Buddy Garcia, Chairman 

Larry R. Soward, Commissioner 

Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Commissioner 

Mark R. Vickery, P.C., Executive Director 

RtiEi'k E.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. 2006-022-1 16-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 reasonable progress in reducing visibility impairment at Class I federal areas, 

including Big Bend and Guadalupe National Parks, resulting from anthropogenic air 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 Commission on Environmental Quality 
Texas 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 I Areas 

Rule Project No. 2007-016-SIP-NR 

Volume 1 of 2 
INTRODUCTION 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) held a public hearing in Austin, on 

February 19, 2008, to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to the state implementation 

plan (SIP) to meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) 169A and 169B addressing 

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 is two volumes, 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 in the TCEQ central office at 121 00 Park 35 

Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. For further information, please contact Margaret Earnest at (512) 239- 

4581. 
PUBLIC

NOTIFICATION AND

PROPOSAL
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION 

Notification to the public of the proposed revisions was conducted by the following procedures: 

1. Publication of notice of public hearing in the following newspapers on the date listed: 

Alpine Avalanche, December 21,2007 

Austin American-Statesman, December 21,2007 

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 forwarding the 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 Department 
Galveston 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 

Pueblo of Picuris 

Pueblo of 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 

Managers 
Example of Newspaper Classified Ad 

Austin American-Statesman, December 21, 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 Besl Available 

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 Y Mas, 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 

rn asoaodd;jb$Ta. f&Gi6ri 

'SIP ~-i-la~2?.~eniiaAJ< 

YP ;o-t:e c C-ib n d.e.1 
Legal 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 1 lO(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, 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 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 of treated 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 

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 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.wil1 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 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 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. 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 

I 
REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) 

CONCERNING REGIONAL HAZE 

TEXAS COMMISISON ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

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 of Nitrogen (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 SIPS to make 

"reasonable progress" in reducing visibility impairment at Class 1 Federal areas resulting from 

anthropogenic pollution. 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 air pollution." 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 SIPS must "contain such emission limits, schedules of 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 states to work together in regional 

partnerships to reduce haze. There are five regional planning organizations in the United States. 

Texas is a member of the 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 regional haze SIP. 

The FCAA, Section 169A and B require the EPA to adopt regulations to reduce visibility 

impairment resulting "from man-made air pollution" in 156 Class I Federal areas. The 

regulations require each state SIP to contain control measures, including BART, to make 

reasonable progress toward the national goal of natural visibility conditions by 2064 in all Class I 

areas. The two Class I areas in Texas are Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. 

Each state bordering 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' visibility impacts in those areas too. 

The EPA adopted Regional Haze regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, 

subpart P, on July 1, 1999, and adopted amendments to Subpart P and a new Appendix Y (BART 

guidelines) to Part 5 1 on July 6,2005. 

The 1990 FCAA 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 degradation for 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 contracting projections of visibility impairment in 201 8, the initial year 

for which each state's long-term strategy is to be evaluated. The state must reduce its visibility 

impairment impact at all Class I areas it impacts by as much as is reasonable. The format of this 

SIP revision follows a prescribed template developed by the CEW states. 

The TCEQ used a refined estimate of natural conditions for Class I 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. 

Following the legislature's statutory direction, the TCEQ adopted CAR requirements applicable 

to electric generating units in Texas. Interstate trading of CAIR emission reduction credits makes 

the prediction of CAIR's visibility improvement benefits uncertain for each Class I area. 

Additionally, the commission adopted the requirements of the 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 

contribute to 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 determined that 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 visibility impairment at the two Texas Class I 

areas fiom the United States and foreign contributions indicate 52 percent of the visibility 

impairment at Big Bend National Park and 20 percent of the visibility impairment at Guadalupe 

Mountains National Park on the worst 20 percent of regional haze days comes fiom international 

transport. The preamble to the July 1, 1999, issuance of the 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 TCEQ has 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 visibility impairment. 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, including maintaining 

adequate visibility. 

The first air pollution control act, known as the Clean Air Act of Texas, was passed by the Texas 

Legislature in 1965. In 1967, the Clean Air Act of Texas was superseded by a more 

comprehensive statute, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), found in Article 4477-5, Vernon's 

Texas Civil Statutes. The Legislature amended 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 Texas Health & Safety Code. 

Originally, the TCAA stated that the Texas Air Control Board (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 

Conservation Commission (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, Subchapters A - 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 Chapter also authorizes the TNRCC 

to implement action when emergency conditions arise and to conduct hearings. Chapter 7 gives 

the TNRCC enforcement authority. In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature continued the existence 

of the TNRCC until September 1,2013, and changed the name of the TNRCC to the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 

The TCAA specifically authorizes the TCEQ to establish the level of quality to 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. 33e TCAA, Subchapters A - D, also authorize the TCEQ to collect 

information to enable the commission to develop an inventory of emissions; conduct research and 

investigations; enter property and examine records; prescribe monitoring requirements; institute 

enforcement proceedings; enter into contracts and execute instruments; formulate rules; issue 

orders taking into consideration factors bearing upon health, welfare, social and economic factors, 

and practicability and reasonableness; conduct hearings; establish air quality control regions; 

encourage cooperation with citizens' groups and other agencies and political subdivisions of 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 of the TCAA. Local governments have the 

same power as the TCEQ to enter property and make inspections. They also may make 

recommendations to the commission concerning any action of the TCEQ that affects their 

territorial jurisdiction, 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 inconsistent with 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 for mass transit authorities, local government fleets, and private fleets; create a 

mobile emissions reduction credit program; establish vehicle inspection and maintenance 

programs in certain areas of the state, consistent with the requirements of the federal Clean Air 

Act; establish gasoline volatility and low emission diesel standards; and fund and authorize 

participating counties to implement low-income vehicle repair 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 listed below have previously been 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: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

Subchapter A: General Provisions 

Subchapter B: Organization of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

Subchapter C: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

Subchapter D: General Powers and Duties of the Commission 

Subchapter E: 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 of Hearings 

Subchapter I: Judicial Review 

Subchapter J: Consolidated Permit Processing 

Subchapter L: Emergency and Temporary Orders (55 5.5 14,5.5145 and 5.515 only) 

Chapter 7: Enforcement 

Subchapter A: 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 

Subchapter E Criminal Offenses and Penalties: 56 7.177,7.179-7.181 

Rules 

All of the following rules are found in Title 30, Texas Administrative Code, as of the following 

effective dates: 

Chapter 7, Memoranda of Understanding, 55 7.11 0 and 7.1 19 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 10 1 : General Air Quality Rules August 16,2007 
Chapter 106: Permits by Rule, Subchapter A June 30,2004 

Chapter 1 11 : Control of Air Pollution from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

July 19,2006 

Chapter 112: Control of Air Pollution from Sulfur Compounds July 12,2001 

Chapter 113: Standards of 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 1 16: Permits for New Construction or Modification March 15, 2007 

Chapter 1 17: Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds June 14,2007 

Chapter 1 18: Control of Air Pollution Episodes March 5,2000 

Chapter 122, $ 122.122: Potential to Emit December 1 1,2002 

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 1 1,2002 

Chapter 122, 6 122.218: Minor Permit Revision Procedures for Permit Revisions June 3,2001 

Involving the 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 

CHAPTER 4: STATE, TRIBE, AND FEDERAL LAND MANAGER CONSULTATION ............ 4-1 

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

4.2 CONSULTATION ON 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 CONDITIONS AND 

ESTIMATE OF NATURAL CONDITIONS IN CLASS I AREAS ........................ 5-1 

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

5.1.1 Default and Refined Values for Natural Visibility Conditions .................................. 5-2 

5.1.2 Consultation Regarding 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 Modeling Protocol ...................................................................................................... 8-3 

8.4.2 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) ................................................................... 8-3 

8.4.3 Model Selection ......................................................................................................... 8-3 

8.4.4 MM5 Meteorological Model 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 Structure of Modeling Domain ..................................................................... 8-7 

8.4.10 2002 Calendar Year 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 and Model Performance Evaluation ............................ 8-14 

8.4.17 201 8 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 IN TEXAS ....................................................................... 9-1 

9.2 DETERMINATION OF SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART ............................................. 9-5 

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

9.2.2 Individual Source Attribution Approach .................................................................. ..9 -8 

9.3 DETERMINATION OF BART FOR SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART ....................... 9-10 

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

9.5 SITES REMOVED FROM 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 .................... .I 0-1 

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 

1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 11-1 

1 1.1.1 Reasonably ~ttributable Visibility Impairment ..................................................... 11-3 

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

1 1.3 REQUEST FOR FEDERAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE INTERNATIONAL 

TRANSPORT ......................................................................................................... 11-8 

1 1.4 MINIMIZING VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT FROM TEXAS EMISSIONS ............... 11-9 

1 1.4.1 Opacity Limitations .................... : ........................................................................... 11-9 

1 1.4.2 Sulfur Emission 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 

1 1.5 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 

1 1.6 EMISSION REDUCTIONS SINCE ISSUANCE OF REGIONAL HAZE RULE .... 1 1-12 

1 1.6.1 NOx Emission Reduction Requirements in Texas Ozone SIP Revisions ............ 1 1-12 

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

1 1 . 6.3 CAIR Reductions for NOx and SO2 .................................................................... 1 1-12 

1 1.6.4 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Requirements .............................. .1 1-14 

11.6.5 Comparison of the NOx Emission Limits for EGUs with CAIR Limits .............. 11-15 

1 1.6.6 Sulfur Dioxide Reductions under the EPA Refinery Consent Decrees ............... .1 1-16 

1 1.6.7 Texas Low Emissions Diesel (TxLED) Program ............................................. 1 1-16 

1 1.6.8 The Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) ...................................................... 1 1-1 6 

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-level Ambient Data Monitoring Networks and Stations for 2002 .............. 8-14 

Table 9-1: BART-Eligible Sources Based 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 CAMx Modeling ............ 9-10 

Table 9-6: Post-BART Emissions Reductions at Texas Sources ............................................... 9-11 

Table 9-7: Sites Removed 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: Comparison of 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 ......................... -1 1 . 13 

Table 11-2: Texas Electric Generating Utility NOx Control Strategies Compared to 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 of the Regional Planning Organizations ........................................................... 3-2 

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

Figure 7-1: Comparison of 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 Concentrations at Big Bend ............................. 8.15 

Figure 8-5: Observed and Base Case Modeled Concentrations at Guadalupe Mountains ......... 8.16 

Figure 8-6: 20 18 Visibility Projections Expressed as Percent of Meeting the 20 18 URP 8- 1 8 

Figure 10-1 : Glide Path 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 : Comparison of 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 ............. .1 1.2 

Figure 1 1-4: Calculated Regional Haze Impacts of West Texas Emissions at Each Class I Area in 

New Mexico .......................................................................................................... 11-4 

Figure 1 1-5: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Salt Creek in New Mexico ....... .1 1.5 

Figure 1 1-6: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Wichita Mountains, Oklahoma . 1 1-5 

Figure 11-7: Calculated Regional Haze Impacts of West Texas Emissions at Each Class I Area in 

Colorado ............................................................................................................... 11-6 

Figure 1 1-8: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Great Sand Dunes in Colorado . 1 1-7 

Figure 1 1-9: 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 ............... .1 1.8 

Figure 1 1 1 1 . : CAIR Emission Reduction States .................................................................... 1 1 . 13 

vii 
LIST 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 1 1-2 

Appendix 1 1-3 

EPA Regional Haze Rule 1999 

Public Participation Process (after proposal) 

Public Comments and Responses on SIP Draft (after proposal) 

Summary of Three Texas Consultation Calls 

Contact List for Consultation Calls 

Discussion of the Original and Revised IMPROVE Algorithms 

Estimate of Natural Visibility Conditions 

Texas Emissions Inventory Development: Base Year 2002 and 

Projected Year 201 8 

Integrated Planning Model Projections of Electric Generating Unit 

Emissions for the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air 

Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze SIP 

Modeling Protocol for the CENRAP 2002 Annual Emissions and Air 

Quality Modeling 

Quality Assurance Project Plan for Central Regional Air Planning 

Association Emissions and Air Quality Modeling 

U.S. EPA BART Rule 

Texas BART Rule 

CAMx Modeling Protocol, Screening Analysis of Potentially BARTEligible Sources in Texas (online) 

CAMx Modeling Report, Final Report, Screening Analysis of 

Potential BART-Eligible Sources in Texas (online) 

CAMx Screening Modeling Report and Addendums 1 and 2 (online) 

Certification of Screening Modeling Data 

CALPUFF Modeling Guidelines (online) 

CAMx Modeling Guidelines (online) 

BART Engineering Guidance Documents and Forms 

Documentation of Emission Reductions 

County Abbreviations 

BART-Eligible List 

Analysis of Control Strategies RPG 

Estimating Visibility Impacts from Additional Point Source Controls 

Uniform Rate of Progress Curves Using Default Natural Conditions 

Estimates 

Detailed Calculations for Estimating Visibility 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 System Version 3 

Light extinction 

Big Bend National Park 

Clean natural conditions 

Bosque del Apache Wilderness Area 

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 Wilderness Area 

Clean Air Interstate Rule 

California Puff Model 

Clean Air Mercury Rule 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions 

Central Regional Air Planning Association 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Coarse mass 

Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System 

Desert Research Institute 

deciviews 

Elemental carbon 

Economic Growth Analysis System 

Electric generating unit 

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 

Goddard Earth 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 of Natural Resources 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

Integrated Planning Model 
ISLE 

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 Royale National Park 

Photolysis Rates Processor 

kilometers 

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

Lostwood Wilderness Area 

Long-term strategy 

Mammoth Cave National Park 

Modeled Attainment Test Software 

millibars 

Mesa Verde National Park 

Mingo Wilderness Area 

Inverse Megameters 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model, 5' Generation (developed by 

Pe~sylvania State University 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 Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone 

Ammonium 

Nitrate 

Nitrogen oxides 

Non-electrical generating units 

New source performance standards 

New Source Review 

Organic carbon 

Organic mass carbon 

Photochemical Grid Model 

Plume-in-Grid 

Plume Visibility Model 

Particulate matter 

Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters less than 10 

microns 

Particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters less than 2.5 

microns 

Primary organic aerosol 

Piecewise-Parabolic Method 

Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

Potential to emit 

Emissions over distance (to Class I area) 

Quality AssuranceIQuality Control 

Quality Assurance Program 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 

WIC A 

WRAP 

Regional Planning Organization 

Relative response factor (s?) 

Salt Creek Wilderness Area 

San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area 

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 Roosevelt National Park 

Tribal Implementation Plan 

Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer satellite data 

tons per year 

Technical Support Document 

Tropospheric Ultraviolet and Visible (Radiation Model) 

University of California at Riverside 

Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 

Uniform rate of progress 

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 is visibility impairment that is produced by 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 visibility impairment is regional 

transport of fine particles that contribute to elevated particulate matter (PM) levels and regional 

haze impairment of visibility. 

Haze-fonning pollution 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 

of reduced visibility (haze) in the United States and at many of our national parks and wilderness 

areas. Some haze-forming particles are directly emitted into the air. The usual term for directly 

emitted particles is primary particles. Secondary particles, created when emitted gases form 

particles downwind of the emission sources, usually dominate the causes of regional haze. 

Nitrates and sulfates are examples of secondary particles that contribute to regional haze. 

In many scenic areas, haze substantially reduces visual range. In eastern Class I areas, haze from 

human activity reduces average visual range from the natural condition of approximately 90 miles 

to 15-to-25 miles. In the West, haze from human activity reduces visual range from the natural 

condition of approximately 140 miles to 35-to-90 miles. Haze is measured in deciviews (dv). A 

deciview is a unit of visibility impairment proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric light 

extinction. One deciview is approximately the 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 Commission on 

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-lmpairing Pollutants and Table 1-2: Comparison of 

Ambient Fine Particles (Ultrajine plus Accumulation-Mode) and Coarse 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 states must 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 1-2 provides additional information about particles. 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 1.0 pm in diameter. Some of the accumulation mode 

particles, most notably sulfates, grow above 1.0 pm in diameter, as the humidity becomes high. 

A relatively small percentage of the coarse particles are smaller than 2.5 pm in aerodynamic 

diameter, so samplers collect them with the fine particles. 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 

of Particles 

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 

**Volatile organic 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 

combus tion 

Wind blowing over 

loose soil, 

motor vehicles 

running on paved 

and unpaved roads 

Wind blowing over 

loose soil, 

motor vehicles 

running on paved 

and unpaved roads 
Table 1-2: Comparison of Ambient Fine Particles (Ultrafine plus Accumulation-Mode) and 

Formed by: 

Condensation 

Coagulation 

Coarse Particles 

Elemental carbon 

Metal compounds 

Ultrafine 

Sources: 

Accumulation 

Organic compounds 

with very low 

saturation vapor 

pressure at ambient 

temperature 

Formation 

Processes: 

Combustion 

Atmospheric 

transformation of 

SO2 and some 

organic compounds 

High temperature 

processes 

Combustion, high-temperature processes, and 

atmospheric reactions 

Condensation 

Coagulation 

Reactions of gases in 

or on particles 

Evaporation of fog 

and cloud droplets in 

which gases have 

dissolved and reacted 

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 

products of NO,, 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/S02 reactions with 

coarse particles 

Oxides of crustal elements (Si, 

Al, Ti, Fe) 

CaC03, CaS04, NaC I, sea salt 

Pollen, mold, fungal spores 

Plant and animal fragments 

Tire, brake pad, and road wear 

debris 

and soil tracked onto roads and 

streets 

Suspension from 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 from Wilson and Suh (1997), CD, p. 2-52. 

Atmospheric 

Removal 

Processes: 

Travel distance: 

Grows into 

accumulation mode 

Diffises to raindrops 

<1 to 10s of krn 

Forms cloud droplets 

and rains out (Organic 

carbon and elemental 

carbon particles may 

not take up water until 

they have aged.) 

Dry deposition 

100s to 1000s of krn 

Dry deposition by fallout 

Scavenging by falling rain 

drops 

<1 to 10s of km (small size tail, 

100s to 1000s in 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 $1 69B (42 USC, $67492) requiring 

further research and regular assessments of the progress made toward visibility goals. In 1993, 

the National Academy of Sciences concluded that "current scientific knowledge is adequate and 

control technologies are available for taking regulatory action to improve and protect visibility" 

(NRC 1993). 

In addition to authorizing the creation of visibility transport commissions and setting forth their 

duties, 169B(f) of the FCAA specifically mandated the creation of the Grand Canyon Visibility 

Transport Commission (GCVTC) to make recommendations to the EPA for the region affecting 

visibility in Grand Canyon National Park. After four years of research 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 of the 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 achieve the national visibility goal of 

restoring natural visibility conditions to Class I areas by 2064. Generally, the EPA7s default 

estimates of natural conditions are 8 deciviews for the western states and 12 deciviews for the 

eastern states. States may calculate the natural conditions for each Class I area instead of using 

the default goal. Chapter 5: Assessment of Baseline and Current Conditions and Estimate of 

Natural Conditions in Class I Areas 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 

Clms IAreas). 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 Gmrmwn or Bnn,anmnuai Curah 

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 

international border 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 

of the 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). 

Guadalupe Mountains 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. The park covers 86,416 acres and is in the same mountain range as Carlsbad 

Caverns National Park, which is located about 40 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 mountain peaks 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 side by side 

with desert species such as agaves and cacti. The altitude encourages relatively high amounts of 

rainfall that quickly drain into the porous limestone bedrock and recharges the Capitan Aquifer. 

The Guadalupe Mountains preserve the 2,000-foot thick limestone layer of the 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 environments from shallow lagoon to reef, 

forereef debris slopes, and deep basin deposits. The park contains the world standard section that 

represents the middle part of the Permian Period of geologic time. Geologists from around the 

world study the 280 to 260 million year old rocks preserved there (NPS 2007). 
CHAPTER 2. GENERAL PLANNING 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 addresses the 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 determinations as outlined in this SIP. 

2.2 PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT INFORMATION 

The TCEQ will provide notice to the public of the opportunity to comment on the proposed 

Regional Haze SIP after the commission approval for publication on December 5,2007. The 

TCEQ will also announce and hold a public hearing. Notice of both the public hearing and the 

comment period will be published in newspapers around the state (Appendix 2-1 : 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 comment period will give sufficient time for the FLMs to provide recommendations on the 

proposed SIP revision that 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 comments may be submitted at <-http:i~~ww5.tceq.state.tx.us/rules/ecomments/>. File 

size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via 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 Commission on Environmental Quality 

P. 0. Box 13087 

Austin TX 7871 1-3087 

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 Comments and Responses on SIP Draj?. The final SIP will 

incorporate public 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 

12100 Park 35 Circles, Austin TX 78753 

Building E, Room 201 S 
3.1 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 established grant funding for five RPOs as follows: 

Central Regional Air Planning Association 

Western Regional Air Partnership 

Midwest Reghnal Planning Organization 

Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast 

Mid-AtlanticLNortheast Visibility Union. 

Figure 3-1 : Map of the Regional Planning 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. Some tribes, including the Alabama Coushatta of 

eastern Texas, also participate in CENRAP. 

The CENRAP's planning process was initiated in late 1999 with 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 of the organization as follows. 

Identify regional, common air management issues, and develop and identify strategies to 

address these issues. 

Promote policies that ensure fair and equitable treatment of all participating members. 

Coordinate science and technology to support air quality policy issues in the central 

states. 

Promote the implementation of federal visibility rules. 

Recommend strategies on 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 necessary to provide the membership 

with information to support the 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 accordance with existing law, retain all 

legal authority" (CENRAP 2000). While Texas participates in CENRAP and benefits 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 

ol ihe Southeast ' 

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

The Policy Oversight Group (I'OG) is the governing body 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 environmental commissioner 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 of the EPA or designee; 

two representatives from local programs that are members of the Central States Air 

Resources Agencies (CenSARA); and 

additional tribal representatives designated in accordance with 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 -2 
A Technical Steering Committee comprised of representatives 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 submission of 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 

organization to 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 convened by CenSARA to begin developing the charter, bylaws, and initial longrange plan for the CENRAP. After workgroups were formed, 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 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 of the 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 ths SIP were developed based 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 order to 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 fulfill the 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 identified FLMs 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 reasonable progress goals (RPGs), states 

are required to consult with other states reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in their Class I areas. If a state determines it has emissions that are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to 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 given the opportunity to 

address: assessment of the impairment of visibility in any Class I areas; materials presented to 

stakeholders prior to the consultation calls; recommendations on the development of RPGs; and 

recommendations on the development of strategies to address visibility impairment. Throughout 

the consultation calls, the TCEQ encouraged participants to continue coordination and 

consultation during the development of the SIP prior 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 CONSULTATION ON CLASS I AREAS IN TEXAS 

The TCEQ held Regional Haze SIP consultation meetings by conference call with FLMs for the 

Class I 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 

Planning Model (IPM) emission projections, and glide path and RPGs. A summary paper of 

these technical papers was provided to consultation participants. 

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 significant deterioration (PSD) pennit process to include FLM 

notification provisions. More detailed summaries from all three calls are provided in Appendix 

4-1: Summary of Three Texas Consultation Calls. 

Date 

July 1 1,2007 

July 18,2007 

Time 

2:30-4:00 p.m. 

10:OO-11:30 p.m. 

July 3 1,2007 10:OO-11:30 p.m. 
A list of persons or entities contacted to participate in the consultation process is provided in 

Appendix 4-2: Contact Listfor 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 CENRAP particulate matter source apportionment technology 

(PSAT) modeling. These states are New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Louisiana. Appendix 

8- 1 : Technical Support Document for CEWP Emissions and Air 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 201 8 emissions and visibility impairment considering all 

adopted emissions reductions required in Texas and federal rules; and 

developing estimates of 2064 natural conditions. 

Texas and federal rules that specifically reduce visibility-impairing pollutants include the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (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 

also participated 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 impacted by 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 invited Texas 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 conditions to the 156 Class I 

areas identified in the 1977 FCAA Amendments. Title 40 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 of visibility 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., conditions observed during the current period, 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 extinction coefficients and 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 in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire 

range of conditions, from pristine to highly impaired." 

Texas and other CENRAP states have elected to perform their primary visibility projections using 

the new Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) algorithm to 

calculate visibility metrics for developing RPGs because this algorithm is based on more recent 

science and updated algorithm better fits the observed light extinction values. Appendix 5-1: 

Discussion of the Original and Revised IMPROE Algorithms provides a discussion on the 

choice of the IMPROVE algorithm comparing the old and new equations. For more detailed 

documentation on 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 starting point for the improvement of visibility conditions. It is the 

average obtained from monitoring data for 2000 through 2004 and represents current visibility 

conditions for this initial period. Comparison of initial baseline conditions to natural visibility 

conditions reveals the improvement necessary to attain natural visibility by 2064. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of visibility-impairing pollutants 

and then calculating total light extinction with the chosen light extinction algorithm (Figure 5-1: 

Generic Glide Path to Achieve 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 reduction commitments in the plan. 
Baseline Refwed mmls tor 

/ lstlmplementabon 

Pellod 

(VsibilYy impurmen t 

in deciviws) 

A. 

Natural 1 ............--...-----------------------. '\ 

I - Ultimate CA4 goal 

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" estimate of natural visibility. The default values 

of concentrations of visibility pollutants are based on a 1990 National Acid Precipitation 

Assessment Program report (Trijonis 1990). In the EPA's guidance, the United States is divided 

into East and West regions approximately along the western boundary of the 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 carbon have different values, but the calculated 

deciview difference is significant. 

However, the ultimate responsibility for calculating natural 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 available to improve these estimates, and chose to develop its own 

refined estimates. 

5.1.2 Consultation Regarding the Visibility Metrics 

Consultation among 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 $5 1.308(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 some required 

consultations cross RPO boundaries. For example, Texas and New Mexico must collaborate on 

planning for the Guadalupe Mountains, though the two states participate in different RPOs. 

A chief purpose of the RPOs is to provide a means for states to confer on all aspects of the 

regional haze issue, including consultation on RPGs and long-term strategies, which are based on 

the baseline, current, and natural visibility determinations. This process 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 Class I area states outside CENRAP, both 

individually and by way of the appropriate RPO. 
Title 40 CFR $5 1.308(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 

Chapter 4: 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 baseline period, 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 calculated by 

averaging over the baseline period. Table 5-1: Baseline Haze 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 

of Natural 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 of the appropriateness of these values for both Class I 

areas. Table 5-2: Visibility Metrics for the Class I Areas 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 

5.74 
Table 5-2: 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 $5 1.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule requires a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility impairment that is representative 

of all mandatory Class I areas within Texas. The monitoring strategy relies upon data from the 

IMPROVE program. A steering committee with representatives from federal, regional, and state 

organizations governs the program. These organizations include 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 monitoring resources, which come fiom a number of 

agencies. Much of the funding comes from the EPA from funds appropriated by Congress to 

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 internet posting of the IMPROVE data. 

6.2 MONITORING AT CLASS I AREAS IN TEXAS 

Currently, the IMPROVE program provides an IMPROVE monitor at each of the two Class I 

areas in Texas, Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains. Because of their location, the monitors are 

appropriate for determining progress in reducing visibility impairment in the Texas Class I areas. 

The monitoring strategy relies on continuation of IMPROVE monitoring at these sites. The 

TCEQ will continue to participate in the network through the financial support of the EPA. The 

TCEQ will also continue to participate in the IMPROVE program through its membership in the 

CENRAP as long as the EPA continues to fund the CENRAP adequately. No additional 

monitoring is required or necessary for assessing visibility conditions at the two Class I areas. 

The IMPROVE program 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 discontinuation since other IMPROVE 

monitors cannot represent conditions at Big Bend or Guadalupe Mountains. 

6.3 ASSESSMENT OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT 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 of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.3, and Regional 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 Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) through 

CENRAP ~htt~://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views>. The TCEQ considers VIEWS to be a core part 

of the overall IMPROVE program. The TCEQ will report IMPROVE data from the two Class I 

areas in Texas to the EPA by continuing to 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 11 describe the procedures used in developing this SIP revision. These 

chapters include the procedures to assess the 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 describes the plans for the 

five-year implementation plan review and for the 2018 regional haze SIP revision. 

The Performance Partnership Grant agreement negotiated with the EPA Region 6 and the quality 

assurance procedures for collecting and reporting periodic emissions inventories to the EPA 

describe the collection, quality assurance, record keeping, maintenance, availability, and 

reporting of emissions and monitoring data to the EPA. 
CHAPTER 7. EMISSIONS INVENTORY 

Title 40 CFR §51.308(d)(4)(v) requires a statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. As 

specified in this section, the pollutants to be inventoried include volatile organic compounds 

(VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), fine particulate matter (PM2.d, particulate matter 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 Year Emissions 

Inventory Summaryfor Texas. Details for the 2002 emissions inventory are provided in 

Appendix 7-1 : Texas Emissions Inventoly Development: Base Year 2002and Projected Year 

2018. 

The 2002 baseline inventory is composed of several different categories. The point sources are 

defined as industrial, commercial, or institutional sites that meet the reporting requirements of 30 

Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 5 10 1.10. Area sources include commercial, small-scale 

industrial, and residential categories of sources that use materials or operate processes that can 

generate emissions. These sources of emissions fall below the point source reporting levels and 

are too numerous or too small to identify individually. The area source fires inventory is also 

included in the area source category. This category includes agricultural burning, prescribed 

burning of forests, and prescribed burning of rangeland. 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 SO2 emissions modeled by the CENRAP are significantly higher than the 15,633 tons per 

year (tpy) reported by the TCEQ. The TCEQ has been working with CENRAP to correct this 

error for future modeling, but there was not sufficient time to remodel with the more accurate 

TCEQ-supplied inventory. CENRAP's modeled emissions estimate is not expected to 

sigtllficantly impact visibility estimates for 201 8 because of the relatively small contribution from 

these Texas sources on Class I areas. 

Non-road mobile sources include aircraft operations, marine vessels, recreational boats, railroad 

locomotives, and a broad category of non-road equipment that include everything from 600- 

horsepower engines mounted on construction equipment to one-horsepower string trimmers. 

On-road mobile sources of emissions consist of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other 

motor vehicles traveling on public roadways. On-road mobile source emissions are usually 

categorized as either combustion-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 1 1 

600,725 

242,551 

664,163 

1,788,250 

Category 

Area 

Point 

NOURoad 

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 

1 1 1,853 1,163,549 

82 1,96 1 

21,828 

18,8 14 

974,457 

207,695 

148,952 

309,707 

1,829,902 
Combustion-related emissions are estimated for vehicle engine exhaust. Evaporative 

hydrocarbon emissions are estimated for the fuel tank and other evaporative leak sources on the 

vehicle. 

Biogenic sources include hydrocarbon emissions from crops, lawn grass, and trees as well as a 

small amount of NOx emissions from soils. These emissions are listed in Table 7-2: Statewide 

Biogenic Emissions. 

Methodologies used in developing the 2002 emissions inventory 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 

201 8 future planning 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 Model Version (IPM) 2.19 for electric 

generating units (Appendix 7-2: Integrated Planning Model Projections of Electric Generating 

Unit Emissions for the Regional Haze 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 over predict Texas point source emissions for 2018 and 

therefore is a conservative approach to the inventory development. Statewide point source 

emissions have declined every year in Texas in an environment of significant economic growth. 

A summary of Texas emissions projected 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 

Point 

NonRoad 

On-Road 

Methodologies used by the CENRAP in developing the 201 8 emissions inventory are 

documented in Appendix 7-1. Technical support documents detailing the inventory development 

are available but are not included in Appendix 7- 1. These documents are available at 

<www.cenraP.orw. A comparison of the change in emissions by source category is shown in 

Figure 7- 1 : Comparison of Base and ProjectedAnnual 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 

167,45 1 

148,387 

283,290 

119,855 

125,234 

80,577 

10,588 

5,337 

121,733 

1 1,498 

5,337 

6,790 

239 

32,191 
Area 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) participated in the Central Regional 

Air Planning Association (CENRAP) regional planning process, as described in Chapter 3: 

Regional Planning and is using the technical work conducted by CENRAP in support of this state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision (Table 8- 1 : Federal Mandated Class I Areas 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 conducted best available retrofit technology (BART) 

screening modeling analyses independently from CENRAP, but used the databases developed by 

CENRAP as the basis for the analyses. The BART screening modeling analyses are described 

further in Chapter 9: Best Available RetroJt Technology. 

This chapter describes CENRAP regional emissions and air quality modeling that was conducted 

to support the central states' regional haze 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: Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions andAir 

Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze SIP, provides further detail on the modeling 

analyses. Chapter 1 of the TSD presents the background, an overview of the approach, and a 

summary of the results of the.CENRAP meteorological, emissions, and air quality modeling. 

Appendix A of the TSD contains more details on the meteorological model evaluation. Details 

on the emissions modeling are provided in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the TSD. The model 

performance evaluation is presented in Chapter 3 and Appendix C of the TSD. The 2018 

visibility projections and comparisons with the 2018 -uniform rate of progress (URP) point are 

provided in Chapter 4 of the TSD, with more details given in Appendix D. Chapter 5 of the TSD 

contains additional supporting analysis with details on the particulate matter (PM) source 

apportionment modeling and alternative projections provided in Appendices E and F of the TSD, 

respectively. Chapter 6 lists the references cited in TSD. 

8.2 BACKGROUND 

The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) amendments added the protection of visibility in 

Federal Class I areas and established the national goal for visibility protection. The FCAA 

requires states to submit SIPS containing emission limits and schedules of compliance. In 

response to these mandates, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

promulgated the Regional Haze Rule requiring states to establish goals that provide for 

reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions at Class I areas. CENRAP has 

used regional air quality models to determine the level of visibility improvement expected by 

2018. 

The CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling Team consists of staff from 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 results used in developing implementation plans under the Regional Haze Rule. The 

CENRAP team performed emissions and air quality modeling used by the TCEQ to determine the 

201 8 reasonable progress 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 

compliance with the Regional Haze Rule is performing emissions and air quality modeling. The 

CENRAP implemented modeling projects to: 

Public Law 

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; 

12,3 14 

8,000 

708,118 

76,292 

USDI-NPS 

USDI-NPS 

analysis, display, and reporting of modeling results; and 

storage and quality assurance of the 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 

95-557 
8.4 THE 2002 ANNUAL EMISSIONS AND AIR QUALITY MODELING 

The CENRAP 2002 annual emissions and air quality modeling started on October 16,2004. The 

effort involved the preparation of numerous 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 modeling protocol 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 CENRAP 2002 Annual Emissions and Air Quality Modeling. 

8.4.2 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 

A QAPP was prepared for the CENRAP emissions and air quality modeling study (Appendix 8-3: 

Quality Assurance Project Plan for Central Regional Air Planning Association Emissions and 

Air Quality Modeling) and describes the quality management functions performed 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 account the recommendations 

from the North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO) Quality 

Handbook for modeling projects (NARSTO 1998). The EPA and NARSTO 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 defensible by following a project planning 

process that incorporates the following elements as described in the EPA modeling guidance 

document. 

A systematic planning process including identification of assessments and related 

performance criteria. 

Peer-reviewed theory and equations. 

A carefully designed life-cycle development process 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 modeling was 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 

different models. 

8-3 
Based on previous work by other Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) and EPA, CENRAP 

selected the following models for use in modeling PM and regional haze in the central states: 

MM5: The Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research 

(PSU/NCAR) Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5 Version 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, 199 1; Xiu and Pleim 2000). 

SMOKE: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system is an 

emissions modeling system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of 

mobile, non-road, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission sources for photochemical grid 

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 SMOKE is to 

provide an efficient tool for converting existing base emissions inventory data into the hourly, 

gridded, speciated, and formatted emission files required by an air quality model. 

a CMAQ: EPA's Models-3lCommunity Multiscale Au 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 Quality Model 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 extended periods 

of time. (ENVIRON 2006). 

8.4.4 MM5 Meteorological Model Configuration 

The Iowa Department of Natural 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 Vertical Layer 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; 

Initialization and boundary conditions were established using analysis fields generated by 

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 excels in capturing small-scale meteorological 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 global tropospheric 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 Transfer Model (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 modeling through a rewrite of the Biogenic Emission 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 of regional air quality 

modeling applications. In 1998 and 1999, SMOKE was redesigned and improved with the 

support of 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, SMOKE has far fewer "science configuration" options 

compared with the MM5 and CMAQ models. Appendix 8- 1 summarizes the version of the 

SMOKE system used and the sources of data used in constructing the required modeling 

inventories. 

8.4.6 CMAQ Air Quality Model Configuration 

CENRAP used CMAQ Version 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 

State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) used. CENRAP performed 12 km 

CMAQ sensitivity tests and found little change in model performance with a large penalty in 

computation time. Consequently, on February 7,2006, the CENRAP Modeling Workgroup 

decided to proceed with the CENRAP emissions and air quality modeling using just the 36 km 

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

Initial CMAQ 2002 simulations that VISTAS ran found that the model greatly underestimates 

organic mass carbon (OMC) concentrations, especially in 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 improved OMC 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 

comparative model 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 indicated that: 

No one model consistently performed better than the other over all species and averaging 

times; 

Both models performed well for sulfate; . 

8-5 
CMAQ'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; 

CAMx required 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 exception was that the CAMx PSAT 

simulations used the Bott advection solver rather than the Piecewise-Parabolic Method (PPM) 

advection solver. The PPM advection solver is typically 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: National Inter-RPO Modeling Domain. This domain consists of a 148 

by 112 array of 36 km by 36 km grid cells covering the continental United States. Sensitivity 

simulations were also performed for episodes on a 12 km modeling domain covering the central 

states; however, the results were very similar to 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 Modeling Domain 

Note: 36 km grid used for the CENRAP 2002 annual SMOKE, CMAQ, and CAMx 

modeling 

8.4.9 Vertical Structure of Modeling Domain 

The Mh45 meteorological model ran using 34 vertical layers from the surface to a pressure level 

of 100 millibars (mb) (approximately 15 krn 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 sensitivity of the CMAQ model estimates to 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 19 vertical layers up to 100 mb (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 12 layers) produced results with substantial differences compared to no 

layer collapsing. Therefore, based on the WRAP and VISTAS sensitivity analysis, CENRAP 

adopted the 19 vertical layer configuration up to the 100 mb model top. Figure 8-3 displays the 

definition of the 34 MM5 vertical layers and how they collapsed to 19 vertical 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 41 5 

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 91 1 1 58 

12 0.900 910 753 78 10 0.900 910 753 1 55 

11 0.910 919 675 n 0.910 91 9 

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 consider when 

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 

episodic PM2.5 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 interim EPA modeling 

guidance for episode selection (EPA 200 1 ; Timin 2002) was consistent with the final EPA 

regional haze modeling guidance (EPA 2007). 

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

a variety of meteorological conditions should be covered that include the types of 

meteorological conditions that produce the worst 20 percent and best 20 percent visibility 

days at Class I areas in the CENRAP states during the 2000 through 2004 baseline 

period; 

to the extent possible, the modeling data base should include days for which enhanced 

databases (i.e., beyond routine aerometric and emissions monitoring) are available; and 

sufficient days should be available such that relative response factors (RRFs) can be 

based on several (i.e., >15) days. 

For regional haze modeling, the guidance goes further by suggesting that the preferred approach 

is to model a full, representative year (EPA 2001, pg. 188). Moreover, calculations of the 

required RRF values should be based on model results averaged over the 20 percent worst and 20 

percent best visibility days determined for each Class I area based on monitoring 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 10 best visibility days at each Class 1 area. EPA also lists 

several "other considerations" to bear in mind when choosing potential PM and regional haze 

episodes including: 

choose periods that have already been modeled; 

choose periods that are drawn from the years upon which the current design values are 

based; 

include weekend days among those chosen; and 

choose modeling periods that meet as many episode selection criteria as possible in the 

maximum number of nonattainment or Class I areas as possible. 

Due to limited available resources, CENRAP modeled a single calendar year. The Regional Haze 

Rule uses the five-year baseline period of 2000 through 2004 as the starting point for projecting 

future-year visibility. Thus, the modeling year should be selected from this five-year baseline 

period. The CENRAP selected the 2002 calendar year, which lies in the middle of the 2000 

through 2004 baseline, for the following reasons. 

Based on available information, 2002 appears to be a fairly typical year in terms of 

meteorology for the five-year baseline period of 2000 through 2004. 

2003 and 2004 appeared to be colder and wetter than typical in the eastern United States. 

The enhanced Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

and IMPROVE protocol sites and supersites PM monitoring data were fully operational 

by 2002. Much less IMPROVE monitoring data was available during 2000 through 

200 1, especially in the CENRAP region. 

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 of the 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 influence of the assumed initial 

concentrations, e.g., start June 15 for the third quarter, whose first day of interest is July 1). 
Sensitivity simulations demonstrated that with fifteen initialization days, the influence of initial 

concentrations was minimal using the 36 km Inter-RPO continental United States modeling 

domain. Consequently, clean initial concentrations were specified in the CMAQ and CAMx 

modeling using a 15-day spin-up period. 

Boundary conditions (i.e., the assumed concentrations along the later edges of the 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 assimilated meteorological observations from the Goddard Earth Observing 

System (GEOS) of the NASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office. Research groups 

around the world apply it to a wide range of atmospheric composition problems, including future 

climates and planetary atmospheres using general circulation model meteorology to drive the 

model. The Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling Group at Harvard University provides central 

management and support of the model. 

VISTAS coordmated a joint 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 reasonable values. 

The boundary conditions were compared against the GEOS-CHEM outputs to assure the mapping 

and interpolation were performed correctly. The University of Houston supplied the code to map 

the GEOS-CHEM output to the CMAQ boundary conditions format. Environ reviewed the code 

and duplicated generation of the 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 emissions data for Canada. These data were used to generate a final2002 Base G Typical 

(Typ02G) annual emissions database. Numerous iterations of the emissions modeling were 

conducted using interim databases before arriving at the final Base G emission inventories (e.g., 

Moms et al. 2005). The 2018 Base G base case emissions (Base1 8G) for most source categories 

in the United States were based on projections of the 2002 inventory assuming growth and 

control (Pechan 2005d). 2018 EGU emissions were based on the run 2.1.9 of the 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 Base1 8G emission inventories represent significant improvements to 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 of the 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 entirely new inventory 

categories, like marine shipping, added complexity to the modeling. By the end of the emissions 

data collection phase, there were 23 separate emissions processing streams covering a variety of 

source categories necessary to generate model-ready emission inputs for the 2002 calendar year. 

Details on the emissions modeling are in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the TSD (Appendix 8-1). 
8.4.13 Meteorological Data Input Preparation 

The IDNR conducted the 2002 36 km MM5 meteorological modeling and also performed a 

preliminary model 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): 

Surface Meteorolopical Performance within the CENRAP Region 

The three MM5 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 temperature model performance than the 

other two simulations due to the use of surface temperature data assimilation. 

o In the fmal WRAP MM5 simulation the use of surface temperature assimilation 

was dropped because it introduced instability in the vertical structure of the 

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 outside the CENRAP Region 

All three runs had similar surface wind model performance in the western United States 

that was outside the model performance benchmarks. 

For temperature, the WRAP MM5 simulation had the best performance overall due to the 

surface temperature data assimilation that was dropped in the final WRAP run. 

The three runs had comparable humidity performance, although WRAP exhibited a larger 

wet bias in the summer and in the southwestern United States. 

Uvper-Air Meteorological Performance 

The VISTAS and CENRAP MM5 simulations were better able to reproduce the deep 

convective summer boundary 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 

inversions than WRAP. 

WRAP was better able to simulate the surface temperature. 

All three models exhibited similar vertical wind profiles. 

Precipitation Performance 

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 southwest where the interim 

WRAP run had the largest wet bias. 

In conclusion, the VISTAS simulation appeared to perform best, 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 surface temperature 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 final WRAP MM5 simulations 

(Kemball-Cook et al. 2005). 
The IDNR 12 km MM5 simulations were also evaluated and compared with the performance of 

the 36 km MM5 simulation (Johnson et al. 2007). The IDNR 36 km and 12 km MM5 model 

performance was similar (Johnson 2007), which supported the findings of the CMAQ and CAMx 

36 and 12 krn sensitivity simulations that there was little benefit of using a 12 km grid for 

simulating regional haze at rural Class I areas (Moms et al. 2006a). However, as noted by 

Tomesen and co-workers (2005; 2006) and EPA modeling guidance (1 99 1 ; 1999; 200 1 ; 2007) 

this finding does not necessarily hold for eight-hour ozone and PM2 5 modeling that is 

characterized by sharper concentration gradients 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 chemical reactions in the atmosphere are initiated by the photodissociation of various 

trace gases. To accurately represent the complex chemical transformations in the atmosphere, 

accurate estimates of these photodissociation rates 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 default values 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 calculate photolysis rates. The 

TOMS data were missing or erroneous for several periods 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 13 was used for August 8-12. Similarly, TOMS data for June 9 was used for 

June 10 and data for August 17 was used for August 18- 19. Note that the total column of ozone 

in the atmosphere is 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, 1 km, 2 km, 3 km, 4 km, 5 krn, and 10 km), 

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) factor based on the cloud inputs from 

MM5. 

The photolysis rates input file was prepared as separate look-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 of the 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, corresponding to rural conditions over North 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 the 
lateral 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 significant influence 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 of the 

year. Each quarter's model run was initialized 15 days prior 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 CMAQ boundary conditions for the inter-RPO 

36 km continental United States grid (Figure 8-2) were based on day-specific three-hour averages 

from the output of the GEOS-CHEM global simulation model 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 lateral boundaries of the 36 krn grid shown in Figure 8-2 (Byun 

2004). 

Table 8-6 summarizes the surface air quality monitoring networks 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 I L 

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 summaries of 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 CMAQ base 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 CAMx models for sulfate (SO4) and elemental carbon 

(EC) was good. Model performance for nitrate (NO3) was variable, with a summer 

underestimation and winter overestimation bias. Performance for organic carbon mass (OMC) 

was also variable, with the inclusion of the SOA modification enhancement in 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 sources that 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 compared to the modeled light extinction at Big Bend National Park and Guadalupe 

Mountains National Park. 

*, 

Speciated PM2.5 and Ozone 1 hr, 1 week 

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 Worst 20% group i -- 

Figure 8-4: Observed and Base Case Modeled Concentrations at Big 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 calculated using the new IMPROVE equation using observed concentrations 

and base case modeled concentrations at 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 discussed in Chapter 2 

of the TSD. Emissions in 201 8 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 from the 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 inventory was replaced by a Canadian 2020 

emissions inventory for the 20 18 CMAQ/CAMx simulations. 

The following sources were assumed to remain constant between 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 associated with non-agricultural sources (i.e., natural wind-blown 

fugitive dust); 

off-shore emissions associated with off-shore marine and oil and gas production 

activities; 

emissions from wildfires; 
emissions from Mexico; and 

global transport (i.e., emissions due to boundary conditions from the 2002 GEOS-CHEM 

global chemistry model). 

The results from the 2002 and 201 8 CMAQ and CAMx simulations were used to project 201 8 

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 monitoring network to obtain the 201 8 PM projections. 

The modeled scaling factors are called relative response factors (RRFs) and are constructed as the 

ratio of modeling results for the 201 8 model simulation to 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-year baseline. For the 2018 visibility projections, 

EPA guidance recommends 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 guidance procedures (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 of the TSD. 

For example, much of the CM impact at Class I area IMPROVE monitors are believed to be 

natural and primarily from local sources that are subgrid-scale to 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 201 8 visibility projections for the worst 20 percent days are compared against a 20 18 point 

on the uniform rate of progress (URP) glide path or the "201 8 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 help judge 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 glide path" (EPA 2007b). Chapter 4 and 

Appendix D of the TSD present the 2018 visibility projections for the CENRAP Class I areas and 

their comparisons with 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 201 8 visibility projections as a percentage of meeting the 2018 point 

on the URP glide path. A value of 100 percent on the DotPlot indicates that the Class I area is 

predicted to meet the 20 1 8 point on the URP glide path. Over 100 percent means the 20 18 

visibility projection obtains more visibility improvements (reductions) than required to meet the 

201 8 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 so remain 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 201 8 visibility 

projections at Caney Creek (CACR), Mingo (MING), and Upper Buffalo WBU) achieve more 
visibility improvements than needed to meet the 201 8 URP point so are below the 201 8 LTRP 

glide path. However, the 2018 visibility projections at Breton come up slightly short 

(approximately 5 percent) of meeting the 201 8 point on the URP glide path and Wichita 

Mountains WO) comes up approximately 40 percent short of meeting 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 contributions of international transport andfor natural sources (e.g., windblown dust) affect 

the ability of these Class I areas to be on the URP glide path calculated using the default estimates 

produced by the Natural Conditions I1 Committee (NC-11). Chapters 4 and 5 of the TSD in 

Appendix 8-1 discuss these issues in more detail. 

CMAQ BaseGa Method 1 predictions for CENRAP+ sites 

200% 

.Regular RRF 

OCM RRF=l 

180% - -- $- 

ACMBSOIL RRFs=l 

CENRAP non-CENRAP 

Figure 8-6: 2018 Visibility Projections Expressed as Percent of Meeting 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 Wilderness Area 

ISLE Isle Royale National Park 

LOST Lostwood Wilderness Area 

MACA Mammoth Cave National Park 

SIPS Sipsey Wilderness Area 

THRO Theodore Roosevelt National Park 

UPBU Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area 

VOYA Voyageurs National Park 

WICA Wind Cave National Park 
8.4.18 Additional Supporting Analysis 

CENRAP performed numerous supporting analyses of its modeling results including analyzing 

alternative glide paths and 201 8 projection approaches and performing confirmatory analysis of 

the 201 8 visibility projections. Details on the additional supporting analysis are contained in 

Chapter 5 of the TSD, which include: 

The CENRAP 201 8 visibility projections were compared with those generated by 

VISTAS and MRPO. There was close agreement between the CENRAP and VISTAS 

20 18 visibility projections 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 optimistic than 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 

20 1 8 MRPO inventory. 

Extinction based glide paths were developed and the CENRAP 20 18 visibility projections 

were shown to produce nearly identical estimates of achieving the 2018 URP point when 

using total extinction glide paths as when the linear deciview glide paths were used. 

With the extinction based glide paths the analysis of 201 8 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, NO3 and EC, achieve the URP, but the other species do not and, in fact, 

extinction due to soil and CM is projected to get worse. 

201 8 visibility projections were made using EPA's Modeled Attainment Test Software 

(MATS) and the CENRAP Typ02G and Base 18G modeling results. The CENW 20 18 

visibility projections 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 projections due to insufficient observed 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 contributions to visibility impairment 

at Class I areas by source region (e.g., states) and major source category. Source 

contributions were obtained for a 2002 and 2018 base case and the PSAT modeling 

results were implemented in a PSAT Visualization Tool 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, assuming that CM alone, and CM and soil 

were natural in origin. 

Visibility projections were made using an alternative model (CAMx) that verified the 

projections made by CMAQ. 

0 The effects of international transport were examined several ways indicating that the 

inability of the 20 18 visibility projections to acheve the 201 8 URP point at the northern 

and southern border Class I areas was due to high contributions due to Intemational 

Transport. 

Visibility trends 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-year variability in visibility impairment with 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 amendments to its 1999 Regional Haze Rule including 

Appendix Y, the final guidance for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations 

in the Federal Register (70 FR 3 9 104-39 172). 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 or more of any visibility-impairing 

pollutant; and 

not operating prior to August 7, 1962, and in existence on August 7, 1977 

(Appendix 9-2: Texas BART Rule). 

The state is not required to make a determination of BART for SO2 or NOx if a BART-eligible 

source has the PTE less than 40 tons per year of such pollutant(s) or less than 15 tons 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 TCEQ has also adopted the model plants, or option 2, developed by 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 source that has the PTE less than 1,000 

tons per year of combined SO2 and NOx and that is located more than 100 kilometers from any 

Class I area is not subject to BART for SO2 and 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. Surveys were sent to 

approximately 250 potentially BART-eligible sources. Based on results from the surveys 

completed by potentially BART-eligible sources and submitted to the TCEQ in 2005, over 100 

sources were identified as BART eligible. Table 9-1 : BART-Eligible Sources Based on Results 

of TCEQ Survey presents the sources that were determined to be BART eligible. 
Table 9-1: BART-Eligible Sources Based on Results of TCEQ 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 1 
82 ME0006A SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER RN 100542596 

83 PG0040T SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC 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 

SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC 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 

7 

2821 

291 1 

291 1 

291 1 

2911 

491 1 

4226 

131 1 

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 (formerly ENBRIDGE) RN 1002 1662 1 2819 

74 HG06970 RHODIA INC RN100220581 2819 

75 HG0632T ROHM & HAAS TEXAS RN 100223205 2869 

79 BL0038U SOLUTIA INC 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 CITGO REFINING 

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 of TCEQ Survey (cont'd) 

, 

' 113 

114 

1 15 

116 

1 17 

1 18 

1 19 

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 (formerly DYNEGY 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 POLYMERS INC 

TOTAL PETROCHEMICALS (formerly 

RN100825371 

RN100888312 

RN102597846 

RN 100219526 

RN100225945 

RN102561925 

RN 101625721 

491 1 

4911 

3241 

2869 

2869 

2822 

2869 
9.2 DETERMINATION OF SOURCES SUBJECT TO BART 

Under the EPA's BART guidelines, the state has two options regarding its BART-eligible 

sources: 

make BART determinations for all sources; or 

consider exempting 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 

impairment in a Class I area, the guidelines suggest three sub-options for determining that certain 

sources are not subject to BART: 

individual source attribution approach; 

use of model plants to exempt sources with common characteristics 

(70 FR 39162-3); and 

cumulative modeling to show that sources in a state are not subject to BART. 

The TCEQ exercised all three sub-options above to determine which sources were subject to 

BART. These options are explained further below, in the order in which the TCEQ and the 

sources performed the analyses. 

Section 9.2.1 describes the cumulative modeling analyses that the TCEQ performed for the 

sources identified as BART eligible. Since there were such a large number of BART-eligible 

sources in Texas, the TCEQ performed cumulative modeling analyses using CAMx PSAT 

technology. Once the TCEQ had completed the CAMx screening analysis, several BARTeligible sources did not screen out. Screening out is a process that further examines and evaluates 

sources for inclusion or exclusion in the BART program. Sources that did not screen out through 

the cumulative modeling analysis were required to perform source-specific screening modeling 

analyses using either the CALPUFF or the CAMx model setup developed by the TCEQ. These 

source-specific modeling analyses are described in Section 9.2.2. BART-eligible sources that did 

not screen out in any of the modeling analyses had the option of reducing the emissions f?om 

their BART-eligible units using an enforceable mechanism, such as a pennit, or performing an 

engineering analysis. The BART-eligible sources that chose to reduce potential emissions are 

discussed in Section 9.4. The emission reductions resulting from the engineering analyses and 

resulting emission controls are presented in Section 9.5. 

9.2.1 Cumulative Modeling Using CAMx PSAT 

The TCEQ conducted screening modeling analyses as described in the CAMx modeling protocol, 

Screening Analysis of Potentially BART-Eligible Sources in Texas, and the final CAMx modeling 

report, Final Report, Screening Analysis of Potential BART-Eligible Sources in Texas, presented 

in Appendices 9-3 and 9-4, respectively. In addition to the CAMx modeling, the TCEQ 

developed Texas model plants based on the CAMx modeling results. The model plants are 

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

Screening Analysis, and Addendum 11, BART Exemption Screening Analysis. 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 cumulative modeling were required to conduct their own 

screening modeling analysis using either the 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 1 No. Account Source 

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 STATES INC 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 1 1D 

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 1 1903 

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 PROCESSING LP 

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 

132 1 

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 Screened Out 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 

SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER 

SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE 

(FORMERLY XCEL) 

SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER 

SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE 

SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE 

WN0042V 

C10012D 

FG0020V 

HG0562P 

BL0082R 

NE00221 

FI0020W 

DB025 1U 

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 PETROCHEMICALS LP 

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 

491 1 

491 1 

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 1 
9.2.2 Individual Source Attribution Approach 

One of the air quality modeling approaches suggested by the EPA in the BART guidance is an 

individual source attribution approach. Specifically, this entails modeling source-specific BARTeligible units and comparing modeled impacts to a particular deciview threshold. 

CALPUFF 

The CALPUFF modeling protocol, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling 

Protocol to Determine Sources Subject to BART in the State of Texas, developed by the TCEQ for 

determining which sources are subject to BART is included in Appendix 9-7: CALPUFF 

Modeling Guidelines (online). Appendix 9-7 also contains a summary report for each modeling 

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

lists the BART-eligible sources that are exempt from BART based on CALPUFF modeling 

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 

No. Source 

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 (formerly DUKE 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 (formerly TEXAS GENCO LP) 

OWENS CORNING 

RHODIA INC 

SHELL OIL CO 

SID RICHARDSON CARBON 

25 

3334 

291 1 

3241 

2895 

2869 

2911 

1321 

2869 

2869 

26 

27 

28 

29 

RN102579307 

RN102450756 

RN101867554 

RN100543 115 

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 PETROCHEMICALS INC (formerly 

ATOFINA PETROCHEMICALS INC) 

TXI OPERATIONS LP 

TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP 

WESTVACO 

RN 102597846 3241 

RN102457520 

RN100217199 

RN102285921 

RN102 157609 

2911 

3241 

4911 

263 1 
CAMX 

The CAMx modeling guideline, Guidancefor the Application ofthe CAM Hybrid 

Photochemical Grid Model to Assess Visibility Impacts of Texas BART Sources at Class I Areas, 

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 sources that 

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 Engineering Analysis Guidance and forms are in Appendix 9-9. 

5 

6 

HGO 175D 

NE0043A 

PASADENA REFINING 

VALERO REFINTNG COMPANY 

RN100716661 

RN100211663 

291 1 

2911 
9.4 POST-BART EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 

Subsequent to the 2002 base year inventory, some BART-eligible sources reduced their permitted 

emissions. Documentation of the emission reductions is in Appendix 9- 10: Documentation of 

Emission Reductions. 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-Eligible List. 

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 

(FORMEWY ENBRIDGE 

CY0019H 

8 

*The first two letters in account number are the abbreviation for the source's county location. 

See Appendix 9-1 1 for 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 

= 9,488 tpy 

SERVICES) 

THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND 

HROOl8T 

2002 

(QY) 

1,328 

694 

16 

RN100216621 

Note: Blank cells indicate that data are currently unknown. 

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 information on 

the site. To be removed ii-om the list, a site had to be exempted for all potential haze causing 

pollutants, NOx, SOz, and fine particulate matter. A site may be exempted if the combined NOx 

and SO2 potential to emit are less than 1,000 tpy, and the site is greater than 100 km from a Class 

I area. Some sites may be exempted if the combined NOx and SO2 potential to emit are less than 

500 tpy, and the site is greater than 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 

represented particulate emissions. One site requested PM 2.5 exemption due to de minimis levels 

of emissions. 

Updated site information included construction dates and potential emission rates of equipment. 

Two sites requested removal because the operating equipment did not meet a BART category. 

Table 9-7 lists the sites removed from further BART 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 of Baseline and 

Current Conditions and Estimate of Natural Conditions in Class I Areas, details the calculation 

of base 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 conditions by 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) 

Guadalupe Mountains 0.08 

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 SOz reductions from refineries as a result of the EPA refinery 

consent decrees. As Chapter 11 : Long-Term Strategy 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; 

extensive NOx 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 considering the 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 Control Strategies and Determination 

of Reasonable Progress Goals, provides an analysis showing that these goals are reasonable. 

The TCEQ focused its control strategy analysis on point source emissions of SO2 and NOx. 

Chapter 1 1 : Long-Term Strategy to Reach Reasonable Progress Goals demonstrates that these 

are the main anthropogenic pollutants 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 of NOx 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 Days 
I 

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 

10-3 provides 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 improvements from emissions reductions associated with 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 reductions fiom implementing the Texas BART rule and new rules adopted in the 

recent May 23,2007, Dallas-Fort Worth eight-hour ozone 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 

Big Bend 0.2 

Improvement 

by 2018 at RPG 

(dv) 

Baseline 

Visibility 

(dv) 

5.9 

Projected 2018 

Visibility (RPG) 

(dv) 

5.8 5.6 

5.7 0.2 
The TCEQ used the control strategy analysis completed by the CENRAP as the starting point for 

the analysis of additional controls. The CENRAP7s analysis used the EPA's Air Control Net 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 facilities and agency 

experience with implementing ozone control strategies. The analysis focused on moderate cost 

controls for sources that were likely to contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas. This 

work resulted in an estimate of the costs and possible benefits of additional controls, 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 impacted by Texas' emissions. The CENRAP conducted a modeling 

analysis presuming an aggressive set of additional controls above and beyond CAIR and BART. 

Texas used the results of this modeling analysis to determine an effectiveness ratio for NO, and 

SO, reductions. The effectiveness ratio provides an estimate of improvement in visibility for 

every ton of NOx and SOz reduced. 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 

@om Additional 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 identified controls costing well over $300 million, 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 of the modeling techniques and is much lower than 

perceptible. This improvement did not justify 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 

0.05 
10.3 UNCERTAINTY IN THE REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS 

The majority of the emissions reductions underlying the predicted visibility improvements are 

from the CAIR program. The CAIR program requires substantial reductions in SO2 and NOx 

emissions fiom 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 as predicted by the 

CENRAP's modeling. Conversely, nearby EGUs may elect to control beyond their emission caps 

and sell emission allowances out of state, resulting in reduced emissions closer to the Texas Class 

I areas. 

The CENRAP used 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 SO2 to the CAIR caps and the IPM results 

for the 20 18 planning year. 

Table 10-6: Comparison of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 

SO2 Emissions Texas SO2 

Emissions (tpy)* 

I Current (2002 base case) I 550,000 1 

~~ATCAIR budget for 20 15 

Sources: EPA, CENRAP 

*Rounded to the nearest thousand. 

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 analysis used by CENRAP predicts that by 20 18 EGUs in Texas will purchase 

approximately 125,000 tons 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 commitment to any particular pollution 

control strategy and preferred to retain the flexibility offered by the CAIR program. 

350,000 

The potential overprediction of EGU emissions on Class I areas by the IPM model analysis. This 

uncertainty in the impact of the CAIR program is one reason why the agency has elected not to 

pursue additional controls at this time. In the five-year periodic progress report required by 40 

CFR 45 1.308(g), the TCEQ will review emissions inventory and permit information to evaluate 

the accuracy of the predicted emissions used in the CENRAP modeling. 

10.4 INTERNATIONAL SOURCES OF VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT 

The Texas Class I areas are close to Mexico, and international transport of emissions from 

Mexico and Central America significantly mfluence 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 contribution from 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) 

Contribution by Area 

Boundary Conditions 

Boundary conditions are the conditions at the model's geographic boundaries. These are 

visibility-impairing emissions from Central Mexico and further south into Central America. 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 substantial reductions 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 Required to Meet Uniform Rate of Progress 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 significant overcontrol 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 international transport. 

Guadalupe Mountains 

Table 10-8 illustrates that to meet the goal of natural 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 

dependent upon reducing emissions from Mexico and Central America. In Chapter 1 1 : 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 $1,900,000,000 
Given 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 reasonable progress rate for each Class I area discussed previously, the TCEQ 

has consulted with 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 consultation process is in Chapter 4: 

State, Tribe, and Federal Land 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: Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions and 

Adequacy of the Existing Plan, provides more detail on five-year reporting and ten-year SIP 

submittal requirements. 
CHAPTER 11. LONGTERM STRATEGY TO REACH 

REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS 

11.1 INTRODUCTION 

The long-term strategy for the Regional Haze SIP revision incorporates planning for the next ten 

years, from 2008 through 2018. Title 40 CFR §51.308.308(d)(3) specifies the requirements for 

the long-term strategy for regional haze (Appendix 1-1). 

The main anthropogenic emissions that affect visibility in Class I areas in Texas and neighboring 

states are SO2 and NOx. There is a much smaller anthropogenic PM impact in Texas from stack, 

engine exhaust, and fine soil emissions compared to SO2 and NOx. Although the contribution of 

anthropogenic VOC to the formation of secondary organic carbon 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 of Baseline and Current Conditions 

and Estimate of Natural Conditions in Class IAreas discusses and documents the predominance 

of these natural impacts. The modeled impact of wild fire and prescribed burning emissions on 

primary organic carbon is 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 impairment at 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: Modeling Assessment. 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 include the areas of the Yucatan and Central America with extensive 

agricultural burning 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 secondary organic 

aerosols biogenic (SOAB) that come fiom plants. 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 11-2 through 11-10 also 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 object to 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: William Malm, Introduction to Visibility, 1999, National Park Service 

Figure 11-1: Comparison of Extinction, Deciviews and Visual Range 
Source 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 REXT at Site GUM01 [Total=47.8,RaVleigh-Il,SS=O.11 

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

Figure 11-3: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Guadalupe Mountains 

(GUMO) 

Note: On the worst 20 percent of days 2002 
11.1.1 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 states have 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 information for 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 201 8 

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, and Federal Land Manager Consultation. 

Information on base period emissions inventory development is in Chapter 7: Emissions 

Inventoly, and information on modeling is in Chapter 8: Modeling Assessment. 

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 contributions to visibility impairment at Texas' two Class I areas. 

Arkansas and Missouri have completed their consultation with Texas regarding the impact of 

Texas' emission and regional haze 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. 
CeRAP PSAT Projected WOW 2002 BMT from Rdmn West 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 Area 
Source 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 

CEWP PSAT Projected W04C 2002 BUT ilt Site WlMOl [Total=100.03~eigh=l1~0.151 

Sod 11 UO3 BPOA E EC E SOIL CM B SOAA 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 2002 
CENRAP PSI1 Prajected WZOK M02 BO(T frm Region West 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: On the 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 Forest 
CEW PSAT mojected Wf% 2002 &EX1 at Sites 

SO4 .KO3 POA . EC .SOIL OCM . SOAA B SOOg 

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 m EC .SOIL o CM . SOAA 

Figure 11-9: Areas and Pollutants Causing Regional Haze at Caney Creek (CACR) in 

Arkansas 

Note: On the worst 20 percent of days 2002 
CENRnP PSAT Projected WDK m02 BExl at Site ER€Tl fTntaC12~pa/l8ighis,SSdL48I 

OW .NO3 rn POA rn K: .SOIL oCM m SOIA ~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 1 1-2 and 11-3 show the CENRAP PSAT 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 contributions from anthropogenic sources categorized as 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 consistent with federal studies that have previously found 

substantial international pollutant transport impacts on regional haze at Big Bend. These studies 

include the Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational (BRAVO) study of regional 

haze impacts at Big Bend and a number of National Park Service (NPS) studies in the 1990s that 

relied on back trajectory analysis to determine where air accumulated on its way to Big Bend 

(NPS et al. 2004). Figure 11-3 shows that the CENRAP PSAT modeling calculates that 

international transport contributes over 25 percent of the regional haze on the worst 20 percent of 

days during the base period at Guadalupe Mountains. Figures 11-5 and 11-6 show that 

international transport contributes over ten percent of the 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 coarse mass, 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 contributions indicate 52 percent of the light extinction at Big Bend on 

the worst 20 percent of regional haze days comes from international transport. The 

concentrations are adjusted to match the visibility extinction measured for the 2000 through 2005 

base period. 
Due to the large impact of international transport on anthropogenic regional 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 parallel the reductions in United States anthropogenic regional haze impacts on 

Texas' two Class I areas. Although the impact of international transport 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 areas in these 

states to approach natural conditions. 

The TCEQ requests that the EPA initiate and pursue federal efforts to reduce international 

transport of pollutants into Texas. 

11.4 MINIMIZING VISIBILITY IMPALRMENT FROM TEXAS EMISSIONS 

The TCEQ has 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 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 1 1-2 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, limits visible emissions and mass emissions from industrial and power plant stacks, motor 

vehicles, and incinerators. Together with 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 generating units 

(EGUs) and other sources. 

11.4.2 Sulfur Emission Limitations 

Title 30 TAC Chapter 1 12 Control 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 sulfur recovery 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 sources of 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 requirement is that each new and modified source 

of air pollution built in Texas use BACT to minimize or eliminate emissions of all pollutants 

subject to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This includes all the emissions 

from human activity that contribute to regional haze, such as NOx, SO2, PM, and VOC. Title 30 

TAC Chapter 1 16: 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 construction permit can occur only after an engineering determination that the 

facility will use BACT. In some cases, the BACT requirements apply through 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 19 15. The legal mandate of the TFS includes the 

responsibility to "assume direction of all forest interests and all matters pertaining 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 

contributors to visibility impairment in Texas. There is no indication that agricultural burning 

and wildfires in Texas are significant contributors to 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 the NPS smoke management plans, and the smoke management plans of other federal 

agencies responsible for Class I areas that Texas impacts, are adequate to meet the long-term 

strategy requirements. Appendix 1 1-1 contains the following documents: 

Texas Wildfue Protection Plan (TFS 2007) 

Texas Forest Service Smoke Management System (TFS 1995) 

30 TAC Chapter 11 1, Subchapter B: 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 authority that Texas counties have 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 outdoor burning. 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 Construction Activity on Air and Water Quality 

The main regulatory requirements that 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-bearing runoff on paved roads and in mud and dirt 

tracked onto paved roads around construction sites reduces 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 development plan. The TCEQ issued ihs permit 

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, 

11-10 
repaired, 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 of NOx, 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 following lists 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-duty diesel 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 Texas Programs Related to On-Road and Non-Road Mobile 

Sources lists the federal and state rules and programs in considerable detail. 

11.5.1 Texas Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs 

Motor vehicle inspection and 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 of the 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 assistance program for qualified owners of vehicles 

that fail the emissions test. The Low Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and 

Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program (LIRAP) provisions of House Bill 2 134,77th Texas 

Legislature 2001, created the program. House Bill 161 1 passed in the 79th Legislature 2005, 

modified the program. The LIRAP applies only to counties that implement a vehicle inspection 

and maintenance program 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 of 
certain Texas counties who meet income criteria and whose vehicles meet certain registration 

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 qualifying vehicle £rom participating auto dealers. A motor vehicle 

scrappage facility must certify that the engine fiom a retired vehicle has been destroyed for the 

vehicle owner to be eligible for the voucher. Accelerated retirement of older, higher polluting 

vehicles will reduce NOx, fme PM, and VOC emissions. 

11.6 EMISSION REDUCTIONS SINCE ISSUANCE OF THE REGIONAL HAZE RULE 

Since July 1, 1999, the TCEQ has implemented substantial programs that reduce Texas7 regional 

haze impact at Class I areas in Texas and in surrounding states. 

11.6.1 NOx Emission Reduction Requirements in Texas Ozone SIP Revisions 

Texas' SIP revisions from 2000 forward include required 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 of NOx emissions from 

stationary sources for the Texas ozone SIP are included in Chapter 117. Recent NOx control 

measures adopted in Chapter 117 address a wide range of point and area sources at major and 

minor sources of NOx. 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 117 NOx limitations and requirements as well as the Chapter 114 

low emission diesel fuel requirements to EPA as revisions to the Texas SIP. 

11.6.2 SOz and NOx Reduction Requirements under Senate Bill 7 

Senate Bill 7 required the following emission reductions from grandfathered EGUs: for NOx a 

50 percent reduction of the 1997 emission level by May 1,2003, and for SOz7 a 25 percent 

reduction of the 1997 emission level by 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. 

These requirements produced reductions approximately a decade before the BART emissions 

reductions will be effective in states without CAIR requirements. They were effective 

approximately six and seven years before the Phase I CAIR requirements will be effective in 

states that implement CAIR 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 SO2 and NOx for most EGUs in Texas. 

11.6.3 CAIR Reductions for NOx and SOz 

On March 10,2005, the EPA issued the CAIR, requiring reductions in SO2 and 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 Mississippi River plus Texas, the only largely western 

state subject to the CAIR emissions reductions requirements. Figure 11-1 1 shows that the CAIR 

emissions reductions requirements 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 states west of the states that border the Mississippi River. 
Note: States shown in green have CAIR emission reductions requirements 

Source: TCEQ 2007 

Figure 11-11: CAIR Emission Reduction States 

CAIR applies to SO2 in all CAIR areas except in Arkansas, Delaware, New Jersey, and New 

England. In states where CAIR applies to SO2, CAIR will reduce SO2 emission allowances by 

over 60 percent from 2003 federal acid rain cap levels. In all CAIR states, the program will 

reduce NOx emission allowances by over 60 percent from 2003 federal acid rain cap levels. 

CAR establishes an EPA-administered cap-and-trade program for EGUs in which states may 

participate as a means of meeting these requirements. The Texas Legislature directed the TCEQ 

to participate in this interstate cap-and-trade system. SO2 and NOx reductions will occur in two 

phases under a cap-and-trade system established by the EPA. SO2 emission 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 SO2 C~D (tons) I 

State 

Texas 

Emissions Inventory 

2 1 1,000 

- -. , 

2003 Acid Rain 2015 CAIR 

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 

224,662 
The 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 SIP revisions 

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 Technology details 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 Generating Utility NOx Control Strategies Compared to 

CAIR 

Attainment Demonstrations 

Facility Type CAIR 2015 

Oil-Fired Utility 

Boilers 

Dallas-Fort Worth 

Utility Electric Generation in Ozone Nonattainrnent Areas Emission Specifications for 

Pounds of 

NOx/MMBtu 

0.125 lb 

0.125 lb 

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 

Gas-Fired Utility 

Boilers 

Coal-Fired Utility 

Boilers 

Auxiliary Steam 

Utility Boilers 

Stationary Gas 

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 

Small Utility Boilers 

Beaumont-Port Arthur 

 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 lb 
11.6.6 Sulfur Dioxide Reductions under the EPA Refinery Consent Decrees 

The EPA refinery consent decrees cover both SO2 and NOx. The NOx reductions are generally 

company-wide reduction requirements, 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 reductions by emission point for refineries. In 

addition, information is available regarding SO2 emission reductions at a large sulfuric acid plant 

at the western end of the Houston Ship Cha~el. The following table combines these SO2 

emission reduction data. The growth projected fiom 2002 to 201 8 are estimates from CENRAP's 

emission inventory contractor (Pechan 2005). Since the TCEQ's new and modified source 

permitting requirements prohibit an increase in allowable emissions without a construction 

permit, which requires use of BACT, the projected emission increases between 2002 and 2018 

may be substantially over estimated. 

Table 11-3: Annual SO2 Emissions at Consent Decree Impacted Sources 

( SO2 Emissions ( 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 TxLED program is to lower emissions of NOx and other pollutants from dieselpowered motor vehicles and non-road equipment, It applies to diesel fuel producers, importers, 

common carriers, distributors, transporters, bulk terminal operators, and retailers. The rules cover 

110 counties in eastern Texas, including the ozone nonattainment areas of Beaurnont-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 for both on- and non-road use must contain less than 

10 percent 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 1 14.6 and Subchapter H, Division 2, $5 114.3 12 - 1 14.3 19). 

11.6.8 The Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) 

TERP is a comprehensive set of incentive programs 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 incentive programs, as well as other assistance programs, to help improve 

the air quality in Texas. The goals of the TERP are to: 

*Reductions estimate applied to 2002 actual emissions to 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-pollutant approaches to solving the state's environmental problems; and 

adequately fund research and development that will make the state a leader in new 

technologies that can solve its environmental problems while creating new business and 

industry in the state. 

62,229 

56,433 

5,796 

The primary objective of the TERP has been to reduce NOx emissions to aid in attaining the 

NAAQS for ozone. By encouraging replacement 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 of January 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 $1 43 million for fiscal year 2008 and $146 million for 

fiscal year 2009 to increase TERP grants aimed at NOx emission reductions in Texas. The 

program also reduces frne PM emissions by accelerating the replacement of older diesel engines 

with newer engines that 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 1 1-3: Major Point Source NOx Rules and Reductions Promulgated in 

Texas since 2000. 
CHAPTER 12. COMPREHENSIVE PERIODIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

REVISIONS AND ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING PLAN 

Title 40 CFR $5 1.308(f) requires states to revise and submit to the EPA a comprehensive regional 

haze implementation plan 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 Class I area 

located within Texas, and in each Class I area located outside of Texas that may be affected by 

emissions from within Texas. All requirements listed in 40 CFR $5 1.308(g) will be addressed in 

the SIP revision for demonstrating reasonable progress. 

Depending on the findings of 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 Support Document (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 Comprehensive Air 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. 

Prepared by 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. 199 1. 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 of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment 

Demonstrations for the 8-hr Ozone NAAQS. Draft (May 1999), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 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 

Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled. 

(http://www.epa.gov/scrainOOl /aidance/guide/addwoel h.wpd). 

EPA. 1999. Visibility Monitoring Guidance. EPA-454/R-99-003. 

EPA. 2001. Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for PMZs and 

Regional Haze, Draft Report, U.S. Environmental Protection 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 Regional 

3)

Haze Regulations. Federal Register, July. 

EPA. 2007. Documentation on 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 of Air 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. Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze 

Program. U.S. Environmental Protection 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 

IMPROVE. 

Improving Western Vistas. 

1999. Particulate 

(h

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 Simulation for 2002 Provided to the VISTAS Group. Harvard University. June 24. 

Johnson, J., Y. Jia, C. Emery, R. Moms, Z. Wang and G. Tonnesen. 2006. Comparison of 

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. Meteorological Model Performance Evaluation 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 Gatekeeper Report. 

(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 Meteorological Modeling to Support Regional Haze Modeling of the Western 

United States. Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), Regional Modeling Center 

(RMC). 

(http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/3O8/reports/mm5/DrftFn1~2002MM5~FinalWRAP~Eval.pdf). 

March. 

Malm, William. 1999. Introduction to 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 Quality Modeling. 

(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 Modeling Analysis for CENR4P - Preliminary 2002 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 ,CENRAP Modeling: 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. CENRAP Modeling 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 ,CENRAP Modeling 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 Sensitivity Evaluation 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 Department of 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 States Department of Interior. 

NPS. 200%. Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park 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 Procedures Air Quality, Crocker 

Nuclear Laboratory, University of California, October 15, 1998. 

+) . 

Pechan. 2005a. Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Growth Factor Comparison. Prepared for 

CENRAP Emissions Inventory Workgroup. E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc. Durham, 

North Carolina. January. 

Pechan. 2005b. Technical Memorandum: Updates to Source Classification Code (SCC) to 

Speciation Profile Cross-Reference Table. Prepared for CENRAP Emissions Inventory 

Workgroup. E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc. Durham, North Carolina. April. 

Pechan and CEP. 2005c. Consolidated of Emissions Inventories (Schedule 9; 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 of North 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 of North 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 Committee to 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 Sources and 

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. Sonoma Technology, 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 on Environmental 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 Texas Water Code and $402 Clean Water Act. Austin, TX: 

Texas Register. 

TCEQ. 2006. Outdoor Burning. 30 TAC Chapter 11 1, 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 Wildfire Protection 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 Regional Haze 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 California at Riverside, 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 California at 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 appendices are available upon request. Please contact: 

Margaret Earnest 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

12 100 Park 35 Circle 

Austin, TX 78752 

512-239-4581 

mearnest@,tceq.state.tx.us