCEQ in 2005, over 100
sources were identified as BART eligible. Table 9-1 : 

### BART-Eligible SourcesBased on Results of TCEQ Survey presents the sources that were determinedto be BART eligible.Table 9-1: BART-Eligible Sources Based on Results ofTCEQ Survey 

# 1 No. 

# I Account 

# I Source Regulated 

# I SIC 

# 1 I Entitv



### 1 4 

### 1 NE0024E 

### I AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY 

### I RN100642040 

### 1 491 1 

### 1 1 2 3 ACOO 17B TG0044C CDOO13K

5 6 ABITIBI CONSOLIDATED CORP AEPTEXAS AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY

-~

~ NE0026A JI0030K RN100220110 RN101531226 RN102560687

- -- -~ -

~ ~ 2621 4911 491 1

AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY AEP TEXAS NORTH COMPANY RN100552181 RN100215557 4911 491 182 ME0006A SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER RN 100542596 83 PG0040T SOUTHWESTERNPUBLIC SERVICE RN100224641 

### Table 

### 9-1: BART-Eligible Sources Based on Results of 

### TCEQ Survey fcont'd)

85 86 87 

### Regulated 

### Entity RN100542281 

### Source EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP 

### No. 44 

### SIC 2869 

### Account HG0033B

LN0081B JE009 1L WNOO42V 45 46 47 48 49 50 5 1 HG0228H JE0065M 

# -- HG0229F HG0232Q

JE0067I NE0120H NE0 122D 

# --- EnON CHEMICAL CO EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL CO EXXONMOBIL CORP EXXONMOBIL OIL CORP FLINT HILLS RESOURCES FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP 

# ----

SOUTHWESTERNPUBLIC SERVICE 

### (formerly XCEL) SUN MARINE TERMINAL TARGA 52 JEO052V HUNTSMAN CORPORATION RN100219252

55 BL0002S INEOS OLEFINS & POLYMERS RN100238708 56 CGOO10G INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO RN100543115 57 OCA002B INVISTA RN104392626 RN 10221 2925 RN100211903 RN102574803 RN102579307 RN102450756 RN102534138 RN100235266

5 8 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

RN100224765 RN100214626 RN102552387 2869 2821 

# 7

291 1 291 1 291 1 2911

491 1 4226 1311 68 GB0037T NRG TEXAS 

### (formerly TEXAS GENCO LP) RN101062826 69 ED005 10 OWENS CORNING RN100223585 70 HG1451S OXYVINYLSLP 

### RN 1025 18065 7 1 HGO 175D PASADENA REFINING RN100716661 2911 72 JE0042B PREMCOR REFINING GROUP RN102584026 291 1 73 MC0002H REGENCY TILDEN GAS 

### (formerlyENBRIDGE) RN 10021662 1 2819 74 HG06970 RHODIA INC RN100220581 2819 75 HG0632T ROHM & HAAS TEXAS RN 100223205 2869

79 BL0038U SOLUTIAINC RN100238682 VC0008Q WE0005G MB0123F NE0025C BCOO15L FCOO18G HG1575W HG0048L GB0055R HHOO19H INVISTA (formerly DU PONT DE NEMOLRS) LAREDO POWER LEHIGH CEMENT COMPANY 

# ----- LON C HILL POWER 

## ------ LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY LYONDELL CHEMICAL LYONDELL CITGOREFINING MARATHON ASHLAND PETROLEUM NORIT AMERICAS INC RN102663671 RN100213909 RN100218254 RN100215979 RN102038486 RN10022684-4 RN100633650 RN100218130 

### RN 100210608 RN102609724 2869 491 1 3241 491 1 491 1 491 1 2869 291 1 2911 2819

### Table 

### 9-1: BART-Eligible Sources Based on Results ofTCEQ Survey (cont'd)



# ,



# ' 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 HR0018T GB0073P NE0043A MR0008T WH0014S VC0003D JBOO 16M JC0003K 

### No. 88 89



## , Account CYOO 1 9H OCOO19C

VALENCE MIDSTREAM LTD VALERO REFINING CO TEXAS VALERO REFINING COMPANY VALERO MCKEE (formerly DIAMOND) 

### VETROTEX WICHITA FALLS PLANT VICTORIA POWER VINTAGE PETROLEUM INC WESTVACO SIC 1311 2621 

### Source TARGA (formerlyDYNEGY MIDSTREAM) TEMPLE-INLAND 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 

### Regulated Entity RN102551785 RN100214428

RN100213685 RN100238385 RN100211663 RN100210517 RN100218601 RN100214980 RN100214592 RN102157609 CIOO12D FG0020V HKOO14M HG0562P BL0082R JE0039N NE00221

1321 291 1 2911 2911 3229 491 1 1311 2631 TEXAS GENCO LP TEXAS GENCO LP TEXAS LEHIGH CEMENT CO TEXAS PETROCHEMCALS LP THE DOW CHEMICAL CO 

### THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO TICONA POLYMERSINC TOTAL PETROCHEMICALS (formerly RN100825371 RN100888312 RN102597846 

### RN 100219526 RN100225945 RN102561925 RN 101625721 491 1 4911 3241 2869 2869 2822 2869

### 9.2 

### DETERMINATIONOF SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART Under the EPA's BART guidelines, the statehas two options regarding its BART-eligible
sources:
make BART determinationsfor all sources; or considerexempting some sources from BART because they do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I 

### area. The TCEQ has chosen the 

### second option that considers exempting some sources.
When exempting sources from BART because they do not cause or contribute to visibility impairmentin a Class I area, the guidelines suggest three sub-options for determining that certain
sources are not subjectto BART: individual source attribution approach;
use ofmodel plants to exempt sources with common characteristics (70 

### FR 39162-3); and cumulative modelingto show that sources in a state are not subject to BART.

The TCEQ exercised allthree sub-options above to determine which sources were subjectto BART. These options are explained further below, in the order in which the TCEQ and the sources performed the analyses.
Section 9.2.1 describesthe cumulative modeling analyses that the TCEQ performed for the sources identified as BART eligible. Since therewere such a large number ofBART-eligible
sources in 

### Texas, the TCEQperformed cumulative modeling analysesusing CAMx PSAT technology. Once the TCEQ had completedthe CAMx screening analysis, several BARTeligible sources did not screen out. Screening out is a process that furtherexamines and evaluates
sources for inclusion or exclusion in the BART program. Sources that did not screen out through the cumulativemodeling analysis were required to perform source-specific screening modeling analyses using eitherthe CALPUFF or the CAMx model setup developedby the TCEQ. These source-specific modeling analyses are described in Section9.2.2. BART-eligible sources that did not screen out in any ofthe modeling analyses had the option of reducing the emissions f?om their BART-eligibleunits using an enforceablemechanism, such as a pennit, orperforming an engineering analysis. The BART-eligible sourcesthat chose to reduce potential emissions are discussed in Section 9.4. The emission reductions resulting fromthe engineering analysesand resulting emission controls are presented 

### in Section9.5.


### 9.2.1 

### Cumulative Modeling Using CAMx 

### PSAT The TCEQ conducted screening modeling analysesas described in the CAMx modeling protocol, Screening Analysis ofPotentiallyBART-EligibleSources in Texas, 

### and the final CAMx modeling report, FinalReport, ScreeningAnalysis ofPotentialBART-Eligible Sources in Texas,

### presented in Appendices 9-3 and 9-4, respectively. In addition to the CAMx modeling, the TCEQ developed Texasmodel plants based on the CAMx modeling results. The model plants are hscussed 

### in the addendums to the CAMx modeling report, Addendum 1,BART Exemption ScreeningAnalysis, 

### and Addendum 11,BARTExemption ScreeningAnalysis. 

### Both addendums are contained in Appendix 9-5. Sources that successfully screened out in the CAMx screening modeling analyses or using the Texas model plants were required to review the modeling analysis and data used and to certify that they agree with the screening modeling analyses and inputs. Copies of these certifications are contained in Appendix 9-6. Table 9-2 shows the BART-eligible sources that successfully screened out in the cumulative modeling analyses. BART-eligible sources that did not screen out of the cumulativemodeling were required to conduct their own screening modeling analysis using eitherthe CALPUFF or the CAMx modeling setup developed by the TCEQ. The single source modeling analyses are outlined in Section 9.2.2.Table 

### 9-2: BART-Eligible Sources Screened Out Using Cumulative CAMx Modeling No. Account Source 

# 1 1 1 

# I TGOO44C 

# I AEPTEXAS 

# I RN101531226 

# 1 4911 

# 1

1 2 1 

# 1 EE0029T 

# I EL PAS0 ELECTRIC CO 

# 1 RN100211309 

# 1 4911 

# 1 RN 102560687 491 1



### ) 22 

# 1 TH0004D 

## ( ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPT 

# I RN100219872 

# I 4911 

# I 3 4 5 6 7



# 1 23 

# 1 MQ0009F 

# 1 ENTERGY GULF STATESINC 

# 1 RN100226877 

# 1 4911 

# 1 NE0024E NE0026A JI0030K CB0003M HG0558G 8 9 10

24 

### I 25 AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY AEP TEXAS NORTH COMPANY ALCOA ALUMINA & CHEMICALS ATOFINA CHEMICALS INC

26 27 28 BL002 10 GB0001R MH0009H

OCOO130 BL01131 RN100642040 RN100552181 RN100215557 RN100242577 RN100209444

1 1 12 13

BL0268B HG0228H JE0065M 4911 4911 4911 2819 2869 BASF CORPORATION BP AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY CELANESE LIMITED

ENTERGY GULF STATES INC EQUISTAR ED00 11D BJOOOlT BL0758C

EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP EXXON CHEMICAL CO EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO 

## ---- 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 RN100218049 RN 102536307 RN100258060

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

RN102513041 RN100218601

EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL CO FLINT HILLS RESOURCES FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP HUNTSMAN CORPORATION HUNTSMAN PETROCHEMICAL INEOS OLEFINS & POLYMERS LAREDO POWER HG0229F NEO 120H NE0122D JE0052V JE0135Q BL0002S WE0005G 2869 2869 2869 CHAF'ARRAJ- STEEL MIDLOTHIAN CHEMICAL LIME LTD CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL

491 1 2869 RN 100237668 RN 102212925 RN1002 11903

1 36 MB0123F HG03 10V HWOO 13C BG0057U BG0186I CR0020C CI0022A HG0218K

282 1 2869 282 1 RN102574803 RN102534138 RN100235266 RN100219252 RN100217389 RN100238708 RN100213909

37

38

39 RN100216472 RN100219856 RN100825249

2869 291 1 291 1 2869 2869 2869 491 1 33 12 3274



### -

2869 CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CITY PUBLIC SERVICE CITY PUBLIC SERVICE COPANO PROCESSINGLP DYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES EI DUPONT

NE0025C

BCOO15L

FCOO18G RN103919817 RN102320850 RN100217975 RN100217835 RN101271419 RN100222900 RN100225085

LON C HILL POWER LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY 2869 2869 491 1 491 1 1321 1321 2869

RN100215979

RN102038486

RN100226844 491 1

491 1

491 1

# 1 42 

# 1 IEOO42B 

# I PREMCOR REFINING GROUP 

# 1 RN102584026 

# 1 2911 

### Table 

### 9-2: BART-Eligible Sources ScreenedOut Using:Cumulative CAMx (cont'd;



# [ 50 

# / EOO91L 

# I SUN 

### MARINE TERMINAL 

# I RN100214626 

# 1 4226 

### SIC 2869 282 1

43 44 45

46 47 48 49 

### Regulated Entity RN100633650 RN1025 18065 

### Source LYONDELL CHEMICAL OXMrINnSLP 

### No. 40 41

HG0632T BL0038U GJ0043K

LN0081B ME0006A PG0040T PG0041R

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61



# 1 65 

# 1 TA03521 

# 1 TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP 

# I RN100693308 

# 1 4911 

# 1 Account HG 1575W HG1451S

63 64 ROHM & HAAS TEXAS SOLUTIA INC SOUTHWESTERNELECTRIC POWER SOUTHWESTERNPUBLIC SERVICE (FORMERLY XCEL) SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER SOUTHWESTERNPUBLIC SERVICE SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE

WN0042V C10012D FG0020V HG0562P BL0082R NE00221 FI0020W DB0251U FB0025U HQ0012T MI301 16C



# 1 71 

# 1 VC0003D I VICTORIA POWER 

# I RN100214980 

# 1 4911 

# 1 MOO0 14L RL0020K

66 67 68 69 70 

# 1 72 

# I JB0016M 

# I VINTAGE PETROLEUM INC 

## ] RN100214592 

# 1 1311 

# 1 RN100223205 RN100238682 RN102156916

RN 100224765 RN100542596 RN 100224641 RN100224849

TARGA TEXAS GENCO LP TEXAS GENCO LP TEXAS PETROCHEMICALSLP THE DOW CHEMICAL CO TICONA POLYMERS INC 

### TXU BIG BROWN COMPANY LP TXU ELECTRIC COMPANY 

### TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP 

### TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP 2869 2869 491 1

4911 4911 491 1 491 1

TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP 

### TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

WC0028Q YBOO 17V GB0076J CB0028T GB0073P RN102552387 RN100825371 RN100888312 RN100219526 RN100225945 RN101625721 RN101198059 RN101559854 RN102285855 RN100664812 RN102566494 1311 4911
, 491 1 2869 2869 2869 491 1 491 1 491 1 491 1 491 1

RN102285848 RN102583093

TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP

_ UNION CARBIDE COW

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION VALERO REFINING CO TEXAS 491 1 491 1

RN102183969 RN102563426 RN100219351 RN102181526 RN100238385 491 1 491 1 2869 2869 291 19.2.2 Individual Source Attribution Approach One of the air quality modeling approaches suggested by the EPA 

### in the BART guidanceis an individual source attribution approach. Specifically, this entails modeling source-specific BARTeligible units and comparing modeled impacts to aparticular deciview threshold.

CALPUFF The CALPUFF modeling protocol,BestAvailable Retrofit Technology(BART)Modeling Protocol toDetermine Sources Subject toBART in the State of Texas,developedby the TCEQ for determiningwhich sources are subjectto BART is included in Appendix 9-7: CALPUFF Modeling Guidelines(online). Appendix 9-7 also contains a summaryreport for each modeling demonstration. Table 9-3 :BART-Eligible Sources Exempt Based on CALPUFFModelingResults lists the BART-eligible sources that are exempt from BART based on CALPUFFmodeling results.

### Table 

### 9-3: BART-Eligible Sources 

### Exempt Based on CALPUFF 

### Modeling Results



# / 10 

# 1 HGO033B 

# I EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP 

# 1 RN100542281 

## ] 2869 1 2

3 4 5 6

7 8 9 

### SIC



# 1 22 

# 1 HT0027B 

# / SID RICHARDSON CARBON CO 

# I RN100226026 

# 1 2895 

### Regulated

Entitv MMOOOIT HTOOllQ

ED00340 GH0003Q GH00040 HWOO18P

AB0012W HW0008S HH0042M

1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 

# 1 23 

# 1 TFOO12D 

# I SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER 

### ] RN100213370 

# 1 4911 

### Source No.



# 1 24 

# 1 OC0019C 

# I TEMPLE-INLAND 

# I RN100214428 

# 1 2621 

### Account
ALCOA INC ALONUSA LP ASH GROVE (formerly NORTH TEXAS CEMENT) CABOT CORPORATION CELANESE CHEMICAL CONOCO PHILLIPS (formerly PHILLIPS 66 CO) DCP (formerlyDUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES) DEGUSSA ENGINEERED CARBONS EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY

HG0232Q

JE0067I EB0057B CG0010G OCA002B VC0008Q GB0037T ED00510 HG06970 HG0659W HWOO 17R RN100221472 RN100250869

RN100225978 RN100221761 RN101996395 RN102495884

RN100218684 RN100209659 RN100219815

EXXONMOBIL CORP EXXONMOBIL OIL CORP HUNTSMAN POLYMERS INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO INVISTA INVISTA (formerly DU PONT DE NEMOURS) NRG 

### TEXAS (formerlyTEXAS GENCO 

### LP) OWENS CORNING RHODIA INC SHELL OIL CO SID RICHARDSON CARBON

25 3334 2911

3241 2895 2869 2911

1321 2869 2869

26 27 28 29 RN102579307 RN102450756 RN101867554 RN100543115 RN104392626 RN102663671 RN101062826 RN100223585 RN100220581 RN100211879 RN100222413

HKOO14M 291 1 291 1 2869 2621 2869 2869 4911 3296 2819 2411 2895

JE0005H ED0066B TF0013B JC0003K TEXAS LEHIGH CEMENT CO TOTAL PETROCHEMICALSINC (formerly ATOFINA PETROCHEMICALS INC) TXI OPERATIONS LP 

### TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP WESTVACO 

### RN 102597846 3241

RN102457520 RN100217199 RN102285921 RN102 157609 2911 3241 4911 263 1CAMX The CAMx modeling guideline, GuidancefortheApplication ofthe CAMHybrid Photochemical GridModel to Assess VisibilityImpacts of TexasBART Sources at Class IAreas, developed by the TCEQ is in Appendix 9-8. This appendix also contains the modeling summary reports for each modeling demonstration. Table 9-4 presents the BART-eligible sourcesthat screened out on an individual basis using CAMx.

9.3 DETERMINATION OF BART FOR SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART Upon conclusion of all BART screening analyses,no Texas sources remained subject to BART. The TCEQ's EngineeringAnalysis Guidance and forms are inAppendix 9-9. 5 6 HGO 175D NE0043A PASADENAREFINING VALERO REFINTNG COMPANY RN100716661 RN100211663 291 1 29119.4 POST-BART EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS Subsequentto the 2002 base year inventory, some BART-eligible sourcesreduced their permitted emissions. Documentation of the emission reductions is 

### in Appendix 9- 10: Documentation of EmissionReductions. The sources and the estimated reductions are presented 

### in Table 9-6. Reduction estimates are conservative because they are fiom the 2002 actual emissions level to a potential to emit level. Capitol Cement shut down their BART units. The fmal list of all BARTeligible sources is in Appendix 9- 12: BART-EligibleList.

No.

# I Account* Table 9-6: Post-BART Emissions Reductions at Texas Sources

Source Nox Reduced Regulated 

# I from 

# I from 

# I from 

# I I Entity Baseline Baseline Baseline so2 Reduced PM Reduced

1 2 3 4 BG0045E HG0126Q JE00671

5

7 

## 1 JE0039N 

# 1 RUBBER CO 

### ) RN102561925 

# 1 89.1 

# 1 +11.3 

# 1 2.9 

## I VALENCE MIDSTREAM HHOO19H**

6 I I CAPITOL CEMENT DIV DOW EXXONMOBIL OIL*

## **

MC0002H NORIT AMERICAS MC REGENCY TILDEN GAS (FORMEWYENBRIDGE

CY0019H

8

*The first two letters 

### in account number are the abbreviation for the source's county location. See Appendix 9-1 1for the list of county abbreviations. **Company has permit limiting combined SO2 and NOx to 841 tpy on grandfathered BART
sources but 2002 actual emissions from these units were 8 tpy less than this. ***ExxonMobil numbers are preliminary and subject to change. These estimates are based on reductions from the 2002 EI and proposed alterations to permit 19136 and an EPA consent decree. RN100211507 RN100227016 RN102450756 RN 102609724

PIPELINE) TARGA (FORMERLY DYNEGY MIDSTREAM

9 

# I WH0014S 

# I ST. GOBAIN Total estimated reductions in haze emissions

= 9,488tpy SERVICES) THE GOODYEARTIRE 

### AND

HROOl8T 

### 2002 

### (QY)

1,328

694

16

RN100216621

Note: Blank cells indicate that data are currentlyunknown. RN100218601 RN102551785

LTD 

# I RN100213685 

# I 247.1 VETROTEX AMERICA 

## I 2002 

### (QY)

1,193

304

2

62.6
2,775 

### 2002 (tpy) 100

336

2,743.5 2,276

5.6

16.4
6,545 0.2

0.3

59.0

168.2

0.5

### 9.5 SITES REMOVED FROM FURTHER BART CONSIDERATION The TCEQ BART rule was published January 10,2007. Companies requested removal from further BART consideration per the exemptions in the rule or based on updated informationon the site. To be removed ii-omthe list, a sitehad to be exempted for all potential haze causing pollutants,NOx, SOz, and fine particulatematter. A site may be exempted if the combinedNOx and SO2potential to emit are less than 1,000tpy, and the site is greater than 100

### km from a Class 

### I area. Some sites may be exempted if the combinedNOx and SO2potential to emit are less than 500 tpy, and the site is greaterthan 50

### km from a Class

### I area. Several sites requested exemption for combined SOx and NOx limits and certified that the TCEQ-sponsored modeling adequately representedparticulate emissions. One siterequested 

### PM 2.5 exemption due to de minimis levels of emissions. Updated site information included construction dates andpotential emission rates of equipment. Two sitesrequested removal because the operatingequipment did not meet a BART category. Table 9-7 lists the sitesremoved from furtherBART consideration.

### CHAPTER 

### 10. REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS

10.1 INTRODUCTION The national goal for regional haze is to achieve natural visibility levels at Class I areas by 2064. The TCEQ must show reasonable progress toward the national goal by 2018. The uniform rate of progress 

### (URF') named in the EPA guidance (described as uniform rate of improvement in 40 CFR §51.308(d)(l)(i)(B)) is a straight line between base period conditions on the worst 20 percent days and estimated natural visibility in 2064. Chapter 5: Assessment ofBaseline and Current Conditions andEstimate ofNatural Conditions in Class

### IAreas, details the calculation ofbase period conditions and estimations of 2064 natural conditions. The URP is a tool for comparing the reasonable progress goals (RPGs) set by the state with the visibility improvement that would be needed to reach natural conditionsby 2064. Table 10-1 shows the URP goals for Texas' two Class 

### I areas.
Table 10-1: Uniform Rate of Progress for Class I Areas in Texas (Worst 20 Percent Days)

10.2 REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS FOR TEXAS CLASS I AREAS The TCEQ has determined that the rate of visibility improvement by 2018, shown 

### in Table 10-2, is reasonable and will be implemented as the RPGs for the listed Class I areas. I I I

Table 10-2: Reasonable Progress Goals for Class I Areas (Worst 20 Percent Days) I I I I I 1 Improvement Needed by 2064 (dv) Class I Area

4.9

--

- I 

# 1 Big Bend 0.7 1.7 2.9 2155

1 I I I Improvement Needed by 2018 assuming URP (dv)

0.08 Guadalupe Mountains

Class I Area



# 1 Guadalupe Mountains 

# 1 0.9 

# / 1.2 

# 1 3.8 

# 1 2081 

## ) Progress Annually to 2018 assuming URP (dv)

1.2

These RPGs are derived from the CENRAP modeling and reflect emissions reduction programs already in place and additional SOzreductions from refineries as a result ofthe EPA refinery consent decrees. As Chapter 11: Long-TermStrategy to Reach Reasonable Progress Goals, details, the TCEQ's emissions reduction requirements have often gone beyond FCAA requirements for the past 35 years and continue to go beyond many federal requirements today. Texas' programs that often go beyond federal requirements include: Improvement Projected 

### by

2018 using

opacity limits on grandfathered facilities, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements that typically go beyond EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new and modified sources; extensiveNOx emission limits on existing and new sources including major, minor, and area sources including some on a statewide basis; RPG(dv) Improvement by 2018 at Date Natural Projected 

# I Visibilify Improvement URP (dv) by 2064 (dv) Attained at RPG Rate 

# ~the Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP) provides financial incentives to accelerate the implementation of new, cleaner diesel engine technologies in on-road and non-road applications; and the Air Check Texas Repair and Replacement Assistance Program provides financial incentives for scrappage of older gasoline-powered on-road vehicles.

The reasonable progress goals were developed after consideringthe statutory factors: cost and time of compliance, the energy and non-air quality impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of existing sources. Appendix 10-1: Analysis of ControlStrategiesandDetermination ofReasonable Progress Goals,provides an analysis showing that these goals are reasonable. The TCEQ focused its control strategy analysis onpoint source emissionsof SO2and NOx. Chapter 1 1: Long-Term Strategy to Reach Reasonable Progress Goals demonstrates that these
are the main anthropogenicpollutants that affect visibility at CIass 

### I areas in Texas and in neighboring states. For SO2, point sources make up over 95 percent of the projected 2018 statewide emissions. Point sources are clearly the issue for this pollutant. For NOx, point sources comprise over 45 percent of the projected statewide emissions. This is the largest single component. The next largest is area source. Of that, the greatest component also has the greatest uncertainty: emissions from upstream oil and gas production. The TCEQ will continue to refine its understanding of those emissions and options for controls over the next few years. Nevertheless, Texas is moving aggressively to reduce those emissions through the $4 million grant program to pay for retrofits on rich bum compressor engines. Texas is going beyond federal requirements in an effort to reduce emissions ofNOx from mobile sources. As a result, TCEQ elected to focus the control strategy analysis on point sources. Figures 10-1 and 10-2 graphically illustrate how these RPGs compare to the URP or the glide path for the Texas Class 

### I areas.

Year

p~ --- I-c~niform Rate of Progress (TX) + Observation 2018 Projection

# 1 Figure 10-1: Glide Path for Big Bend Worst 

### 20 Percent DaysI 0 

# ' I

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 2048 2052 2056 2060 2064 Year [+uniform Rate of Progress (TX) Observation 

# . 2018

- Projection

## 1

Figure 10-2: Glide Path for Guadalupe Mountains Worst 20 Percent Days
The figures and tables above address the TCEQ's RPGs for the worst 20 percent days at Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. These figures use the TCEQ's refined estimate for natural conditions, rather than the EPA default values. Appendix 10-3 shows the glide paths using the EPA default values. The natural condition estimate was not a factor 

### in setting the RPG. Table 10-3provides the state's RPGs for the 20 percent days with the best visibility at the Texas Class I
areas.

Table 10-3: Reasonable Progress Goals for Class 

### I Areas (Best 20 Percent Days)

Class 

### I Area

I 1 1

These RPGs reflect visibility improvementsfrom emissions reductions associatedwith the FCAA, the Texas Clean Air Act, Texas' ozone SIP revisions and rules, and agreements between EPA and oil refineries for SO2 emissions reductions. These RPGs do not include additional emissions reductionsfiom implementing the TexasBART rule and new rules adopted in the recent May 23,2007, Dallas-Fort Worth eight-hourozone attainment demonstration SIP revision. The TCEQ considered additional controls beyond those already adopted. Given the cost and insignificant effect of additional controls, uncertainty of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) impacts, and significant international sources of visibility impairment (all discussed in the following section), it is not reasonable to require additional controls at this time. Guadalupe Mountains 0.2 Big Bend Improvement by 2018 at RPG (dv) Baseline Visibility (dv)

5.9 Projected 2018 Visibility (RPG) (dv)

5.8 5.6

5.7 0.2The TCEQ used the control strategy analysis completedby the CENRAP as the startingpoint for the analysis of additionalcontrols. The CENRAP7s analysis used the EPA's Air ControlNet tool to develop cost per ton estimates for the relevant pollutants. The TCEQ reviewed this information and made changes based on knowledge of the particular facilitiesand agency experiencewith implementing ozone control strategies. The analysis focused onmoderate cost controls for sources that were likely to contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas. This work resulted 

### in an estimateof the costs and possible benefits of additionalcontrols, as shown in the following Tables 10-4 and 10-5.

Table 10-4: The TCEQ's Point Source Control Strategy Summary

The TCEQ used the CENRAP modeling to estimate the impact that the control strategy would have on the Class I areas impactedby Texas' emissions. The 

### CENRAP conducted a modeling analysispresuming an aggressive set of additional controls above and beyond CAIR and BART. Texasused the results of this modeling analysisto determine an effectiveness ratio forNO, and SO, reductions. The effectivenessratio provides an estimate of improvement

### in visibility for every ton of

### NOx and SOzreduced. Using these ratios, the TCEQ was able to develop an orderof-magnitude estimate of the likely visibility improvements resulting from the point source control strategy. This full analysis can be found in Appendix 10-2: Estimating Visibility Impacts @omAdditional Point Source Controls and in Appendix 10-4:Detailed Calculations for Estimating Visibility Impacts. Table 10-5 shows the results. Pollutant

Sulfur Dioxide
Nitrogen Oxides

Total Costs

Table 

### 10-5: Estimated Visibility Improvement Tons Per

Year Reduced
155,873
27,132

As Tables 10-4 and 10-5 show, the analysis identifiedcontrols costing well over $300million, yet the projected benefit of those controls is negligible. A single (1.0) deciview is the smallest perceptible improvement 

### in visibility. 

### In the TCEQ's Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) rule, the state considered 0.5 deciview as the threshold under which a facility was not considered to meaningfully contribute to visibility impairment. An improvement of 0.05 deciview is well within the uncertainty ofthe modeling techniques and is much lower than perceptible. This improvement did notjustify the substantial expense. Estimated Cost

$270,800,000

$53,500,000
$324,300,000

Class I Area

Big Bend
Guadalupe Mountains Improvement 

### (dv)

0.05

0.0510.3 UNCERTAINTY INTHE REASONABLEPROGRESS GOALS The majority of the emissions reductions underlying the predicted visibility improvements are from the CAIR program. The CAIR program requires substantial reductions in SO2and NOx emissionsfiom electric generating units (EGUs). There is uncertainty regarding how CAIR will improve visibility at individual Class I areas because the CAIR program allows trading of emissions allowances. The program will reduce visibility-impairing emissions across the entire eastern half of the United States, including Texas and Minnesota. Because emission allowances
can be purchased by EGUs relatively close to the Texas Class I areas from EGUs far from the Texas Class I areas, the visibility improvement may not be as great aspredicted 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 CENRAPused the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) that EPA employed to predict the emissions reductions expected from CAIR in 2018. This model predicts the effect of emission trading programs considering economics, logistics, and the specific regulatory environment for each EGU. Table 10-6 compares current emissions of SO2to the CAIR caps and the IPM results forthe 20 18 planning year.

Table 10-6: Comparison of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

SO2Emissions Texas SO2 Emissions 

### (tpy)* 

# I Current (2002 base case) 

# I 550,000

# 1 ~~ATCAIR budget for 20 15

Sources: EPA, CENRAP *Roundedto the nearestthousand. IPM projection CENRAP modeled for 201

### 8

The CAIR cap is the total allowable emissions of SO2 from EGUs in Texas under CAIR. The IPM model analysisused by CENRAP predicts that by 20 18 EGUs in Texas will purchase approximately 125,000tons per year of emissions allowances from out of state. The TCEQ requested that key EGUs in Texas review and comment on the predictions of the 

### IPM model. However, no EGU was able to make an enforceable commitmentto any particular pollution control strategy and preferred to retain the flexibility offered by the CAIR program. 350,000

The potential overprediction of EGU emissionson Class I areas by the 

### IPM model analysis. This uncertainty in the impact ofthe CAIR program is one reason why the agency has elected not to pursue additional controls at this time. In the five-yearperiodic progress report required by 40 CFR 45 1.308(g),the TCEQ will review emissions inventory and permit information to evaluate the accuracy ofthe predicted emissions used in the CENRAP modeling.
10.4 INTERNATIONAL SOURCES OF VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT The Texas Class I areas are close to Mexico, and internationaltransport of emissions from Mexico and Central America significantlymfluence regional haze at these areas. The CENRAP conducted a particulate source apportionment analysis on the modeling conducted for the 2018 projections. Table 10-7 summarizes the contributionfrom these areas to visibility impairment at the Texas Class I areas.Table 10-7: Contributions to Visibility in the Texas Class I Areas (Worst 20 Percent Days)

Contributionby Area

Boundary Conditions

Boundary conditions are the conditions at the model's geographic boundaries. These are visibility-impairing emissionsfrom Central Mexico and further south into CentralAmerica. The analysis indicates that 52 percent of the impairment at Big Bend and 25 percent of the impairment at Guadalupe Mountains is kom Mexico and further south. The national goal of natural visibility at these Class 

### I areas cannot be met without substantialreductions in emissions from outside of the United States. 10.5 REDUCTIONS REQUIRED TO MEET 

### THE UNIFORM

### RATE OF PROGRJ3SS The TCEQ's analysis of point source reductions can be extrapolated to estimate the amount of reductions that would be required for the 

### RPG to meet the 

### URP for the Texas Class 

### I areas.

Table 10-8: Emissions Reductions Requiredto Meet Uniform Rate ofProgress
I I I

Class I Area



# , Big Bend

Table 10-8 assumes that all of the reductions needed to meet the URP would come from Texas. These additional reductions would require significantovercontrol in order to compensate for the impacts of international pollution. The preamble to the July 1,1999,issuance of the Regional Haze Rule clearly says that states are not required to cany out compensatory overcontrol to make up for the lack of progress in reducing the impacts of internationaltransport. Guadalupe Mountains

Table 10-8 illustrates that to meet the goal ofnatural visibility at Big Bend, a better understanding of how pollutants are brought into the area is needed so that the correct sources 

### can be addressed. This also reinforces the point that progress at the Texas Class I areas, especially at Big Bend, is dependentupon reducing emissions from Mexico and CentralAmerica. 

### In Chapter 11: LongTerm Strategy to Reach Reasonable Progress Goals,the TCEQ specifically asks the 

### EPA for federal efforts to reduce the international transport impacts on regional haze coming into the United States across Texas' southern border. 10-6 Additional Improvement Needed to Meet URP (dv) 1.O

0.3 Approximate Additional Pollutant Reductions SO2 and NOx 

### (QY) 3,700,000 Estimated Cost of ~dditj~~~l Reductions
$6,500,000,000
1,100,000 $1,900,000,000Given the significant impact from international emissions, the uncertainty in the impact of CAIR and the poor cost-effectiveness of additional,reasonable point source controls, the TCEQ has determined that additional controls for Regional Haze are not appropriate at this time.


### 10.6 CONSULTATION In determining a reasonableprogress rate for each Class I area discussed previously,the TCEQ has consultedwith the other states and tribes that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in each of the Texas Class I areas. The TCEQ invited tribes in the CENRAP states to the consultation calls, but no tribes participated in the consultation on Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. A full description of the consultationprocess is in Chapter 

### 4: State, Tribe,andFederalLand Manager Consultation.


### 10.7 REPORTING The TCEQ will report progress to the EPA Administrator every five years in accordance with 40 CFR $5 1.308(g). Chapter 12: ComprehensivePeriodicImplementation Plan Revisions and Adequacy ofthe ExistingPlan, provides more detail on five-year reporting and ten-year 

### SIP submittalrequirements.

### CHAPTER 11. LONGTERM STRATEGY TO REACH REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS



### 11.1 INTRODUCTION The long-term strategy for the Regional Haze SIPrevision incorporates planning for the next ten years, from 2008 through 2018. Title 40 CFR §51.308.308(d)(3) specifiesthe requirements for the long-term strategyfor regional haze (Appendix 1-1).

The main anthropogenic emissions that affectvisibility in Class I areas in Texas and neighboring states are SO2and NOx. There is a much smalleranthropogenicPM impact in Texas from stack, engine exhaust, and fine soil emissions compared to SO2 and NOx. Although the contributionof anthropogenic VOC to the formation of secondary organiccarbon PM is small,there is a contribution. The impact of coarse mass and fine soil at the two Texas Class 

### I areas comes primarily from natural dust storms and dust blowing from the Chihuahuan Desert, which the modeling does not represent well. Chapter 5: Assessment ofBaseline and Current Conditions and Estimate of Natural Conditions in ClassIAreas discusses and documents the predominance of these natural impacts. The modeled impact of wild fire and prescribed burning emissions on primary organic carbonis uncertain because of questions about the accuracy of fire emission inventories. However, the modeled projections show that fires are the main source of the impacts.

The bar charts in Chapter 11 show the modeled impact of different areas and pollutants to visibility impairmentat Big Bend and other Class 

### I areas on the worst 20 percent of monitored days in 2002. The projected impact shown in the figures uses the modeling results scaled to measured pollutant concentrations according to the EPA's modeling guidelines as detailed in Chapter 8:ModelingAssessment. The primary organic carbon captured in the modeling is largely from fire. The term "primary" refers to a pollutant emitted directly to the atmosphere. The term "secondary" refers to a pollutant formed in the atmosphere by reaction, condensation, or both. The modeling indicates that primary organic carbon at Big Bend comes overwhelmingly from boundary conditions, which includethe areas ofthe Yucatan and Central America with extensive agriculturalburning and sometimes wildfire emissions each April and May.

The haze pollutants listed 

### in the figures include: sulfate (S04), nitrate (N03),primary organic aerosols (POA), elemental carbon 

### (EC), other inorganic fine particulate (Soil), coarse mass (CM), secondary organic aerosols anthropogenic (SOAA) that are human-made, and secondaryorganic aerosols biogenic (SOAB) that come fiomplants. Initial conditions (IC) and boundary conditions (BC) are areas related to the domain map; initial conditions are the assumed initial threedimensional concentrations throughout the modeling domain, and boundary conditions are the concentrations assumed along the lateral edges and the top of the CENRAP's modeling domain. Figures 11-2through 11-10also make reference to extinction(abbreviated as Bext) and Rayleigh. 

### In the case of visibility, extinction or Bext refers to the loss of image-forming light as it passes from an objectto the observer. Rayleigh scattering is the scattering of light by air molecules (Malm 1999). Figure 11-1 compares extinction to deciviews and visual range (in kilometers).

Declvlews (dv)

Visual Range (km) mo 200 130 .loo 80 60 40 20 13 10 a a 4

Source: WilliamMalm, Introduction to Visibility, 1999, National Park Service Figure 11-1: Comparison of Extinction,Deciviews and Visual RangeSource Region Figure 11-2: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Big Bend (BIBE) 

### Note: 

### On the worst 20 percent of days 2002

CENRAP PSI1 ProiededWZ04h 2002 REXTat Site GUM01 [Total=47.8,RaVleigh-Il,SS=O.11

0SO4 NO3 0PO(\ .EC .SOIL CM DSOAA SOAB

Figure 11-3: Areas and Pollutants Causing RegionalHaze at Guadalupe Mountains (GUMO) 

### Note: On 

### the worst 20 percent of days 200211.1.1 Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment The FLMs for Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks have not identified any reasonably attributable visibility impairment from Texas or other United States sources. The FLMs for the Class I areas in other stateshave not identified any reasonably attributable visibility impairment caused by Texas sources. For these reasons, the TCEQ does not have any measures in place or plans to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment.

11.2 CONSULTATION The TCEQ has participated in the CENRAP since its inception in 1999 and has provided emission inventory informationfor all source categories. The TCEQ has cooperated with all CENRAP states and tribes through participation in the process of developing information on base period visibility impairment, estimates of 2064 natural conditions, and projections of 2018 emissions and visibility impairment considering all emission reduction requirements in Texas, including state and federal rules. These rules include the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), BART requirements, emission reductions from the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program (FMVCP), EPA refinery consent decrees, and EPA requirements for cleaner non-road diesel and gasoline-powered engines. Detailed information on consultation is in Chapter 3: Regional Planning and Chapter 4: State, Tribe,andFederalLand Manager Consultation. Information on base period emissions inventory development is in Chapter 7: Emissions Inventoly, and information on modeling is in Chapter 8: ModelingAssessment. The TCEQ used CENRAP Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) modeling to determine that Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma contribute to visibility impairment at Texas' Class I areas. Since each state is considering which additional emissions reductions are reasonable under the factors listed in 40 CFR 55 1.308(d)(l), Reasonable Progress Goals, the commission has made a preliminary determination that the emissions reductions that these states are projecting are reasonable for contributing to reasonable progress in reducing their contributionsto visibility impairment at Texas' two Class I areas.
Arkansas and Missouri have completed their consultation with Texas regarding the impact of Texas' emission and regionalhaze impact reductions on Arkansas' and Missouri's Class I areas. They have accepted the TCEQ's planned emission reductions as adequate for their Class I areas. Texas has consulted with Oklahoma regarding Oklahoma's Class I area, the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge. Oklahoma consultation conference calls were held August 16,30, and September 25,2007. The TCEQ has communicated with New Mexico, Louisiana, and Colorado about consultation on the impact of Texas' emissions on each states Class I areas. However, at this time, these three states have not invited Texas to a formal consultation regarding any of their respective Class I areas.
The TCEQ reviewed CENRAP PSAT modeling to assess how Texas' emissions might affect other states Class I areas. Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma have included Texas 

### in consultations concerning emissions. In the future, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Colorado are expected to consult with TCEQ on Texas' emissions impacts on their Class I areas.CeRAPPSAT Projected WOW 2002 BMT from RdmnWest Texas 

### i--- 

## I

Figure 11-4: Calculated Regional Haze Impacts of West Texas Emissions at Each Class I Area in New Mexico Note: On the worst 20 percent of days 2002 BAND 

### - Bandelier Wilderness Area BOAP 

### - Bosque del Apache Wilderness Area GICL 

### - Gila Wilderness Area SACR 

## - Salt Creek Wilderness Area SAPE - San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area WHIT 

## - White Mountain Wilderness Area WHPE 

## - Wheeler Peak Wilderness AreaSource Region Figure 

### 11-5: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Salt Creek (SACR) in New Mexico Note: On the worst 20 percent of days 2002

CEWPPSATProjected W04C2002 BUT ilt SiteWlMOl [Total=100.03~eigh=l1~0.151

Sod 11UO3 BPOA EEC ESOIL CM BSOAA Q SOAB

Source Region Figure 

### 11-6: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Wichita Mountains (WIMO) in Oklahoma Note: On the worst 20 percent of days 2002CENRAPPSI1PrajectedWZOK M02 BO(TfrmRegionWest Texas

0504 

# . W3 

# . POA 

# . EC .SOIL OCM

Figure 11-7: Calculated Regional Haze Impacts of West Texas Emissions at Each Class I Area in Colorado Note: Onthe worst 20 percent of days 2002 GRSA 

### - Great Sand Dunes Wilderness Area 

### MEVE 

### - Mesa Verde National 

### Park MOZI 

### - Mount Zirkel Wilderness Area ROMO 

## - Rocky Mountain National Park 

### WEMI 

### - Weminuche Wilderness Area WHRI 

### - White 

### River National ForestCEW PSAT mojected Wf% 2002 &EX1at Sites

SO4 .KO3 POA 

# . EC .SOIL OCM 

# . SOAA BSOOg

Source region Figure 11-8: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Great Sand Dunes (GRSA) in Colorado Note: 

### On the worst 20 percent of days 2002

mH03 iJPOA mEC .SOIL oCM 

# . SOAA

Figure 11-9: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional 

### Haze at Caney Creek (CACR) in Arkansas Note: 

### On the worst 20 percent of days 2002CENRnPPSATProjected WDK m02 BExl at Site ER€Tl fTntaC12~pa/l8ighis,SSdL48I

OW .NO3 rn POA rnK: .SOIL oCM mSOIA ~SOIB

Figure 11-10: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Breton (BRET) in Louisiana Note: On the worst 20 percent of days 2002

11.3 REQUEST FOR FEDERAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT Figures 11-2 and 11-3 show the CENRAPPSAT results apportioning the causes of 2000-2004 regional haze at Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains,based on the 2002 base period modeling. The figures show large contributionsfrom anthropogenicsources categorizedas from Mexico and from the boundary conditions outside the CENRAP modeling domain. The boundary conditions domain includes some of central Mexico, all of southern Mexico, most of the Mexican Yucatan, and all of Central America. Chapter 

### 8:Modeling Assessment describes the modeling in more detail. These results are dlrectionally consistentwith federal studies that have previously found substantial internationalpollutant transport impacts on regional haze at Big Bend. These studies include the Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational (BRAVO) study ofregional haze impacts at Big Bend and a number of National Park Service (NPS) studies inthe 1990sthat relied on back trajectory analysis to determine where air accumulatedon its way to Big Bend (NPS et al. 2004). Figure 11-3 shows that the CENRAP 

### PSAT modeling calculates that internationaltransport contributes over 25 percent ofthe regional haze on the worst 20 percent of days during the base period at Guadalupe Mountains. Figures 11-5and 11-6 show that internationaltransport contributes over ten percent ofthe regional haze on the worst 20 percent of days at Salt Creek, and Wichita Mountains. At Caney Creek, the international transport contribution to regional haze on the worst 20 percent of days is over five percent of the total (after discounting coarsemass, which the model does not represent reliably) (ENVIRON 2007). CENRAP modeling estimates of the base period visibility impairment at Big Bend from the United States and foreign contributionsindicate 52 percent of the light extinction at Big Bend on the worst 20 percent ofregional haze days comes from international transport. The concentrations are adjustedto match the visibility extinction measured for the 2000 through 2005 base period.Due to the large impact of international transport on anthropogenicregional haze in Texas, it will be impossible to reach natural conditions at the two Class I areas in Texas without reductions in this transport to parallelthe reductionsin United States anthropogenic regional haze impacts on Texas' two Class I areas. Although the impact of internationaltransport on Class I areas in the states bordering Texas is approximately ten percent or less of the total impairment, reductions in international transport of anthropogenic regional haze are necessary for the Class I areasin these states to approach natural conditions.

The TCEQ requests that the EPA initiate and pursue federal effortsto reduce international transport of pollutants into Texas.

11.4 MINIMIZING VISIBILITY IMPALRMENT FROM TEXAS EMISSIONS The TCEQ has implemented rules that limit and minimize emissionscausing both local and regional visibility impairment. The Texas SIP includes numerous rules that minimize emissions that cause or contribute to local and regional visibility impairment. The TCEQ plans to continue to implement all these rules that protect visibility at Class I areas in Texas and other states (Appendices 11-2 and 1 1-3). 11.4.1 Opacity Limitations Title 30 TAC Chapter 1 11,Control of Air Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter, limitsvisible emissions and mass emissions from industrial and power plant stacks, motor vehicles, and incinerators. Togetherwith opacity limits in many preconstruction permits, these rules limit the emissions of PM from a wide variety of sources. The TCEQ continues to enforce both the rule and permit limits on opacity and PM emissions from electric generatingunits (EGUs) and other sources.

11.4.2 Sulfur Emission Limitations Title 30 TAC Chapter 112Control of Air Pollution from Sulfur Compounds limits sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, total reduced sulfur compounds, and sulfuric acid from a variety of sources including EGUs, sulfuric acid plants, smelters, and sulfurrecovery units. These rules, together with many lower limitations in permits for new and modified sources, limit the impacts of ammonium sulfate from Texas on the Class I areas in Texas and at the Class I areas in other states that Texas impacts. 11.4.3 Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Requirements BACT requirements have been in effect since 1972 for new and modified sourcesof air pollution for SO2, NOx, PM, and VOC. While federal new source review (NSR) rules requiring BACT apply only to major new sources or modifications, Texas law requires BACT for all emissions increases at new or modified units. The basic requirementis that eachnew and modified source of air pollution built in Texas use BACT to minimize or eliminateemissions of all pollutants subjectto the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This includes all the emissions from human activity that contributeto regional haze, such asNOx, SO2, PM, and VOC. Title 30 TAC Chapter 116: Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification contains these requirements.

Each applicable source must obtain a construction permit before beginning construction. Issuance of a constructionpermit can occur only after an engineering determination that the facility will use BACT. In some cases, the BACT requirements applythrough permits by rule rather than through case-by-case review of each new or modified source of air pollution.11.4.4 Programs to Manage Smoke Impacts on Class I Areas The Texas Forest Service (TFS) coordinates fire and smoke management issues in Texas. The 34th Texas Legislature created the TFS in 1915. The legal mandate of the TFS includes the responsibility to "assume direction of all forest interests and all matterspertaining to forestry within the jurisdiction of the state." The TFS has developed a voluntary approach called the Texas Forest Service Smoke Management System, under which all land managers in Texas, including the NPS, inform the TFS before performing prescribed burns. The TFS dlspatch office maintains communications with the TCEQ.

Examination of the data for the worst 20 percent visibility days at both Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains indicates that smoke from agricultural burning and wildfires in Texas are not large contributorsto visibility impairment in Texas. There is no indication that agricultural burning and wildfires in Texas are significant contributorsto regional haze at Class I areas that Texas impacts outside the state. For these reasons, the current rules, policies and plans listed below, along with theNPS smoke management plans, and the smoke management plans of other federal agencies responsiblefor Class I areas that Texas impacts, are adequateto meet the long-term strategy requirements. Appendix 11-1 containsthe following documents:

Texas Wildfue Protection Plan (TFS 2007) Texas Forest Service Smoke Management System 

### (TFS 1995) 30 TAC Chapter 111, SubchapterB: Outdoor Burning (TCEQ 2006) Big Bend National Park Fire Management Plan (NPS 2005a) Guadalupe Mountains National Park Fire Management Plan (NPS 2005b) Big Thicket National Preserve Fire Management Plan (NPS 2004a) Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park Fire Management Plan (NPS 2005c) Padre Island National Seashore Fire Management Plan (NPS 2004b) San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Fire Management Plan (NPS 2004~).

A significant component of preventing wildfires is the authoritythat Texas countieshave to prohibit open burning in times of drought. The counties get their authority from 9352.08 1 and 9352.082 of the Texas Local Govemment Code, relating to outdoorburning. Another component in reducing wildfue hazards is the red flag warnings that the National Weather Service issues in times of drought, low humidity, and windy conditions. The broadcast media routinely publicize these warnings, especially during times of drought and outdoor burning bans.

11.4.5 Program to Lower the Impact of ConstructionActivity on Air and Water Quality The main regulatory requirementsthat the TCEQ uses to minimize the air and water quality impacts of dust and soil from construction activity 

### in Texas are under water pollution control requirements to prevent pollution from storm water runoff and mud and dirt tracked from construction sites. The reduction 

### in silt-bearingrunoff on paved roads and in mud and dirt tracked onto paved roads around construction sitesreduces the amount of fme soil material suspended in the air from traffic in these areas.

The TCEQ's Texas Pollutant Discharge Emission System (TPDES) General Permit TXR1.50000 regulates activities at construction sites one acre or larger. The size threshold applies to single projects or multiple projects as part of a larger developmentplan. The TCEQ issued ihspermit March 5, 2003, pursuant to 526.040 of the Texas Water Code and 9402 of the Clean Water Act.
State rule 30 TAC 91 11,145, Construction and Demolition, provides additional authority and states: "For the purpose of this section, the following restrictions apply if the area of land affected by the listed activities is more than one acre in size, except for the City of El Paso, where restrictions shall apply regardless of the size of the area of land affected.No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit a structure, road, street, alley, or parking area to be constructed, altered, 11-10repaired, or demolished, or land to be cleared without taking at least the following precautions to achieve control of dust emissions: (1) Use of water or of suitable oil or chemicals for control of dust 

### in the demolition of structures, in construction operations,in work performed on a road, street, alley, or parking area, or 

### in the clearing of land."

11.5 FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) has produced and is continuing to produce large reductions in motor vehicle emissions ofNOx,PM, and VOCs. The increasingly lower federal limits on sulfur content for gasoline and diesel fuel are continuing to reduce the sulfur input to total sulfur emissions from internal combustion engines. They are enabling lower NOx, PM, ahd VOC emission limits for on-road motor vehicles, both diesel and gasoline, as well
as for non-road engines. The lower sulfur fuel content is also enabling implementation of lower emission limits on new on-road and non-road engines.

The followinglists several significant programs:
Federal On-Road Measures
Federal Phase I1 reformulated gasoline (RFG) Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and HoustonGalveston-Brazoria(HGB) Tier 2 vehicle emission standards and federal low-sulfur gasoline National low emissions vehicle standards (NLEV) Heavy-dutydiesel standards

Federal Non-Road Measures

Lawn and garden equipment Tier 2 heavy-duty diesel equipment Locomotive engine standards Compression ignition standards for vehicles and equipment Recreational marine engine standards Appendix 11 -2: Federal and TexasPrograms Related to On-Roadand Non-Road Mobile Sources lists the federal and state rules and programs

### in considerable detail.

11.5.1 Texas Vehicle Inspectionand Maintenance Programs Motor vehicle inspectionand maintenance programs are in place to maintain the effectiveness of the FMVCP in the HGB,DFW, Austin, and El Paso areas. The Department of Public Safety administers the programs and TCEQ maintains oversight ofthe programs including collecting and analyzing data directly from the equipment at the inspection stations.

11.5.2 

### Air Check Texas Repair and Replacement Assistance Program In 2002, the TCEQ established a fmancial assistanceprogram for qualified owners of vehicles that fail the emissionstest. The Low Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program (LIRAP)provisions of House Bill 2 134,77thTexas Legislature 2001, created the program. House Bill 1611 passed in the 79th Legislature 2005, modified the program. The LIRAP applies only to counties that implement a vehicle inspection and maintenanceprogram and have elected to implement LIRAP provisions. By enacting Senate Bill 12, the 80th Texas Legislature expanded the LIRAP program and appropriated $45 million for LLRAP for fiscal year 2008 and an additional $45 million for fiscal year 2009. The purpose of this voluntary program is to remove older, more polluting vehicles from Texas roadways in certain counties with high ozone. Under Senate Bill 12, residents ofcertain Texas counties who meet income criteria and whose vehicles meet certainregistration criteria may be eligible to receive vouchers for up to $3,500 toward the purchase of a new or no more than three-year-old qualifyingvehicle £rom participating auto dealers. A motor vehicle scrappagefacility must certifythat the engine fiom a retired vehicle has been destroyed for the vehicle owner to be eligiblefor the voucher. Accelerated retirement of older, higherpolluting vehicles will reduceNOx, fme PM, and VOC emissions.

11.6 EMISSION REDUCTIONS SINCE ISSUANCE OF 

### THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE SinceJuly 1, 1999,the TCEQ has implemented substantialprograms that reduce Texas7 regional haze impact at Class I areas in Texas and in surrounding states.

11.6.1 NOx Emission Reduction Requirementsin Texas Ozone SIP Revisions Texas' SIP revisions from 2000 forward includerequired NOx emission reductions for the following regions: HGB, DFW, Beaumont-Port Arthur, Austin, and Northeast Texas as well as one for East Texas. In addition, the SIP includes the Texas low emission diesel requirements for East and Central Texas 

### in 30 TAC Chapter 114. The rules for control ofNOx emissions from stationary sources for the Texas ozone SIP are included in Chapter 117. RecentNOx control
measures adopted in Chapter 117 address a wide range of point and area sources at major and minor sources ofNOx. Some of these rules implemented the NOx reduction requirements of Senate Bill 7, for grandfathered EGUs, as discussed in more detail in Section 11.6.2 The TCEQ has submitted all of the Chapter 117NOx limitations and requirements as well as the Chapter 114 low emission diesel fuelrequirements to EPA as revisions to the Texas SIP.

11.6.2 SOzand NOx Reduction Requirements under Senate

### Bill 7 Senate Bill 7 requiredthe following emissionreductionsfrom grandfatheredEGUs: for NOx a 50 percent reduction of the 1997 emission level by May 1,2003, and for SOz7 a 25 percent reduction of the 1997emission levelby May 1,2003, accompanied by an in-state emissions cap and trade program. Grandfathered EGUs are the EGUs built before Texas' BACT emission control requirements for new and modified sources of air pollution went into effect in 1972. Theserequirementsproduced reductions approximately a decadebefore the 

### BART emissions reductions will be effective in states without CAIR requirements. They were effective approximatelysix and seven years before the Phase I CAIR requirements will be effectivein states that implementCAIR NOx and SO2 emission reductions. Phase I of CAIR becomes effective in 2009 for NOx and in 2010 for SO2. Phase I1 of CAIR will become effective in 2015, at which time it will become the limiting requirement for SO2and NOx for most EGUs in Texas.

11.6.3 CAIR ReductionsforNOx and SOz On March 10,2005,the EPA issued the CAIR,requiring reductions in SO2and NOx emissions from EGUs in 28 states and the District of Columbia (70 FR 25162-25405). These include states in the Northeast, the South, and along the MississippiRiver plus Texas, the only largely western state subject to the CAIR emissionsreductions requirements. Figure 11-11 shows that the CAIR emissions reductionsrequirements in Texas apply more than 480 miles west of the areas where CAIR requirements apply in other states. The map also shows that Texas is the only state where CAIR applies in the next tier of stateswest ofthe statesthat border the MississippiRiver.Note: States shown in green have CAIR emission reductions requirements Source: TCEQ 2007 Figure 11-11: CAIR Emission Reduction States CAIR applies to SO2in all CAIR areas except in Arkansas, Delaware, New Jersey, and New England. 

### In states where CAIR applies to SO2, CAIR will reduce SO2emission allowances by
over 60 percent from 2003 federal acid rain cap levels. In all CAIR states, the program will reduceNOx emission allowancesby over 60 percent from 2003 federal acid rain cap levels. CARestablishes an EPA-administered cap-and-tradeprogram for EGUs in which states may participate as a means of meeting these requirements. The Texas Legislature directedthe TCEQ to participate in this interstate cap-and-trade system. SO2and NOx reductions will occur in two phases under a cap-and-trade system established by the EPA. SO2emission caps will be lowered in 2010 and again in 2015. NOx emission allowables will decrease in 2009 and again in 2015. Table 1 1 

### - 1 shows the emission allowances for EGUs in Texas under the CAIR program.

Table 11-1: EGU Emission Allowances in Texas under the CAIR Program Annual 

### NOx Cap (tons)



### 1 Annual SO2C~D (tons) 

### I State

Texas Emissions Inventory 2 1 1,000

- 

## -.
, 2015 CAIR 2003 Acid Rain

1 State

Texas 2009 CAIR Phase I Budget Phase I1 Budget

Source: EPA 2003 Acid Rain Emissions Inventory 578,000 181,014 

### ] 150,845

2010 CAIR Phase 

### I Budget 320,946 2015 CAIR Phase 

### I1 Budget 224,662The TCEQ has submitted to the EPA as a revision to the Texas SIP its rules that implement the CAIR requirements. The following links provide further information on the CAIR SIPrevisions and CAIR requirements for Texas.

The CAIR SIP 

### -<http://W~~.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementatiodair/sip/caircamr/05048CAIRSIP adoption final.pdD The CAIR Rule 

### -<http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/imple~nentatiodair/sip/caircamr/O5046 101 ado clean.pdD The CAIRICAMR Web Page 

### - <http://www.tceq .state.tx.us/im~1ementation/air/sip/caircamr.html>

11.6.4 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Requirements The commission adopted the final BART Rule (30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter

### M) January 10, 2007. It is available at: <http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac view=5&ti=30&pt=l&ch=l16&sc h=M&rl=Y>. Because most sources reviewed under the BART rule are a long distance from the nearest Class I federal area, a large percentage fell below the de minimis level for impacting all Class 

### I areas, so they did not have to proceed to a BART engineering analysis. Chapter 9: Best Available Retrofit Technologydetails the implementation of the BART program in Texas in Table 9-7.11.6.5 Comparison of the 

### NOx Emission Limits for EGUs with CAIR Limits The following table shows the relationship among the requirements.

Table 11-2: Texas Electric GeneratingUtility NOx Control Strategies Compared to CAIR

Attainment Demonstrations CAIR 2015 Facility Type

Oil-Fired Utility Boilers

Dallas-Fort Worth Utility Electric Generation

### in OzoneNonattainrnentAreas Emission Specifications for

Pounds of NOx/MMBtu 0.125 lb

0.125 lbHouston-GalvestonBrazoria Gas-Fired Utility Boilers Coal-Fired Utility Boilers

Auxiliary Steam Utility Boilers StationaryGas Turbines State Emission Rate Requirements

(tangential-fired) 0.050 lb (wall-fired) 0.045 lb CAIR 2009

Pounds of NOx/MMBtu 0.030 lb
0.050 lb (wall-fired) 0.045 lb

(tangential-fired) 0.030 lb

0.032 lb Pounds of NOx/MMBtu 0.15 lb

0.15 Ib

0.15 lb

0.125 lb 0.125 lb Large Utility Boilers SmallUtility Boilers

Beaumont-PortArthur



## rand fathered Facilities Source: TCEQ, current as of February 23,2007 0.125 lb

0.15 lb

0.15 lb

Facilities West Texas and El Paso Region 0.125 lb

0.125 lb

0.033 lb

0.06 Ib

All Utility Boilers Utility Electric Generation Gas-Fired Utility Boilers Coal-Fired Utility Boilers 0.15 lb 0.15 lb

0.15 1b Texas 0.15 lb

0.15 lb 0.10 lb 

### in East and Central 0.14 lb

0.165 Ib

0.195 lb 0.125 lb

0.125 lb

0.125 Ib Senate 

### Bill 7

0.15 lb East Texas Region Grandfahered 0.15 lb

0.125 lb 0.14 1b 0.125 lb11.6.6 SulfurDioxide Reductionsunder the EPA Refinery ConsentDecrees The EPA refinery consent decrees cover both SO2and NOx. The NOx reductions are generally company-wide reductionrequirements, but the details of which emission points will have reductions and the amount of the reductions are not yet available.

The EPA has provided specifics of the SO2 reductionsby emissionpoint for refineries. In addition, informationis available regarding SO2emissionreductions at a large sulfuric acid plant at the western end ofthe Houston Ship Cha~el. The following table combines these SO2 emissionreduction data. The growthprojected fiom2002 to 2018 are estimatesfrom CENRAP's emission inventory contractor (Pechan 2005). Since the TCEQ's new and modified source permitting requirements prohibit 

### an increase 

### in allowable emissionswithout a construction permit, which requires use of BACT, the projected emission increases between 2002 and 2018 may be substantiallyover estimated.

Table 11-3: Annual SO2 Emissions at Consent Decree Impacted Sources 

## ( SO2Emissions 

### ( 2002 (tpy) 

## I 2018 (tpy) 

# 1

Controls will be 

### in placebefore 201

### 8. Source: EPA 1999

Pre-decree levels Reduction estimate* Difference (remaining emissions)

11.6.7 Texas Low Emissions Diesel (TxLED) Program The goal of the TxLEDprogram is to lower emissions ofNOx and other pollutants from dieselpowered motor vehicles and non-road equipment, 

### It appliesto diesel fuel producers, importers,
common carriers, distributors,transporters, bulk terminal operators, and retailers. The rules cover 110 countiesin eastern Texas, including the ozonenonattainment areas ofBeaurnont-Port 

### Arthur, DFW, and HGB. The rules require that diesel fuel as defined under 30 TAC 

## 5 114.6 produced for delivery and ultimate sale to the consumer forboth on- and non-roaduse must contain less than 10percent by volume of aromatic hydrocarbons and have a cetane number of 48 or greater. The rules, which took effect October 1,2005,allow some compliance options (30 TAC 114, Subchapter A, 

### 4 114.6 and Subchapter 

### H, Division 2, 

## $5114.312 

### - 1 14.319).

11.6.8 The Texas Emission Reduction Plan 

### (TERP) TERP is a comprehensive set 

### of incentiveprograms aimed at improving air quality in Texas. The TCEQ administers TERP grants and other TERP fmancial incentives. The Texas Legislature established the TERP in 2001 through enactment of Senate Bill 5. The TERP includes a number of voluntary financial incentiveprograms, as well as other assistanceprograms, to help improve the air quality in Texas. The goals of the TERP are to: *Reductions estimate applied to 2002 actual emissionsto show theoretical impact. 48,868 45,453

3,4 15

a assure that the air in this state is safe to breathe and meets minimum federal standards established under the FCAA (42 USC 67407);

a develop multi-pollutantapproaches to solvingthe state's environmental problems; and adequately fund research and development that will make the state a leader in new technologies that can solve its environmentalproblems while creatingnew business and industry 

### in the state. 62,229 56,433

5,796

The primary objective of the TERP has been to reduce NOx emissionsto aid in attaining the NAAQS forozone. By encouragingreplacement of older on-road and non-road engines with newer engines, the TERP has also decreased fine PM emissions from the motor vehicles and equipment using these engines. As ofJanuary 2007, the TCEQ had approved over $406 million in grants under the TERP since the program started in 200 1.The Texas Legislature approved over $143 million for fiscal year 2008 and $146million for fiscal year 2009 to increase TERP grants aimed at NOx emission reductionsin Texas. The program also reduces frne PM emissionsby accelerating the replacement of older diesel engines with newer enginesthat have much lower PM emission rates. Currently,the TCEQ has rule provisions that regulate NOx and PM emissions. A detailed listing is provided in Appendix 11-3: 

### Major Point Source NOx

### Rules andReductions Promulgated in Texassince 2000.

### CHAPTER 12. COMPREHENSIVE PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS AND 

### ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING PLAN

Title40 CFR $5 1.308(f)requires states to revise and submitto the 

### EPA a comprehensive regional haze implementationplan revision every 10 years until 2064. In addition, 40 CFR §51.308(g) requires periodic reports in the form of a SIP revision that evaluates progress towards the reasonable progress goals established for each Class

### I area. 

### In accordance with the requirements, the TCEQ plans to submit a report to the EPA on reasonable progress every five years following the initial submittal of the Regional Haze SIP. The report will be in the form of a SIP revision and will evaluate the progress made towards the reasonable progress goal for each ClassI area located within Texas, and in each ClassI area located outside of Texasthat may be affected by emissions from within Texas. All requirements listed in 40 CFR $51.308(g)will be addressed in the 

### SIPrevisionfor demonstrating reasonable progress. Depending on the findingsof its five-year progress report, the TCEQ will examine the actions listed in 40 CFR §51.308@). The findings of the five-year progress report may determine which action the state may choose as appropriate.

### REFERENCES

a Alpine Geophysics. 2006. CENRAP Regional Haze Control Strategy Analysis Plan. Alpine Geophysics,LLC, Bumsville, North Carolina. May. Black, T. L. 1994. The New NMC Mesoscale Eta Model: Description and Forecast Examples. Weather Forecasting, 9,265-278.

a Byun, D.W. 2004.. Quality Assurance Activities for VISTAS BC Processing. University of Houston. December 3 1.

a Byun, D.W., and J.K.S. Ching. 1999. Science Algorithms of the EPA Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Modeling System,EPAl600lR-991030. CENRAP. Available at (www.cenrap.or~). Under CENRAP: Charter 2000. Under Projects: Technical SupportDocument (TSD), September 12,2007.

a Chow, J et al. 2004. Source Profiles for Industrial, Mobile, and Area Sources in the Big Bend Regional Aerosol Visibility and Observational Study. 2003 Chow, J. 2005. Memorandum: EPA Chemical Profiles for Coal Fired Power Station Emissions. Prepared for TCEQ. July 2005. Coe, D.L. and S.B. Reid. 2003. Research and Development of Ammonia Emission Inventories for the Central States Regional Air Planning Association. Sonoma Technology, Inc., Petalurna, California. (available at 

### http://cenrap.sonomatech.com/index.cfm). October 30. ENVIRON. 2002. User's Guide ComprehensiveAir Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx)Version 3.10. ENVIRON International Corporation,Novato, California (available at www.camx.com) April. ENVIRON. 2003a. VISTAS Emissions and Air Quality Modeling -Phase I Task 2 Report: Recommended Model Configurations and Evaluation Methodology for Phase I Modeling. Preparedby ENVIRON International Corporation, Alpine Geophysics, LLC and University of California at Riverside.Novato, California. (available at: http://pah.cert.ucr.edulvistas/docs.shtml). August 4. EPA. 1991. Guidance for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model 

### (UAM), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,N.C. EPA. 1999. Draft Guidance on the Use ofModels and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hr Ozone NAAQS. Draft (May 1999),U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC



### . EPA. 1999. 40 CFR Part 5 1. Regional Haze Regulations; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 64,No 126,July 

### 1, 1999. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oag/tl/fr notices/rhfedreg.&f. EPA. 1999. 

### EPA's Re~ulatorv Impact Analyses (RIA) for the Revised Ozone and PM 

### NAAOS and Proposed Regional Haze Rule. EPA. 1999. Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through Identification of AdditionalEmission Reductions,Not Modeled. (http://www.epa.gov/scrainOOl /aidance/guide/addwoelh.wpd). EPA. 1999. Visibility Monitoring Guidance. EPA-454/R-99-003. EPA. 2001. Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment ofAir Quality Goals for PMZs and Regional Haze, Draft Report, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Research Triangle Park,NC. EPA. 2003a. Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA. 2003b. Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA454B-03-005.EPA. 2005. Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Regional Haze Regulations. EPA-454/R-05-00 1. EPA. 2005. Proposed Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations Under the RegionalHaze Regulations. Federal Register, July. 

## 3). EPA. 2007. Documentationon the Integrated Planning Model. EPA's web site: (http://www .epa.aovIairmarkets/~ronsrees/l). EPA. 2007a. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment ofAir Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454lB-07-002. April. EPA. 2007b. Guidancefor Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, Air Policy Division, Geographic Strategies Group, Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1. (http:/lepa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t

### 11memoranda~reasonable~rogress_guid07 1307.pdf). Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. June 1996. Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas. 

## (h. IMPROVE. 1999. Particulate Monitoring Network 

### - Procedures for Site Selection,(Crocker Nuclear Laboratory, University of California, February 24, 1999. (httu:l/~~~.epa.gov!ttdamticlfileslambient/visible/select22.pdf). Jacob, D.J., R. Park and J.A. Logan. 2005. Documentation and Evaluation of the GEOSCHEM Simulationfor 2002 Provided to the VISTAS Group. Harvard University. June 24. Johnson, J., 

### Y. Jia, C. Emery, R. Moms, Z. Wang and G. Tonnesen. 2006. Comparisonof CENRAP 36 

### km and 12

### krn MM5 Model Runs for 2002. Prepared for CENRAP Modeling Work Group. May 23. 

### (http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/cenrap/ppt~files/CEN~~2002~36~~~~~12km~MM5~May22

-

2006.ppt). Johnson, M. 2007. MeteorologicalModel PerformanceEvaluation of an Annual 2002 MM5 (Version 3.6.3) Simulation. Iowa Department of natural Resources, Air Quality Bureau. November. 

### (http://www.iowadnr.gov/air/pro~progdev/modeling.html). Kemball-Cook, S., 

### Y. Jia, C. Emery, R. Moms, Z. Wang and G. Tonnesen. 2004a. Comparison of CENRAP, VISTAS and WRAP 36 

### krn MM5 Model Runs for 2002, Task 3: Meteorological GatekeeperReport. 

### (http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/cenrap/pptfileslCENRAPNRAPVISTASSWRAP2OO23 6kxMM5

-

eval.ppt). December 14. Kemball-Cook, 

### S., 

### Y. Jia, C. Emery, R. Morris, Z. Wang and G. Tonnesen. 2005. Annual 2002 MM5 MeteorologicalModelingto SupportRegional Haze Modeling of the Western United States. Western RegionalAir Partnership 

### (WRAP),Regional Modeling Center (RMC). 

### (http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/3O8/reports/mm5/DrftFn1~2002MM5~FinalWRAP~Eval.pdf). March. Malm, William. 1999. Introductionto Visibility. National Park Service. Moms, R.E. and 

### G. Tonnesen. 2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan (Draft) for Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) Emissions and Air QualityModeling. 

### (http:/lpah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/cenrap/docs/CENRAPNRAPQAPPPNo~~24~2004.pdf). December 23. Moms, R.E., G.E. Mansell, 

### B. Koo, G. Tomesen, M. Omary and Z. Wang. 2004a. Modeling Protocol for the CENRAP 2002 Annual Emissions and Air Quality Modeling, Draft 2.0. (http://pah.cert.ucr.eddaqmlcenrapldocslCENRAPNRAPDraft2.O~Modeling~Pr~t~c~l1 20804.pdf). December 

### 8.Moms, R.E.,A. Hoats, S. Lau, B. Koo, G. Tonnesen, C-J. Chien and M. Omary. 2005. Air Quality ModelingAnalysis for CENR4P 

### -Preliminary2002 Base Case CMAQ and CAMx Modeling of the Continental US 36 km Domain and Model Performance Evaluation. ENVIRON International Corporation,Novato, California. April 30. Moms, R.E., 

### G. Mansell, B. Koo, A. Hoats, G. Tomesen, M. Omary, C-J. Chien and Y. Wang. 2006a. CENRAP Modeling: Need for 36 km versus 12

### km Grid Resolution. Presented at CENRAP Modeling Work Group Meeting, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

### (http://pah.cert.ucr.edu~aqm~cenrap/ppt~files/414,1 ,CENRAPModeling: Need for 36 

### km
versus 12 

### km Grid Resolution). February 7. Morris, R.E., G. Mansell,B. Koo, A. Hoats, G. Tomesen, M. Omary, C-J. Chien and Y. Wang. 2006b. CENRAPModeling Update: CMAQ versus CAMx Model Performance Evaluation. Presented at CENRAP Modeling Work Group Meeting, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

### @ttp://pah.cert.ucr.edu~aqm/cenrap/ppt~files/414,1 ,CENRAPModeling Update: CMAQ versus CAMx Model Performance Evaluation). February 7. Morris, R.E., B. Koo, A. Guenther, G. Yarwood, D. McNally, T.W. Tesche, G. Tomesen, J. Boylan and 

### P. Brewer. 2006c. Model SensitivityEvaluation for Organic Carbon using Two Multi-Pollutant Air Quality Models that Simulate Regional Haze in the southeastern United States. Atmos. Env. 40 (2006) 4960-4972. National Research Council (NRC). 1993. Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. Washington, DC. National Academy Press. 466 p. National Park Service (NPS). Visibility Monitoring internet site, (http:lluww2.nature.nus. povlard~vis/vishu.html). NPS. 2004a. Big Thicket National Preserve Fire Management Plan. Denver, CO: United States Departmentof Interior. NPS. 2004b. Padre Island National Seashore Fire Management Plan. Denver, CO: United States Department of Interior. NPS. 2004c. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Fire Management Plan. Denver, CO: United States Department of Interior. National Park Service (NPS). 2005a. Big Bend National Park Fire Management Plan. Denver, CO: United States Department of Interior. NPS. 2005b. Guadalupe Mountains National Park Fire Management Plan. Denver, CO: United StatesDepartment ofInterior. NPS. 200%. Lyndon B. Johnson National HistoricalPark Fire Management Plan. Denver, CO: Umted States Department of Interior. NPS. 2007. Vidal Davila, Chief, Science and Resource Management at Big Bend National Park; and Gorden 

### L. Bell, Jr., Geologist, Guadalupe Mountains National Park. E-mail correspondence. Particulate Monitoring Network - Standard Operating ProceduresAir Quality, Crocker Nuclear Laboratory, University of California, October 15, 1998. +)



### . Pechan. 2005a. Electric GeneratingUnit (EGU) Growth Factor Comparison. Prepared for CENRAP Emissions Inventory Workgroup. E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc. Durham, North Carolina. 

### January. Pechan. 2005b. TechnicalMemorandum: Updates to Source Classification Code (SCC) to Speciation Profile Cross-ReferenceTable. Prepared for CENRAP Emissions Inventory Workgroup. E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc. Durham, North Carolina. April. Pechan and CEP. 2005c. Consolidated of Emissions Inventories (Schedule9; Work Item 3). E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc. Durham, North Carolina. Carolina Environmental Program, University of North Carolina, Chapel, Hill, North Carolina. April 28. Pechan. 2005d. Development of Growth and Control Inputs for CENRAP 2018 Emissions, Draft Technical Support Document. E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc. Durham, North Carolina. Carolina Environmental Program, University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel, Hill, North Carolina. May.Pechan and CEP. 2005e. Refinements of CENRAP's 2002 Emissions Inventories (Schedule 9; Work Item 

### 3). E.H. Pechan and Associates,Inc. Durham, North Carolina. Carolina Environmental Program, University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel, Hill, North Carolina. August 23. Pitchford, M. 2006. Natural Haze Levels 11: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to ~akal Species. Final Report by the Natural Haze Levels I1 Committeeto the RPO MonitoringData Analysis Workgroup. 

### (Marck.Pitchford@NOAA.gov). Pitchford, M.L., et al. 2004. Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational (BRAVO) Study. NPS, EPA, TCEQ, NOAA, and EPRI. Reid, S.B., D.C. Sullivan,B.M. Penfold, T.H. Funk, T.M Tarnura, P.S. Stiefer, S.M. Raffuse and H.L. Arkinson. 2004a. Emission Inventory Development for Mobile Sourcesand Agricultural Dust Sources for the Central States. Sonoma Technology,hc., Petaluma, California. (available at http://cenrap.sonomatech.com/index.cfin). October 28. Reid, S.B., S.G. Brown, D.C. Sullivan,

### H.L. Arkinson, T.H. Funk and P.S. Stiefer. 2004b. Research and Development of Planned Burning Emission Inventories for the Central States Regional Air Planning Association. SonomaTechnology,hc., Petaluma, California. Available at (http://cenrap.sonomatech.comlindex.cfm). July 30. Russell,J. and A. Pollack. 2005. Oil and Gas Emission Inventories for the Western States. ENVIRON International Corporation,Novato, California. December 27. Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality (TCEQ). 1999. State Implementation Plans, provided at TCEQ web site: (http://www.tce~.state.tx.us/im~lementatiodairlsiplsip~lans.html). TCEQ. 2003. Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) General Permit Number TXR150000, $26.040 TexasWater Code and $402 Clean Water Act. Austin, TX: Texas Register. TCEQ. 2006. Outdoor Burning. 30 TAC Chapter 111, Subchapter B. Austin, TX: Texas Register. TCEQ. 2007. The Texas BART Rule (30 TAC 116, Subchapter M) web site: 

### ~tt~://www.tcea.state.tx.us/implementatiodair/sipaze ruleinaking.htm1). Texas Forest Service (TFS). 2007. Texas WildfireProtection Plan. College Station, TX: Forest Resource Development Department. TFS. 1995. Texas Forrest Service Smoke Management System. College Station, 

### TX: Forest Resource Development Department. Timin, B. 2002. PM 2.5 and RegionalHaze Modeling Guidance. Prepared by the U.S. EPA/OAQPS. April 24. Tonnesen, G.,

### Z. Wang, 

### M. Omary, C-J. Jung, R. Moms, G. Mansell, S. Kemball-Cook, G. Yanvood, 

### Z. Adelman, A. Holland and K. Hanisak. 2005. Final Report for the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Regional Modeling Center (RMC) for the Project Period March 1,2004 through 

### February 28,2005. University of CaliforniaatRiverside, Riverside, California. August 16. Tonnesen, G., 

### Z. Wang, M. Omary, C-J. Jung, 

### Y. Wang, R. Moms, S. Kemball-Cook,Y. Jia, S. Lao, B. Koo, 

### Z. Adelman, A. Holland and J. Wallace. 2006. Final Report for the Western Regional Air Partnership (WhQ) 2002 Visibility Model Performance Evaluation. Trijonis, J.C. 1990. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report. NAPAP State of Science & Technology, Vol. 111. University of Californiaat Riverside, Riverside, California. February 24. 

### (http://pah.cert.ucr.edulaqm/3O8/reports/final/2002~MPE~report_main_body~FWAL.pdf). Xiu, A., and J.E. Pleim. 2000. Development of a land surface model. Part I: Application in a mesoscale meteorology model. Journal of Applied Meteor010

### All appendicesare available upon request. Please contact: Margaret Earnest Texas Commissionon Environmental Quality 12100 Park 35 Circle Austin, TX 

### 78752 512-239-4581 mearnest@,tceq.state.tx.us