TCEQ Modeling Update Brian Foster North Texas Clean Air Steering - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

August 11, 2006 Air Quality Division

TCEQ Modeling Update

• •

Brian Foster North Texas Clean Air Steering Committee Meeting August 11, 2006

August 11, 2006 Air Quality Division

Overview

• Updated 2009 Future Case Modeling

– Upgraded emissions inventory – Upgraded version of CAMx

• 2009 Future Case Sensitivity Tests

– A combined strategies run was tested with the upgraded future case modeling

August 11, 2006 Air Quality Division

Updated 2009 Future Case

• Emissions Inventory Upgrades

– Emissions changes were made due to corrections in point source emissions and an updated version of the 2005 acid-rain data – NOx in the DFW area was reduced by 1.7 tpd and VOCs increased by 6.5 tpd

• Upgraded Version of CAMx

– A newer version of CAMx has been available – The DFW modeling has been upgraded from CAMx 4.03 to version 4.31 – Consistent with what is being run for the HGB area

August 11, 2006 Air Quality Division

Results

• 1999 Model Performance

– The upgrade to CAMx 4.31 improved model performance

• 2009 Future Design Values

– Average change over the nine DFW monitors was -0.81 ppb

August 11, 2006 Air Quality Division

Updated Future Design Values

Site 44.fy2009.a1 CAMx 4.03 46.fy2009.a2 CAMx 4.31

Frisco C31 91.2 89.8 Hinton C60 87.6 86.2 Dallas N C63 87.0 85.4 Redbird C402 79.7 79.0 Denton C56 89.6 89.3 Midlothian C94 84.5 84.7 Arlington C57 87.2 86.2 FtW NW C13 87.6 86.8 FtW Keller C17 86.0 85.4

August 11, 2006 Air Quality Division

2009 Sensitivity Test

• A combined package of emissions reductions was

tested using the upgraded future case modeling. Strategies included:

– DFW Major Sources

• 12.7 tpd

– DFW EGUs

• 2.0

– Cement Kilns

• 11.0

– NCTCOG On-road

• 9.4

– NCTCOG Non-road

• 6.9

– E. TX Engines

• 40.9

– DFW Minor Sources

• 4.5

Total Reductions

• 87.4 tpd

August 11, 2006 Air Quality Division

2009 Future Design Values

Monitor 2009 Future Base 2009 Future Base with Controls

Frisco C31 89.8 88.3 Hinton C60 86.2 84.8 Dallas N C63 85.4 84.1 Redbird C402 79.0 77.5 Denton C56 89.3 87.9 Midlothian C94 84.7 83.1 Arlington C57 86.2 84.0 FtW NW C13 86.8 84.6 FtW Keller C17 85.4 84.1

August 11, 2006 Air Quality Division

Contributors

• ENVIRON Modeling Staff

– Ed Tai – Greg Yarwood

• TCEQ Modeling Staff

– Pete Breitenbach – Jim MacKay – Ron Thomas – Chris Kite

1

DISCLAIMER

Please note that this is a summary of a draft report of TERC Research Project H60, since the final report is still being reviewed and will not be released until Friday, August 18, 2006.

2

Ozone Impacts of Proposed Power Plants and Offsets

Greg Yarwood, Ed Tai, Jeremiah Johnson ENVIRON

(gyarwood@environcorp.com)

August 11, 2006 Results from TERC Project H60 Phase 1

3

Background

• DFW SIP Modeling

– Using August 13-21, 1999 ozone model – Seeking to demonstrate attainment in 2009

• Earlier results from TERC Project H60

– Developed 2002 modeling to extend strategy evaluation to 3 more episodes – Evaluated potential regional control strategies that may help DFW

• New EGUs and offsets have been

proposed – how do they impact DFW?

4

Power Plant (EGU) Proposals

• 8 proposed new EGUs were modeled

previously in project H60

– Including 2 TXU units

• 8 new 800 MW EGUs from TXU
• 1 new EGU at Limestone
• 17 EGUs in total, 10 from TXU
• TXU has proposed an offset strategy

5

Today’s Presentation

• EGU emissions changes

– New units – TXU’s offsets

• Ozone Impacts

– New units – New units with TXU’s offsets

• Summary

6

EGU Emissions Data

• 2009 base emissions provided by TCEQ (referred

to as version “a2”)

– Emissions for existing Texas EGUs based on 2005 CEM data

• Proposed EGU emissions provided by TCEQ

– Based on permit applications – Using 30-day emission limits

• TXU’s offset strategy provided by TXU

– Changes to the 2009 base emission rates – NOx reductions at coal units – Shutdown of other units

7

Location of EGU Emission Changes

• 1248
• 1128
• 1008
• 888
• 768
• 648

LCP Northing (km)

Limestone Big Brown(2) Lake Creek(6) Tradinghouse(7) Sandow Martin Lake(3) Monticello(3) TXU Oak Grove (2) Twin Oaks Power III CPS J K Spruce 2 Sandy Creek Formosa Plastics Corp (2) Calhoun Co. Nav TXU Lake Creek TXU Tradinghouse TXU Morgan Creek TXU Valley SES TXU Big Brown TXU Martin Lake TXU Monticello

Proposed EGUs and Offsets = Original proposed EGUs = New TXU proposed EGUs = Proposed Limestone EGU = TXU proposed offsets = 10 TPD = 20 TPD = 5 TPD

Arrows identify EGU emission increases and decreases

8

Summary of Emission Changes

• 103 tpd NOx from all 17 new EGUs
• 72 tpd NOx from ten new TXU units
• TXU’s offsets reduced NOx emissions

by 73 tpd

tpd = tons per day

9

Detailed Emissions Summary

Plant City County LCPx [km] LCPy [km] NOx [tpd] VOC [tpd] CO [tpd] Original 8 proposed EGUs TXU Oak Grove (2) Franklin Robertson 332.23

• 954.47

17.22 1.13 73.20 Twin Oaks Power III Bremond Robertson 313.04

• 964.88

5.58 0.36 11.95 CPS J K Spruce 2 San Antonio Bexar 163.45

• 1168.08

6.62 0.35 53.76 Sandy Creek Riesel McLennan 286.89

• 923.87

6.88 0.35 29.47 Formosa Plastics Corp (2) Point Comfort Calhoun 339.68

• 1236.29

2.52 0.19 3.96 Calhoun Co. Nav. Dist. Point Comfort Calhoun 339.10

• 1236.22

2.23 0.16 4.78 Total 41.05 2.53 177.12 All (17) proposed EGUs (including the 8 EGUs above) TXU Valley SES Savoy Fannin 332.13

• 684.6

6.88 0.35 29.47 TXU Big Brown Fairfield Freestone 369.65

• 881.51

6.88 0.35 29.47 TXU Lake Creek Riesel McLennan 286.06

• 924.36

6.88 0.35 29.47 TXU Tradinghouse (2) Waco McLennan 286.02

• 913.24

13.75 0.70 58.94 TXU Morgan Creek Colorado City Mitchell

• 84.73
• 832.61

6.88 0.35 29.47 TXU Martin Lake Tatum Rusk 505.1

• 826.52

6.88 0.35 29.47 TXU Monticello Mt Pleasant Titus 456.07

• 736.39

6.88 0.35 29.47 NRG Limestone Jewett Limestone 353.23

• 926.53

6.72 0.43 53.76 Total from all 17 EGUs 102.78 5.75 466.66 17 proposed EGUs with TXU offsets1 (includes all EGUs listed above) TXU Valley Savoy Fannin 331.45

• 684.57

TXU Big Brown(2) Fairfield Freestone 369.72

• 881.84
• 13.22

TXU Lake Creek (6) Riesel McLennan 284.01

• 924.87
• 0.94
• 0.03
• 0.29

TXU Tradinghouse (7) Waco McLennan 285.59

• 912.82
• 2.41
• 0.10
• 0.50

TXU Morgan Creek Colorado City Mitchell

• 85.33
• 833.99

TXU Martin Lake(3) Tatum Rusk 505.38

• 825.34
• 26.04

TXU Monticello(3) Mt Pleasant Titus 456.31

• 736.85
• 25.50

TXU Sandow Rockdale Milam 280.4

• 1024.54
• 4.51

Total from offsets

• 72.63
• 0.13
• 0.79

Grand Total 30.15 5.62 465.86

(This information is also in the report)

10

Ozone Modeling Results

• Presenting two types of information
• Projected 2009 design values (DFW only)

– The models have been used for Design Value calculations only in DFW – Direct link to projected ozone attainment status

• Maps of changes in episode average daily max 8-

hour ozone

– Show episode average because concise and similar to the way models are used in Design Value calculations – Indicates where ozone changes across eastern Texas, but model results alone can not project attainment status (also need monitored ozone data)

11

10 TXU New EGUs with TXU Offsets

DFW SIP Episode

• Increases mainly in Central Texas (some in Northeast Texas)
• Offsets mainly in Northeast Texas (some in Central Texas)
• Ozone changes tend not to impact DFW

New EGUs New EGUs with Offsets

12

17 New EGUs with TXU Offsets

DFW SIP Episode

• Increases mainly in Central Texas, larger than 10 TXU units
• Offsets mainly in Northeast Texas (some in Central Texas)
• Ozone changes tend not to impact DFW

New EGUs New EGUs with Offsets

13

17 New EGUs with TXU Offsets

2002 Episode 1

• Increases mainly in Central Texas
• Offsets mainly in Northeast Texas (some in Central Texas)
• Ozone reductions tend to impact DFW more than increases

New EGUs New EGUs with Offsets

14

17 New EGUs with TXU Offsets

2002 Episode 2

• Increases mainly in Central Texas extending into Austin
• Offsets mainly in Northeast Texas (some in Central Texas)
• Ozone reductions tend to impact DFW more than increases

New EGUs New EGUs with Offsets

15

17 New EGUs with TXU Offsets

2002 Episode 3

• Increases mainly in Central Texas extending to Austin/San Antonio
• Offsets mainly in Northeast Texas (some in Central Texas)
• Ozone changes tend not to impact DFW (except from North)

New EGUs New EGUs with Offsets

16

Changes in NOx Emissions and DFW DVs

Changes in DFW average 2009 8-hr ozone DVs (ppb)

• 0.01

0.28

• 0.04

0.25 0.08 Sept 11-15, 2002 2002 Episode 3

• 0.31

0.09

• 0.31

0.09 Aug 28-31, 2002 2002 Episode 2

• 0.14

0.31

• 0.18

0.27 0.08 Aug 3-9, 2002 2002 Episode 1

• 0.02

0.34

• 0.04

0.29 0.06 Aug 15-22, 1999 DFW SIP Episode 31 103

• 1

72 41 NOx Change (tpd) Add all 17 EGUs with TXU

• ffsets

Add all 17 EGUs Add 10 TXU EGUs with TXU

• ffsets

Add 10 TXU EGUs Add the

• riginal 8

EGUs

17

Summary Points (1 of 4)

• Ozone increases from 17 proposed new

EGUs were largest in Central Texas (Waco area) and also impacted DFW, Northeast Texas, Austin and San Antonio

• Ozone decreases from TXU’s offset

strategy were greatest in Northeast Texas and also benefited Central Texas, DFW, Austin and San Antonio

18

Summary Points (2 of 4)

• DFW tended to miss both the greatest ozone

increases and decreases in all four episodes

• Increases in average DFW design values for 2009

from 17 new EGUs were up to 0.34 ppb

– TXU units accounted for most of these increases

• Decreases in average DFW design values for

2009 for 17 new EGUs with TXU’s offsets were up to -0.31 ppb

• These changes are in the context of needing a

few ppb reduction in 2009 DFW ozone to demonstrate attainment

19

Summary Points (3 of 4)

• Robertson County in Central Texas

consistently had the largest ozone impacts from proposed new EGUs

– Increases of ~5 to ~7 ppb in episode average maximum ozone from all 17 proposed EGUs and only about half a ppb lower with TXU’s

• ffsets

– Monitoring data are lacking to place these modeled ozone changes in context

20

Summary Points (4 of 4)

• TXU’s offset strategy mitigated most ozone

impacts from proposed EGUs in Northeast Texas and DFW

• TXU’s offsets were less successful in

Central Texas because the offsets (Tradinghouse and Lake Creek EGUs) were smaller and non-TXU plants were not involved in the offset strategy

Trans-Texas Corridor-35 Update

North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department

North Texas Clean Air Steering Committee TTC-35 Briefing August 11, 2006

6 Lanes 12 Lanes 20 Lanes 16 Lanes 16 Lanes 10 Lanes 8 Lanes 12 Lanes 14 Lanes 16 Lanes 12 Lanes 16 Lanes 4 Lanes

Trans-Texas Corridor-35

Right-of-way is not available to meet the demands of future growth. Comment Deadline: August 21 TxDOT website: www.keeptexasmoving.c

• m

Trans-Texas Corridor-35

TxDOT Proposed Route

NCTCOG TTC-35 Efforts

1. Promote Regional Transportation Council TTC-35 position 2. Analysis of toll versus pass-through toll options for TTC-35 truck facilities 3. Initiate $2.0 Million Tower 55 study 4. TransCAD Model testing of TXDOT and RTC Alignments 5. Review major corridor studies for TTC-35 compliance 6. Present ‘Purpose and Need’ compliance to TxDOT

Regional Transportation Council Priorities for TTC-35

• 1. Meet concurrency requirement for State/Regional planning.
• 2. Meet ‘Purpose and Need’ of Tier I Study.
• 3. Support sustainable development while protecting

right-of-way today.

• 4. Separate modes in urban areas.
• 5. Stage construct roadways, truck facilities, and freight rail

bypasses.

• 6. Route from center of region first.
• 7. Use the TTC-35 initiative to pay for improvements in

the region.

Trans-Texas Corridor-35

Policy Dialogue

Federal Requirement: The Concurrency Process

Texas Department of Transportation

Regional Transportation Council Approval Texas Transportation Commission Approval

Proceed to Implementation Metropolitan Planning Organization

Data Exchange Consensus Building Concept Development Technical Analysis

Public Involvement Public Involvement

Transportation Department North Central Texas Council of Governments

Rail Volumes - 2025

Legend

Rail

Freight Rail Volume (trains per day)

MPA Boundary

Counties

76 - 125 1 - 12 13 - 25 26 - 38 39 - 50 51 - 75

Tower 55 Signal Occupancy

1509 4204 1440 2880 4320 Current 2025 Minutes Occupied 24 hours 48 hours 72 hours

Tower 55

K C S TRE Union Pacific Union Pacific BNSF Union Pacific DART BNSF B N S F Union Pacific FWWR B N S F D A R T BNSF Union Pacific Union Pacific

Regional Freight Rail Congestion

Hill Ellis Hunt Wise Collin Dallas Parker Navarro Denton Tarrant Bosque Kaufman Johnson Hood Jack Fannin Cooke Grayson Erath Henderson Van Zandt Montague Freestone Somervell Hamilton Rockwall Rains Anderson Clay Limestone Mclennan Delta Palo Pinto Hopkins Lamar

Legend

TTC-35 Features

±

Long Term TTC-35 Freight Rail Corridor Study Zone for Bypass Trains Near Term TTC-35 Freight Rail Corridor Study Zone for Bypass Trains Lakes Current freight rail lines continue to serve local freight rail needs in the future.

East-West Bypass / Tower 55 study Access to new Union Pacific intermodal yard Status of Projects Tower 55 Study - $1.6 million legislative earmark Union Pacific Intermodal Yard - SE Dallas County Operational – August 2005 Issues Limited ROW Staging/Phasing Funding Rail connection to Manzanillo, MX deep water port Evaluate status of abandoned rail line connecting Weatherford and Granbury

A New Regional Freight Rail System

6 6-

• Lane Parkway

Lane Parkway -

• 400’ ROW

400’ ROW

4/6 4/6 -

• Lane Parkway

Lane Parkway -

• 350’ ROW

350’ ROW

Potential TTC-35 Funding Partnership

Loop 9 alignment can accommodate part of TTC-35

Regional Goal: Staged Construction

• f TTC-35

Trans - Texas Corridor - 35

MPA Boundary

Regional Transportation Council Endorsed Near-term Facilities

Near-term TTC-35 Intercity Multimodal Route Study Zone Near-term TTC-35 Freight Rail Corridor Study Zone for Bypass Trains Near-term Automobile Urban Connector Alignment Near-term Truck Urban Connector Alignments

Hill Bell Ellis Leon Hunt Wise Falls Collin Coryell Dallas Jack Parker Navarro Erath Denton Bosque Tarrant Mclennan Anderson Cooke Fannin Limestone Kaufman Freestone Johnson Henderson Hamilton Van Zandt Hopkins Hood Grayson Robertson Clay Houston Lamar Milam Montague Madison Delta Wood Burnet Lampasas Rains Palo Pinto Smith Walker Somervell Rockwall Brazos Comanche Grimes Williamson Mills Cherokee Cherokee

Trans-Texas Corridor 35 Legend

TxDOT TTC-35 Recommended and Reasonable Preferred Corridor Alternatives Highways Texas Counties MPA Boundary Regional Recommended Alignment

Regional recommended alignment saves approx.: 60 miles - $1.9 billion

TxDOT TTC-35 Potential Connection Zones Opportunities to Shift Draft TxDOT TTC-35 Recommended Alignments

Trans-Texas Corridor-35: Expanded Tier I Corridor

Hill Bell Ellis Leon Hunt Wise Falls Collin Coryell Dallas Parker Navarro Jack Denton Bosque Erath Tarrant Mclennan Cooke Fannin Limestone Kaufman Grayson Anderson Freestone Johnson Henderson Van Zandt Hood Hamilton Hopkins Clay Robertson Lamar Montague Madison Houston Delta Milam Rains Lampasas Wood Burnet Smith Somervell Rockwall Walker Brazos Palo Pinto Comanche Grimes Williamson Mills

Legend

Recommended Tier I Corridor Highways Texas Counties MPA Boundary Regional Recommended Corridor TxDOT TTC-35 Potential Connection Zones

Map information available at: http://www.nctcog.org/trans/goods/ttc/index.asp

Air Quality Notes: Model results show a greater decrease in LOS ‘F’ roadways with the RTC Plan. The RTC Plan reduces locomotive idling. The RTC Plan encourages switch from truck to locomotive. The RTC Plan enhances local commuter rail opportunities.

Mike Sims, AICP msims@nctcog.org (817) 695-9226

• r

Greg Royster, P.E. groyster@nctcog.org (817) 695-9285

www.nctcog.org/trans/goods

Trans-Texas Corridor-35

For more information:

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL POSITION ON THE TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR-35 WHEREAS, the alignment of the Trans-Texas Corridor-35 (TTC-35) proposed by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Transportation Commission in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement unveiled in April 2006 would potentially encourage suburban sprawl, move jobs away from the core of the region, and increase vehicle miles traveled of trucks and auto drivers traveling to and from the metropolitan area to the TTC-35 corridor, and, WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Transportation proposed alignment fails to provide a workable route for the movement of freight rail, fails to address solving the Tower 55 freight rail bottleneck, and will discourage the modal shift from freight truck to freight rail in the metropolitan area, and, WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Council of the North Central Texas Council of Governments has passed a resolution establishing a regional policy position regarding the alignment

• f the TTC-35, and,

WHEREAS, the North Texas Clean Air Steering Committee agrees with the policy position established by the Regional Transportation Council regarding TTC-35 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE NORTH TEXAS CLEAN AIR STEERING COMMITTEE: Section 1. That the North Texas Clean Air Steering Committee supports the Regional Transportation Council’s Regional Policy Position regarding TTC-35. Section 2. That the North Texas Clean Air Steering Committee opposes the proposed alignment of TTC-35 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement unveiled by the Texas Department of Transportation in April 2006. Section 3. That the North Texas Clean Air Steering Committee encourages the Texas Department of Transportation to adjust the Tier I recommended TTC-35 to the regionally recommended alignment as shown in the attachment. Section 4. That the North Texas Clean Air Steering Committee recognizes the need to balance the expansion of trade and commerce with the goals of congestion relief and air quality improvements and encourages the Texas Department of Transportation to fully examine the air quality impacts of all potential TTC-35 projects in the Tier II environmental study phase. Section 5. That this resolution be provided to the Texas Department of Transportation and the Regional Transportation Council. Section 6. That this resolution shall be in effect immediately upon its adoption. _____________________________ _______________________ Name, Title Name, Title Entity Entity ATTACHMENT: NCTCOG Map

Trans-Texas Corridor-35: Expanded Tier I Corridor

Hill Bell Ellis Leon Hunt Wise Falls Collin Coryell Dallas Parker Navarro Jack Denton Bosque Erath Tarrant Mclennan Cooke Fannin Limestone Kaufman Grayson Anderson Freestone Johnson Henderson Van Zandt Hood Hamilton Hopkins Clay Robertson Lamar Montague Madison Houston Delta Milam Rains Lampasas Wood Burnet Smith Somervell Rockwall Walker Brazos Palo Pinto Comanche Grimes Williamson Mills

Legend

Recommended Tier I Corridor Highways Texas Counties MPA Boundary Regional Recommended Corridor TxDOT TTC-35 Potential Connection Zones

Map information available at: http://www.nctcog.org/trans/goods/ttc/index.asp