Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

1
4/
19/
2004
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
For
the
Early
Action
Compact
The
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
and
complete
appendices
are
online
at
http://
www.
capco.
state.
tx.
us/
Clean_
Air/
CAPCOairquality/
news.
htm
For
more
information
go
to
www.
cleanairforce.
org
or
www.
capco.
state.
tx.
us
or
call
343­
SMOG
or
1­
866­
916­
4AIR
Prepared
for
the
Central
Texas
Clean
Air
Coalition
By
the
EAC
Task
Force,
the
CLEAN
AIR
Force
and
CAPCO
March
29,
2004
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

2
4/
19/
2004
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
List
of
Frequently
used
Acronyms
........................................................................
3
Chapter
1:
General
Information............................................................................
4
1.1
Background
................................................................................................
4
1.1.1
Previous
Work.....................................................................................
4
1.1.2
The
Early
Action
Compact...................................................................
4
1.1.3
How
the
EAC
Applies
to
the
A/
RR
MSA...............................................
5
1.1.4
Geographic
Coverage
of
the
CAAP................................................
5
1.2
Public
Involvement
Program.......................................................................
6
1.2.1
Local
Programs
...................................................................................
6
1.2.2
Stakeholder
Involvement
Activities......................................................
6
1.2.3
Public
Involvement
Activities...............................................................
7
1.3
Policy
Statements
.......................................................................................
7
1.3.1
Fair
Share
...........................................................................................
7
1.3.2
Regional
Emission
Reduction
Measures
and
Implementation
Barriers7
1.3.3
The
Role
of
Transport
in
the
CAAP.....................................................
8
1.3.4
Texas
Low
Emission
Diesel
(
Tx
LED)
.................................................
8
1.3.5
Proposed
Mitigation
Measures............................................................
8
1.3.6
Periodic
Review
..................................................................................
8
1.3.7
Modeling
of
Major
New
Sources
..........................................................
8
Chapter
2:
Emissions
Inventory
...........................................................................
9
2.1
Overview....................................................................................................
9
2.2
Point
Sources
............................................................................................
9
2.3
Area
Sources.............................................................................................
9
2.4
On­
Road
Mobile
Sources
........................................................................
10
2.5
Non­
Road
Mobile
Sources.......................................................................
10
2.6
Biogenic
Sources.....................................................................................
11
2.7
Emissions
Summary
............................................................................
12
Chapter
3:
Photochemical
Modeling...................................................................
16
3.1
Introduction...............................................................................................
16
3.2
Episode
Selection.....................................................................................
16
3.3
1999
Meteorological
Model.......................................................................
17
3.4
1999
Modeling
Emissions
Inventory
.........................................................
17
3.5
1999
Base
Case
Development
.................................................................
17
3.6
1999
Photochemical
Model
Base
Case
and
Performance
Evaluation......
17
3.7
Future
Case
Modeling
..............................................................................
19
3.8
Calculation
Methodology
for
Relative
Reduction
Factors
and
Future
Design
Values.............................................................................................................
20
3.9
Base
2007
Model
Results.........................................................................
21
3.10
Emission
Reduction
Measure
Modeling
Results.....................................
21
Chapter
4:
Data
analysis....................................................................................
23
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

3
4/
19/
2004
4.1
Trends
in
Ozone
Monitoring
Data
in
Austin
..............................................
23
4.2
Analysis
of
Potential
8­
Hour
Ozone
Design
Values
for
2003
in
Austin
Based
on
Historical
Monitoring
Data...............................................................
25
4.3
Meteorological
Conditions
for
the
1999
Episode
......................................
25
4.4
Selection
of
Current
Year
for
Estimating
Future
Year
Design
Values.......
27
4.5
Transport
..................................................................................................
27
Chapter
5:
Emission
Reduction
Strategies.........................................................
30
5.1
Introduction...............................................................................................
30
5.3
State
and
Regional
Reduction
Strategies.................................................
31
5.4
Local
Strategies........................................................................................
31
5.4.1
Introduction
........................................................................................
31
5.4.2
State
Assisted
Measures....................................................................
32
Chart
5.4.2
CAC
Approved
State
Assisted
Measures
..........................................
32
5.4.3
Locally
Implemented
Emission
Reduction
Measures
.........................
48
Chapter
6:
Maintenance
for
Growth
and
the
Continuing
Planning
Process........
55
Chapter
7:
Tracking
and
Reporting
....................................................................
61
LIST
OF
FREQUENTLY
USED
ACRONYMS
A/
RR
MSA
or
MSA:
Austin/
Round
Rock
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
CAAP:
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
CAF:
CLEAN
AIR
Force
of
Central
Texas
CAMPO:
Capital
Area
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
CAPCO:
Capital
Area
Planning
Council
CO:
carbon
monoxide
EAC:
Early
Action
Compact
EI:
Emissions
Inventory
EPA:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
MPO:
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
NOx:
oxides
of
nitrogen
ppb:
parts
per
billion
RRF:
relative
reduction
factors
SIP:
State
Implementation
Plan
TCEQ:
Texas
Commission
on
Environmental
Quality
TERP:
Texas
Emission
Reduction
Program
TNRCC:
Texas
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Commission
tpd:
tons
per
day
tpy:
tons
per
year
TTI:
Texas
Transportation
Institute
TxDOT:
Texas
Department
of
Transportation
VOC:
volatile
organic
compounds
VMT:
vehicle
miles
travel
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

4
4/
19/
2004
CHAPTER
1:
GENERAL
INFORMATION
1.1
Background
Local
governments,
community
and
business
leaders,
environmental
groups,
and
concerned
citizens
in
Bastrop,
Caldwell,
Hays,
Travis
and
Williamson
Counties
(
ARR/
MSA)
are
committed
to
improving
regional
air
quality.
The
MSA
is
acting
now
to
assure
attainment
and
maintenance
of
the
federal
8­
hour
standard
for
ground­
level
ozone.
Using
the
Early
Action
Compact
(
EAC)
Protocol,
the
MSA
has
prepared
a
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)
that
provides
clean
air
sooner,
maintains
local
flexibility
and
can
defer
the
effective
date
of
nonattainment
designation.

1.1.1
Previous
Work
Central
Texas
has
a
history
of
proactive
air
quality
initiatives.
Since
1996,
the
Texas
Legislature
has
provided
near­
nonattainment
area
funding
to
the
area
for
use
in
performing
planning
functions
related
to
the
reduction
of
ozone
concentrations
in
the
area.
The
region
was
among
the
first
in
the
nation
to
adopt
an
O3
Flex
Agreement.
Designed
to
help
the
region
maintain
compliance
with
the
1­
hour
standard,
implementation
of
the
O3
Flex
emission
reduction
measures
started
in
the
2002
ozone
season.

The
region
has
conducted
ambient
air
monitoring,
following
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
guidelines,
that
is
beyond
that
performed
by
the
Texas
Commission
on
Environmental
Quality
(
TCEQ).
The
region
developed
emissions
inventories,
following
EPA
guidance,
for
1996
and
1999.
They
also
developed
photochemical
modeling
episodes
for
July
1995
and
September
1999.
Results
from
the
1995
episode
have
been
used
for
air
quality
planning.
The
1999
episode
has
been
used
to
develop
the
CAAP.
Both
episodes
meet
EPA
photochemical
model
performance
criteria.

Since
1993
the
CLEAN
AIR
Force
of
Central
Texas
(
CAF),
a
coalition
of
business,
government,
environmental
and
community
leaders,
has
coordinated
public
awareness
and
education
campaigns.
Ten
years
of
CAF
outreach
has
provided
a
solid
base
of
public
understanding
of
air
quality
issues.

1.1.2
The
Early
Action
Compact
EPA
issued
the
Protocol
for
Early
Action
Compacts
Designed
to
Achieve
and
Maintain
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
Standard
(
the
Protocol)
on
June
1,
2002
and
revised
it
in
November
2002.
The
Protocol
provides
the
framework
for
a
voluntary
commitment
to
develop
and
implement
an
emission
reduction
plan
that
assures
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
by
2007
and
maintenance
at
least
through
2012.
Please
see
Appendix
1­
1
for
the
full
text
of
the
Protocol.

A
key
point
of
the
EAC
is
the
flexibility
it
affords
areas
in
selecting
emission
reduction
measures.
Based
on
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)­
quality
science,
signatories
choose
the
combination
of
measures
that
meet
both
local
needs
and
emission
reduction
targets.
The
EAC
recognizes
that
not
every
entity
will
implement
every
measure.
Please
see
Appendix
1­
2
for
the
full
text
of
the
Central
Texas
EAC
document.

On
December
18,
2002,
the
cities
of
Austin,
Bastrop,
Elgin,
Lockhart,
Luling,
Round
Rock,
and
San
Marcos;
the
counties
of
Bastrop,
Caldwell,
Hays,
Travis,
and
Williamson;
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

5
4/
19/
2004
TCEQ
and
EPA,
entered
into
an
EAC
for
the
MSA.
This
compact
commits
the
region
to
developing
and
implementing
a
CAAP
in
accordance
with
the
following
milestones:

EAC/
CAAP
Milestones
June
16,
2003
Potential
local
emission
reduction
strategies
identified
and
described
Initial
modeling
emissions
inventory
completed
Conceptual
modeling
completed
November
30,
2003
Base
case
modeling
completed
Future
year
emissions
inventory
modeling
completed
Emissions
inventory
comparison
and
analysis
completed
December
31,
2003
Future
case
modeling
completed
Attainment
maintenance
analysis
completed
Schedule
for
development
of
further
episodes
completed
One
or
more
modeled
control
cases
completed
Local
emission
reduction
strategies
selected
January
31,
2004
Submission
of
preliminary
CAAP
to
TCEQ
and
EPA
Final
revisions
to
modeled
control
cases
completed
Final
revisions
to
local
emission
reduction
strategies
completed
Final
revisions
to
attainment
maintenance
analysis
completed
March
31,
2004
Submission
of
final
CAAP
to
TCEQ
and
EPA
December
31,
2004
CAAP
incorporated
into
the
SIP;
SIP
adopted
by
TCEQ
December
31,
2005
Local
emission
reduction
strategies
implemented
no
later
than
this
date
December
31,
2007
Attainment
of
the
8­
hour
standard
All
milestone
documents
may
be
found
at:
http://
www.
capco.
state.
tx.
us/
Clean_
Air/
CAPCOairquality/
news.
htm
1.1.3
How
the
EAC
Applies
to
the
A/
RR
MSA
Participation
in
an
EAC
is
available
for
areas
that
are
in
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
but
approach
or
monitor
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.

The
MSA
is
designated
attainment
for
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
and
continues
to
monitor
attainment
of
that
standard.
The
region
has
not
exceeded
the
1­
hour
standard
since
1985.
The
MSA
has
intermittently
monitored
violations
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
from
1998
through
2002
and
is
currently
in
attainment.
(
In
order
to
comply
with
the
8­
hour
standard,
each
monitor's
three­
year
average
of
the
annual
fourth­
highest
8­
hour
ozone
reading
must
be
less
than
85
ppb.)
As
such,
the
region
meets
the
criteria
for
participation
in
an
EAC.

Elected
officials
in
the
MSA
entered
into
the
EAC
with
EPA
and
TCEQ
because
monitored
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standard
indicate
concentrations
of
ground­
level
ozone
inconsistent
with
protecting
public
health
and
the
environment.

1.1.4
Geographic
Coverage
of
the
CAAP
The
CAAP
applies
to
the
five
counties
included
in
the
MSA.
These
counties
are
Bastrop,
Caldwell,
Hays,
Travis,
and
Williamson.
The
U.
S.
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

6
4/
19/
2004
decides
the
MSA
based
on
data
generated
by
the
U.
S.
Census
Office.
EPA
typically
uses
MSA
boundaries
to
define
nonattainment
areas;
hence
their
use
for
the
CAAP.
Sources
of
regional
anthropogenic,
or
man­
made,
emissions
reflect
the
growing
urbanization
of
the
area
(
e.
g.,
population
densities,
urban/
suburban
growth,
commuting
patterns).

1.2
Public
Involvement
Program
1.2.1
Local
Programs
In
January
2003
the
CAF
launched
an
extensive
program
to
ensure
widespread
public
and
stakeholder
participation
in
developing
the
region's
CAAP.
CAF
contracted
with
an
established
local
opinion
research
company,
NuStats
Partners,
to
assist.
Additional
information
on
the
CAF
is
found
in
Appendix
1­
3.

The
involvement
project
had
two
goals:
(
1)
to
provide
venues
for
participation
by
interested
parties;
and
(
2)
to
provide
air
quality
information
to
the
general
public.
Stakeholder
involvement
activities
included
those
aspects
of
the
project
directly
related
to
gathering
input
on
the
emission
reduction
strategies.
Public
involvement
activities,
while
also
soliciting
input,
focused
on
increasing
public
understanding
of
air
quality
issues
and
the
EAC
process.

The
local
EAC
signatory
jurisdictions
played
a
key
role.
They
facilitated
public
participation
by
hosting
public
meetings.
They
also
reviewed
and
selected
CAAP
strategies.
The
Clean
Air
Coalition,
composed
of
one
elected­
official
representative
from
each
of
the
local
EAC
signatory
jurisdictions,
bore
primary
responsibility
for
CAAP
development
decisions.
The
EAC
Task
Force,
composed
of
staff
from
local
signatory
jurisdictions,
participating
agencies,
business
and
environmental
groups,
developed
and
recommended
the
initial
CAAP
for
CAC
and
signatory
consideration.
The
CAC
met
at
least
quarterly
throughout
the
CAAP
development
process
and
continues
to
meet
regularly.
The
EAC
Task
Force
met
twice
monthly
during
CAAP
development
and
continues
to
meet
regularly.
Both
CAC
and
EAC
Task
Force
meetings
are
open
to
the
public.
Additional
information
on
the
CAC
and
EAC
Task
Force
is
found
in
Appendices
1­
4
and
1­
5,
respectively.

1.2.2
Stakeholder
Involvement
Activities
The
kickoff
stakeholder
meeting
was
on
January
31,
2003.
Advertisements
for
the
event
ran
for
two
weeks
in
the
region's
major
daily
newspaper,
the
Austin
American­
Statesman,
and
in
15
community
newspapers
in
the
five
counties.
Ninety
people
attended.
They
represented
a
broad
spectrum
of
interests
and
perspectives.
They
included
environmental
groups,
community
activists,
manufacturing
companies,
real
estate
companies,
elected
officials
and
transportation
planners.
Meeting
facilitators
lead
four
stakeholder
work
groups
to
develop
emission
reduction
strategies
for
each
emission
source
 
on­
road,
non­
road,
area,
and
point.

These
work
groups
continued
to
meet
regularly
throughout
2003.
Each
work
group
drafted
a
list
of
strategies
to
be
considered
for
inclusion
in
the
CAAP.
Their
work
is
the
backbone
of
the
plan
development.
Additional
information
on
stakeholder
involvement
activities
is
found
in
Appendices
1­
6
and
1­
7.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

7
4/
19/
2004
1.2.3
Public
Involvement
Activities
In
addition
to
the
public
meetings
held
throughout
the
MSA,
NuStats
staff
provided
the
work
plan
for
general
public
involvement.
Outreach
avenues
included
a
website,
hotline,
presentations
to
organizations
and
community
groups,
distribution
of
comment
cards
at
meetings
and
events,
publishing
the
comment
cards
in
the
region's
daily
newspaper
and
in
over
15
community
newspapers,
and
information
kiosks
in
public
areas
(
libraries,
shopping
malls,
etc.).
NuStats
maintained
a
database
of
participating
stakeholders
and
groups/
individuals.
They
coded
and
recorded
responses
to
allow
real­
time
evaluation
of
opinion
trends
and
to
identify
segments
of
the
region
that
were
under
responding
and
in
need
of
additional
efforts.
Please
see
Appendices
1­
6
and
1­
7
for
details
of
outreach
activities
and
comment
card
survey
results.
Appendix
1­
8
contains
documentation
of
all
public
comments.
It
also
includes
resolutions
of
support
from
area
jurisdictions
that,
while
not
signatories,
support
the
air
quality
goals
of
the
EAC.

1.3
Policy
Statements
The
following
statements
reflect
the
positions
of
the
local
EAC
signatories.

1.3.1
Fair
Share
The
local
EAC
signatories
support
air
quality
improvement
initiatives
that
are
based
on
a
fair
share
approach;
the
amount
of
man­
made
emissions
reduced
by
any
source,
geographic
area
or
jurisdiction
should
be
proportional
to
the
amount
of
emissions
contributed.
No
source,
area
or
jurisdiction
should
be
required
to
bear
more
than
its
fair
share
of
the
emission
reduction
burden.
The
CAAP
emission
reduction
measures
address
all
man­
made
emission
sources
in
proportion
to
their
levels
of
contribution.
Also,
it
comparably
burdens
the
general
public,
businesses
and
the
public
sector.

1.3.2
Regional
Emission
Reduction
Measures
and
Implementation
Barriers
The
EAC
is
intended
to
allow
for
increased
local
control
of
air
quality
planning.
The
nature
of
air
pollution,
however,
requires
that
emission
reduction
measures
be
implemented
on
a
regional
basis
in
order
to
be
effective.

Typically,
one
city
or
county
cannot
tackle
the
issue
alone.
Indeed,
"
local"
in
this
case
covers
a
five­
county
region
in
Texas
and
12
local
governmental
jurisdictions.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
latter
represent
only
a
handful
of
the
total
number
of
governmental
jurisdictions
in
the
region.
For
example,
while
the
City
of
Austin
and
Travis
County
are
the
only
two
EAC
signatories
from
the
county,
there
are
more
than
20
other
municipalities
with
jurisdiction
in
Travis
County
alone.
Each
has
authority
over
adoption
of
ordinances
and
regulations.
Note
that
the
State
of
Texas
does
not
grant
ordinance
authority
to
counties.
Consequently,
it
is
almost
impossible
to
implement
regional
emission
reduction
measures
in
the
absence
of
state
regulations;
hence
the
need
for
the
State
Assisted
Measures
outlined
in
Chapter
5.
The
only
alternatives
to
this
approach
require
substantial
legislative
actions.
These
have
been
introduced
in
past
legislative
sessions
and
routinely
defeated.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

8
4/
19/
2004
1.3.3
The
Role
of
Transport
in
the
CAAP
The
EAC
signatories
ask
that
state
and
federal
partners
act
with
diligence
to
ensure
that
assumptions
about
emission
reduction
measures
implemented
outside
the
MSA,
and
consequently
assumptions
about
the
associated
transport
to
our
region,
hold
true.

The
2007
Base
Case
assumes
substantial
emission
reduction
measures
will
be
implemented
by
federal,
state,
other
local
and
private
entities
located
outside
the
fivecounty
A/
RR
MSA.
For
example,
the
model
assumes
the
Houston/
Galveston
SIP
will
be
successful
in
2007
and
that
the
ALCOA
Consent
Decree
will
be
implemented
no
later
than
March
2007.
While
these
assumptions
are
reasonable
and
necessary,
their
validity
remains
uncertain.

1.3.4
Texas
Low
Emission
Diesel
(
Tx
LED)
The
EAC
signatories
urge
TCEQ
and,
if
applicable,
EPA
to
work
with
the
MSA
to
correct
a
"
Catch­
22"
in
TCEQ's
interpretation
of
the
Tx
LED
rule.
Current
policy
penalizes
the
MSA
and
hinders
our
air
quality
improvement
efforts.
Because
TCEQ
approved
an
Alternative
Emission
Reduction
Plan
for
Flint
Hills
Resources
(
FHR),
the
MSA
will
receive
no
Tx
LED
via
the
traditional
pipeline
distribution
system.
At
the
same
time,
TCEQ
staff
has
concluded
that
TERP
funds
are
not
available
for
importation
and
distribution
of
Tx
LED
into
the
region
after
2005.
Without
Tx
LED,
our
region
will
lose
over
1.7
tons
per
day
of
creditable
NOx
emissions
reductions
in
2007.
Consequently,
the
EAC
signatories
request
that
the
TCEQ
reconsider
its
approval
of
FHR's
Alternative
Emission
Reduction
Plan
or,
alternatively,
allow
the
MSA
to
use
TERP
funds
for
procuring
Tx
LED.

1.3.5
Proposed
Mitigation
Measures
The
EAC
signatories
are
committed
to
supporting
policy
initiatives
that
lead
to
distinct
regional
air
quality
improvements.
To
that
end,
signatories
urge
TCEQ
and
EPA
to
ensure
a
clear
nexus
between
all
proposed
mitigation
measures
and
alleged
violations
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
All
aspects
of
future
Supplemental
Environmental
Projects
and
Beneficial
Environmental
Projects,
when
related
to
air
quality
violations,
should
have
a
direct
air
quality
benefit.

1.3.6
Periodic
Review
Throughout
the
EAC's
duration
the
signatories
will
initiate
periodic
program
evaluations.
These
will
determine
the
necessity
for
revision
or
modification
and
will
be
addressed
accordingly.

1.3.7
Modeling
of
Major
New
Sources
The
EAC
signatories,
to
facilitate
planning,
request
that
TCEQ
notify
CAPCO
of
anticipated
new
major
sources
within
its
boundaries,
or
within
25
miles
of
its
boundaries.
This
allows
the
region
to
model
effects
and
modify
the
CAAP
if
necessary.
The
signatories
also
encourage
TCEQ
to
model
effects
of
all
large
new
NOx
sources
in
the
eastern
half
of
the
state
as
a
permanent
part
of
its
review
process.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

9
4/
19/
2004
CHAPTER
2:
EMISSIONS
INVENTORY
2.1
Overview
An
emissions
inventory
(
EI)
is
a
list
of
the
air
pollutants
emitted
by
all
types
of
sources.
Typically
an
EI
is
divided
into
five
types
of
sources:
point
sources,
area
sources,
onroad
mobile
sources,
non­
road
mobile
sources
and
biogenic
sources.
Each
category
is
further
divided
into
source
categories.
Because
ozone
is
formed
in
the
atmosphere,
not
emitted
directly,
the
EI
quantifies
emissions
from
ozone
precursors.
Pollutants
covered
are
carbon
monoxide
(
CO),
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
and
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
NOx).

Details
for
the
development
of
the
1999
and
2007
EIs,
developed
per
EPA
and
EAC
guidance,
are
found
in
Appendices
2­
1
and
2­
2.

2.2
Point
Sources
Point
sources
in
attainment
areas
are
stationary
commercial
or
industrial
operations
that
have
actual
emissions
of
more
than
100
tons
per
year
(
tpy)
of
any
criteria
pollutant.
Typically
these
are
individual
stacks
or
points
that
emit
pollutants
directly
into
the
atmosphere.
These
are
usually
readily
identifiable
as
emission
sources.
Modeling
requires
data
from
several
parameters
for
the
stacks:
emission
rate,
stack
diameter,
stack
height,
stack
velocity,
stack
temperature
and
composition
of
VOC.
Modeling
also
requires
data
on
the
type
of
manufacturing
facility
and
air
pollution
control
devices.
TCEQ
collects
this
data
through
a
required
emissions
inventory
questionnaire.
After
quality
assurance
review,
TCEQ
stores
the
data
in
its
Point
Source
Data
Base.

2.3
Area
Sources
Area
sources
are
those
emission
points
that
are
not
easily
separated
into
individual
stacks
because
of
the
large
number
of
sources
or
the
lack
of
discrete
identifiable
sources.
They
are
commercial,
small­
scale
industrial,
or
residential
users
of
materials
or
processes
that
generate
emissions.
Hydrocarbon
evaporation
and
fuel
combustion
are
the
typical
causes
of
area
source
emissions.
Examples
of
evaporative
emissions
include
printing,
industrial
coatings,
degreasing
solvents,
house
paints,
leaking
underground
storage
tanks,
gasoline
service
station
underground
tank
filling
and
vehicle
fueling
operations.
Examples
of
fuel
combustion
sources
include
fossil
fuel
use
at
residences
and
businesses,
and
also
outdoor
burning,
structural
fires
and
wildfires.

These
emissions
fall
below
point
source
reporting
levels
and
are
too
numerous
or
too
small
to
identify
individually.
Emissions­
estimate
calculations
use
an
established
emission
factor
(
emissions
per
unit
of
activity)
multiplied
by
the
incidence
of
the
relevant
activity
or
activity
surrogate.
Population
is
the
most
common
activity
surrogate.
Others
include
gasoline
sales,
employment
by
industry
type
and
acres
of
cropland.
Bottom­
up
approaches
estimate
activity
factors
from
surveys.
Top­
down
approaches
use
generic
activity
factors
based
on
national,
state
or
county
data.
Emission
factors
can
be
a
category­
specific
generic
estimate
or
can
be
developed
locally
(
e.
g.,
based
on
product
usage).
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

10
4/
19/
2004
2.4
On­
Road
Mobile
Sources
On­
road
sources
are
automobiles,
trucks,
motorcycles,
and
other
motor
vehicles
operating
on
roadways
in
the
MSA.
Emissions
estimates
account
for
vehicle
engine
exhaust
and
associated
evaporative
emissions.
These
emissions
are
calculated
with
an
activity
factor,
such
as
vehicle
miles
traveled
(
VMT),
and
an
emissions
factor.
The
road
network
is
divided
into
roadway
links.
For
detailed
photochemical
modeling,
hourly
dayspecific
emissions
are
calculated
for
each
roadway
link
by
developing
link­
specific
activity
data
and
emissions
data.
For
each
link
the
emissions
factor
is
calculated
with
a
version
of
the
EPA
MOBILE
model.

The
MSA
EI
uses
EPA's
mobile
emissions
factor
model,
MOBILE6.
Model
inputs
simulate
vehicle
fleet
driving
and
include
vehicle
speeds
by
roadway
type,
vehicle
registration
by
type
and
age,
percentage
of
vehicles
in
cold
and
hot
start
and
stabilized
modes,
percentage
of
miles
traveled
by
vehicle
type
and
age,
and
use
of
a
vehicle
Inspection
and
Maintenance
Program
(
I/
M),
where
applicable.
Model
inputs
also
include
gasoline
parameters
such
as
sulfur
content
and
Reid
vapor
pressure,
temperature
and
humidity.
Input
parameters
reflect
local
conditions
to
the
extent
possible.
The
MOBILE
model
emission
factors
multiplied
by
VMT
estimates
complete
the
emissions
estimate.

Future
VMT
estimates
use
the
Capital
Area
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
(
CAMPO)
travel
demand
model
for
Hays,
Travis
and
Williamson
Counties.
Future
VMT
estimates
for
Bastrop
and
Caldwell
Counties
use
a
GIS­
based
highway
performance
monitoring
system
methodology
developed
by
Texas
Transportation
Institute
(
TTI).
The
CAMPO
travel
model
inputs
include
future
population
and
employment
estimates
spatially
allocated
by
traffic
serial
zone.
Model
inputs
also
include
a
roadway
network
of
all
regionally
significant
roads
expected
to
be
open
and
operational
in
the
timeframe
modeled.
The
spatial
allocation
of
the
population
and
employment
estimates
takes
into
account
all
new
roads
that
will
be
open
and
operational
in
the
timeframe
modeled.
This
addresses
development
and
induced
demand
created
by
new
roads.
The
travel
model
estimates
VMT
associated
with
the
transportation
system
as
a
whole.
Because
a
change
in
one
part
of
the
transportation
system
often
affects
another
part
of
the
system
(
e.
g.,
adding
a
new
road
may
reduce
VMT
on
another
road),
a
system­
wide
analysis
produces
the
best
estimate
of
emissions
associated
with
vehicles
using
existing
and
new
roadways.

2.5
Non­
Road
Mobile
Sources
Non­
road
mobile
sources
are
mobile
sources
that
typically
do
not
operate
on
roads.
Examples
include
lawn
and
garden
equipment,
aircraft,
recreational
boats,
commercial
marine
equipment
and
railroad
locomotives.
The
category
also
covers
a
broad
range
of
off­
road
equipment,
typically
for
construction,
landscaping
or
farm
use.
Calculations
of
emissions
from
non­
road
engine
sources
use
estimates
from
EPA's
NONROAD
and
EDMS
emissions
models,
along
with
additional
procedures
specified
by
EPA's
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality.
They
consider
equipment
population,
engine
horsepower,
load
factor,
emission
factors,
and
annual
usage.
Calculations
for
aircraft
emissions
use
an
EPA­
developed
multiplier
and
airport
landing/
takeoff
data.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

11
4/
19/
2004
2.6
Biogenic
Sources
Biogenic
sources
include
hydrocarbon
emissions
from
vegetation
and
small
amounts
of
NOx
emissions
from
soils.
Plants
are
sources
of
the
VOCs
isoprene,
monoterpene,
and
alpha­
pinene.
Biogenic
emissions
are
important
in
determining
the
overall
emissions
profile
and
are
required
for
regional
air
quality
photochemical
modeling.
Emissions
calculations
normally
use
the
density
or
number
of
species,
land
use
data,
species
specific
emissions
factor,
light
intensity
and
temperature.
Field
surveys
determine
the
species
population
and
land
use
data
for
a
large
area
of
Texas.
The
MSA
EI
used
the
biogenic
model
GLOBEIS
to
estimate
emissions.
Because
emissions
from
biogenic
sources
are
largely
beyond
the
scope
of
reasonable
emission
reduction
measures,
the
CAAP
does
not
include
biogenic
emission
reduction
measures.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

12
4/
19/
2004
2.7
Emissions
Summary
Figure
2.7­
1
Man­
made
Sources
of
Nitrogen
Oxide
(
NOx)
Pollution
­
1999
Area
Sources
(
tpd)
5%
Non­
road
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
17%

OnRoad
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
58%
Point
Sources
(
tpd)
20%

1999
Man­
made
NOx
Levels:
168
Tons
Per
Day
Sources
of
man­
made
NOx
for
the
1999
base
case
EI
comprise
58%
on­
road,
20%
point,
17%
non­
road
and
5%
area.

Table
2.7­
1.
Total
daily
(
weekday)
NOx
emissions
in
1999
from
anthropogenic
sources
in
the
MSA
Area
Sources
(
tpd)
Non­
road
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
OnRoad
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
Point
Sources
(
tpd)
TOTAL
(
tpd)
Bastrop
0.60
1.72
3.95
7.25
13.52
Caldwell
0.54
1.42
2.32
3.55
7.82
Hays
0.54
1.88
11.44
7.28
21.14
Travis
3.17
16.69
63.06
15.34
98.27
Williamson
2.97
6.73
17.09
0.56
27.35
TOTAL
(
tpd)
7.82
28.44
97.86
33.98
168.10
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

13
4/
19/
2004
Figure
2.7­
2
Man­
made
Sources
of
Volatile
Organic
Compound
(
VOC)
Pollution
­
1999
Area
Sources
(
tpd)
55%

Non­
road
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
13%
OnRoad
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
30%
Point
Sources
(
tpd)
2%

1999
Man­
made
VOC
Levels:
167
Tons
Per
Day
Sources
of
man­
made
VOC
for
the
1999
EI
comprise
55%
area,
30%
on­
road,
13%
nonroad
and
2%
point.

Table
2.7­
2.
Total
daily
(
weekday)
VOC
emissions
in
1999
from
anthropogenic
sources
in
the
MSA
Area
Sources
(
tpd)
Non­
road
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
OnRoad
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
Point
Sources
(
tpd)
TOTAL
(
tpd)
Bastrop
4.52
0.92
2.54
0.42
8.40
Caldwell
15.29
0.61
1.30
0.47
17.67
Hays
5.47
1.53
4.85
0.34
12.19
Travis
50.60
15.59
32.61
2.13
100.93
Williamson
14.68
3.84
8.89
0.34
27.75
TOTAL
(
tpd)
90.56
22.49
50.19
3.70
166.93
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

14
4/
19/
2004
Figure
2.7­
3
Man­
made
Sources
of
Nitrogen
Oxide
(
NOx)
Pollution
­
2007
Area
Sources
(
tpd)
8%
Non­
road
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
21%

OnRoad
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
48%
Point
Sources
(
tpd)
23%

2007
Man­
made
NOx
Levels:
128
Tons
Per
Day
Sources
of
man­
made
NOx
for
the
2007
base
case
EI
comprise
48%
on­
road,
21%
nonroad
23%
point
and
8%
area.

Table
2.7­
3.
Total
daily
(
weekday)
NOx
emissions
in
2007
from
anthropogenic
sources
in
MSA
Area
Sources
(
tpd)
Non­
road
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
OnRoad
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
Point
Sources
(
tpd)
TOTAL
(
tpd)
Bastrop
0.76
1.66
2.45
7.65
12.52
Caldwell
0.67
1.39
1.31
2.51
5.88
Hays
0.78
1.84
5.86
8.94
17.42
Travis
4.22
16.21
38.23
11.04
69.70
Williamson
3.81
6.36
12.68
0.00
22.85
TOTAL
(
tpd)
10.24
27.46
60.53
30.15
128.38
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

15
4/
19/
2004
Figure
2.7­
4
Man­
made
Sources
of
Volatile
Organic
Compound
(
VOC)
Pollution
­
2007
Area
Sources
(
tpd)
64%
Non­
road
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
12%
OnRoad
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
21%
Point
Sources
(
tpd)
3%

2007
Man­
made
VOC
Levels:
165
Tons
Per
Day
Sources
of
man­
made
VOC
for
the
2007
base
case
EI
comprise
64%
area,
21%
onroad
12%
non­
road
and
3%
point.

Table
2.7­
4.
Total
daily
(
weekday)
VOC
emissions
in
2007
from
anthropogenic
sources
in
the
MSA
Area
Sources
(
tpd)
Non­
road
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
OnRoad
Mobile
Sources
(
tpd)
Point
Sources
(
tpd)
TOTAL
(
tpd)
Bastrop
5.53
0.99
1.50
0.56
8.58
Caldwell
15.75
0.68
0.73
0.07
17.23
Hays
7.67
1.77
2.78
1.65
13.87
Travis
57.04
12.70
21.95
2.18
93.87
Williamson
20.44
3.73
6.83
0.18
31.17
TOTAL
(
tpd)
106.42
19.88
33.79
4.63
164.72
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

16
4/
19/
2004
CHAPTER
3:
PHOTOCHEMICAL
MODELING
3.1
Introduction
Photochemical
grid
models
take
data
on
meteorology
and
emissions,
couple
the
data
with
mathematical
descriptions
of
atmospheric
physical
and
chemical
processes
and
process
the
information
to
yield
predictions
of
air
pollutant
concentrations
as
a
function
of
time
and
location.
Model
predictions
are
calculated
over
a
three
dimensional
grid
that
is
placed
over
the
area
being
modeled.
Typically
large
grid
cells
(
12
km
to
16
km)
are
used
for
regional
scale
modeling
and
smaller
grid
cells
(
4
km)
are
used
for
urban
scale
modeling.
The
MSA
uses
the
Comprehensive
Air
Quality
Model
with
Extensions
(
CAMx)
for
its
CAAP
work.

With
near­
nonattainment
area
funding
from
the
Texas
legislature,
the
Capital
Area
Planning
Council
(
CAPCO)
coordinated
development
of
three
photochemical
model
base
cases,
including
a
1999
South
and
Central
Texas
high
ozone
episode.
These
provide
a
means
of
projecting
air
quality
conditions
to
the
year
2007
and
test
emission
reduction
measure
efficacy
in
the
anticipated
attainment
year.
The
year
2007
coincides
with
the
expected
attainment
dates
for
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
and
Houston.
Because
ambient
ozone
levels
in
the
MSA
are
affected
by
transport,
selecting
a
date
in
which
emission
reduction
strategies
are
in
place
for
other
large
urban
areas
is
an
important
modeling
consideration.

The
meteorological
model
processes
meteorological
data
for
each
day
in
the
episode.
The
episode
being
modeled
uses
its
own,
day­
specific,
EI.
The
base
case
comprises
the
set
of
meteorological
data
and
the
episode's
EI.
The
photochemical
model
is
run
and
evaluated.
If
model
performance,
as
evaluated
by
comparing
model
prediction
to
observed
air
pollution
concentrations,
is
not
acceptable,
the
meteorological
modeling
results
and
the
EI
are
evaluated
to
determine
if
these
data
can
be
refined.
Once
the
model
performance
is
acceptable,
precursor
sensitivity
modeling
can
be
performed.
For
future
years,
the
base
case
emissions
are
replaced
with
emissions
projections
for
the
future
year.
The
model
is
rerun
with
the
future
emissions
to
establish
the
future
ozone
patterns
and
to
determine
adequate
emission
reduction
strategies.

3.2
Episode
Selection
The
first
step
in
episode
selection
is
the
development
of
a
conceptual
model.
It
describes
local
meteorological
conditions
and
associated
large­
scale
weather
patterns
experienced
during
periods
of
high
ozone.
The
MSA's
conceptual
model
is
based
on
1993­
2002
ozone
and
meteorological
data.

The
conceptual
model
allowed
staff
to
identify
candidate
episodes
for
modeling.
The
MSA
has
identified
and
modeled
two
episodes,
July
7­
12,
1995
and
September
13­
20,
1999.
In
response
to
TCEQ
and
EPA
guidance,
the
CAAP
is
based
on
the
September
1999
episode.

The
September
13­
20,
1999
modeling
episode
fulfills
the
requirements
of
both
EPA
draft
guidance
and
the
EAC
Protocol.
The
episode
is
a
good
example
of
the
predominant
type
of
high
ozone
episode
described
in
the
conceptual
model
for
the
Austin
area.
The
episode
covers,
for
both
Austin
and
San
Antonio,
one
cycle
for
ozone
with
two
initialization
days
and
six
high
ozone
days.
The
episode
includes
two
weekend
days
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

17
4/
19/
2004
(
September
18th
and
19th)
so
emission
reduction
strategies
can
be
evaluated
with
different
emission
characteristics.

An
important
consideration
in
selecting
this
episode
was
the
high
ozone
concentrations
observed
throughout
South
and
Central
Texas.
Thus,
Austin,
San
Antonio,
Corpus
Christi,
and
Victoria,
along
with
TCEQ,
could
combine
resources
to
develop
a
new
episode
focusing
specifically
on
conditions
associated
with
high
ozone
in
South
and
Central
Texas.

3.3
1999
Meteorological
Model
Meteorological
models
use
a
set
of
measurements
taken
at
limited
times
and
at
a
limited
number
of
sites,
along
with
models
of
physical
processes,
to
predict
the
physical
behavior
of
the
atmosphere.
The
model
develops
a
three
dimensional
simulation
of
wind
speed,
wind
direction
and
other
parameters
for
every
hour
being
modeled.

Meteorological
inputs
to
the
September
1999
episode
used
the
Fifth
Generation
Pennsylvania
State
University/
National
Center
for
Atmospheric
Research
Mesoscale
Model
(
MM5).
The
final
MM5
application
for
the
September
13­
20,1999,
modeling
episode,
known
as
Run5g,
was
the
culmination
of
individual
simulations
and
sensitivity
studies
performed
during
2001­
2003.
Both
Austin
and
San
Antonio
use
this
model
for
their
EAC
work.
Details
may
be
found
in
Appendix
3­
1.

3.4
1999
Modeling
Emissions
Inventory
The
Base
Case
modeling
EI
must
be
day­
specific
for
each
hour,
of
each
day,
being
modeled.
A
daily
profile
for
on­
road
mobile
emissions
estimates
hourly
variation,
accounting
for
weekend/
weekday
differences.
Specific
point
source
emissions
may
vary
during
the
day,
or
from
day
to
day.
The
ozone
season
EI
is
a
starting
point
for
developing
an
episode­
specific
EI.
Details
are
found
in
Appendix
2­
1.

3.5
1999
Base
Case
Development
The
base
case
model
used
meteorological
inputs
developed
from
the
MM5
meteorological
modeling
and
the
1999
modeling
EI.
Extensive
sensitivity
analyses
established
the
initial
and
boundary
conditions
for
the
model.
The
base
case
initial
and
boundary
conditions
are
consistent
with
those
used
by
TCEQ
for
modeling
in
1­
hour
nonattainment
areas.
Details
on
the
development
of
the
base
case
may
be
found
in
Appendix
3­
1.

3.6
1999
Photochemical
Model
Base
Case
and
Performance
Evaluation
Model
performance
evaluation
used
statistical
and
graphical
metrics
in
accordance
with
EPA
guidance
for
both
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
attainment
demonstrations.
This
evaluation
measures
the
differences
between
model
predictions
and
their
paired
observations.
Details
are
found
in
Appendix
3­
1.

Performance
for
both
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
predicted
ozone
concentrations
used
the
seven
monitors
in
the
San
Antonio,
Austin,
San
Marcos,
and
Fayette
County
networks.
Because
the
monitoring
network
in
Central
Texas
is
not
dense,
analysts
evaluated
performance
based
on
data
from
all
stations
rather
than
on
monitors
grouped
by
cities.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

18
4/
19/
2004
Statistical
evaluation
of
the
1­
hour
model
performance
uses
the
following
metrics:
unpaired
peak
accuracy,
average
paired
peak
accuracy,
bias
in
peak
timing,
normalized
bias
and
normalized
error.
EPA
has
performance
criteria
for
the
unpaired
peak
accuracy,
normalized
bias
and
normalized
error
statistics.
The
1­
hour
modeling
for
the
seven
Central
Texas
monitors
meets
all
of
these
criteria.
Figure
3.6.1
illustrates
the
comparison
between
observed
and
modeled
concentrations
at
the
Audubon
monitor.

Figure
3.6.1
Time
series
of
observed
concentrations
compared
to
modeled
concentrations
for
1999.

The
evaluation
of
model
performance
for
8­
hour
averaged
ozone
attainment
demonstrations
is
being
applied
for
the
first
time
in
many
areas
and
could
be
subject
to
future
modifications.
In
recognition
of
this,
analysts
used
the
following
three
different
methodologies
in
selecting
predicted
ozone
concentrations
to
compare
to
observed
value:

1.
The
predicted
daily
maximum
ozone
concentration
within
grid
cells
`
near'
a
monitor,
as
defined
by
U.
S.
EPA
guidance
(
1999);
2.
The
predicted
daily
maximum
ozone
concentration
within
grid
cells
`
near'
a
monitor
that
is
closest
in
magnitude
to
the
observed
daily
maximum
at
the
monitor;
and
3.
A
bilinear
interpolation
of
predicted
daily
maximum
ozone
concentration
around
the
monitor
location.

EPA
recommends
that
the
normalized
bias
and
fractional
bias
be
less
than
20%
of
mean
observed
8­
hour
daily
maximum
concentrations.
Regardless
of
the
approach
used
to
484530014:
AUSTIN
3700
NORT
214.596
­
1050.346
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
9/
13/
99
9/
14/
99
9/
15/
99
9/
16/
99
9/
17/
99
9/
18/
99
9/
19/
99
9/
20/
99
Date
O3
[
ppb]
Observed
1999
2007
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

19
4/
19/
2004
select
the
predicted
maximum
concentration,
both
metrics
for
the
Austin
September
13­
20
CAMx
model
fall
well
within
these
criteria.
Figure
3.6.2
illustrates
these
results.

Figure
3.6.2
Statistical
Model
Performance
Metrics
for
Central
Texas,
8­
hour
3.7
Future
Case
Modeling
Future
Case
modeling
used
projected
2007
emission
inventories
with
the
meteorological
data
and
CAMx
configuration
developed
for
the
successful
Base
Case.
Inputs
followed
EPA's
Draft
Guidance
on
the
Use
of
Models
and
Other
Analyses
in
Attainment
Demonstrations
for
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
(
1999)
and
their
Protocol
for
Early
Action
Compacts
(
2003).
Photochemical
modeling
is
an
iterative
process.
The
emissions
inventories
used
in
the
model
are
often
refined
to
better
predict
emissions.
The
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Observed
Ozone
(
ppb)
Predicted
Ozone
(
ppb)
r2=
0.7641
O
­
­
O
shows
quantiles
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

20
4/
19/
2004
modeling
for
the
future
case
has
been
performed
with
seven
versions
of
the
2007
emissions
inventory,
each
with
minor
modifications
or
improvements.
This
modeling
provides
results
that
are
close
to
the
standard
of
85
ppb,
but
in
five
cases
the
design
value
has
been
slightly
below
the
standard
(
84.37
ppb,
84.5
ppb,
84.55,
84.8
ppb
and
84.91)
and
in
two
cases
the
design
value
has
been
slightly
above
the
standard
(
85.6
ppb
and
85.08
ppb).
This
indicates
that
in
2007
the
area
will
be
on
the
cusp
of
attainment
or
nonattainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
It
is
likely
that
the
2007
emissions
inventory
for
the
Houston/
Galveston
area
will
be
modified
by
TCEQ
in
the
near
future,
which
may
affect
future
case
model
values.
Results
of
future
case
modeling
are
too
close
to
the
standard
to
provide
meaningful
conclusions
about
the
area's
likelihood
of
demonstrating
attainment
by
2007
without
local
emission
reduction
measures.

3.8
Calculation
Methodology
for
Relative
Reduction
Factors
and
Future
Design
Values
The
EPA
methodology
calls
for
multiplying
"
current"
year
design
values
by
relative
reduction
factors
(
RRF)
from
a
photochemical
model
in
order
to
estimate
future
design
values.
The
calculation
is
carried
out
for
each
monitor
site
that
measured
ozone
during
the
current
year.
In
addition,
a
screening
calculation
identifies
grid
cells
with
consistently
high
ozone
and
estimates
scaled
design
values
for
these
screening
cells.
The
screening
cells
account
for
any
areas
where
modeled
ozone
is
consistently
high,
but
not
captured
by
the
monitoring
network.
The
attainment
test
passes
if
all
the
future
year
scaled
design
values
are
less
than
85
ppb
(
the
results
are
truncated
to
the
nearest
integer).
Additional
information
on
the
RRF
is
included
in
Appendix
3­
2.
Various
sensitivity
model
runs
were
made
using
the
1999
base
case.
Sensitivity
runs
for
the
2007
future
case
will
be
completed
in
February
2004.
These
include
across­
theboard
precursor
reductions
to
indicate
the
sensitivity
to
reductions
of
VOC,
NOx
and
combinations
of
both.
Also,
zero­
out
modeling
was
performed
using
the
1999
base
case.
Zero­
out
runs
using
the
2007
future
case
will
be
completed
in
February
2004.
Zero­
out
runs
remove
the
anthropogenic
emissions
from
certain
source
areas
to
evaluate
transport
from
other
areas
and
to
establish
the
impact
of
local
emissions.

The
"
current"
year
is
determined
by
comparing
two
design
values;
one
for
the
years
that
straddle
the
year
for
which
the
latest
emission
inventory
was
developed
(
1999)
and
the
other
for
the
year
for
which
attainment
of
the
standard
was
determined
(
2002).
The
current
year
is
the
year
that
has
the
higher
design
value.
A
current
year
is
determined
for
each
monitor
site.
The
current
year
for
the
EAC
CAAP
is
1999
as
shown
in
Table
3.1
Table
3.1
Current
Year
for
Austin
EAC
Monitor
Site
Design
Value
for
1999
(
a)
Design
Value
for
2002
(
b)
Current
year
Design
value
for
current
year
Audubon
89
ppb
80
ppb
1999
89
ppb
Murchison
87
ppb
84
ppb
1999
87
ppb
a.
Design
value
for
1998,
1999
and
2000
b.
Design
value
for
2001,2002
and
2003
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

21
4/
19/
2004
3.9
Base
2007
Model
Results
The
final
results
for
the
base
2007
EI
for
Austin
are
shown
in
Table
3.2.
For
the
EAC
CAAP
the
current
year
was
1999.

Table
3.2
Model
results
for
base
2007
modeling
with
the
September
1999
Episode
Monitor
site
1999
design
value
Relative
reduction
factor
Estimated
design
value
for
2007
*
Attainment
of
the
8­
hour
standard?
Audubon
89
ppb
0.948
84.37
Yes
Murchison
87
ppb
0.948
82.48
Yes
*
Truncate
this
number
to
the
nearest
integer
to
compare
to
the
standard
of
85
ppb.
Any
design
value
less
than
85
ppb
indicates
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.

3.10
Emission
Reduction
Measure
Modeling
Results
T
he
modeling
used
various
combinations
of
emission
reduction
measures
or
strategies.
Each
strategy
was
applied
to
the
base
2007
EI;
the
resulting
EI
was
modeled.
Then
the
RRF
for
each
control
strategy
at
each
monitor
site
was
determined.
It
was
multiplied
by
the
appropriate
current
year
design
value
to
estimate
the
corresponding
design
value
for
2007.
The
list
of
modeled
emission
reduction
measures
is
in
Table
3.3
(
see
Chapter
5
for
a
discussion
of
each
measure),
the
summary
of
the
measures
is
in
Table
3.4
and
the
modeling
results
for
each
measure
are
shown
in
Table
3.5.

Table
3.3
List
of
Modeled
Emission
Reduction
Measures
in
MSA
Emission
Reduction
Measure
NOx
Reductions
tpd
VOC
Reductions
tpd
I/
M
2.89
3.84
Heavy
Duty
Vehicle
Idling
Restrictions
0.19
0
Commute
Emission
Reduction
Program
0.27
0.30
Low
Emission
Gas
Cans
0
2.60
Stage
I
Vapor
Recovery
0
4.88
Degreasing
Controls
0
6.39
Autobody
Refinishing
0
0.05
Cut
Back
Asphalt
0
1.03
Low
Reid
Vapor
Pressure
Gas
0
2.87
TERP
2.0
0
Power
Plant
Reductions
7.08
0
TERMs
0.72
0.83
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

22
4/
19/
2004
Table
3.4
List
of
Emission
Reduction
Measures
Modeled
for
Each
Strategy
Strategy
Model
Run
Emission
Reduction
Measure
1
I/
M
(
three
counties)
only
2
Final
All
State
Assisted
Measures
(
with
TERMs)
but
without
I/
M
in
Hays
County,
without
low
Reid
Vapor
Pressure
gasoline
and
without
commute
reductions.
3
TERP
only
(
modeled
at
2
tpd
reduction)
All
measures
with
VOC
reductions
and
no
NOx
reductions
Low
Emission
Gas
Cans
Stage
I
Vapor
Recovery
Degreasing
Controls
Autobody
Refinishing
Cut
Back
Asphalt
4
Low
Reid
Vapor
Pressure
Gasoline
5
Point
Sources
Only
Table
3.5
Model
Results
for
Emission
Reduction
Measures
Applied
to
Base
2007
EI
with
the
September
1999
Episode
Control
Strategy
Run
Monitor
site
1999
design
value
Relative
reduction
factor
Estimated
design
value
for
2007
*
Attainment
of
the
8­
hour
standard?
Audubon
89
ppb
0.944
84.02
Yes
1
Murchison
87
ppb
0.944
83.13
Yes
Audubon
89
ppb
0.937
83.39
Yes
2
Final
Murchison
87
ppb
0.934
81.26
Yes
Audubon
89
ppb
0.946
84.19
Yes
3
Murchison
87
ppb
0.947
82.39
Yes
Audubon
89
ppb
0.946
84.19
Yes
4
Murchison
87
ppb
0.945
82.22
Yes
5
Audubon
89
ppb
0.944
84.02
Yes
Murchison
87
ppb
0.943
82.04
Yes
*
Truncate
this
number
to
the
nearest
integer
to
compare
to
the
standard
of
85
ppb.
Any
design
value
less
than
85
ppb
indicates
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

23
4/
19/
2004
CHAPTER
4:
DATA
ANALYSIS
The
design
values
for
the
years
that
straddle
1999
were
used
as
the
"
current"
year
to
estimate
the
design
value
for
2007.
These
design
values
were
the
highest
measured
in
the
Austin
area
at
both
monitors.
More
recent
monitoring
provides
lower
design
values
and
the
latest
design
values
for
the
years
straddling
2002
do
not
exceed
the
standard.
Since
the
worst­
case
design
values
were
used
in
this
CAAP,
it
is
important
to
put
these
values
into
perspective.
An
analysis
of
historical
trends
of
monitoring
in
the
Austin
area
indicates
that
a
design
value
of
89
ppb
is
the
highest
ever
measured.
Analysis
of
potential
8­
hour
ozone
design
values
in
Austin,
based
on
historical
monitoring
data,
indicated
that
the
most
likely
2003
design
value
(
i.
e.,
for
the
years
2002­
2004)
is
87
ppb.
Analysis
of
the
various
metrics
related
to
the
meteorological
conditions
indicates
that
the
conditions
favorable
to
formation
of
high
ozone
occurred
more
often
than
normal
during
1999
and
less
often
than
normal
in
2001.
The
selection
of
the
"
current"
year
is
based
on
the
date
of
the
most
recent
emissions
inventory.
If
an
emissions
inventory
were
prepared
for
2002,
then
the
current
year
would
be
2002,
which
has
a
maximum
design
value
of
84
ppb.

4.1
Trends
in
Ozone
Monitoring
Data
in
Austin
TCEQ
(
previously
the
Texas
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Commission
and
prior
to
that
the
Texas
Air
Control
Board)
has
monitored
ozone
concentrations
at
two
sites
in
Austin
since
1983.
The
site
at
Murchison
has
not
moved,
but
the
other
site
was
moved
in
1997
to
the
current
site
named
Audubon.
To
be
consistent,
these
analyses
will
be
limited
to
the
time
period
beginning
in
1997
when
ozone
concentrations
were
measured
at
both
the
Murchison
and
Audubon
sites.

Since
the
EAC
addresses
8­
hour
ozone
concentrations,
these
analyses
will
be
performed
for
8­
hour
time
periods.
A
number
of
analysis
metrics
can
be
used
to
evaluate
trends
in
ozone
concentrations.
Among
these
are
the
highest
concentration,
the
second
highest
concentration,
the
third
highest
concentration
and
the
fourth
highest
concentration.
At
each
monitor
the
annual
8­
hour
ozone
design
value
is
calculated
over
three
consecutive
years.
It
is
the
average
of
the
fourth
highest
daily
8­
hour
ozone
concentration
measured
over
each
of
the
three
consecutive
years.
The
area­
wide
design
value
is
the
highest
of
the
design
values
for
all
of
the
monitors
in
the
area.
The
average
for
the
design
value
is
truncated
and
if
that
value
is
greater
than
or
equal
to
85
ppb,
the
standard
is
exceeded.

Figure
4.1
shows
the
four
highest
8­
hour
ozone
concentrations
and
the
design
values
at
the
Audubon
monitoring
site
from
1997
to
2003.
Figure
4.2
shows
those
same
values
for
the
Murchison
monitoring
site.
Figure
4.3
shows
the
design
values
for
Audubon
and
Murchison
and
the
area
design
values
from
1997
to
2002.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

24
4/
19/
2004
Figure
4.1.
Four
Highest
8­
hour
Ozone
Concentrations
and
Design
Values
(
ppb)
at
the
Audubon
monitoring
station
for
the
1997
through
2003
period.

70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
8­
Hr
Ozone
Conc,
ppb.
highest
2nd
high
3rd
high
4th
high
Design
value
Figure
4.2.
Four
Highest
8­
hour
Ozone
Concentrations
and
Design
Values
(
ppb)
at
the
Murchison
monitoring
station
for
the
1997
through
2003
period.

70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
8­
Hr
Ozone
Conc,
ppb.

highest
2nd
high
3rd
high
4th
high
Design
value
Figure
4.3.
Design
Values
for
Austin
Area
Austin
Area
8­
Hour
Ozone
Design
Values,
ppb
75
80
85
90
95
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
8­
Hr
Ozone
Conc,
ppb.

Murchison
Design
Value
Audubon
Design
Value
Area
Wide
Design
Value
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

25
4/
19/
2004
4.2
Analysis
of
Potential
8­
Hour
Ozone
Design
Values
for
2003
in
Austin
Based
on
Historical
Monitoring
Data
The
ozone
concentration
measured
at
a
monitoring
site
depends
on
a
number
of
factors,
including
local
emission
of
ozone
precursors,
regional
transport
of
ozone
and
meteorological
conditions.
A
conceptual
model
developed
for
the
Austin
area
correlates
periods
of
high
ozone
with
the
local
meteorological
conditions
and
associated
largescale
weather
patterns.
But
this
conceptual
model
cannot
be
used
to
predict
the
meteorology
that
will
be
correlated
with
high
ozone
in
future
years,
nor
does
it
provide
a
forecast
component
to
predict
the
frequency
of
meteorological
conditions
associated
with
high
ozone
in
the
past.

Ozone
formation
is
also
correlated
with
emissions
of
ozone
precursors.
It
is
sensitive
to
the
daily
temporal
and
spatial
variation
of
these
emissions.
It
is
not
possible
to
predict
the
future
daily
emissions
that
may
cause
high
ozone.
In
general,
it
is
appropriate
to
assume
that
the
average
daily
emissions
for
the
next
year
will
be
similar
to
those
of
the
previous
year,
but
it
is
not
possible
to
predict
future
daily
emissions
with
much
precision.

Because
it
is
difficult
to
predict
ozone
concentrations
in
future
years
based
on
monitored
concentrations
in
past
years,
we
cannot
use
trend
analysis
to
predict
the
fourth
highest
concentration
for
2004.
However,
we
can
assume
that
ozone
concentrations
for
2004
are
likely
to
be
similar
to
those
measured
in
a
previous
year.
In
fact,
we
can
ask
the
question,
if
2004
were
similar
to
each
year
during
the
1997
through
2003
period,
what
would
the
2003
design
value
be?

Historical
data
collected
at
the
Audubon
and
Murchison
monitoring
stations
during
the
1997
through
2003
monitoring
period
have
been
used
to
estimate
the
2003
8­
hour
design
value
for
the
Austin
area.
This
analysis
assumes
that
2004
is
equally
likely
to
be
similar
to
any
year
between
the
1997
through
2003
period.
At
Audubon
the
2003
design
value
is
likely
to
be
below
the
85
ppb
standard
and
between
80
ppb
and
87
ppb.
Using
the
average
of
the
fourth
highest
values,
the
design
value
for
2003
would
be
82
ppb.
In
only
one
case
of
the
seven
cases
would
the
design
value
exceed
83
ppb.
Similarly,
at
Murchison
the
2003
design
value
is
likely
to
be
above
the
85
ppb
standard
and
between
83
ppb
and
88
ppb.
Using
the
average
of
the
fourth
highest
values
between
1997
and
2003
the
design
value
for
2003
would
be
87
ppb.
Five
of
the
seven
cases
would
have
a
design
value
of
85
or
higher.
However,
the
reader
is
cautioned
that
this
is
a
rather
simplistic
analysis
guided
by
the
available
historical
ozone
monitoring
data.
In
2004,
the
emissions,
and/
or
the
large­
scale
weather
patterns
that
determine
the
frequency
of
occurrence
of
daily
local
meteorological
conditions
that
favor
high
ozone
concentrations,
could
be
quite
different
from
any
previous
year.

4.3
Meteorological
Conditions
for
the
1999
Episode
A
conceptual
model
describes
the
local
meteorological
conditions
and
associated
largescale
weather
patterns
that
are
associated
with
periods
of
high
ozone.
Once
the
meteorological
conditions
that
are
most
frequently
associated
with
high
ozone
days
are
identified,
then
representative
periods
can
be
selected
and
modeled
with
a
photochemical
model.
A
synoptic
cycle
is
a
period
of
a
number
of
consecutive
days
for
which
the
meteorological
conditions
fit
into
a
pattern
that
is
repeated.
A
set
of
days
that
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

26
4/
19/
2004
are
typical
of
high
ozone
and
that
cover
a
synoptic
cycle
is
called
an
episode.
Typically
an
episode
has
two
or
more
days
when
the
measured
ozone
is
high
and
close
in
magnitude
to
the
design
value
for
the
area.
In
order
to
minimize
the
impacts
of
the
initial
conditions
for
the
model,
the
episode
will
include
two
or
three
initialization
days
prior
to
the
first
day
when
high
ozone
was
measured.
A
conceptual
model
for
the
Austin
area
has
been
prepared
and
it
indicates
that
the
period
from
September
13
to
20,
1999
is
a
representative
episode
to
use
for
photochemical
modeling
and
includes
a
complete
synoptic
ozone
cycle.
This
episode
is
representative
of
approximately
80
%
of
the
days
when
8­
hour
ozone
concentrations
exceed
the
standard.

On
page
eight
of
EPAs
"
Frequently
Asked
Questions
on
Implementing
the
DRAFT
8­
Hour
Ozone
Modeling
Guidance
to
Support
Attainment
Demonstrations
for
Early
Action
Compact
(
EAC)"
there
is
a
reference
to
EPA's
"
Recommended
Approach
for
Performing
Mid­
course
Review
of
SIP's
To
Meet
the
1­
Hour
NAAQS
For
Ozone."
The
referenced
document
provides
guidance
on
approaches
that
can
be
used
to
evaluate
the
meteorological
conditions
that
occurred
in
2001,
2002
and
2003
compared
to
those
that
occurred
in
the
past.
The
following
metrics
that
relate
to
8­
hour
ozone
measurements
were
recommended:
 
annual
number
of
exceedances
of
the
standard,
 
highest
daily
concentration
for
each
year,
 
second
highest
daily
concentration
for
each
year,
 
fourth
highest
daily
concentration
for
each
year
and
 
design
value
for
each
three
year
period.

The
values
for
each
of
these
metrics
from
1997
to
2003
are
shown
in
Table
4.1
Table
4.1.
Values
for
Meteorological
Monitoring
Metrics
in
the
Austin
Area.

1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Average
2001,2002,
2003
Number
of
days
 
85
ppb*
6
6
19
11
1
5
6
4
High
ozone,
ppb*
96
95
103
93
85
100
92
92.3
2nd
High
ozone,
ppb*
91
92
101
89
82
96
87
88.3
4th
High
ozone,
ppb**
87
88
99
88
80
91
84
85.0
Design
value,
ppb**
89
89
88
85
84
*
All
monitors
**
Murchison
and
Audubon
only
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

27
4/
19/
2004
The
seven­
year
average
for
the
annual
high,
second
high
and
fourth
high
is
about
3
ppb
higher
than
the
corresponding
averages
for
2001,
2002
and
2003.
The
average
design
value
is
87
ppb
compared
to
the
2002
design
value
of
84
ppb.
It
is
clear
from
these
data
that
the
values
for
the
above
metrics
for
2001,
2002
and
2003
are
lower
than
normally
observed
over
the
period
from
1997
to
2003.
In
2001
the
values
for
each
of
these
metrics
was
the
lowest
during
the
period
from
1997
to
2003,
indicating
that
the
meteorology
or
other
conditions
this
year
were
not
as
conducive
for
ozone
formation
as
for
other
years
during
the
analysis
period.
Using
a
design
value
including
data
from
the
year
2001
may
yield
an
estimated
design
value
for
2007
that
would
be
lower
than
normally
observed
in
the
area.
To
compensate
for
this
difference
in
meteorology
for
2001,
all
of
these
metrics
indicate
that
the
2002
design
value
of
84
ppb
should
be
increased
to
87
ppb
for
an
appropriate
design
value
for
estimating
the
design
value
for
2007.

Furthermore,
these
data
suggest
that
1999
was
a
year
when
the
meteorology
was
conducive
to
ozone
formation
more
often
than
in
any
of
the
other
years
during
the
analysis
period.
Thus,
it
would
follow
that
use
of
a
design
value
using
the
data
from
1999
would
yield
an
estimated
design
value
for
2007
that
would
be
much
higher
than
normally
observed
in
the
area.

4.4
Selection
of
Current
Year
for
Estimating
Future
Year
Design
Values
The
emissions
from
2007
and
from
the
"
current
year"
are
modeled
to
develop
a
relative
reduction
factor.
The
RRF
is
the
relative
response
of
the
model
to
the
changes
in
the
emission
inventory
between
the
current
year
and
2007.
To
estimate
the
design
value
for
2007,
the
RRF
is
multiplied
by
the
current
year's
design
value.

Based
upon
the
EPA
guidance
and
the
data
shown
in
figure
4.3,
the
current
year
is
1999
with
design
values
at
Audubon
of
89
ppb
and
at
Murchison
of
87
ppb.
If
Austin
were
to
prepare
an
emissions
inventory
for
2002,
then
the
current
year
would
be
2002
with
design
values
at
Audubon
of
80
ppb
and
at
Murchison
of
84
ppb.

4.5
Transport
A
zero­
out
modeling
simulation
is
one
in
which
emissions
from
a
region
of
interest
are
eliminated
(
or
"
zeroed­
out")
in
order
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
regional
transport
from
one
urban
area
to
another.
A
zero­
out
modeling
run
was
performed
for
each
of
the
eight
ozone
nonattainment
and
near­
nonattainment
areas
in
eastern
Texas.
The
nonattainment
areas
include
Houston/
Galveston,
Beaumont/
Port
Arthur,
and
Dallas/
Fort
Worth.
The
near­
nonattainment
areas
include
Austin,
Victoria,
San
Antonio,
Corpus
Christi,
and
Tyler/
Longview/
Marshall.
In
each
zero­
out
run,
anthropogenic
emissions
of
VOC,
NOx
and
CO
were
eliminated
from
one
of
the
eight
urban
sub­
regions,
referred
to
as
the
source
area,
and
then
the
impacts
were
evaluated
within
the
sub­
region
itself,
as
well
as
within
the
remaining
seven
analysis
areas.
Two
additional
zero­
out
modeling
runs
were
performed
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
transport
from
selected
point
sources
within
the
state
of
Texas,
as
well
as
from
all
sources
located
outside
of
the
state
of
Texas.
In
the
first
of
these
runs,
all
anthropogenic
point
source
emissions
occurring
outside
of
the
eight
source
areas,
but
within
the
state
of
Texas,
were
zeroed­
out.
In
the
second,
all
anthropogenic
emissions
within
the
state
of
Texas
were
eliminated.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

28
4/
19/
2004
Peak
ozone
concentrations
for
the
Austin
area
from
the
Base
Case
with
the
interim
2007
projected
emission
inventory
ranged
from
88
ppb
to
98
ppb
for
the
8­
hour
average.
Peak
zero­
out
concentrations
ranged
from
58
ppb
to
72
ppb
for
the
8­
hour
average.

Similar
zero
out
modeling
was
performed
with
the
September
13­
20,
1999
episode
with
the
2007
emissions
inventory
used
for
the
EAC.
The
peak
8­
hour
ozone
values
ranged
from
77
ppb
to
92
ppb.
Peak
zero­
out
concentrations
ranged
from
70
ppb
to
85
ppb
for
the
8­
hour
average.
Additional
similar
zero
out
modeling
was
performed
using
a
much
older
2007
emissions
inventory.
The
episodes
modeled
were
September
5­
11,
1993,
June
18­
22,
1995
and
June
30­
July
4,
1996.

Table
4.2
shows
the
number
of
days
each
area
made
a
significant
impact
(
difference
of
greater
than
or
equal
to
2
ppb)
on
the
Austin
area
for
each
of
these
episodes.
This
indicates
that
there
is
a
significant
amount
of
transport
from
these
areas
into
the
Austin
area.

Table
4.2
Summary
of
Number
of
Days
that
Emissions
from
Other
Areas
are
Transported
into
the
Austin
Area
Source
Area
Number
of
days
significant
impact
on
Austin
Sep
13­
20,
1999
Jul
9­
12,
1995
1993,
1995
and
1996
Number
of
days
modeled
6
4
11
Houston/
Galveston
5
3
10
Beaumont/
Port
Arthur
5
1
5
Dallas/
Fort
Worth
0
0
3
Tyler/
Longview/
Marshal
3
0
4
Victoria
2
4
5
San
Antonio
3
4
6
Corpus
Christi
2
2
0
Another
analysis
that
can
be
performed
with
the
zero­
out
modeling
is
to
determine
the
maximum
concentration
before
the
zero­
out,
and
the
maximum
concentration
after
the
zero­
out,
of
local
emissions.
This
quantifies
the
difference
in
maximums
that
the
local
emissions
make
and
also
provides
insight
into
the
magnitude
of
the
ozone
in
the
area
that
is
due
to
transport.
A
summary
of
these
data
for
the
September
13­
20,
1999
episode
is
shown
in
Table
4.3
Table
4.3.
Impact
of
zero­
out
of
Austin
anthropogenic
emissions
on
the
Austin
Area.

Episode
day
Maximum
Concentration
before
zero
of
Austin
Emissions,
ppb
Maximum
Concentration
after
zero
of
Austin
Emissions,
ppb
9/
15/
99
77
70
9/
16/
99
75
70
9/
17/
99
82
79
9/
18/
99
80
72
9/
19/
99
83
78
9/
20/
99
88
70
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

29
4/
19/
2004
Figure
4.4
shows
average
result
for
the
September
1999
episode.

Austin
Area
8­
hour
Ozone
Concentrations
0
20
40
60
80
Total
conc
Transport
conc
Ozone
conc,
ppb.

1999
2007
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

30
4/
19/
2004
CHAPTER
5:
EMISSION
REDUCTION
STRATEGIES
5.1
Introduction
Various
emission
reduction
techniques
can
effectively
reduce
ozone
precursors.
Emission
reduction
methods
employed
nationally
(
e.
g.,
automotive
emission
reductions),
statewide
and
regionally
(
emission
reductions
from
EGUs)
benefit
the
Austin
area,
but
more
reductions
are
needed
to
ensure
clean
air
for
the
region.
The
EAC
provides
the
mechanism
for
implementation
of
local
emission
reduction
techniques.

5.2
Federal
Reduction
Strategies
The
CAAP
projects
emission
reductions
from
the
following
federal
initiatives:
Federal
Area
Source
Measures:
 
Reformulated
Architectural
and
Industrial
Maintenance
Coatings
o
40
CFR
Part
59
Subpart
D
National
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Standards
for
Architectural
Coatings
 
Auto
Body
Refinishing
o
40
CFR
Part
59
Subpart
B
National
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emission
Standards
for
Automobile
Refinish
Coatings
Federal
On­
Road
Measures:
 
Tier
2
Vehicle
Emission
Standard
o
40
CFR
Parts
80,
85,
and
86
Air
Pollution;
Tier
2
Motor
Vehicle
Emission
Standards
and
Gasoline
Sulphur
Control
Requirements;
Diesel
Fuel
Quality
Controls
 
Heavy­
duty
Diesel
Engine
Rule
o
40
CFR
Parts
85
and
86
Emissions
Control,
Air
Pollution
from
2004
and
Later
Model
Year
Heavy­
Duty
Highway
Engines
and
Vehicles;
Light­
Duty
On­
Board
Diagnostics
Requirements
 
National
Low
Emission
Vehicle
Standards
o
40
CFR
Parts
9,
85,
and
86
Control
of
Air
Pollution
form
New
Motor
Vehicles
and
New
Motor
Vehicle
Engines:
State
Commitments
to
National
Low
Emission
Vehicle
Program
Federal
Non­
Road
Measures:
 
Small
Spark­
Ignition
Handheld
Engines
o
40
CFR
Parts
90
and
91
Phase
2
Emission
Standards
for
New
Nonroad
Spark­
Ignition
Handheld
Engines
at
or
Below
19
Kilowatts
and
Minor
Amendments
to
Emission
Requirements
Applicable
to
Small
Spark­
Ignition
Engines
and
Marine
Spark­
Ignition
Engines.
(
FR
24268,
Vol.
65,
No.
80,
April
25,
2000)
 
Tier
3
heavy­
duty
diesel
equipment
o
40
CFR
Part
89
Control
of
Emissions
from
New
and
In­
Use
Non­
Road
Compression­
Ignition
Engines
(
FR
56968,
Vol.
63,
No.
205,
October
23,
1998)
 
Locomotives
o
40
CFR
Parts
85,
89,
and
92
Emission
Standards
for
Locomotives
and
Locomotive
Engines
(
FR
18978,
Vol.
63,
No.
73,
April
16,
1998)
 
Compression
ignition
standards
o
40
CFR
Part
89
Control
of
Emissions
from
New
and
In­
Use
Non­
Road
Compression­
Ignition
Engines
 
Emissions
from
Non­
Road
Large
Spark­
Ignition
Engines
and
Recreational
Engines
o
CFR
Part
89
Control
of
Emissions
from
New
and
In­
Use
Non­
Road
Compression­
Ignition
Engines
(
Marine
and
Land­
Based);
Final
Rule
(
FR
68242,
Vol.
57,
No.
217,
November
8,
2002)
 
Recreational
Marine
standard
o
CFR
Part
89
Control
of
Emissions
from
New
and
In­
Use
Non­
Road
Compression­
Ignition
Engines
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

31
4/
19/
2004
Federal
Point
Source
Measures:
 
Alcoa
Inc.
Consent
Decree
5.3
State
and
Regional
Reduction
Strategies
The
CAAP
projects
emission
reductions
from
the
following
statewide
initiatives:
State
Area
Source
Measures:
Non­
Road
Large
Spark­
Ignition
Engines
 
30
TAC
114,
Subchapter
I,
Division
3
Non­
Road
Large
Spark­
Ignition
Engines
HB2914
­
Grandfathered
Pipeline
Facilities
 
30
TAC
116,
Chapter
H,
Division
2
Small
Business
Stationary
Source
Permits,
Pipeline
Facilities
Permits,
And
Existing
Facility
Permits
Gas­
fired
Water
Heaters,
Small
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
30
TAC
117,
Chapter
D,
Division
1
Water
Heaters,
Small
Boilers,
And
Process
Heaters
State
On­
Road
Source
Measures:
Clean
Gasoline
 
30
TAC
114,
Subchapter
H,
Division
1
Gasoline
Volatility
Stage
1
Vapor
Recovery
 
30
TAC
115,
Subchapter
C,
Division
2
Filling
Of
Gasoline
Storage
Vessels
(
Stage
I)
For
Motor
Vehicle
Fuel
Dispensing
Facilities
State
Non­
Road
Source
Measures:
Texas
Low
Emission
Diesel
 
30
TAC
114,
Subchapter
H,
Division
2
Low
Emission
Diesel
State
Point
Source
Measures:
Cement
Kiln
NOx
limits
 
30
TAC
117,
Subchapter
B,
Division
4
Cement
Kiln
SB5
 
TERP
 
30
TAC
114
Subchapter
K,
Division
3
Diesel
Emissions
Reduction
Incentive
program
for
On­
Road
and
Non­
Road
Vehicles
SB7
­
Electric
Utility
Deregulation
 
30
TAC
116
Subchapter
I,
Division
Electric
Generating
Facility
Permits
SB766
­
VERP
&
MPP
for
Grand
fathered
Facilities
 
30
TAC
116
Subchapter
H,
Division
4
Voluntary
Emission
Reduction
Permits
HB2912
­
Grandfathered
Permitting
Requirements
 
30
TAC
116
Control
Of
Air
Pollution
By
Permits
For
New
Construction
Or
Modification
Electric
Generating
Facilities
NOx
Emission
Rules
for
boilers
&
gas
turbines
(
EASTNOx)
 
30
TAC
117,
Subchapter
B,
Division
2
Utility
Electric
Generation
In
East
And
Central
Texas
5.4
Local
Strategies
5.4.1
Introduction
The
June
EAC
milestone
identified
and
described
potential
local
emission
reduction
measures.
The
milestone
report,
and
subsequent
revisions,
organizes
the
measure
into
two
groups.
The
State
Assisted
Measures
would
apply
to
all
or
most
jurisdictions
in
the
A/
RR
MSA.
1
The
Locally
Implemented
Measures
were
self­
selected
by
the
EAC
signatories,
with
each
encouraged
to
implement
at
least
three
in
addition
to
continuing
1
Per
the
Early
Action
Compact
document,
signed
December
18,
2002,
"
All
control
measures
will
be
incorporated
by
the
state
into
the
State
Implementation
Plan
and
submitted
to
the
EPA
for
review
and
approval."
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

32
4/
19/
2004
O3
Flex
commitments.
Jurisdictions
could
choose
to
enhance
an
existing
O3
Flex
measure.

5.4.2
State
Assisted
Measures
State
Assisted
Measures
require
state
regulations
or
actions
for
implementation
and/
or
enforcement.
A
chart
summarizing
these
measures
appears
below,
with
full
descriptions
following
the
chart.
They
will
be
implemented
no
later
than
December
31,
2005,
unless
otherwise
indicated.
The
semi­
annual
review
will
track
and
document
all
State
Assisted
Measures.
In
accordance
with
the
EAC
agreement,
these
emission
reduction
measures
are
specific,
quantified,
permanent
and
enforceable.
All
emission
reduction
estimates
provided
below
are
specific
to
the
2007
evaluation
year.
The
TCEQ
rules
listed
in
this
section
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
tnrcc.
state.
tx.
us/
oprd/
rules/
indxpdf2.
html.

Chart
5.4.2
CAC
Approved
State
Assisted
Measures
Emission
Reduction
Measures
Comments
A1
Inspection
and
Maintenance
(
I&
M)
Gets
the
biggest
reductions
in
on­
road
emissions,
our
major
emissions
source.
Reduces
both
NOx
and
VOC.
Also
reduces
toxics,
some
of
which
are
known
carcinogens.
Well
­
defined
state
program
with
a
high
degree
of
certainty
regarding
quantified
reductions,
implementation
and
enforcement.
Spreads
the
cost
of
reductions
to
the
entire
vehicle
owning
public,
which
results
in
a
reasonable
per
capita
cost
(
expected
additional
$
20
added
to
safety
inspection).
Counties
may
elect
t
o
participate
in
the
Low
Income
Repair
Assistance
Program
(
LIRAP).
Specific
purpose
waivers
are
also
available.
Cost
of
inspection
equipment
reimbursed
through
fees.

A2
Idling
Restrictions
on
Heavy­
Duty
Diesels
(
14,000
lbs
or
more)
Reduces
on­
road
NOx
emissions,
as
well
as
PM
and
toxic
emissions,
some
of
which
are
known
carcinogens.
Results
in
fuel
savings.
Addresses
citizens
concerns
re
extended
idling
in
residential
areas.
Most
preferred
measure
in
CAF
Public
Opinion
Survey.
Would
be
enforced
by
local
law
enforcement,
if
TCEQ
grants
the
authority
to
do
so.

A3
Commute
Emission
Reduction
Program
Reduces
on­
road
NOx
and
VOC
emissions.
Designed
to
allow
employers
choice
and
flexibility
in
meeting
requirements.
May
help
reduce
peak
hour
weekday
congestion
and
encourage
business
practices
that
improve
air
quality.

A4
Low
Emission
Gas
Cans
Reduces
area
source
VOC
emissions.
TCEQ
is
working
on
a
state
rule
that
would
require
all
gas
cans
sold
or
for
sale,
in
all
or
part
of
the
state,
(
including
the
MSA)
to
be
low
emission
cans.

A5
Stage
I
Vapor
Recovery
Requirement
Change
Reduces
area
source
VOC
emissions.
Would
lower
the
exemption
in
the
current
TCEQ
rule
from
under
125,000
gallons
a
month
to
under
25,000
gallons
a
month.
Local
information
indicates
that
many
stations
already
have
the
equipment
in
place.

A6
Degreasing
Controls
Reduces
area
source
VOC
emissions.
Would
revise
TCEQ
rule
that
applies
to
selected
nonattainment
and
other
counties
to
apply
in
the
MSA.

A7
Autobody
Refinishing
Controls
Reduces
area
source
VOC
emissions.
Would
revise
TCEQ
rule
that
applies
to
selected
nonattainment
and
other
counties
to
apply
in
the
MSA.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

33
4/
19/
2004
A8
Cut
Back
Asphalt
Reduces
area
source
VOC
emissions.
Would
revise
TCEQ
rule
that
applies
to
selected
nonattainment
and
other
counties
to
apply
in
the
MSA.
TCEQ
rule
includes
an
exemption
for
patching
A9
Low
Reid
Vapor
Gas
Reduces
on­
road
VOC
emissions.
Flint
Hills,
the
region's
primary
fuel
supplier
has
expressed
concerns
with
this
measure
in
light
of
recent
fuel
improvements
that
they
have
made.
We
continue
to
work
with
Flint
Hills
to
define
a
mutually
acceptable
measure.

A10
BACT
and
Point
Source
Emissions
Balancing
Will
manage
future
point
source
growth.
Maintains
current
BACT
requirements
and
adds
emissions
balancing
(
offset)
requirements.
Modified
defined
as
per
TCEQ
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
rules.

A11
Petroleum
Dry
Cleaning
Mitigates
growth
in
petroleum
dry
cleaning
emissions.
Would
revise
TCEQ
rule
that
applies
to
selected
nonattainment
and
other
counties
to
apply
in
the
MSA.

A12
Texas
Emission
Reduction
Program
(
TERP)
A
state
Emission
Reduction
Incentive
Grants
Program
which
reduces
on
and
off
road
NOx.
Requires
local
participation
through
grant
applications
and
project
implementation.
TCEQ
has
suggested
that
a
2
ton
per
day
NOx
reduction
would
be
a
reasonable
commitment
for
this
measure.

A13
Power
Plant
Reductions
Reduces
local
power
plant
NOx
emissions
below
state
and
federal
mandated
levels.
Austin
Energy,
LCRA
and
UT
have
indicated
a
willingness
to
proceed
with
these
reductions.
The
CAC
approved
these
recommendations
by
vote
on
January
14,
2004.

5.4.2.
A1
Inspection
and
Maintenance
(
I/
M)
Program
Program
Summary/
Explanation
NOTE:
[
This
I/
M
program
is
designed
for
use
in
the
MSA's
three
urbanized
counties
(
Hays,
Travis
and
Williamson).
Implementation
is
contingent
upon
approval
from
the
commissioners'
court
of
each
county
and
from
the
city
council
of
the
largest
city
in
each
county.
The
commissioners'
courts
in
Hays,
Travis
and
Williamson
Counties,
in
unanimous
votes,
have
given
preliminary
approval;
the
city
councils
in
Austin
and
Round
Rock,
in
unanimous
votes,
have
given
preliminary
approval.
The
City
of
San
Marcos
has
voted
(
four
to
two,
with
one
council
member
absent)
to
delete
I/
M
from
the
draft
list
of
recommended
measures.
The
CAC
has
requested
that
the
City
of
San
Marcos
commit
to
alternative
measures
for
on­
road
emissions
reductions.
In
a
letter
dated
March
9,
2004,
Mayor
Habingreither
indicated
San
Marcos
would
implement
an
alternative
plan
involving
propane
fuel
and
propane­
fueled
vehicles.
These
measures
would
replace
the
reductions
lost
to
Hays
County
because
of
the
decision
by
the
San
Marcos
City
Council.
The
plan
will
be
revised
when
the
alternative
measures
are
finalized.
The
following
summary
describes
the
program
as
originally
intended;
final
modeling
will
include
only
Travis
and
Williamson
Counties.]

The
I/
M
program
requires
all
subject
gasoline
vehicles
2
to
24
years
old
registered
and
primarily
operated
in
the
I/
M
program
counties
(
Hays,
Travis
and
Williamson)
to
undergo
an
annual
emissions
inspection
test
in
conjunction
with
the
annual
safety
inspection.
Emissions
inspection
tests
are
conducted
at
all
safety
inspection
stations.
The
entire
vehicle
safety
and
emissions
inspection
should
be
completed
in
about
20
minutes
from
the
time
the
vehicle
is
driven
into
the
inspection
bay.
If
a
vehicle
fails
the
emissions
inspection
test,
the
items
of
failure
will
be
indicated
on
the
Vehicle
Inspection
Report.
The
vehicle
should
be
repaired
and
returned
to
the
same
inspection
station
with
15
days
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

34
4/
19/
2004
for
a
free
re­
test.
A
passing
emission
inspection
test
(
or
test
waiver)
is
required
in
order
to
renew
vehicle
registration
or
to
receive
a
safety
inspection
sticker.

The
program
does
not
apply
to
motorcycles
or
slow
moving
vehicles,
as
defined
by
Section
547.001,
Transportation
Code.
Test
on
resale
is
required
for
all
vehicles
from
non­
I/
M
program
counties
that
are
sold
and
registered
in
the
I/
M
program
counties.
Per
state
statute,
vehicles
belonging
to
students
at
public
universities,
but
registered
in
non­
I/
M
program
counties,
must
participate
to
receive
campus
parking
privileges.

The
emissions
test
fee
(
set
by
TCEQ)
is
expected
to
be
no
more
than
$
20
in
Hays,
Travis
and
Williamson
Counties.
The
safety
inspection
fee
is
$
12.50,
so
the
combined
inspection
cost
is
not
expected
to
exceed
$
32.50.
Testing
equipment
costs
(
estimated
at
$
15,000
per
station)
are
recouped
through
fee.
The
equipment
includes
the
Two­
Speed
Idle
(
TSI),
the
On­
Board
Diagnostic
(
OBD)
analyzer
testing
system,
gas
cap
tester
and
2­
D
Bar
Code
scanner.

The
OBDII
testing
program
will
be
used
to
test
1996
model
year
and
newer
vehicles.
All
1996
and
newer
vehicles
less
than
14,000
pounds
(
passenger
cars,
pickup
trucks,
sport
utility
vehicles)
are
equipped
with
OBD
systems.
The
OBD
system
monitors
emission
performance
components
to
ensure
that
the
vehicle
runs
as
cleanly
as
possible.
The
system
also
assists
repair
technicians
in
diagnosing
and
fixing
emission­
related
problems.
If
a
problem
is
detected,
the
OBD
system
illuminates
a
"
Check
Engine"
or
"
Service
Engine
Soon"
warning
lamp
on
the
vehicle
instrument
panel
to
alert
the
driver.
The
system
will
store
information
about
the
detected
malfunction
so
that
a
repair
technician
can
accurately
find
and
fix
the
problem
Model
year
1996
and
newer
vehicles
are
required
to
meet
EPA
specifications
for
collection
and
transfer
of
emissions
control
data
during
each
driving
cycle.
The
Diagnostic
Link
Connector
(
DLC)
cable
on
the
emissions
test
analyzer
is
hooked
up
to
the
DLC
located
in
the
vehicle.
When
the
vehicle's
OBD
system
has
checked
the
emissions
control
systems
and
detected
a
problem
with
the
vehicle,
this
information
is
stored
in
the
vehicle's
on­
board
computer.
The
OBD
test
transmits
this
data
to
the
analyzer
and
the
vehicle
will
fail
the
inspection.
The
inspection
report
will
indicate
which
emissions
control
systems
were
checked
and
display
the
description
of
the
fault
codes
retrieved
from
the
vehicle.

The
Two­
Speed
Idle
testing
program
will
be
used
to
test
1995
model
year
and
older
vehicles.
The
TSI
test
uses
a
tailpipe
probe
exhaust
gas
analyzer
to
measure
VOC
and
CO
while
the
vehicle
is
idling
at
a
low
and
a
high
rate.

The
I/
M
program
includes
a
high
emitter
program
to
identify
vehicles
that
are
significantly
exceeding
federal
vehicle
emission
standards.
On­
road
remote
sensing
equipment
will
be
used
to
identify
high­
emitting
vehicles
in
the
three
I/
M
program
counties
or
those
commuting
from
contiguous
counties.
The
van­
installed
on­
road
testing
equipment
is
strategically
placed
to
capture
auto
emissions
from
single­
lane
traffic
in
an
acceleration
mode.
Vehicles
identified
as
high
emitters
must
be
tested
using
the
age­
appropriate
OBDII
or
TSI
test
within
30
days
of
notification
and
be
repaired,
if
necessary.
A
passing
test
result
(
or
test
waiver)
will
be
needed
to
renew
vehicle
registration.

The
following
waivers
and
extensions
will
be
available
to
all
qualifying
vehicle
owners
through
the
Texas
Department
of
Public
Safety
(
DPS):
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

35
4/
19/
2004
·
Individual
Vehicle
Waiver
 
In
order
to
address
unusual
cases
where
a
vehicle
cannot
meet
emissions
standards,
an
Individual
Vehicle
Waiver
may
be
issued
to
a
vehicle
owner
whose
vehicle
has
failed
its
initial
emissions
inspection
and
reinspection
and
in
which
at
least
$
600
in
emissions
related
repairs
have
been
performed
by
a
registered
repair
facility.

·
Low
Mileage
Waiver
 
A
Low
Mileage
Waiver
may
be
issued
to
a
vehicle
owner
whose
vehicle
has
failed
both
its
initial
emissions
inspection
and
the
reinspection
and
in
which
at
least
$
100
in
emissions
related
repairs
have
been
performed.
The
vehicle
should
have
been
driven
less
than
5,000
miles
in
the
previous
inspection
cycle
and
anticipate
being
driven
fewer
than
5,000
miles
before
the
next
required
safety
inspection.

·
Parts
Availability
Time
Extension
 
A
Parts
Availability
Extension
may
be
issued
for
30,
60
or
90
days
to
a
vehicle
owner
whose
vehicle
fails
the
initial
emission
inspection
and
needs
time
to
locate
necessary
vehicle
emissions
control
parts.

Low
Income
Time
Extension­
A
Low
Income
Time
Extension
may
be
issued
to
a
vehicle
owner
whose
vehicle
has
failed
its
initial
inspection
and
re­
inspection,
and
the
applicant's
adjusted
gross
income
is
at
or
below
the
federal
poverty
level.

Counties
that
implement
a
vehicle
emissions
inspection
program
may
elect
to
implement
the
Low
Income
Repair
Assistance,
Retrofit,
and
Accelerated
Vehicle
Retirement
Program
(
LIRAP).
Vehicle
owners
whose
vehicles
fail
the
emissions
inspection
and
who
meet
eligibility
requirements
may
receive
assistance
through
this
program.
The
assistance
can
pay
for
emissions
related
repairs
or
be
used
toward
a
replacement
vehicle
if
they
choose
to
retire
the
vehicle.
The
assistance
program
is
funded
through
a
portion
of
the
emissions
inspection
fee.
The
program
is
administered
through
a
grant
contract
between
TCEQ
and
each
participating
county.
Only
5%
of
the
grant
contract
funds
may
be
used
for
the
administrative
costs
of
the
program.
Assistance
is
limited
to
no
more
than
$
600
for
repairs
or
$
1,000
toward
replacement
of
the
vehicle.

In
order
to
be
eligible
for
LIRAP,
the
vehicle
owner's
total
family
income
must
be
less
than
or
equal
to
twice
the
amount
of
the
Federal
Poverty
Guidelines
for
designated
family
units.
(
At
this
writing,
$
24,240
for
a
family
of
two
and
$
36,800
for
a
family
of
four).
A
vehicle
is
eligible
for
repair
assistance
if
it
failed
the
emissions
inspection
within
30
days
of
application,
is
currently
registered,
and
has
been
registered
in
the
program
area
for
the
two
years
preceding
application,
and
it
passes
the
safety
inspection
portion
of
the
test.
Repairs
must
be
performed
at
a
DPS­
recognized
repair
facility.
Vehicle
retirement
eligibility
requirements
are
the
same
as
for
vehicle
repairs,
except
the
vehicle
must
have
passed
a
safety
inspection
within
15
months
of
the
application.

The
I/
M
program
will
be
applied
in
Travis,
Hays
and
Williamson
Counties.
NOTE:
Periodic
program
evaluations
will
determine
if
any
revisions
or
modifications
are
needed.
If
the
I/
M
Program,
as
implemented,
does
not
achieve
the
desired
effects
or
is
determined
to
be
unnecessary,
any
participating
jurisdiction
can
petition
TCEQ
to
terminate
the
program.

Implementation
Considerations
To
implement
this
measure,
the
I/
M
Program
counties
exercise
the
flexibility
offered
to
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

36
4/
19/
2004
EAC
areas
in
Senate
Bill
1159
and
request
that
TCEQ
adopt
a
rule
including
the
MSA's
I/
M
Program
in
the
state
program.

Program
Participants
Program
participants
are
owners
of
2
to
24
year
old
gasoline
vehicles
<
8,500
lbs.
Gross
vehicle
weight,
safety
inspection
station
owners
and
operators,
vehicle
repair
facilities,
TCEQ,
DPS
and
counties
that
choose
to
administer
(
or
contract
with
another
entity
to
administer)
a
LIRAP
program.

Expected
Reductions
The
I/
M
program
is
expected
to
reduce
NOx
emissions
by
3.19
tons
per
day
and
VOC
emissions
by
4.19
tons
per
day.

Additional
Benefits
The
I/
M
program
will
also
reduce
toxic
emissions,
some
of
which
are
known
carcinogens.
It
will
encourage
proper
vehicle
maintenance,
which
may
result
in
fuel
savings
for
some
vehicle
owners.

5.4.2.
A2
Idling
Restrictions
on
Heavy­
Duty
Diesel
Engines
Program
Summary/
Explanation
This
measure
restricts
engine
idling
of
vehicles
with
a
gross
vehicle
weight
rating
of
more
than
14,000
pounds
to
five
consecutive
minutes.

Exemptions
are
allowed
for
vehicles
with
a
gross
vehicle
weight
rating
of
14,000
pounds
or
less;
that
are
forced
to
remain
motionless
because
of
traffic
conditions
over
which
the
operator
has
no
control;
are
being
used
as
an
emergency
or
law
enforcement
vehicle;
when
the
engine
operation
is
providing
power
for
a
mechanical
operation
other
than
propulsion;
when
engine
operation
is
providing
power
for
multiple
passenger
heating
or
air
conditioning;
when
the
engine
is
being
operated
for
maintenance
or
diagnostic
purposes,
or
when
the
engine
is
being
operated
solely
to
defrost
a
windshield.

Alternative
methods
of
providing
power
to
the
vehicle
are
currently
available.
Truck
stop
electrification
allows
the
vehicle
operator
to
access
electricity
as
a
power
source.
Small
generators,
which
emit
less
and
are
commercially
available,
can
be
used
as
auxiliary
power
sources.

Area
of
Application
This
measure
will
apply
throughout
the
MSA.

Implementation
Considerations
To
implement
this
measure,
the
MSA
requests
TCEQ
adopt
the
measure
through
rulemaking
applicable
in
the
MSA
and
authorize
MSA
county
and
municipality
law
enforcement
agencies,
or
other
county
and
municipality
entities,
to
enforce
the
measure.

Program
Participants
Owners
and
operators
of
heavy
duty
diesel
vehicles,
MSA
county
and
municipality
law
enforcement
agencies
or
designees
Expected
Reductions
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

37
4/
19/
2004
NOx
reductions
of
0.19
tpd
Additional
Benefits
The
measure
will
reduce
both
NOx
and
particulate
matter
(
PM)
emissions.
It
also
reduces
exposure
to
toxic
compounds
associated
with
diesel
fuel
use.
In
addition,
the
measure
will
result
in
fuel
savings.

5.4.2.
A3
Commute
Emission
Reduction
Program
Program
Summary/
Explanation
The
Commute
Emission
Reduction
Program
requires
every
existing
or
future
employer,
public
or
private
sector,
with
200
or
more
employees
per
location
to
submit
a
detailed
plan
to
TCEQ
or
local
designee
that
demonstrates
how
the
employer
will
reduce
the
equivalent
of
their
NOx
and
VOC
commute
related
emissions
by
10%
within
three
years.
Employers
will
set
interim
goals
to
ensure
they
reach
the
10%
goal
within
the
time
frame.
Employers
may
choose
to
reduce
commute
or
any
other
business
related
emissions
that
occur
at
the
location
with
200
or
more
employees
as
long
as
the
aggregate
emissions
reductions
are
equivalent
to
10%
of
their
commute
related
emissions
for
both
NOx
and
VOC.

The
plan
will
include
details
on
how
the
commute
related
emissions
were
calculated,
how
and
when
the
10%
total
emissions
reductions
(
in
any
combination
of
VOC
and/
or
NOx)
will
be
achieved,
as
well
as
how
the
reductions
will
be
maintained
over
time.
Alternative
plans
that
detail
how
the
employer
will
achieve
and
maintain
a
verifiable
employee
commuter
average
vehicle
occupancy
(
AVO)
of
1.2
will
be
accepted.
Verifiable
participation
in
the
CLEAN
AIR
Force's
Clean
Air
Partners
Program
at
a
10%
reduction
level
will
also
be
accepted.

Commute
related
emissions
may
be
calculated
for
locations
with
200
or
more
employees
using
a
baseline
of
the
annual
average
number
of
employees
at
that
location
in
2003,
2004
or
the
expected
annual
average
number
of
employees
for
a
new
employer
location
and
assuming
all
employees
drove
to
work
alone.
For
Clean
Air
Partners,
the
emissions
baseline
for
new
participants
is
either
the
year
they
joined
or
a
baseline
that
is
defined
by
the
Partners
program.

The
annual
average
number
of
employees
multiplied
by
the
average
round
trip
commute
(
22.6
miles)
equals
the
number
of
employee
miles
traveled.
Employee
miles
traveled
multiplied
by
the
MSA's
commute
MOBILE6
emission
factors
for
VOC
and
NOx
equals
the
VOC
and
NOx
commute
emissions.
The
MOBILE6
emission
factors
may
be
for
the
analysis
year,
2007
or
any
other
year
deemed
appropriate
by
the
TCEQ.
The
MSA
average
round
trip
commute
mileage
may
be
used
or
an
employer
may
choose
to
use
employee
specific
round
trip
commute
mileage.
A
calculation
guidance
packet,
including
emission
factors
will
be
developed
and
made
available
to
employers.

All
employers
with
200
or
more
employees
at
a
single
location
will
register
with
TCEQ
or
local
designee
by
December
31,
2004
or
within
60
days
of
beginning
operations
for
new
locations.
All
plans
must
be
submitted
to
TCEQ
or
local
designee
by
March
31,
2005
or
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

38
4/
19/
2004
within
120
days
of
beginning
operations
for
new
locations.
TCEQ
or
local
designee
will
approve
all
plans,
or
inform
the
employer
of
any
plan
deficiencies
by
July
31,
2005
or
within
4
months
of
plan
submittal
for
new
locations.
In
the
event
that
plan
deficiencies
occur,
employers
will
have
60
days
from
the
date
of
notification
of
such
deficiencies
to
revise
and
resubmit
their
plans.
TCEQ
or
local
designee
will
approve
or
reject
the
revised
plan
within
30
days
from
the
date
of
re­
submittal.
Plans
must
be
implemented
no
later
than
December
31,
2005
or
within
1
year
from
the
date
of
registration
for
new
locations.

Employers
will
report
on
the
plan's
implementation
and
results
semi­
annually
in
conjunction
with
the
MSA's
EAC
semi­
annual
report.
Reporting
periods
are
May
1
through
October
31
and
November
1
through
April
30.
Copies
of
the
Commute
Emission
Reduction
Program
report
are
due
to
TCEQ
or
local
designee
and
CAPCO
by
November
30th
and
May
31st
respectively.
In
the
event
that
the
semi­
annual
reports
indicate
that
the
planned
emission
reductions
are
not
being
achieved
and
maintained,
TCEQ
or
local
designee
may
request
that
the
employer
revise
their
plan
accordingly.

In
the
event
TCEQ
designates
program
responsibility
to
a
local
entity,
the
TCEQ
and
EPA
will
make
every
reasonable
effort
to
provide
adequate
funding
for
program
administration.
Both
the
Clean
Air
Partners
Program
and
the
CAMPO
Commute
Solutions
Program
provide
free
tools
and
information
that
may
be
useful
in
complying
with
this
measure.
The
Commute
Solutions
Program
provides
employee
transportation
coordinator
training
and
Commute
Solutions
Fairs
for
alternatives
to
drive­
alone
commutes,
while
Clean
Air
Partners
provides
tools,
expertise
and
experiences
of
member
employers.
Information
on
the
Commute
Solutions
and
Clean
Air
Partners
programs
can
be
found
at
www.
commutesolutions.
com
and
www.
cleanairpartnerstx.
org
.

Area
of
Application
This
measure
will
apply
throughout
the
MSA.

Implementation
Considerations
To
implement
this
measure
the
MSA
requests
that
TCEQ
adopt
a
rule
applying
this
measure
in
the
MSA.
TCEQ
or
their
local
designee
will
be
responsible
for
implementation
and
enforcement
of
the
program.

Program
Participants
All
employers
with
200
or
more
employees
per
location,
TCEQ
(
or
its
designated
local
agent),
Clean
Air
Partners
Program,
CAMPO
Commute
Solutions
Program,
CAPCO
Expected
Reductions
Emission
reductions
from
this
measure
will
not
be
included
in
final
modeling.

Additional
Benefits
Some
workday
rush
hour
congestion
may
be
reduced
if
employers
select
and
implement
commute
emission
reduction
measures.
The
measure
will
also
encourage
business
practices
that
improve
air
quality.

5.4.2.
A4
Low
Emission
Gas
Cans
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

39
4/
19/
2004
Program
Summary/
Explanation
The
TCEQ
is
drafting
a
statewide
rule
to
lower
the
emission
of
VOCs
from
portable
fuel
containers
that
spill,
leak,
and/
or
allow
permeation.
A
Portable
Fuel
Container
Rule
will
reduce
both
the
frequency
and
quantity
of
fuel
that
is
spilled
or
that
leaks
from
portable
fuel
containers.
The
rule
mirrors
California
Air
Resources
Board
regulations
and
will
add
provisions
to
30
TAC
Chapter
115
(
Control
of
Air
Pollution
from
Volatile
Organic
Compounds),
Subchapter
G
(
Consumer­
Related
Sources).
It
will
apply
to
all
portable
fuel
containers
and
spouts
manufactured
for
sale
or
sold
in
Texas.
The
rules
will
set
standards
for
design
requirements
to
prevent
overfills
of
receiving
tanks
and
spills
during
transit.
The
rules
will
prohibit
separate
vent
holes.

Area
of
Application
This
measure
will
apply
statewide
Implementation
Considerations
The
MSA
does
not
need
to
initiate
action
for
implementation
if
the
TCEQ
proceeds
with
rulemaking.

Program
Participants
Consumers
and
sellers
of
portable
fuel
containers
in
Texas
Implementation
Date
No
later
than
December
31,
2005
Expected
Reductions
Implementation
of
these
rules
solely
in
the
A/
RR
MSA
reduces
regional
VOC
emissions
by
2.6
tpd.
Given
transport
patterns,
statewide
implementation
of
the
rule
should
bring
additional
reductions.

Additional
Benefits
Because
the
improved
gas
cans
decrease
spills,
they
are
safer
for
consumers
and
can
reduce
water
pollution.

5.4.2.
A5
Stage
1
Vapor
Recovery
Requirement
Change
Program
Summary/
Explanation
This
measure
would
require
additional
gas
stations
and
fuel
dispensing
facilities
in
the
MSA
to
comply
with
TCEQ
Stage
1
Vapor
Recovery
rules
(
Chapter
115,
Subchapter
C,
Division
2,
§
§
115.221
­
115.227,
115.229)
by
lowering
the
exemption
threshold
defined
in
§
115.227(
3)
from
125,000
gallons
a
month
to
25,000
gallons
a
month
in
the
MSA
counties.
According
to
the
TCEQ
Petroleum
Storage
Tank
database,
over
60%
of
existing
tanks
in
the
area
are
already
Stage
1
equipped,
so
implementation
costs
should
be
reduced
substantially.

Area
of
Application
This
measure
will
apply
throughout
the
MSA
Implementation
Considerations
To
implement
this
measure,
the
MSA
requests
that
TCEQ
revise
the
rule
to
include
the
above­
mentioned
change
to
the
existing
Stage
1
Vapor
Recovery
rule.
The
MSA
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

40
4/
19/
2004
encourages
TCEQ
to
expand
implementation
of
this
measure
to
the
eastern
half
of
the
state.

Program
Participants
Program
participants
are
gas
stations
and
fuel
dispensing
facilities
in
the
MSA.

Expected
Reductions
Expected
emission
reductions
in
the
MSA
are
4.88
tons
per
day
VOC.

Additional
Benefits
Stage
1
Vapor
Recovery
reduces
emissions
of
toxics,
some
known
to
be
carcinogens.

5.4.2.
A6
Degreasing
Controls
Program
Summary/
Explanation
This
measure
regulates
cold
solvent
degreasing
operations
by
revising
TCEQ
rules
(
Chapter
115,
Subchapter
E,
Division
1,
§
§
115.412
(
1),
115.413,
115.415
­
115.417,
115.419)
to
apply
to
the
MSA
counties.
Degreasing
uses
a
solvent
to
remove
grease,
oil,
or
dirt
from
the
surface
of
a
part
prior
to
surface
coating
or
welding.

Area
of
Application
This
measure
will
apply
throughout
the
MSA.

Implementation
Considerations
To
implement
this
measure,
the
MSA
requests
that
TCEQ's
existing
rule
be
revised
to
apply
in
the
MSA.

Program
Participants
Program
participants
are
facility
owners
and
operators
that
conduct
degreasing
operations
in
the
MSA.

Expected
Reductions
The
expected
emission
reductions
from
this
measure
are
6.38
tons
per
day
VOC.

Additional
Benefits
Cost
saving
due
to
less
rapid
evaporation
of
solvents.

5.4.2.
A7
Autobody
Refinishing
Controls
Program
Summary/
Explanation
This
measure
regulates
autobody
refinishing
by
revising
TCEQ
rules
(
Chapter
115,
Subchapter
E,
Division
2,
§
§
115.420
­
115.427,
115.429)
so
that
the
requirements
of
§
115.421(
a)(
8)(
B)
and
§
115.422(
1)
and
(
2)
apply
in
the
MSA
counties.
These
requirements
set
limits
on
the
VOC
content
in
paint
and
address
spray
gun
cleaner
and
transfer
efficiency.

Area
of
Application
This
measure
will
apply
throughout
the
MSA.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

41
4/
19/
2004
Implementation
Considerations
To
implement
this
measure,
the
MSA
requests
that
TCEQ's
existing
rule
be
revised
to
apply
in
the
MSA.

Program
Participants
The
program
participants
are
autobody
refinishing
facility
owners
and
operators
in
the
MSA.

Expected
Reductions
The
expected
emission
reductions
from
this
measure
are
0.05
tons
per
day
VOC.

Additional
Benefits
No
additional
benefits
are
noted
at
this
time.

5.4.2.
A8
Cut
Back
Asphalt
Program
Summary/
Explanation
This
measure
would
restrict
the
use
of
cut­
back
asphalt
in
the
MSA
through
a
TCEQ
rule
revision
(
Chapter
115,
Subchapter
F,
Division
1,
§
§
115.510,
115.512,
115.513,
115.515
­
115.517,
115.519)
to
include
the
MSA
counties
in
the
requirements
of
these
sections.

The
use
of
conventional
cutback
asphalt
containing
VOC
solvents
for
the
paving
of
roadways,
driveways,
or
parking
lots
is
restricted
to
no
more
than
7.0%
of
the
total
annual
volume
averaged
over
a
two­
year
period
of
asphalt
used
by
or
specified
by
any
state,
municipal,
or
county
agency
who
uses
or
specifies
the
type
of
asphalt
application.

When
asphalt
emulsion
is
used
or
produced,
the
maximum
VOC
content
shall
not
exceed
12%
by
weight
or
the
following
limitations,
whichever
is
more
stringent:

A.
0.5%
by
weight
for
seal
coats;
B.
3.0%
by
weight
for
chip
seals
when
dusty
or
dirty
aggregate
is
used;
C.
8.0%
by
weight
for
mixing
with
open
graded
aggregate
with
less
than
1.0%
by
weight
of
dust
or
clay­
like
materials
adhering
to
the
coarse
aggregate
fraction
(
1/
4
inch
in
diameter
or
greater);
and
D.
12%
by
weight
for
mixing
with
dense
graded
aggregate
when
used
to
produce
a
mix
designed
to
have
10%
or
less
voids
when
fully
compacted.

Exemptions:

1.
asphalt
concrete
made
with
cutback
asphalt,
used
for
patching,
which
is
stored
in
a
long­
life
stockpile
(
longer
than
one­
month
storage);
and
2.
cutback
asphalt
used
solely
as
a
penetrating
prime
coat.

Area
of
Application
This
measure
will
apply
throughout
the
MSA.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

42
4/
19/
2004
Implementation
Considerations
To
implement
this
measure,
the
MSA
requests
that
TCEQ's
existing
rule
be
revised
to
apply
in
the
MSA.

Program
Participants
Users
and
suppliers
of
cut­
back
asphalt
in
the
MSA
are
program
participants.

Expected
reductions
The
expected
emission
reductions
from
this
measure
are
1.03
tons
per
day
VOC.

Additional
Benefits
This
measure
results
in
water
quality
benefits.

5.4.2.
A9
Low
Reid
Vapor
Gas
(
Note:
This
measure
will
not
be
included
in
the
final
modeling.)
Program
Summary/
Explanation
This
measure
lowers
the
gasoline
Reid
vapor
pressure
requirement
in
TCEQ
rules
(
Chapter
114
Subchapter
H,
Division
1,
§
§
114.301,
114.304
­
114.307,
114.309)
from
7.8
to
7.0
in
all
counties
in
the
MSA
from
May
1
to
October
31
and
retains
all
other
requirements
of
these
sections,
unless
they
are
contradictory
to
the
7.0
Reid
vapor
requirement.

Area
of
Application
This
measure
will
apply
throughout
the
MSA.

Implementation
Considerations
To
implement
this
measure,
the
MSA
requests
that
TCEQ's
existing
rule
be
revised
as
stated
in
the
program
summary/
explanation.
The
MSA
encourages
TCEQ
to
expand
implementation
of
this
measure
to
the
eastern
half
of
the
state.

Program
Participants
Gasoline
producers,
importers,
suppliers,
dispensers
and
users
within
the
MSA
Expected
Reductions
The
expected
emission
reductions
are
2.87
tons
per
day
VOC.

Additional
Benefits
No
additional
benefits
noted
at
this
time.

5.4.2.
A10
BACT
and
Point
Source
Emissions
Balancing
Program
Summary/
Explanation
Maintain
Best
Available
Control
Technology
(
BACT)
and
add
emissions
balancing
1:
1
offsets
for
all
new
or
modified
point
sources
that
will
emit
100
tons
per
year
or
more
of
NOx.
Emissions
balancing
offsets
for
VOC
will
be
considered
when,
during
the
course
of
the
continuing
planning
process,
a
review
of
the
emissions
inventory
indicates
a
doubling
of
actual
VOC
emissions
from
the
base
year
of
1999
(
as
indicated
by
TCEQ
annual
point
source
emissions
inventory
program).
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

43
4/
19/
2004
Area
of
Application
This
measure
will
apply
throughout
the
MSA.

Implementation
Considerations
To
implement
this
measure,
the
MSA
requests
TCEQ
adopt
the
measure
through
rulemaking
applicable
in
the
MSA.

Program
Participants
Owners
or
operators
of
any
new
or
modified
(
as
defined
by
TCEQ
rule)
point
sources
in
the
MSA
Implementation
Date
Spring
2005
Expected
Reductions
N/
A
(
see
additional
benefits)

Additional
Benefits
Measure
would
be
a
core
piece
of
the
region's
plan
to
manage
to
emissions
growth.

5.4.2.
A11
Petroleum
Dry
Cleaning
Program
Summary/
Explanation
This
measure
extends
the
TCEQ
rules
regulating
petroleum
dry
cleaning
(
Chapter
115,
Subchapter
F,
Division
4,
§
§
115.552,
115.553,
115.555
­
115.557,
115.559)
to
include
the
MSA
counties.

Area
of
Application
This
measure
will
apply
throughout
the
MSA.

Implementation
Considerations
To
implement
this
measure,
the
MSA
requests
that
TCEQ's
existing
rule
be
revised
to
apply
in
the
MSA.

Program
Participants
Program
participants
are
owners
and
operators
of
petroleum
dry
cleaning
facilities
in
the
MSA.

Expected
Reductions
The
expected
emission
reductions
from
this
measure
range
from
0
to
1.0
tons
per
day
VOC,
depending
on
the
amount
of
actual
and
expected
petroleum
dry
cleaning
occurring
in
the
MSA.
Emission
reductions
from
this
measure
are
not
currently
included
in
the
CAAP.
The
measure
is
included
to
mitigate
possible
future
growth
in
dry
cleaning
emissions.

Additional
Benefits
No
additional
benefits
noted
at
this
time.

5.4.2.
A12
Texas
Emission
Reduction
Program
(
TERP)
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

44
4/
19/
2004
Program
Summary/
Explanation
The
77th
Texas
Legislature
established
the
Texas
Emissions
Reduction
Plan
(
TERP)
in
2001,
through
enactment
of
Senate
Bill
5.
The
program
was
not
fully
funded,
however,
until
the
78th
Legislature
enacted
HB
1365
in
2003.
TCEQ
expects
to
have
about
$
115­
120
million
in
revenue
in
FY
2004,
of
which
approximately
$
104
million
will
be
available
for
the
Emissions
Reduction
Incentive
Grants
Program
(
see
below).
Those
figures
are
expected
to
increase
in
each
of
the
subsequent
fiscal
years
through
FY2008,
averaging
a
total
of
$
150
million
each
year.

The
primary
purpose
of
the
TERP
is
to
replace,
through
voluntary
incentive
programs,
the
reductions
in
emissions
of
NOx
that
would
have
been
achieved
through
mandatory
measures
that
the
Legislature
directed
the
TCEQ
to
remove
from
the
SIP
for
the
Dallas/
Fort
Worth
(
DFW)
and
Houston/
Galveston
(
HGA)
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
TERP
funding
is
also
expected
to
be
available
to
help
achieve
reductions
in
counties
located
in
the
state's
other
two
nonattainment
areas
and
in
designated
nearnonattainment
areas,
where
air
quality
is
approaching
nonattainment
levels.

T
he
TERP
includes
the
following
financial
incentive
and
assistance
programs
intended
to
address
the
goals
of
the
plan:

The
Emissions
Reduction
Incentive
Grants
Program
is
administered
by
the
TCEQ.
The
program
provides
grants
to
eligible
projects
in
"
affected
counties,"
as
delineated
in
HB
1365,
to
offset
the
incremental
cost
associated
with
activities
to
reduce
emissions
of
NOx
from
high­
emitting
mobile
diesel
sources.

The
types
of
projects
that
may
be
eligible
for
these
grants
include:

On­
Road
Heavy­
Duty
Vehicles
(
8,500
lb
or
more)
o
Purchase
or
lease
o
Replacement
o
Re­
power
o
Retrofit
or
add­
on
of
emission­
reduction
technology

Non­
Road
Equipment
o
Purchase
or
lease
o
Replacement
o
Re­
power
o
Retrofit
or
add­
on
of
emission­
reduction
technology

Marine
Vessels
o
Purchase
or
lease
o
Replacement
o
Re­
power
o
Retrofit
or
add­
on
of
emission­
reduction
technology

Locomotives
o
Purchase
or
lease
o
Replacement
o
Re­
power
o
Retrofit
or
add­
on
of
emission­
reduction
technology

Stationary
Equipment
o
Purchase
or
lease
o
Replacement
o
Re­
power
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

45
4/
19/
2004
o
Retrofit
or
add­
on
of
emission­
reduction
technology
infrastructure
o
Oil
and
Gas
Compressors

On­
Site
Electrification
and
Idle
Reduction
Infrastructure

Refueling
Infrastructure
(
for
qualifying
fuel)

On­
Vehicle
Electrification
and
Idle
Reduction
Infrastructure

Use
of
Qualifying
Fuel

Demonstration
of
New
Technology
The
Heavy­
Duty
Motor
Vehicle
Purchase
or
Lease
Incentive
Program
is
a
statewide
program
also
administered
by
the
TCEQ.
Under
this
program,
the
TCEQ
may
reimburse
a
purchaser
or
lessee
of
a
new
on­
road
heavy­
duty
(
over
10,000
lb)
vehicle
for
incremental
costs
of
purchasing
or
leasing
the
vehicle
in
lieu
of
a
higher­
emitting
diesel­
powered
vehicle.
The
vehicle
being
purchased
or
leased
must
be
EPA­
certified
to
meet
certain
designated
lower
emissions
standards
for
NOx.
This
program
has
yet
to
be
implemented
and
available
funds
have
been
allocated
to
the
Emissions
Reduction
Incentive
Grants
Program.

The
Light­
Duty
Motor
Vehicle
Purchase
or
Lease
Incentive
Program
is
similar
to
the
Heavy­
Duty
Program,
and
provides
incentives
statewide
for
the
purchase
or
lease
of
light­
duty
(
less
than
10,000
lb)
motor
vehicles
that
are
certified
by
the
EPA
to
meet
a
lower
emissions
standard
for
NOx.
The
incentive
program
will
be
administered
by
the
Texas
Comptroller
of
Public
Accounts
but
is
currently
unfunded.

Area
of
Application
HB
1365
designated
all
five
counties
in
the
A/
RR
MSA
as
"
affected
counties"
and
therefore
eligible
for
participation.

Implementation
Considerations
N/
a
Program
Participants
This
voluntary
program
is
available
to
all
public
and
private
fleet
operators
that
operate
qualifying
equipment
in
any
of
the
five
counties.
For
new
purchases,
not
less
than
75
percent
of
the
annual
usage
of
the
vehicle
projected
for
the
5
years
following
the
purchase
must
be
projected
to
take
place
in
one
or
more
of
the
eligible
counties.
Leases
must
be
for
at
least
one
year,
and
75
percent
of
the
annual
usage
over
the
lease
period
must
be
projected
to
take
place
in
one
or
more
of
the
eligible
counties.
Annual
usage
will
be
measured
by
either
miles
of
operation
or
by
fuel
consumption.

Implementation
Date
Immediately.
Subsequent
to
the
passage
of
HB
1365
in
June
2003,
TCEQ
issued
an
initial
Request
for
Applications
under
the
original
SB
5
rules
in
August
2003,
and
a
second
RFA
under
the
new
HB
1365
rules
on
December
31,
2003.

Expected
Reductions
Because
TERP
was
initially
designed
to
address
deficiencies
in
the
HGA
and
DFW
ozone
nonattainment
areas,
our
region
assumes
a
majority
of
TERP
funding
will
be
necessary
to
address
those
continuing
concerns.
Nevertheless,
the
signatories
to
the
A/
RR
MSA
EAC
intend
to
pursue
TERP
grants
and
to
work
with
other
public
and
private
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

46
4/
19/
2004
sector
entities
operating
in
the
region
to
pursue
grants
that
will
result
in
total
NOx
reductions
of
at
least
2
tons
per
day.

Additional
Benefits
Changes
in
fleet
operations
required
by
TERP
retrofits,
re­
powers,
replacements,
etc.
usually
contribute
to
a
reduction
in
other
harmful
toxics.
They
typically
increase
fuel
efficiencies
and
lower
fuel
costs.

5.4.2.
A13
Power
Plant
Reductions
Program
Summary
Reduce
NOx
emissions
from
local
power
plants
below
state
and
federal
mandates
as
follows:
Austin
Energy
 
AE
has
committed
to:
 
Lower
the
cap
on
the
total
SB­
7
NOx
emissions
from
the
original
1750
tons
to
1500
tons
per
year.
This
will
be
accomplished
by
AE
permanently
retiring
241
SB­
7
allowances
per
year.
 
Voluntarily
offset
the
emissions
from
all
other
AE­
owned
non­
SB­
7
units
by
reducing
emissions
from
the
Holly
and
Decker
units.
This
effectively
includes
these
units
into
the
1500­
ton
emission
cap.
This
cap
would
be
in
effect
at
least
through
the
year
2012.
 
As
new
units
are
brought
online,
they
will
be
included
in
this
effective
cap
and
their
emissions
will
be
offset
by
additional
emission
reductions
from
the
Holly
and
Decker
facilities.
 
AE
will
achieve
this
cap
through
a
combination
of
installing
NOx
reduction
technologies
at
the
Holly
and
Decker
facilities
as
well
as
the
retirement
of
their
older
generating
units.
AE
has
committed
to
permanently
shut
down
Holly
Units
1
and
2
by
31
December
2004
and
Holly
Units
3
and
4
by
31
December
2007.
 
In
order
to
comply
with
this
effective
cap,
in
addition
to
the
emission
rate
reductions
produced
at
the
Holly
and
Decker
facilities,
additional
emission
reductions
will
be
produced
by
the
increased
utilization
of
renewable
energy
resources
as
well
as
increased
use
of
energy
efficiency
measures.

Lower
Colorado
River
Authority
LCRA
plans
to
contribute
to
the
A/
RR
MSA
Early
Action
Compact
by
taking
the
following
voluntary
actions:

Reduce
the
NOx
allowance
allocation
(
as
provided
under
SB7)
to
the
Sim
Gideon
Power
Plant,
located
in
Bastrop
County,
by
300
tons.
By
reducing
the
Sim
Gideon
NOx
allowance
allocation
from
1,344
tons
per
year
to
1,044
tons
per
year,
LCRA
will
offset
the
maximum
expected
NOx
emissions
from
the
Lost
Pines
1
Power
Plant,
as
previously
committed
to,
plus
an
additional
100
tons.
This
action
will
be
formalized
in
an
enforceable
regulatory
mechanism,
such
as
an
agreed
order
or
permit
alteration,
to
be
effective
by
December
31,
2005.

Commit
to
offset
NOx
emissions
associated
with
any
new
fossil
fuel
facility
sited
in
the
five­
county
EAC
region
with
equivalent
NOx
reductions
in
the
same
five
counties.

In
addition,
LCRA
and
Austin
Energy,
as
partners
in
the
Fayette
Power
Project
(
FPP),
located
in
Fayette
County
agree
to:
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

47
4/
19/
2004

Accelerate
the
FPP
Flexible
Air
Permit
final
NOx
plant­
wide
emission
cap
from
an
effective
date
of
2012
to
December
31,
2006.
The
early
replacement
of
the
interim
cap
of
10,494
tons
with
the
final
cap
of
9,522
tons
will
reduce
the
allowable
plant­
wide
NOx
emissions
by
972
tons.

Although
these
facilities
have
not
been
identified
as
significant
contributors
to
high
ozone
levels
in
the
Austin
Area,
LCRA
is
taking
the
above
voluntary
actions
in
support
of
the
Austin/
Round
Rock
Early
Action
Compact
and
to
further
demonstrate
our
commitment
to
air
quality
protection.

The
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
­
UT
will
reduce
the
allowable
annual
NOx
emissions
from
its
grandfathered
units
by
75%.
 
Under
a
Voluntary
Emission
Reduction
Permit
with
the
TCEQ,
the
University
will
limit
NOx
emissions
from
grandfathered
units
to
341
tons
per
year;
the
historical
potential
NOx
emissions
from
these
units
are
1,388
tons
per
year.
 
The
University
will
meet
these
reduced
emissions
levels
by
limiting
operating
hours
on
certain
equipment
and
by
installing
10­
year
BACT
controls
on
other
equipment.
Controls
are
proposed
for
Boiler
#
7
in
2004
and
Boiler
#
3
in
2005.
 
The
University
will
continue
to
operate
its
permitted
unit
(
Gas
turbine/
boiler
#
8)
as
usual;
this
unit
has
average
NOx
emissions
of
394
tons
per
year.

Area
of
Application
For
Austin
Energy
and
UT,
commitments
cover
all
units
within
the
five
counties.
Additionally,
Austin
Energy's
and
LCRA's
Fayette
Power
Project
(
Sam
Seymour)
in
Fayette
County
is
covered.
The
Lost
Pines
1
facility,
operated
by
LCRA's
subsidiary
Gentex,
will
be
governed
by
the
existing
TCEQ
permit.

Implementation
Considerations
The
power
plant
reductions
will
be
implemented
by
the
specified
entities
through
agreed
orders
or
permits.

Program
Participants
Austin
Energy,
LCRA,
Gentex,
UT
Implementation
Date
Austin
Energy
 
April
1,
2005
LCRA
 
Sim
Gideon
Dec.
31,
2005
FFP
Dec.
31,
2006
Expected
Reductions
Austin
Energy
 
627
tpy
from
1999
actual
emissions;
250
tpy
from
2007
allowables
LCRA
 
300
tpy
from
2007
allowables
at
Sim
Gideon
LCRA
and
Austin
Energy
(
Fayette
Power
Project)
 
9,600
tpy
from
1999
actual
emissions;
972
tpy
from
2007
allowables
Estimated
daily
NOx
reductions
in
the
MSA
are
7.08
tpd.

Additional
Benefits
Austin
Energy
and
LCRA
 
commitment
to
offset
all
new
NOx
emissions
in
the
five
counties
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

48
4/
19/
2004
5.4.3
Locally
Implemented
Emission
Reduction
Measures
Locally
Implemented
EAC
measures
build
on
those
in
the
O3
Flex
Agreement.
Appendix
5­
1
(
comprising
the
ERG
February
17,
2004
Report
Technical
Support
Documentation:
Emission
Control
Strategy
Evaluation
for
the
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
EAC
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
and
the
CAPCO
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Emission
Reduction
Strategy
Technical
Report);
more
detailed
descriptions,
and
commitments
from
participating
agencies,
appear
in
Appendix
5­
2.
Chart
5.1
lists
each
signatory's
commitments.
Signatories
interpret
and
implement
these
measures
according
to
their
needs
and
abilities.
With
the
exception
of
the
Transportation
Emission
Reduction
Measures
(
TERMs),
the
CAAP
neither
quantifies
these
reductions
nor
includes
them
in
its
modeling.

In
addition
to
the
self­
selected
measures,
the
region
started
Ultra
Low
Sulfur
Gasoline
in
May
2004.
It
is
used
throughout
the
MSA.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)
49
Chart
5.1
 
Locally
Implemented
EAC
and
O3
Flex
Emission
Reduction
Measures
Emission
Reduction
Measure
City
of
Austin
Travis
County
City
of
Round
Rock
Williamson
County
City
of
San
Marcos
Hays
County
City
of
Bastrop
City
of
Elgin
Bastrop
County
City
of
Lockhart
City
of
Luling
Caldwell
County
Texas
Emission
Reduction
Program
(
TERP)
E
E
E
E
E
Texas
Low
Emission
Diesel
(
TxLED)
for
Fleets
E
E
E
Transportation
Emission
Reduction
Measures
(
TERMs)
O,
E+
O,
E+
O,
E+
O,
E+
O,
E+
E
E
Access
Management
E
E
E
Alternative
Commute
Infrastructure
Requirements
E
E
E
Drive­
Through
Facilities
on
Ozone
Action
Days
E
E
Expedited
permitting
for
mixed
use,

transit
oriented
or
in­
fill
development
E
E
Airport
Clean
Air
Plan,
includes:
O
 
Use
of
electric
or
alternative
fuels
for
airport
GSE
O,
E
 
ABIA
Airside
Incentives
for
GSE
use
reduction
O,
E
 
Integrate
alternative
fuels
into
City's
aviation
fleet
O,
E
 
Operate
alternative
fueled
ABIA
surface
parking
lot
shuttle
buses
O,
E
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)
50
Emission
Reduction
Measure
City
of
Austin
Travis
County
City
of
Round
Rock
Williamson
County
City
of
San
Marcos
Hays
County
City
of
Bastrop
City
of
Elgin
Bastrop
County
City
of
Lockhart
City
of
Luling
Caldwell
County
 
Use
existing
ABIA
alternative
fuel
infrastructure
for
off­
site
parking
shuttle
buses
O,
E
Low
VOC
Striping
Material
O,
E
O
O
O
E
O
E
E
O,
E
Landfill
Controls
Open
Burning
Restrictions
E
E
E
E
Tree
Planting
O,
E
O
O
O,
E+
O,
E
E
E
E
O,
E
Extend
energy
efficiency
requirements
beyond
SB5
and
SB7
E
Shift
the
electric
load
profile
E
Environmental
dispatch
of
power
plants
E
Clean
Fuel
Incentives
Low
Emission
Vehicles
O,
E
O
O
O
O,
E
O
Adopt­
a­
School­
Bus
Program
E
Police
Department
Ticketing
E
EPA
Smart
Way
Transport
Program
Business
Evaluation
of
Fleet
Useage,

Including
Operations
and
Right
Sizing
E
E
E
E
Parking
Incentives
for
Alt
Fuel
or
SULEV
vehicles
Commute
Solutions
Programs,
may
include
O,
E
E
 
Compressed
Work
Week
O,
E
O
O
O
O
 
Flexible
Work
Schedule
O,
E
O
O
 
Carpool
or
Alternative
Transportation
Incentives
O,
E
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)
51
Emission
Reduction
Measure
City
of
Austin
Travis
County
City
of
Round
Rock
Williamson
County
City
of
San
Marcos
Hays
County
City
of
Bastrop
City
of
Elgin
Bastrop
County
City
of
Lockhart
City
of
Luling
Caldwell
County
 
Employer
Subsidized
Transit
O,
E
 
Teleworking
(
full
time)
O,
E
 
Teleworking
(
part
time)
O,
E
O
Direct
Deposit
O,
E
O
O
O
O,
E
O,
E+
E
O
E
O
e­
Government
and/
or
Available
Locations
O,
E
O
E
O,
E+
O,
E
O,
E+

Voluntary
use
of
APUs
for
locomotives
operating
in
Central
Texas
Fueling
of
Vehicles
in
the
Evening
O,
E
O
O
O
E
O,
E+
O,
E
O,
E
O
O
Urban
Heat
Island/
Cool
Cities
Program
E
Resource
Conservation
O,
E+
O
O
O
O,
E
O,
E+
O
Increase
investments
by
Central
Texas
electric
utility
providers
in
energy
demand
management
programs
E
Alter
production
processes
and
fuel
choices
Contract
provisions
addressing
construction
related
emissions
on
high
ozone
days
E
Ensure
emission
reductions
in
SEPs,

BEPs
and
similar
agreements
E
E
E
Ozone
Action
Day
Education
Program,

includes:
O,
E
O
O
O
O,
E
O,
E+
O,
E
O,
E
O
O,
E
O
O
Employee
Education
Program
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Public
Education
Program
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ozone
Action
Day
Notification
Program
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)
52
Emission
Reduction
Measure
City
of
Austin
Travis
County
City
of
Round
Rock
Williamson
County
City
of
San
Marcos
Hays
County
City
of
Bastrop
City
of
Elgin
Bastrop
County
City
of
Lockhart
City
of
Luling
Caldwell
County
Ozone
Action
Day
Response
Program
O,
E
E
O
E
E
E
E
O
Alternative
Fuel
Vehicles
O
O
O
Right
Sizing
O
O
O
5­
minute
Limit
on
Diesel
Idling
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cleaner
Diesel
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Vehicle
Maintenance
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Vapor
Recovery
on
Pumps
O
O
Low
VOC
Asphalt
O
O
O
Low­
Emission
Gas
Cans
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Transit­
Oriented
Development
O
Shaded
Parking
O
O
Landscaping
voluntary
start
at
noon
on
high
ozone
days
(
education
program)
E
O
=
O3
Flex
commitment
E
=
EAC
commitment
E+
=
increased
EAC
commitment
from
original
O3
Flex
commitment
O,
E
=
jurisdiction
confirmed
O3
Flex
commitment
when
selecting
Locally
Implemented
EAC
measures
The
geographic
area
of
the
Locally
Implemented
commitments
is
the
area
covered
by
the
jurisdiction
making
the
commitment.

O3
Flex
measures
have
generally
already
been
implemented,
although
the
TERMs
include
phased
implementation
dates
through
2007.

EAC
measures
will
generally
be
implemented
no
later
than
December
31,
2005,
although
the
TERMs
include
phased
implementation
dates
through
2007.
TERP
projects
may
also
have
phased
implementation
dates.
Many
Locally
Implemented
EAC
measures
may
be
implemented
by
ozone
season
2004.

Estimated
emission
reductions
from
Locally
Implemented
measures
are
at
least
1
tpd
NOx
and
1
tpd
VOC.
The
CAAP
includes
modeled
reductions
from
the
TERMs
only.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

53
5.4.4
Transportation
Emission
Reduction
Measures
(
TERMs)

TERMs
are
transportation
projects
designed
to
reduce
vehicle
use,
improve
traffic
flow
or
reduce
congested
conditions.
A
transportation
project
that
adds
single­
occupancy
vehicle
(
SOV)
roadway
capacity
is
not
considered
a
TERM.
General
categories
of
TERMs
include
intersection
improvements,
traffic
signal
synchronization
improvements,
bicycle
and
pedestrian
facilities,
high­
occupancy
vehicle
lanes,
major
traffic
flow
improvements,
park
and
ride
lots,
intelligent
transportation
system
(
ITS)
and
transit
projects.

TERMs
are
similar
to
transportation
control
measures
(
TCMs),
except
that
TCMs
apply
to
nonattainment
areas.
TCMs
are
included
in
the
SIP
and
subject
to
transportation
conformity
requirements.
The
A/
RR
MSA
O3
Flex
and
EAC
CAAP
TERMs
are
not
subject
to
nonattainment
SIP
or
transportation
conformity
requirements.

Various
jurisdictions
and
implementing
agencies
committed
to
numerous
TERMs
in
the
MSA's
O3
Flex
Agreement.
Additional
TERM
commitments
have
been
made
for
the
EAC
CAAP.
A
total
of
467
TERM
projects
have
been,
or
will
be,
implemented.
The
listed
O3
Flex
and
EAC
CAAP
TERMs
have
various
implementation
dates.
All
TERMS
will
reduce
emissions
in
2007,
while
some
will
contribute
to
continued
attainment
past
2007.
A
project­
specific
list
of
O3
Flex,
EAC
CAAP
and
continued
attainment
TERMs
is
found
in
Appendix
5­
3.
The
list
provides
locations,
project
limits,
implementation
dates,
and
emission
reductions
for
all
TERMs.
A
summary
table
of
the
O3
Flex
and
EAC
CAAP
TERMs,
and
the
expected
emission
reductions,
is
below.

T
ERMs
by
Project
Type
2007
VOC
Reductions
(
lbs/
day)
2007
NOx
Reductions
(
lbs/
day)
Intersection
Improvements
448.82
374.95
Signal
Improvements
797.30
705.14
Bicycle/
Pedestrian
Facilities
69.88
62.54
Grade
Separations
5.94
5.28
Park
and
Ride
Lots
98.26
87.99
Traffic
Flow
Improvements
159.43
145.98
ITS
41.32
41.32
Transit
35.10
14.51
Total
(
lbs/
day)
1656.05
1437.71
Total
(
tons/
day)
0.83
0.72
Area
of
Application
The
TERMs
are
in
various
locations
in
the
MSA.
See
Appendix
5­
3
for
specific
locations.

Program
Participants
Participants
in
the
TERMs
program
are
local
jurisdictions
and
implementing
agencies
in
the
MSA
and
CAMPO.

Expected
Reductions
The
expected
2007
emission
reductions
are
0.83
tons
per
day
VOC
and
0.72
tons
per
day
NOx.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

54
Additional
Benefits
TERMs
help
reduce
roadway
congestion
and
provide
opportunities
for
alternatives
to
single
occupant
vehicle
travel.
They
encourage
people
to
travel
(
and
exercise)
by
biking
and
walking.

5.4.5
Participating
Organizations
Both
the
O3
Flex
Agreement
and
the
EAC
have
benefited
from
the
ongoing
participation
of
various
agencies
and
organizations.
Their
descriptions
or
contributions
are
found
in
the
Appendices
as
noted.
Participants
include:
 
Capital
Metropolitan
Transit
Authority
(
Appendix
5­
4)
 
Clean
Air
Partners
(
Appendix
5­
5)
 
Clean
Cities
(
Appendix
5­
6)
 
TxDOT
(
Austin
District)
 
TxDOT
(
State)
 
TCEQ
5.4.6
Additional
Considerations
Additional
programs
(
not
included
in
the
modeling)
that
area
organizations
have
initiated,
used
periodically
or
are
considering,
include:

 
Electric
lawnmower
exchange
program
(
residential)
 
The
program
offers
incentives
to
the
trade­
in
of
gas­
powered
lawnmowers
for
electric
lawnmower
models
at
participating
retail
stores.
The
program
was
operated
in
1997,
2002
and
2003
with
quantifiable
reductions
of
VOC
and
carbon
monoxide
emissions.

 
Adopt­
a­
School­
Bus
 
Implemented
under
the
auspices
of
the
CLEAN
AIR
Force.
In
2003,
the
CLEAN
AIR
Force
of
Central
Texas
brought
the
Adopt­
A­
School
Bus
Program
to
the
Central
Texas
region.
This
program
is
an
EPA
initiative
to
partner
with
communities,
businesses,
educational
leaders,
and
heath
care
professionals
to
reduce
children's
exposure
to
diesel
exhaust
and
to
improve
air
quality
in
our
communities.
The
program
operates
as
a
private/
public
nonprofit
grant
program
 
making
funds
available
to
local
school
districts
to
replace
and
retrofit
their
aging,
diesel
bus
fleets
with
new
cleaner
technology
buses
and
fuels.
This
program
will
also
support
anti­
idling
guidelines
in
school
districts.
The
Adopt­
A­
School
Bus
Program
grant
opportunity
is
open
to
all
school
districts
in
the
five
county
region
of
Travis,
Hays,
Williamson,
Caldwell
and
Bastrop.
A
projected
replacement
of
200
school
buses
over
the
course
of
three
years
could
realize
a
reduction
of
approximately
80
tons/
year
of
NOx.

Another
component
of
the
Adopt­
A­
School
Bus
Program
is
a
supplemental
environmental
project
in
which
funds
will
be
used
to
retrofit
or
replace
aging
school
buses
in
Milam,
Lee
and
Bastrop
Counties.
With
these
two
programs
combined,
both
PM
and
NOx
emissions
from
older
school
buses
will
be
reduced
in
our
region.

 
Tree
Planting
Guide
 
This
initiative
involves
specifying
low
VOC
emitting
trees
in
local
lists
of
regionally
appropriate
plantings.

A
collection
of
initiatives
compiled
for
further
study
appears
in
Appendix
5­
7.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

55
CHAPTER
6:
MAINTENANCE
FOR
GROWTH
AND
THE
CONTINUING
PLANNING
PROCESS
Staff
has
evaluated
the
anticipated
future
growth
of
the
region
to
ensure
that
the
area
will
remain
in
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
standard
for
the
time
period
2007
through
2012
and
2015.
This
evaluation
included
analysis
of
population
growth
and
its
effect
on
on­
road
mobile
emissions
and
area
sources,
and
new
and
planned
new
point
sources.
This
chapter
is
a
summary
of
the
analysis.

Area
Sources
The
emissions
associated
with
area
sources
are
directly
related
to
population
and
economic
activity.
These
two
data
sources
are
typically
used
to
estimate
area
source
emissions.

The
population
of
the
region
has
been
growing
for
the
past
60
years
and
is
expected
to
continue
to
grow
through
2012.

Table
6.1
Population
Growth
(
CAPCO
Regional
Forecast
2000
to
2030,
REMI,
2003)

County
1999
2002
2005
2007
2012
Bastrop
55.68
62.78
74.41
76.77
96.49
Caldwell
31.49
34.71
37.31
40.09
46.52
Hays
93.62
109.48
128.14
144.51
184.50
Travis
788.50
851.59
931.17
985.47
1095.30
Williamson
236.61
289.85
328.62
358.66
428.30
TOTAL
1205.90
1348.41
1499.66
1605.50
1851.11
Population
(
thousands)

As
the
population
increases,
so
will
the
economic
activity
in
the
region.
Though
the
economy
of
the
region
has
slowed
in
recent
years,
the
overall
trend
from
1999
through
2012
continues
to
show
an
increase.

Table
6.2
Total
manufacturing
employment
forecast
(
CAPCO
Regional
Forecast,
REMI,
2003)

County
1999
2002
2005
2007
2012
Bastrop
0.93
0.96
1.02
1.06
1.12
Caldwell
0.43
0.41
0.43
0.44
0.46
Hays
3.86
3.61
3.89
4.11
4.61
Travis
68.90
65.13
64.39
66.08
68.53
Williamson
9.10
9.09
9.36
9.68
10.11
TOTAL
83.23
79.21
79.10
81.36
84.83
Employment
as
Manufacturing
Total
(
thousands)

With
this
increase
in
population
and
economic
growth
in
the
region,
emissions
from
area
sources
are
expected
to
increase
only
14.2%
from
1999
to
2012.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

56
Table
6.3
Area
Source
Emission
Trends
Break
Down
(
Tons
per
Day),
CAPCO
Area
Sources
Emission
Trend
1999
2007
2012
BASTROP
NOx
0.60
0.76
0.82
VOC
4.52
5.53
6.16
CALDWELL
NOx
0.54
0.67
0.68
VOC
15.29
15.75
17.17
HAYS
NOx
0.58
0.79
0.85
VOC
5.47
7.67
8.21
TRAVIS
NOx
3.21
4.05
4.28
VOC
50.60
57.04
57.58
WILLIAMSON
NOx
3.00
3.84
3.86
VOC
14.68
20.44
21.25
MSA
NOx
7.93
10.12
10.50
VOC
90.56
106.42
110.37
For
more
details,
please
see
the
report,
Emissions
Inventory
Comparison
and
Trend
Analysis
for
the
Austin­
Round
Rock
MSA:
1999,
2002,
2005,
2007,
&
2012
in
Appendix
6­
1.

On­
Road
Mobile
Sources
The
Protocol
calls
for
an
evaluation
of
the
current
long­
range
transportation
plan.
By
definition,
the
long­
range
plan
covers
the
geographical
area
of
the
MPO,
which
for
the
Austin
Metropolitan
area
includes
only
Hays,
Travis
and
Williamson
Counties.
The
MSA
and
the
region
covered
by
this
CAAP
also
include
Bastrop
and
Caldwell
Counties.
Therefore,
the
analysis
of
the
region's
on­
road
emissions
will
be
of
VMT
from
three
different
sources,
CAMPO,
TxDOT,
and
TTI.
Please
refer
to
Appendix
6­
2
a
&
b
for
details.

VMT
Screen:
Because
on­
road
mobile
emissions
account
for
a
significant
amount
of
the
region's
ozone
forming
emissions,
the
region
has
focused
much
of
its
attention
on
growth
in
that
area.
It
was,
therefore,
reasonable
to
perform
a
test
to
determine
if
the
future
planned
transportation
system
will
contribute
increasing
or
decreasing
amounts
of
NOx
and
VOC.
One
test
that
uses
readily
available
data
is
a
review
of
the
relative
change
in
VMT,
also
referred
to
as
a
VMT
"
screen".
Staff
has
chosen
to
use
the
VMT
screen
that
EPA
originally
developed
for
its
proposed
transitional
ozone
classification.

The
VMT
screen
tests
if
any
expected
increase
in
VMT
in
a
future
year
will
be
offset
by
technology
and
control
measures.
That
is,
that
the
expected
associated
emissions
in
a
future
year
will
not
exceed
the
associated
emissions
of
the
base
year.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

57
The
current
CAMPO
long­
range
transportation
plan
is
based
on
VMT
for
the
years
1997,
2007,
2015
and
2025.
TxDOT
supplied
the1999
VMT.
The
"
VMT
Screen"
for
years
2007
and
2015
of
the
plan,
Mobility
2025
(
Appendix
6­
3),
gave
the
following
results.

Table
6.4
Emission
Reductions
in
VMT
from
1999
to
2015,
with
and
without
I/
M
NOx
VOC
Three­
County
Three­
County
CAMPO
LRP
CAMPO
LRP
Year
No
Controls
With
I&
M
No
Controls
With
I&
M
1999
29,002,000
29,002,000
2007
19,815,722
18,801,663
20,413,830
17,869,330
2015
9,162,901
7,316,813
15,036,818
11,943,306
VMT
in
the
three­
county
region
is
expected
to
increase
40%
from
1999
to
2007
and
90%
from
2007
to
2015.
The
associated
NOx
will
decrease
by
so
much
during
those
years
that
it
will
be
as
though
there
were
a
31.7%
decrease
in
VMT
from
1999
to
2007
and
a
68.4%
decrease
from
1999
to
2015.
Additional,
though
less
substantial,
decreases
will
be
realized
from
the
region's
implementation
of
an
I/
M
program
in
Travis,
Williamson
and
Hays
Counties
in
2005
(
35.2%
and
74.8%).
Also,
VOC
will
be
reduced
by
29.6%
from
1999
until
2007
and
48.2%
from
1999
to
2015.
Reductions
of
VOC
will
also
be
greater
with
the
I/
M
program
(
38.4%
and
58.8%).
The
expected
increases
in
population
and
the
planned
expansion
of
the
roadway
system
will
contribute
to
an
increase
in
VMT,
but
will
not
cause
on­
road
emissions
to
exceed
1999
levels.

Because
Bastrop
and
Caldwell
Counties
are
outside
the
CAMPO
boundaries,
and
because
they
will
not
participate
in
the
I/
M
program,
a
separate
VMT
screen
was
conducted
for
the
aggregate
5­
county
region.
The
results
are
similar
to
those
realized
for
the
CAMPO
area.

Table
6.5
Emission
Reductions
in
VMT
from
1999
to
2015
NOx
VOC
Five­
County
MSA
Five­
County
MSA
TTI
VMT
TTI
VMT
Year
No
Control
Measures
No
Control
Measures
1999
32,506,000
32,506,000
2007
27,677,756
22,332,084
2015
9,796,164
15,907,780
VMT
is
expected
to
increase
in
the
five­
county
region
by
36%
from
1999
to
2007
and
79.3%
from
1999
to
2015.
Without
I/
M
in
the
five­
county
region,
NOx
from
VMT
is
expected
to
decline
by
33.3%
from
1999
to
2007
and
69.9%
from
1999
to
2015.
The
VOC
will
also
decline
(
31.3%
and
51.1%).
Again,
the
expected
increases
in
population
and
the
planned
roadway
system
that
will
contribute
to
an
increase
in
VMT
will
not
contribute
to
emissions
exceeding
the
amount
of
1999
on­
road
emissions.

One
conclusion
from
this
analysis
is
that
the
currently
planned
roadway
system
will
not
exacerbate
the
production
of
ozone
in
the
MSA
through
2015.
The
details
of
all
calculations
are
included
in
Appendix
6­
2b.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

58
Emissions
Comparisons:
Another
way
to
evaluate
VMT
and
associated
emissions
is
to
compare
the
estimated
emissions
for
future
years
to
the
base
year
emissions.
Multiplying
the
emission
factor
by
the
VMT
results
in
an
estimate
of
the
daily
emissions
associated
with
on­
road
travel.
This
evaluation
shows
a
decrease
in
both
NOx
and
VOC
emissions,
despite
an
increase
in
VMT.

Emission
factors
for
each
year
were
calculated
by
CAMPO
staff
using
MOBILE6
and
included
appropriate
local
data
where
available.
Emissions
factors
are
typically
expressed
in
grams/
mile.
Multiplying
the
emissions
factor
times
the
VMT
results
in
the
grams
of
emissions,
either
NOx
or
VOC.
Because
the
emissions
inventory
is
expressed
in
tons
per
day,
the
resultant
grams
of
onroad
emissions
were
converted
to
tons
by
dividing
the
number
of
grams
by
454
grams/
lb
and
then
by
2000
lbs/
ton.
Please
refer
to
Appendix
6­
2
a
&
b
for
more
details.

Table
6.6
Emission
Reductions
from
1999
to
2015
TTI,
Five­
County,
No
Controls
NOx
VOC
Year
VMT
(
miles)
EF
(
g/
mi)
VMT
X
EF
(
tons)
Year
VMT
(
miles)
EF
(
g/
mi)
VMT
X
EF
(
tons)
1999
32,506,000
2.433
87
1999
32,506,000
1.425
51
2007
44,508,000
1.185
58
2007
44,508,000
0.715
35
2015
58,274,000
0.409
26
2015
58,274,000
0.389
25
Both
evaluation
techniques,
the
VMT
screen
and
comparison
of
emissions,
show
large
enough
decreases
in
on­
road
emissions
to
more
than
offset
the
anticipated
growth
in
VMT
through
2015.
These
decreases
in
emissions
will
be
even
greater
once
the
I/
M
program
is
implemented.

Point
Sources
TCEQ
provided
emission
data
for
point
sources
in
the
CAPCO
region
for
the
1999
EI.
In
the
1999
EI,
the
point
source
was
sub­
categorized
into
major
point
source
and
minor
point
source.
CAPCO
developed
the
following
point
source
information
for
1999
and
2007.

Table
6.4
Point
Source
Emissions
from
EGU,
A/
RR
MSA
and
Surrounding
Area
EGUs
Point
Source
Emissions
(
tpd)
A/
RR
MSA
and
Surrounding
Area
1999
2007
County
Facility
Name
NOx
VOC
NOx
VOC
Bastrop
Sim
Gideon
Electric
Power
Plant
7.10
0.33
3.94
0.11
Bastrop
Lost
Pines
1
Power
Plant
n/
a
n/
a
1.50
0.23
Bastrop
Bastrop
Clean
Energy
Center
n/
a
n/
a
2.21
0.12
Fayette
Fayette
Power
Project
60.82
0.55
28.12
0.78
Hays
Hays
Energy
Facility
n/
a
n/
a
3.70
0.96
Milam
Sandow
Steam
Electric
24.20
0.33
13.19
0.32
Travis
Decker
Lake
Power
Plant
8.15
0.44
3.80
0.12
Travis
Holly
Street
Power
Plant
2.88
0.12
2.98
0.01
Travis
Sand
Hills
n/
a
n/
a
1.03
0.20
Travis
Hal
C
Weaver
Power
Plant
1.99
0.03
1.86
0.05
Total
105.14
1.80
62.32
2.91
Total
MSA
20.12
0.92
21.01
1.81
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

59
A
uniform
change
for
2002
and
2005
was
assumed
and
2012
is
expected
to
stay
unchanged
based
on
feedback
from
power
plant
stakeholders.

Table
6.5
Point
Source
Emissions
from
NEGU
NEGUs
Point
Source
Emissions
(
tpd)
A/
RR
MSA
and
Sourranding
Area
1999
2007
County
Facility
Name
NOx
VOC
NOx
VOC
Caldwell
Durol
Western
Manufacturing,
Inc.
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
Caldwell
Luling
Gas
Plant
0.89
0.26
0.29
0.04
Caldwell
Maxwell
Facility
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.06
Caldwell
Prairie
Lea
Compressor
Station
2.66
0.04
2.23
0.03
Caldwell
Teppco
Crude
Oil
LLC,
Luling
Station
0.00
0.01
n/
a
n/
a
Comal
APG
Lime
Corp
1.15
0.00
1.15
0.00
Comal
Sunbelt
Cemebt
of
Texas
LP
7.61
0.12
3.79
0.13
Comal
TXI
Operations
LP
3.34
0.14
3.43
0.15
Hays
Parkview
Metal
Products,
Inc.
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.03
Hays
Southern
Post
Co.
Commercial
Metal
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.01
Hays
Southwest
Solvents
and
Chemicals
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hays
Texas
LeHigh
Cement
7.20
0.18
5.24
0.55
Milam
Aluminum
Company
of
America
54.26
4.25
4.64
0.38
Travis
RIN3M
Austin
Center
0.15
0.03
0.15
0.03
Travis
Advanced
Micro
Devices,
Inc.
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.17
Travis
Austin
White
Lime
Co.
0.89
0.00
0.94
0.02
Travis
IBM
Corporation
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.04
Travis
Lithoprint
Co.,
Inc.
0.00
0.05
n/
a
n/
a
Travis
Motorola­
Ed
Bluestein
0.46
0.17
0.01
0.04
Travis
Motorola
Integrated
Circuit
Division
0.09
0.08
0.02
0.02
Travis
Multilayer
TEK,
L.
P.
0.00
0.18
0.01
0.21
Travis
Raytheon
Systems,
Co.
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
Travis
Twomey
Welch
Aerocorp,
Inc.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Williamson
Aquatic
Industries,
Inc.
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.04
Total
78.82
6.02
22.14
1.95
Total
MSA
12.46
1.50
9.13
1.28
Backup
documentation
for
the
above
may
be
found
in
Appendix
6­
4.

THE
CONTINUING
PLANNING
PROCESS
CAPCO
and
CAMPO
staff
will
analyze
air
quality
and
related
data
and
perform
necessary
modeling
updates
annually.
In
addition
to
the
data
sources
used
for
the
above
analyses,
staff
may
add
information
from
The
Central
Texas
Sustainability
Indicators
Project
(
CTSIP).
The
CTSIP
is
a
nonprofit
organization
that
tracks
40
key
indicators
(
e.
g.,
water
pollution,
air
quality,
density
of
new
development)
that
show
the
economic,
environmental
and
social
health
of
our
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

60
MSA.
The
results
of
all
these
analyses
will
be
reported
in
the
June
semi­
annual
reports
beginning
in
June
2005.

Using
similar
methods
as
for
the
above
maintenance
for
growth
analysis,
staff
will
evaluate:
1.
future
transportation
patterns;
2.
all
relevant
actual
new
point
sources;
and
3.
impacts
from
potential
new
source
growth.

Future
Transportation
Patterns:
As
part
of
the
Mobility
2030
plan
development
process
CAMPO
staff
will
perform
the
VMT
screen
for
years
2007
and
2017.
The
screen
will
test
to
be
sure
that
any
expected
increase
in
VMT
over
the
planning
horizons
will
be
offset
by
technology
and
control
measures,
that
is,
that
the
expected
associated
emissions
will
not
exceed
the
associated
emissions
of
the
base
year
(
1999).

As
part
of
this
analysis,
the
emission
factors
will
be
reviewed
and
updated
as
necessary.
Review
of
the
emission
factors
includes
checking
and
updating
the
fleet
mix.

This
test
will
also
be
performed
prior
to
adoption
of
any
CAMPO
long­
range
transportation
plan
update
or
amendment
that
significantly
increases
VMT.

New
Point
Sources
and
Potential
New
Point
Sources:
In
addition
to
the
VMT
screen
and
review
of
area
sources,
staff
will
include
a
list
and
impact
analysis
of
the
relevant
new
and
potential
new
point
sources.
Staff
will
obtain
data
on
these
relevant
new
and
potential
new
point
sources
from
TCEQ.

The
annual
analysis
will
determine
the
adequacy
of
the
selected
control
measures.
After
review
by
the
appropriate
elected
officials,
these
measures
will
be
adjusted
if
necessary.
Austin/
Round
Rock
MSA
Clean
Air
Action
Plan
(
CAAP)

61
CHAPTER
7:
TRACKING
AND
REPORTING
All
signatories
and
implementing
agencies
will
review
EAC
activities
twice
yearly.
The
semiannual
review
will
track
and
document,
at
a
minimum,
control
strategy
implementation
and
results,
monitoring
data
and
future
plans.
CAPCO,
or
its
designee,
will
file
reports
with
TCEQ
and
EPA
by
June
30
and
December
31
of
each
reporting
year.
Reporting
periods
will
be
May
1
to
October
31,
and
November
1
to
April
30,
to
allow
for
adequate
public
notice
and
comment.
CAPCO
has
primary
responsibility
for
report
generation.

CAPCO
will
provide
appropriately
detailed
technical
analysis
for
all
semi­
annual
review
reporting.
The
metrics
detailed
in
Appendix
7­
1
provide
an
example,
but
their
use
is
subject
to
staffing
and
funding
constraints.
