Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:10]

>> CLERK: OCTOBER 17, 2018.

TZ

>> CLERK: MAYOR, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.

WELCOME TO OUR CITY COUNCIL B SESSION AGENDA.

THE TIME IS 2:14 P.M.

WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TODAY, SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO OUR CITY MANAGER, SHERYL

[1. Briefing by the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District on Ozone Formation Study Results and Recommendations [Erik Walsh, Deputy City Manager; Colleen M. Bridger, MPH, PhD, Director, Health]]

SCULLEY.

>> SCULLEY: THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA WILL BE PRESENTED BY DR. COLLEEN BRIDGER, OUR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND OF COURSE SHE'S GOING TO TALK WITH US ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE LOCAL OZONE FORMATION STUDY, AND SHE WILL INTRODUCE OUR GUEST SPEAKER, WHO WILL TALK SCIENTIFICALLY ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THAT STUDY.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, ON SEPTEMBER 24TH, THE EPA, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED BEXAR COUNTY IN MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT OF THE FEDERAL GROUND LEVEL OZONE STANDARDS.

THAT'S A MOUTHFUL.

IN AUGUST, METRO HEALTH DID PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL THE OZONE ATTAINMENT NEXT STEPS THAT THE CITY WILL ENGAGE IN ORDER TO ADDRESS AND STEPS THAT WE ALL CAN TAKE TO IMPROVE OUR AIR QUALITY.

AND, OF COURSE, DURING THE PRESENTATION, TODAY WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM AN AIR QUALITY EXPERT, DR. HARVEY JEFFREYS, AND HE'S GOING TO BE MAKING THE PRESENTATION FOLLOWING COLLEEN'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

DR. JEFFREYS IS A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED ATMOSPHERIC CHEMIST WHO HAS BEEN STUDYING OZONE FORMATION FOR MANY YEARS AND HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN OTHER TEXAS CITIES PROVIDING ANALYSIS OF OZONE LEVELS.

OVER THE PAST YEAR, DR. JEFFREYS CONDUCTED A STUDY ON LOCAL AMBIENT OZONE FORMATION USING SAN ANTONIO AIR QUALITY MONITORS.

TODAY DR. JEFFREYS WILL SHARE THE RESULTS OF HIS STUDY, GAPS IN DATA AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS TO LOWER THE OZONE LEVEL IN SAN ANTONIO.

ADDITIONALLY, DR. BRIDGER WILL PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE NEXT STEPS IN OUR OZONE ATTAINMENT PROCESS, AND I WANT TO, AGAIN, THANK DR. BRIDGER FOR TAKING ON THIS ASSIGNMENT.

SHE IS LEADING OUR TEAM AND EFFORT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WITH REGARD TO AIR QUALITY WITHIN OUR CITY.

SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO ASK DR. BRIDGER TO COME FORWARD, MAKE HER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, AND THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM DR. JEFFREYS.

COLLEEN?

>> DR. BRIDGER: IT IS A GREAT HONOR TO BE ABLE TO INTRODUCE YOU TO YOU DR. HARVEY JEFFREYS.

DR. JEFFREYS EARNED HIS MASTER'S DEGREE IN AIR AND INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE AND HIS PH.D. IN ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY BOTH FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPPEL HILL.

MY ALMA MATER.

HE'S A PROFESSOR AT THE GILLINGS SCHOOL OF GLOBAL PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPPEL HILL SINCE 2011.

HE HAS BEEN THE PRINCIPLE OF 03 CHEMISTRY AND RESEARCH SINCE 1983 AND HE'S A NATIONAL EXPERT IN HIS FIELD AND HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE HONORS AND AWARDS FOR HIS RESEARCH IN LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES.

AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, DR. JEFFREYS' WORK HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN LOWERING OZONE LEVELS IN OTHER TEXAS CITIES, INCLUDING HOUSTON AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, WHICH IS BEAUMONT, PORT ARTHUR.

SO THE WAY THIS IS GOING TO WORK, HE'S GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE RESULTS OF HIS STUDY, AND THEN I'M GOING TO COME UP AND LET YOU KNOW THE NEXT STEPS, AND THEN WE'LL BOTH BE HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

SO I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO DR. JEFFREYS.

>> THANK YOU, COLLEEN.

MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, IT'S AN HONOR TO BE HERE TO DO THIS.

I'VE ALWAYS HAD AN INTEREST IN OTHER PARTS OF TEXAS AFTER SPENDING LOTS OF TIME IN HOUSTON, AND IT'S INTERESTING TO FIND OUT THAT MANY OF THE UNDERLYING SCIENTIFIC ISSUES THAT WE'VE EXAMINED IN HOUSTON APPLY TO MANY PARTS OF TEXAS.

SO THAT IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE DOING ALL OF THIS FOR JUST THE FIRST TIME.

IT MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME FOR YOU, BUT THE DYNAMICS, THE CHEMISTRY AND THE PHYSICS TURN OUT TO BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.

AND SO YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF COMPARISONS TODAY BETWEEN HOUSTON AND SAN ANTONIO, AND A LITTLE BIT OF EL PASO.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE I'VE ONLY HAD

[00:05:01]

ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS TO LOOK AT ALL OF YOUR DATA FOR ALL OF THAT PERIOD OF TIME AND UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THE SAME, WHAT'S DIFFERENT.

SO IT WILL TAKE A LITTLE WHILE TO DO THAT.

LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

COLLEEN SAID ALMOST ALL OF THIS, I WAS IN ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AT UNC FOR 44 YEARS.

I WAS THE SCIENCE ADVISER FOR THE HOUSTON EIGHT-HOUR OZONE COLITION STAKEHOLDERS FROM ABOUT 2000 UNTIL ABOUT 2012, AND I TOOK A FIVE-YEAR BREAK, BUT NOW HOUSTON IS BACK WITH A DIFFERENT SUBTLE KIND OF PROBLEM, AND I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE HOUSTON PROBLEM SINCE 2015 UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME, AND I'M STILL WORKING ON THAT PROBLEM WITH THEM.

I WAS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL URBAN AIR TOXIC CENTER WHICH WAS HOUSED IN TEXAS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, WAS A MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD FOR AIR QUALITY ISSUES FOR A WHILE, A U.S. EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD ADVISORY COUNCIL, CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, REACTIVITY ADVISORY.

I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY -- AND I WAS -- YOU -- UNC IS ONLY 8 MILES AWAY FROM THE EPA OFFICE IN THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, THEY MOVED IN THERE JUST AS I FINISHED MY PH.D.

I'VE HAD MANY, MANY, MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF RESEARCH FROM THEM, AND IN PART OF THAT, THEY THOUGHT SINCE I WAS 8 MILES AWAY, THEY WOULD CALL ME UP AND SAY WE'RE HAVING A MEETING THIS AFTERNOON AND WE THINK YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED, COULD YOU COME OUT? SO I WOULD GO OUT.

SO THROUGH THIS PROCESS I LEARNED TO MEET MANY, MANY PEOPLE AND SPEND LOTS OF TIME AND PROVIDE A LOT OF FREE CONSULTING.

SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR AND HAVE BEEN, AND I HAVE MAYBE 15 OR 18 STUDENTS WHO ACTUALLY WORK AT THE EPA OFFICE OF POLICY PLANNING.

I HAVE MORE WORKING IN POLICY PLANNING AT EPA THAN I DO IN THE RESEARCH OFFICE.

OH, THANK YOU.

[INDISCERNIBLE] FOR HAVING GONE ON THE ROAD WITH THEM AND PUT UP WITH ALL THE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS OF GOVERNMENT TRAVEL AND HAVING A LOT OF FUN, AND, IN FACT, IT WAS ONE OF THOSE TRIPS THAT I MET A LADY FROM TEXAS WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE TCEQ, AND I BECAME MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT WAS GOING ON IN TEXAS.

BECAUSE OF THAT, I WAS ADDED TO A BUNCH OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND I SPENT A LOT OF TIME GOING AROUND THE UNIVERSITIES HERE AND FIGURING OUT WHO WAS DOING WHAT.

AND EVENTUALLY THAT ATTRACTED THE ATTENTION OF THE COALITION PEOPLE WHO ASKED ME TO REVIEW THE SIP, AND I TOLD THEM I DIDN'T HAVE TIME.

AND THEY SAID, WELL, WE'LL PAY YOU DOUBLE.

SO EVENTUALLY I REVIEWED THE SIP, AND I BECAME SO INTERESTED IN IT, I DIDN'T QUIT FOR 15 YEARS, SO I'M VERY, VERY INTERESTED IN THE ISSUES HERE.

HOUSTON AND THIS WHOLE BAND OF TEXAS AT 30°, MOST INTERESTING AIR QUALITY PROBLEM PROBABLY IN THE WORLD.

AND WE'VE JUST FOUND OUT THAT ONE OF THESE ISSUES REPEATS ITSELF IN TAIWAN.

WE WERE LOOKING FOR OTHER PLACES WHERE IT MIGHT HAPPEN EXACTLY THIS WAY.

SO WHAT I'M -- WHAT I DO, AND THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN AIR QUALITY WHO DO THIS, I ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE OBSERVATIONS HOUR BY HOUR, DETAIL BY DETAIL.

EVERYTHING.

I DON'T LIKE TO TAKE ALL THE SUMMARY AND INFORMATION AND SO FORTH THAT THE EIGHT-HOUR AIR QUALITY STANDARD IS VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS SCIENTIFICALLY.

YOU CAN'T DEDUCE ANYTHING FROM A WHOLE LIST OF NUMBERS THAT ARE EIGHT HOUR.

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND DECOMPOSE THEM INTO THE ONE-HOUR VALUE, THE INDIVIDUAL CONDITIONS.

YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND A MISH MASH OF FOUR DIFFERENT CAUSES INTO A SINGLE NUMBER AND THEN THINK THAT YOU CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BY ANALYZING AND LOOKING AT THOSE NUMBERS, SO I GO BACK TO -- THE REAL NUMBERS ARE TAKEN EVERY FIVE MINUTES, BUT THEY AVERAGE THOSE TOGETHER AT EIGHT MINUTES.

THERE ARE 21 AIR QUALITY MONITORS IN SAN ANTONIO AREA.

THREE OF THEM ARE REGULATORY AND I'VE GIVEN THEM MY OWN NAMES.

PEOPLE DOWN HERE KEEP REFERRING THEM AS C NUMBERS, I DON'T CARE, I HAVE A LOT OF ABBREVIATIONS BECAUSE I NEED FILE NAMES.

BULL -- BULLIS, SAN ANTONIO, I HAVE A TOTAL OF 92 DIFFERENT KINDS OF OBSERVATIONS AVAILABLE TO ME FOR YEARS 2012, 2015 AND 2016.

AND SO I START WITH THOSE DATA AND REPROCESS THEM AND ANALYZE THEM IN VARIOUS WAY, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO SORT OF WALK YOU THROUGH.

MY TASK IS TO TURN THESE HOURLY DATA INTO SOMETHING -- INTO MEANINGFUL GRAPHS AND PLOTS, AND TO CONTRAST THESE AMONG EXCEEDENCES AND NONEXCEEDENCES FOR OZONE AND THEN FIGURE OUT IF I CAN FIGURE OUT WHY EACH

[00:10:02]

OCCURRED AND WHY NOT.

NOW, AGAIN, THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S NORMALLY APPROACHED BY REGULATORS.

THEY SIMPLY LOOK AT THE EIGHT-HOUR NUMBERS AND COME UP AND SAY YOU'VE GOT TO DO THIS BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THE LAW IS.

IN ORDER TO DO IT, YOU'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHY? AND IF YOU WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHY, YOU'VE GOT TO GO LOOK AT THE HOURLY DATA AND YOU'VE GOT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH IT.

SO YOU'LL FIND MANY PEOPLE USE ONLY THE EIGHT-HOUR NUMBERS, AND THOSE -- THEY JUST DON'T TELL YOU MUCH.

SO I USE MOSTLY ONE-HOUR NUMBERS, I CALCULATE ALL THE EIGHT-HOUR NUMBERS AND THEN I ANALYZE THEM AND TRANSLATE MY ONE-HOUR INFORMATION BACK INTO THE EIGHT-HOUR DOMAIN.

SO A GRAPH ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OVER HERE IS TYPICAL.

THAT'S ONE MONTH OF BULLIS FOR AUGUST OF 2015, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT -- AND I'LL GO OVER THIS IN SOME DETAIL IN A FEW MINUTES.

BELOW IT IS THE NOX DATA LINED UP EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

NOW, ONCE WE UNDERSTAND WHY THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PERIODS OF VIOLATION IN THAT ONE MONTH, AND IN THE OTHER PERIODS THERE ARE NONE, WHY THAT IS HAPPENING, AND THEN TRY TO DIG FURTHER INTO IT.

ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CAUSES ARE, YOU HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO DO TO CUT DOWN OR PREVENT THESE.

NOW, WHAT DO I MEAN BY EXPLANATIONS? WELL, THERE ARE A WHOLE QUALITY OF EXPLANATIONS, THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM IS MISSING.

WE DON'T HAVE A CLUE, PERIOD.

THAT'S IT.

THERE'S NONE AVAILABLE AND ALL OF THEM MAKE SENSE.

YOU CAN'T ARGUE ONE OR THE OTHER.

THE NEXT ONE IS PERMISSIVE, AND AT LEAST THE ADVANTAGE OF PERMISSIVE IS YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION, YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE RIGHT ONE OR NOT.

OTHERS COULD BE THE EXPLANATION, BUT YOU CAN SHOW THAT THIS COULD BE THE EXPLANATION BECAUSE YOU HAVE SOME SUPPORTING INFORMATION THE ONE YOU WOULD LIKE AND WHICH IS MOSTLY LIKE THE LEGAL STANDING IS PREPONDERANT.

I HAVE AN EXPLANATION, AND NOT ONLY THAT, WE HAVE TESTED AND LOOKED AT IT AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION, BUT I CAN'T ACTUALLY RULE OUT THESE OTHER TWO THAT MIGHT BE MAYBE 5% PROBABILITY.

SO THAT'S WHERE YOU'D LIKE TO BE IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE DECISIONS AND MAKE PEOPLE SPEND MONEY.

COMPEL, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE, THIS IS OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

VERY RARE IN AIR QUALITY.

SO MOSTLY IF WE'RE DOING THINGS CORRECTLY, WE'LL BE IN THE SORT OF PREPONDERANT RANGE, BUT THERE WILL STILL BE COMPETING ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

NOW, THE PROBLEM WITH ALL OF THIS, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE A DECISION, THAT'S VERY ABSTRACT.

SO I CAME UP WITH ANOTHER COMPLETE DESCRIPTION CALLED DEFENSIBLE EXPLANATION.

THAT IS, YOU'VE GOT TO DEFEND WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, I KNOW WHY THAT'S HAPPENING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME DEFENSE, AND LET'S LOOK DOWN THAT LINE.

THERE'S VERIFIABLE INFORMATION, THAT'S SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.

THAT'S INFORMATION THAT CAN BE TESTED, CAN BE TESTED BY ANOTHER PERSON, CAN BE REPEATED, GETS PUBLISHED IN THE BOOKS.

THAT'S THE TRUTH, IN A SENSE, AS WE KNOW IT BEST TODAY.

GUESS WHAT? WE DON'T HAVE VERY MANY OF THOSE.

WE'RE STUCK.

YOU CAN BUILD WONDERFUL CONCEPTUAL MODELS.

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL IS FULL, IT'S TEXTURED, IT'S RICH, IT'S FEATURED, BUT GUESS WHAT? YOU CAN'T CALCULATE WITH IT, IT'S JUST A MODEL.

IT'S JUST A CONCEPTUAL IDEA IN YOUR HEAD.

IT LEADS YOU TO CONNECT THIS IDEA AND THAT IDEA, BUT YOU CAN'T TURN THE CRANK AND GET AN ANSWER.

IT WON'T TELL YOU WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN ATTAINMENT OR NOT.

IT MIGHT EXPLAIN WHY YOU MIGHT NOT BE IN THE GENERAL, BUT IT WON'T TELL YOU WHY.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS IS WHAT'S CALLED VINDICATED.

IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO GET USED TO THE WORD VINDICATED.

LOOK IT UP, TRY IT OUT, UNDERSTAND IT.

IT MEANS THAT BASICALLY THE SIMPLEST WAY IS DOING THE BEST YOU KNOW HOW FOR NOW.

NOW, HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING THE BEST YOU KNOW HOW? BECAUSE YOU GO THROUGH IT AND SAY, THERE'S THIS CHOICE, BUT THIS IS BETTER THAN IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE TO DEFEND THOSE -- TODAY, I'VE GOT THIS MODEL, THE MODEL ISN'T BEING USED BY EVERYBODY, SO LET'S GO USE IT.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DEFENSE OF ALL OF THE ISSUES, CHOICES, YOU'D HAVE TO SHOW THAT ALTERNATIVE COMPETING EXPLANATIONS ARE NOT AS GOOD AS THE ONES YOU'RE USING.

THAT'S WHAT A DEFENSE IS.

THAT'S AN ENGINEERING APPROACH.

OFTEN THAT HAPPENS, AN ENGINEER, HE CAN'T GET THE -- HE CAN'T FIT THE EQUATION TO THE ACTUAL DATA POINTS BUT HE CAN FIT A CURVE THROUGH IT, AND THAT MIGHT BE THE BEST YOU COULD DO.

AT LEAST HE'S GOT THE DATA AND THE CURVE AND HE CAN MAKE A CALCULATION THAT HE CAN SHOW YOU WHERE THE NUMBERS CAME FROM.

NOW, THAT KIND OF INFORMATION CAN BE OPERATIONALIZED.

YOU CAN TURN IT INTO A TOOL, A MODEL.

YOU CAN MAKE PREDICTIONS.

YOU CAN PUT INPUTS IN, YOU CAN OPERATE THE PROCESS, AND YOU GET OUTPUTS OUT.

ALL THOSE OPERATIONAL MODELS, THOUGH, THEY SUFFER FROM THREE PRINCIPLE PROBLEMS OF ALL

[00:15:02]

MODELS.

THEY'RE GENERALIZED, YOU TREAT THINGS THAT ARE CLOSE AS ALL THE SAME.

SO YOU DO GRIDS, PUT A GRID IN.

EVEN THOUGH THE GRID MIGHT HAVE CITY -- MIGHT HAVE HOUSES AND RIVERS AND INDUSTRY, YOU'RE STILL LUMPING IT INTO ONE CATEGORY, ADD IT ALL UP AND TREAT IT LIKE IT'S ONE THING.

THAT'S GENERALIZED.

DISTORTED MEANS I DON'T HAVE TIME TO DO ALL THE DETAILS STEP.

I'LL JUST COME UP WITH A FORMULA THAT GETS ME FROM THE FIRST STEP TO THE LAST STEP, IT'S A DISSTOR SHUN.

THE THIRD ONE IS, I DON'T EVEN CARE IF METHANE DOES EXIST, I'M NOT GOING TO PUT IT IN MY MODEL.

THAT'S COMMONLY DONE, DELETION.

SO THESE THREE PRINCIPLES APPLY TO EVERY SINGLE MODEL.

AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE USING A MODEL TO MAKE DECISIONS WITH, YOU OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT AND ASK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THE MODELING, WHAT KIND OF GENERALIZATIONS, WHAT KIND OF DISTORTIONS AND WHAT KIND OF DELETIONS SHOW UP IN YOUR MODEL THAT ARE GOING TO AFFECT MY USE OF YOUR MODEL.

AND THAT'S NOT OFTEN DONE.

WE'RE DOING SOME OF IT.

NOW, THE ADVANTAGE OF ALL OF THIS IS YOU CAN FORECAST.

THE SCIENCE SIDE, THE VERIFIED SIDE, YOU CAN'T FORECAST.

THERE'S NO MODEL OVER THERE, THERE'S NO TURNING IT INTO SOMETHING YOU CAN CRANK, IT'S -- BUT IT TELLS YOU WHAT KINDS OF ISSUES, FACTS, PROCESSES, ET CETERA, BUT A TOOL LIKE A MODEL IS OPERATIONAL.

THE ADVANTAGE OF AN OPERATIONAL MODEL IS YOU CAN MAKE FORECASTS.

NOW, THE QUESTION IS, IS THE FORECAST ANY GOOD? AND THAT'S WHY YOU WANT TO HAVE IT VERIFIED, DOING THE BEST I KNOW HOW, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, THAT'S THE DEFENSE FOR OPERATING A MODEL WHICH IS GOING TO TELL YOU SOMETHING 10 YEARS FROM NOW AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY ON IT, SOMEBODY HAS GONE THROUGH AND DONE THIS KIND OF WORK.

THE PROBLEM WITH THOSE FORECASTS IS THEY ARE UNVERIFIABLE FUTURE STATES.

THE MODEL SAYS YOU'LL BE IN ATTAINMENT OR NOT IN ATTAINMENT, BUT THERE'S NO WAY, IT'S 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE.

YOU HAVE TO TRUST THE MODEL'S OKAY.

BUT IF THE MODEL IS SUFFERING FROM INTERACTIONS AND PROBLEMS, AND I'LL SHOW YOU A FEW OF THOSE, YOU CAN'T COUNT ON THE MODEL FOR THAT PURPOSE.

SO THAT'S THE ISSUE THERE.

NOW, HOW DO YOU THEN GO MAKE A DECISION? WELL, YOU'VE GOT TO BRING EVERYTHING YOU'VE GOT TO THE TABLE.

YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE EXPECTATIONS, A LOGICAL ANALYSIS FROM YOUR CONCEPTUAL MODEL, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE ANALYSES AND WORK ON THE OPERATIONAL MODELS THAT EXAMINE THE CAUSE THAT THE ANSWER IN THE OPERATIONAL MODEL AND THAT TALK ABOUT THE RESPONSE IN THOSE.

SO THAT THEN COMBINED ALTOGETHER AND THOUGHT ABOUT ALTOGETHER, ALLOWS YOU TO MAKE THE BEST POSSIBLE DECISION YOU CAN AT THE MOMENT.

NOW, WHAT DID EPA DO AFTER COMING TO REALIZE THIS WAS THE CASE? THEY SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN MAKING THESE DECISIONS OF GOING OUT HERE TO THAT NUMBER IN A YEAR, AND THEN WE JUST BUILD IT OUT AND YOU GO.

WELL, NOW WHAT THEY'VE SAID IS WE NEED A MIDCOURSE CORRECTION.

SO THEY HAVE A MIDCOURSE CORRECTION WHERE YOU WAIT.

SO THAT'S THE DEADLINE, BUT THEY WANT TO KNOW HOW WELL ARE YOU ACTUALLY DOING ALONG THE PATHWAY FOR THE FIRST TIME.

THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THEY STARTED DOING THAT.

AND SO THEN THEY ASKED YOU TO DO A BUNCH OF NOT QUITE FULL-BLOWN WORK BUT EXAMINE -- NOW YOU HAVE A HISTORY THAT'S HALFWAY.

DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHAT YOU SAID WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IS HAPPENING, OR IS IT NOT? SO THAT'S HOW THAT PART WORKS.

NOW, A LOT OF YOU KNOW OZONE BECAUSE YOU'RE BEING REGULATED FOR IT BUT I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW VERY MUCH ABOUT HOW COMPLICATED OZONE IS.

IT IS ONE OF THE MOST MESSY, HARD TO UNDERSTAND, CONTRARY INGREDIENT IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

FIRST OF ALL, NOBODY EMMITTS OZONE, SO YOU CAN'T GO TO SOME PLANT AND SAY, OH, NO, WE'RE GOING TO REGULATE THE AMOUNT OF OZONE YOU'RE EMITTING, THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

OZONE'S MADE IN THE AIR AND IT'S MADE FROM OXIDES OF OXYGEN, NO AND N O2, YOU PUT THOSE TWO TOGETHER AND IT BECOMES NOX, AND EOCS VOLATILE CARBON COMPOUNDS.

SO THOSE TWO IN THE PRESENCE OF SUNLIGHT WILL REACT TO MAKE OZONE, AND EPA A LONG TIME AGO HAD A SIMPLE MODEL THAT WORKED FOR MANY YEARS AND IS STILL APPLIED AROUND THE WORLD, AND THAT'S THIS MODEL I'M SHOWING YOU HERE.

THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE WHERE YOU -- ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, IT'S A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL.

OZONE IS THE LINE THAT GOES AROUND.

THERE'S A SOLID BLACK LINE THAT SHOWS YOU THE OZONE TA WOULD BE PRODUCED AT CONSTANT NOX, BUT VARYING THE VOC, AND YOU SEE EVERY INCREASE IN VOC LEADS TO A SLIGHT INCREASE IN OZONE.

YOU NEVER HAVE A CASE WHERE VESSING VOC LOWERS OZONE.

SO THAT PATHWAY SHOWS IT GOING UP.

LOOK AT THE NOX SIDE.

THAT'S THE LITTLE CROSS PIECE AT THE BOTTOM.

THERE, IF YOU START WITH 0 AND GO TO THE LEFT, AT FIRST, AS YOU INCREASE NOX, OZONE GOES UP, BUT

[00:20:01]

IF YOU KEEP GOING, IT GOES DOWN.

AND THE MORE YOU PUT NOX IN, THE LOWER IT GOES.

WELL GUESS WHAT? HOUSTON TRIED TO USE THAT AS A CONTROL STRATEGY.

LET'S PUT MORE NOX IN.

LET'S JUST ADD A LOT MORE NOX, THAT WILL LOWER THE OZONE, OR THEY WERE AFRAID IF THEY REDUCED THE NOX THEY HAD, IT WOULD MAKE THE OZONE WORSE.

SO THERE'S THE CASE IF YOU'RE A POLICYMAKER YOU'RE GOING TO GO OUT AND SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS AND PRODUCE NOX AND IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE, THE OZONE.

THAT'S NOT VERY GOOD.

THE RESPONSE DEPENDS UPON WHERE YOU START.

SO YOU COULD HAVE CASES WHERE YOU REDUCE VOCS BY LARGE AMOUNTS, NOTHING HAPPENS.

YOU SPEND A FORTUNE, YOU DIDN'T GET ANY GAIN AT ALL.

SO THIS MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO SORT OF DEAL WITH THIS.

HERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT'S REALLY DIFFICULT.

YOU CAN DILUTE THE HECK OUT OF THE PRECURSORS, AND WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT AND THEY'RE GOING AWAY, OZONE'S GETTING HIGHER AND HIGHER AND HIGHER.

YOU CAN'T DILUTE OZONE IN A REACTIVE SYSTEM.

THE MORE YOU DO THE DILUTION, THE MORE THE OZONE GOES UP.

SO YOU'VE GOT THIS CRAZY PROBLEM THAT WHERE ALL OF THESE THINGS INTERACTING TOGETHER RKT AND YOU KNOW WHAT? YOUR HEAD AIN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO SOLVE THIS, SO YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A MODEL.

SO IF YOU REALLY WANT TO CALCULATE THE NUMBERS AND CHANGE, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A MODEL OF SOME KIND.

THE QUESTION IS, HOW GOOD IS THE MODEL? HOW MANY THINGS ARE IN THE MODEL? HOW MANY OTHER THINGS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MODEL? BUT BASICALLY WITHOUT THE MODEL YOU CAN'T OPERATIONALIZE THE ISSUE WITH OZONE.

YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY GET THE RESPONSE, ET CETERA, UNLESS YOU'RE RUNNING A MODEL.

THE MODEL HIDES SO MANY THINGS, IF ALL YOU'RE DOING IS RUNNING THE MODEL, YOU COULD GET ANSWERS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

SO THERE'S AN ISSUE OF, WELL, HOW GOOD'S THE MODEL? AND THEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW GOOD'S THE MODEL 20 YEARS FROM NOW OR 10 YEARS FROM NOW? YOU DON'T KNOW.

YOU'RE COUNTING ON THE MODEL BEING RIGHT.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THE MODEL'S RIGHT? YOU TEST IT.

GUESS WHAT? EPA DOESN'T TEST ANYTHING OTHER THAN A BASE YEAR.

THEY DON'T TEST ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE.

THEY FOUND OUT THEY COULDN'T.

SO THE PROBLEM WITH THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT INVOLVES EMISSIONS, DISBERGSES, REACTIONS, DEPOSITION.

YOU NEED WIND OBSERVATIONS TO DO THE DELUSIONS AND TRANSPORT.

YOU NEED CHEMICAL SPECIES TO DO REACTION, DISPERSIONS AND DEPOSITION.

YOUR MODELS HAVE TO HAVE A FULL ENOUGH COMPLEMENT OF INTERESTS TO GET MEANINGFUL INFORMATION.

IF ALL YOU SAW WAS THE OZONE AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE WINDS OR -- YOU CAN'T FIGURE OUT ANYTHING.

ALL YOU CAN DO IS SAY I'VE GOT OZONE.

IT'S NECESSARILY TO HAVE FAIRLY COMPLICATED SYSTEMS AND ONLY THREE -- WELL, THERE'S ABOUT 15, ONLY THREE ARE LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE IN THE AREA OF SAN ANTONIO.

THOSE ARE BULLIS, SAN ANTONIO NORTHWEST AND LAKE CALAVARES.

THE LAKE IS ABSOLUTELY USELESS.

THE WIND BLOWS ACROSS THE LAKE AND SCREWS EVERYTHING ELSE.

IT NEVER SHOWS A VIOLATION, EVERYTHING BLOWS AWAY, DOESN'T AGREE WITH ANYTHING ELSE.

SO THE ONLY TWO MONITORS WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT ARE AT CAMP BULLIS AND THE ONE ON THE WESTERN SIDE.

HERE'S THE FIRST THING.

THIS COMES FROM LOTS OF EXPERIENCE IN TEXAS.

WE'VE ANALYZED 200,000 HOURS OF MONITOR DATA FROM 2000 TO NOW IN HOUSTON, AND THIS IS WHERE ALL OF THIS FIRST KNOWLEDGE CAME FROM.

WE'VE APPLIED THAT SAME ANALYSIS FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW IN SAN ANTONIO, IT AGREES.

WE'VE APPLIED IT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS IN EL PASO, AND WE GET PRETTY MUCH, AS YOU MIGHT HOPE, SAN ANTONIO HAS A DISTINCTIVE DIFFERENCE AND SO DOES EL PASO THAN HOUSTON, BUT IN GENERAL, THE PHENOMENA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR BOTH WINDS AND FOR CHEMISTRY IS THE SAME IN ALL THREE LOCATIONS.

AND I'LL SHOW YOU WHY IN JUST A FEW MINUTES.

TO MAKE OZONE IN TEXAS CITIES, WE HAVE DISCOVERED THAT THERE ARE NECESSARY WIND CONDITIONS.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THESE WIND CONDITIONS IN THE CITY ON THAT DAY, YOU DO NOT HAVE A VIOLATION, PERIOD.

THEN -- AND THERE ARE CERTAIN WIND CONDITIONS, IF YOU HAVE THEM, THEY'RE NECESSARY TO HAVE A VIOLATION, BUT YOU STILL MIGHT NOT HAVE A VIOLATION.

IT'S IF YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE WIND CONDITIONS, YOU WON'T HAVE A VIOLATION.

SO WE CAN SEPARATE THAT PART OUT PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

THE SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS ARE HAVING THE WINDS THAT YOU NEED, DO YOU ALSO HAVE THE CHEMISTRY THAT YOU NEED? SO THE WINDS SET UP THE NECESSARY ENVIRONMENT FOR THE CHEMISTRY TO TAKE PLACE.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE CHEMICALS, THERE'S NO CHEMISTRY TAKING PLACE, BUT THE WIND'S STILL SET UP.

SO THIS IS THE KIND OF DIVISION WE'RE GOING TO DO.

IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.

I'LL SHOW YOU A PIE CHART.

[00:25:01]

NECESSARY CONDITIONS COMMON TO ALL SAN ANTONIO OZONE EXCEEDENCES ARE DAILY 3Q, 4Q WIND ROTATIONS.

I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THOSE MEAN EXACTLY IN A MINUTE, BUT THERE'S A SPECIAL 2Q CASE THAT WE DID DISCOVER.

DEPENDING ON THE YEAR -- NOW THIS IS THE POINT, DEPENDING ON THE YEAR BETWEEN 50 TO 60% OF THE ANNUAL DAYS AT THE BULLIS SITE EXHIBIT THE NECESSARY WIND CONDITIONS.

SO YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY HALF THE TIME OR MORE TO MAKE OZONE VIOLATIONS AT BULLIS.

ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU ONLY DID IT ON 18 DAYS.

WHOA! WELL, WHAT HAPPENED? SO YOU HAVE A NECESSARY ENVIRONMENT THAT COULD HAVE PUT YOU IN DEEP TROUBLE, BUT SOMETHING'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THE CHEMICAL SIDE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND FIGURE OUT.

THEN IN BLUE, IT SAYS HERE, THIS IS MOST LIKELY CAUSED BY THE SUFFICIENT CHEMICAL CONDITIONS NOT BEING ACHIEVED ON THOSE DAYS.

WELL, GUESS WHAT? THAT'S THE TARGET OF CONTROL STRATEGIES.

YOU'RE TRYING TO GET THIS STUFF NOT BE AVAILABLE, EVEN THOUGH THE METEOROLOGY IS HAPPENING.

NOW, IT'S HAPPENING TO YOU NATURALLY.

YOU HAVE SOME DAYS THAT DO, AND A LOT OF DAYS THAT DON'T.

WHY? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? IF YOU GET THAT PINNED DOWN, YOU MIGHT FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO MAKE ALL THE DAYS BE THAT WAY.

SO TEXAS WINDS ROTATE.

NOW, THIS WAS A SHOCK TO US, WE DISCOVERED IT IN 2000, SOME OTHER PEOPLE KNEW ABOUT IT, BUT KNOW ONE HAD EVER -- NO ONE HAD EVER WRITTEN ABOUT IT AND WE DISCOVERED IT BY ANALYZING MONITORING IN HOUSTON.

AND AS I SAID, WE'VE NOW ANALYZED OVER 100,000 MONITOR HOURS AND THIS HOLDS UP.

NOW, WHAT IS THE DEAL? IT TURNS OUT WE HAVE THE FULL SCIENCE TO EXPLAIN THIS.

I'LL SHOW YOU IN JUST A SECOND, BUT TO SHOW YOU HOW WIDESPREAD IT IS, AND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS, THIS IS WHAT ARE -- THESE ARE WIND SOWNERS THAT SIT AT THE GROUND AND MEASURE THE WINDS ALL THE WAY UP BY A SONIC DEVICE, AND THEY CAN SEE WHICH WAY THE WINDS ARE GOING AND THE SPEEDS AND SO FORTH.

SO IN THE TEXAS EX2000 FIELD PROBLEM THEY PUT ALL THESE MONITORS TOGETHER IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, AND OUR FRIEND AND BUDDY WHO'S THE METEOROLOGIST AT TEXAS A&M, JOHN NIELSON GAMMONS WHO'S BEEN INVOLVED WITH ME AND IN HOUSTON ON HIS OWN AND OTHER STUFF, WHAT YOU SEE IS WINDS ROTATE ALL OVER TEXAS.

THEY ROTATE THE MOST AT 30°.

WHO'S AT 30°? HOUSTON.

YOU GUYS ARE CLOSE.

SAN ANTONIO -- I MEAN, EL PASO IS CLOSE.

THE CLOSER YOU ARE AT 30, THE MORE OPPORTUNITIES YOU HAVE FOR ROTATING WINDS.

TURNS OUT, THE OZONE PROBLEM LIKE THAT IS THE SAME IN TAIWAN AT 30.

NOW, WHAT'S ABOUT 30? THAT WAS FUNNY.

SO I'LL TELL YOU THIS: IT'S CAUSED BY THE CORIOLIS FORCE ON THE ONE HAND AND BY THE LARGE SCALE FLOW OF AIR FROM HIGH PRESSURE AND LOW PRESSURE ON THE OTHER HAND, AND THEY SET UP A RIGHT ROTATION OF THE WIND.

SO THE WIND, DURING THE DAY, TURNS FROM COMING FROM HERE TO HERE TO HERE TO HERE TO HERE TO HERE.

AND WHAT'S SPECIAL ABOUT HOUSTON? AT 30°, IT TAKES 24 HOURS TO CLOSE THE CIRCLE.

SO AT MIDNIGHT, YOU START OUT GOING THIS WAY, YOU GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THE COMPASS, THE WIND COMES FROM ALL THESE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS DURING THE DAY, AND AT MIDNIGHT IT COMES BACK TO WHERE IT WAS.

SO YOU REPEAT.

REPEAT, REPEAT.

AND WHEN THE WIND'S ROTATING LIKE THAT, HOW MUCH DISPERSION IS THERE? NOT MUCH BECAUSE THE WIND'S ALWAYS TURNING AROUND AND AROUND AND IT BRINGS IT BACK OVER ITSELF.

THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON.

SO THIS WAS ALL PRO VEN EVENTUAL LY BY A PERSON AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON.

HE WAS AT ONE TIME A GRADUATE STUDENT IN A COURSE OF MIND.

HE WORKED IN EPA AND BUILT THIS WHOLE EPA MODELING SYSTEM AND WROTE 27-PAGE -- 27-DOCUMENT DEFINITION EXPLANATION, ET CETERA, AND THEN GOT OFFERED A FULL PROFESSORSHIP AT UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON IN 2003 AND MOVED IN AND THEN SAW THIS PROBLEM FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THEN EXPLAINED IT.

NOW, I DON'T EXPECT Y'ALL TO READ THIS OR LOOK, I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU.

THERE IS SCIENCE.

THIS IS WHAT'S CALLED PROVEN SCIENCE, ET CETERA, ALL THE EQUATIONS CAN BE WRITTEN OUT, ET CETERA, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO BE A REALLY GENIUS TO FIGURE IT OUT AND UNDERSTAND IT.

WHAT I WANT YOU TO SEE IS THE DIAGRAMS DOWN BELOW, THEY SHOW THAT THE WINDS CAN GO ALL KINDS OF WAYS.

A 1Q WIND, A ONE QUADRANT WIND GOES IN A STRAIGHT LINE.

A 2 QUADRANT LINE STARTS OUT THIS WAY AND GOES THAT WAY.

THAT'S TWO QUADRANTS DURING THE DAY.

IT MIGHT START OUT HERE AND GO THAT WAY, THEY'RE ALL 2QS.

THE WIND CHANGED DIRECTION BY AT LEAST 90°.

THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS.

THEN YOU CAN HAVE THEM DO STUFF LIKE LOOPITY LOOP.

[00:30:01]

IT GOES BACK AROUND, CROSSES ITSELF AND THEN GOES UP AGAIN.

SO WE SEE THESE PATTERNS IN HOUSTON ALL THE TIME.

GUESS WHAT, WE SEE THEM RIGHT HERE, TOO.

SO WHY? BECAUSE YOU'RE BOTH NEAR 30°, AND THE 30° FIGURES IN, YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT WORKED.

THE OTHER PIECE IS THE HIGH PRESSURE AND LOW PRESSURE SYSTEMS. SO HERE'S A CASE WHERE IF YOU LOOK ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A HIGH PRESSURE, THAT'S THE BLUE.

AND AIR IS COMING DOWN AND THE ROTATION IS WHAT COUNTS.

YOU SEE WHICH WAY IT'S ROTATING? IT'S GOING CLOCKWISE.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE'S A LOW PRESSURE GOING, THE AIR IS GOING UP AND THE AIR IS ROTATING COUNTERCLOCKWISE.

SO IN BETWEEN IF YOU LOOK, THE AIR IS GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

FROM THE LOW, IT'S GOING THIS WAY, FROM THE HIGH, IT'S GOING THAT WAY AND THAT ADDS TOGETHER.

THERE'S TRANSPORT IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE TWO THAT IS FROM THE SOUTHEAST TO THE NORTHWEST.

IT'S TYPICAL.

LET'S LOOK AT THE REAL WEATHER MAP FOR ONE OF THOSE CASES I JUST SHOWED YOU A MINUTE AGO, THE 29TH.

THE HIGH PRESSURE SITTING OVER NORTH CAROLINA AND THOSE ARE THE BROWN LINES THAT GO AROUND AND THE LOW PRESSURE SITTING OVER JUST NORTH TEXAS SETS UP HOUSTON AND SAN ANTONIO FOR A CIRCULAR FLOW THAT GOES EXACTLY LIKE THAT.

FLOW COMES OFF THE GULF, GOES THROUGH THE PLACE AND GOES NORTH.

THAT WOULD BE THE LARGE SCALE FLOW.

THAT'S ONE FORCE THAT'S GOING ON DUE TO HIGH PRESSURE, LOW PRESSURE.

THE OTHER FORCE THEN IS THIS CORIOLIS EFFECT THAT'S GOING ON LOCALLY AND THESE TWO INTERACT TOGETHER TO CREATE THE KIND OF TRAJECTORIES AND PROBLEMS YOU HAVE.

OKAY? TO SHOW YOU IT WORKS, I MADE THESE MAPS, I HAVE ALL THESE CAPABILITIES, I CAN DO EVERY DAY, EVERY HOUR, ET CETERA.

AND THE LINES HERE ARE THE -- THE LITTLE DOTS ARE THE MONITORS.

THE LITTLE BARS ARE HOW MUCH OZONE THERE IS, IF IT'S RED, YOU'RE IN TROUBLE.

THEN THERE'S BLACK ARROWS, AND IF YOU LOOK ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, THAT'S 6:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING.

AND THE HIGHEST OZONE IS AT FOUR OAKS UP AT THE VERY HIGH NORTH SIDE AND IT'S 36PPB.

IF YOU LOOK AT BULLIS, WHICH IS RIGHT DOWN BELOW THERE, BULLIS' ARROW IS POINTING SLIGHTLY TO THE EAST AND IT'S TEENY.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE AT SAN ANTONIO NORTH, IT'S THE SAME THING.

LET'S GO TO 2:00 IN THE AFTERNOON, WHICH IS ON THE RIGHT, AND YOU SEE THE WIND'S HAULING RIGHT UP THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE WHOLE PLACE.

SO IT COMPLETELY CHANGED DIRECTION FROM 6:00 A.M. TILL 2:00 IN THE AFTERNOON.

AND IT WENT FROM BEING ALMOST NO MOVEMENT TO BEING HUGE MOVEMENT.

THE OTHER THING I WANT YOU TO GET IS THE CIRCLES OVER HERE, THEY'RE 2-KILOMETERS APART SO THAT WHOLE THING IS 16 KILOMETERS.

ACROSS THE BOTTOM IS A BLACK BAR THAT'S 75 75 KILL LOM TERES JUSO GET YOU THE SCALES.

HOURLY OZONE EXCEEDENCES? HOW OFTEN ARE THEIR OZONE EXCEEDENCES? OTHER THAN THESE NUMBERS AND QUADRANTS IN WIND, ARE THERE OTHER CHARACTERISTICS? WHAT IS RANGE OF DAILY OZONE, WHAT'S THE TRANSPORTED OZONE, WHICH IS THE TITRATED OZONE? WHICH DIRECTION DOES IT COME FROM? HOW FAR DOES IT COME? SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING NEXT.

HERE'S THAT SAME TIME SERIES DIAGRAM.

THIS IS AUGUST OF 2015, AND IMMEDIATELY -- LET'S LOOK AT THE TOP.

THE TOP, I'VE DRAWN THE WIND TRAJECTORIES.

SO AT THAT LINE GOING ACROSS AT 100 IS THE STATION.

AND FOR EACH DAY, I HAVE PLOTTED HOW FAR THE WIND WAS EACH HOUR FROM THE STATION BEFORE NOON AND HOW FAR DID IT GO AFTER NOON.

AND THE LITTLE SQUARE AT THE TOP UP THERE, I'VE REPRODUCED IT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, IT SAYS 30K, THAT 30K IS THE LENGTH, SO THAT LENGTH OF THAT AMOUNT UP ON THE GRAPH UP THERE IS A 30 KILOMETER MOVEMENT.

AND THEN THE COLORS ARE FROM 0 TO 6:00 A.M., THEY'RE BLACK.

FROM 6:00 A.M. TO NOON, THEY'RE GOLD.

FROM NOON TILL 6:00 P.M., THEY'RE BLUE.

FROM 6:00 P.M. TO MIDNIGHT AGAIN, THEY'RE PURPLE.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THESE, YOU CAN TELL THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE FOURTH, THE WIND BLEW A PRETTY GOOD WAYS, 120 KILL LOM MERES OR SO AND IT BLUE STRAIGHT THROUGH ALMOST.

IF YOU LOOK RIGHT NEXT TO THAT, THERE'S A LITTLE TWOVMENT -- 2Q.

WHAT YOU SEE IS IF YOU LOOK DOWN BELOW IT, THE OZONE, THE BLACK LINE IS THE OZONE.

THE BLUE LINE IS THE WIND SPEED.

THE WIND SPEED'S ON THE RIGHT, OZONE'S ON THE LEFT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, WHAT YOU SEE IS THAT WHOLE PERIOD, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT AND NINE HAD OZONE THAT WAS NO HIGHER THAN 40 OR 45.

AND IF YOU LOOK UP THERE, THEY'RE ALL STRAIGHT LINES.

SO IF YOU GET STRAIGHT LINE FLOW THROUGH THE CITY FROM SOUTH TO NORTH, YOU GET NOTHING.

YOU GET BACKGROUND OZONE THAT ONLY GOES DOWN TO BACKGROUND OZONE.

THREE DAYS BEFORE THAT, YOU NOTICED THE CURLY -- THE TRAJECTORIES ARE ALL KNOTTED UP AND THEY'RE OVER TOP OF EACH OTHER.

THEY'RE ALL KNOTTED UP, THEY'RE

[00:35:01]

OVER TOP OF EACH OTHER, ET CETERA, THEY MADE OZONE.

IF YOU GO TO THE PERIOD OF THE 14TH, 15TH AND 16TH, THE SAME THING HAPPENED.

AS SOON AS THE METEOROLOGY GOT TO WHERE YOU HAD THESE SCREWED UP TRAJECTORIES, YOU STARTED HAVING LOTS OF OZONE.

AS SOON AS THE METEOROLOGY GOT DOMINATED BY MASSIVE FLOW, IT ALL BLEW AWAY.

YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY OZONE.

SO THE QUESTION IS, WHY DID ONE, TWO, THREE, 13, 14, 15, 16, AND THEN 27, 28, 29 ALL HAVE OZONE? THEY HAD THE CONDITIONS.

NOW, YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE 24TH AND 25TH, THEY WERE CLOSE TO THOSE CONDITION, AND YOU DIDN'T REALLY HAVE OZONE.

SO THESE ARE THE ONES WE WANT TO EXAMINE, AND I WILL SPEND MORE TIME ON LOOKING AT THOSE.

SO THE SECOND THING I DO IS BLOW UP PARTS OF THAT DIAGRAM SO IT'S EASIER TO UNDERSTAND.

HERE ARE THE LAST THREE.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THE HIGHEST PREDICTION AT BULLIS FOR 2015 WAS 29 AND THERE'S A ONE AT THE TOP ZERO UP THERE.

THE BLACK LINE IS ONE-HOUR OZONE.

IT'S ALSO THE NUMBER 18-HOUR OZONE.

SO THAT RED BAR IS THE CALCULATED EIGHT-HOUR AVERAGE OF THE ONE-HOUR VALUES.

THAT IS THE HIGHEST FOR THE DAY.

SO AS YOU SEE, YOU CAN TELL WHICH HOURS ARE INVOLVED AND WHAT THEIR VALUES WERE.

SO IT HAD A REALLY HIGH PEAK ON IT THAT ADDED TO IT.

SO THAT WAS THE HIGHEST EIGHT-HOUR, IT WAS THE HIGHEST ONE-HOUR.

IF YOU GO TO THE ONE BEFORE -- THE TWO BEFORE THAT, GO TO THE 27TH, THE 2 IS, THAT WAS THE SECOND HIGHEST DAY FOR ONE HOUR.

IT WAS THE SECOND HIGHEST DAY FOR EIGHT-HOUR.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOMS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE WINDS AT NIGHT ARE GOING TO 0 INSIDE THOSE PURPLE CIRCLES.

THE WIND SPEED JUST STOPS FOR HOURS.

IT JUST DOESN'T MOVE VERY FAR.

IT'S VERY SLOW.

SO ANY KIND OF INGREDIENT OR COMPOUND YOU HAVE AVAILABLE ACCUMULATES.

IT DOESN'T BLOW AWAY, IT DOESN'T GET DILUTED.

AT 7:00 OR 8:00 WHEN THE SUN COMES UP, CHEMISTRY STARTS.

YOU SAW MY LITTLE GRAPH WHERE THE CHEMISTRY STARTED UP AND THE OZONE JUST GOES RIGHT UP.

EVEN KNOW THE NOX IS GETTING SMALLER AND SMALLER AND SMALLER, THE OZONE'S GOING UP AND UP AND UP.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS HERE.

SO THEN NOTICE THAT THE OZONE DOESN'T GO TO 0 AT NIGHT ON THIS ONE.

THE OZONE AT -- SEE, IT STAYS ABOUT 16 OR SO ACROSS THERE.

HUH? SO IT TURNS OUT IF YOU ADD NO FROM CARS, THAT COME OUT OF THE TAILPIPE OF THE CAR, IF YOU ADD NO AND THERE'S OZONE IN THE ATMOSPHERE BUT NO SUNLIGHT, NO AND OZONE REACT MAKING O2 AND THE OZONE'S GONE.

SO YOU CAN TELL IF YOU'RE GETTING TRANSPORT OR IF YOU'RE GETTING CHEMISTRY STILL RUNNING OR NO, IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH NO.

YOU CAN TELL THAT BY LOOKING AT THE FIRST PART OF THIS.

THAT'S THE THREE DAY, 13TH, 14TH, 15TH.

NOTICE THAT ALL OF THOSE OZONES IN BETWEEN GO TO 0.

ALL THE OZONES OVER HERE DON'T GO TO 0.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S HAPPENING IS YOU'RE HAVING A LOT MORE NOX IN THE AIR OVERNIGHT ON THESE FIRST THREE DAYS THAN YOU ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE.

LOOK AT THE CURVES AT THE BOTTOM.

THE BLUE IS NO, AND THE RED IS N O2.

NOW, ONE OF THE MESSAGES I WANT YOU TO GET FROM HERE, YOU GET THE SAME FREAKING OZONE, EVEN THOUGH THE NOX IS OVER 25 OR THE NOX CAN'T HARDLY BE TOLD OVER HERE AT 30.

NOX IS NOT DOMINATING THIS PROBLEM.

IT'S NOT CHANGING WHETHER YOU GET A HIGH OZONE OR NOT.

YOU CAN'T DO IT IF YOU DON'T HAVE NOX BUT THE AMOUNT OF NOX THAT'S THERE DOESN'T TELL YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO EXCEED OR NOT EXCEED.

SO DAYS WITH LOW NOX, THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH OZONE, BUT IF YOU LOOK ACROSS THE MIDDLE THERE.

SO IT'S A SUBTLE PROBLEM.

YOU CAN'T -- IT'S NOT A LINEAR RELATIONSHIP.

IT'S WEIRD.

YOU CAN'T DO IT -- IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE IT, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY TELL YOU THAT YOU'RE GOING TO EXCEED.

SO REDUCING NOX MAY OR MAY NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL.

AND, IN FACT, IT'S HAPPENING ANYWAY, AND IF YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO CONTROL THIS PROBLEM BY REDUCING YOUR NOX FROM ONE SIDE OVER HERE TO THE OTHER SIDE, LOOK, THE OZONE'S CAME OUT THE SAME ON THAT DAY, SO IT'S PROBABLY NOT NOX THAT'S DOMINATING OR CONTROLLING.

HERE'S ANOTHER POINT ABOUT NOX: LET ME GO BACK A MINUTE.

HERE'S ANOTHER POINT ABOUT NOX.

NOX IS MADE ON THE SITE.

IT'S MADE BY COMING OUT OF THE TAILPIPES.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE HEATED AIR TO MAKE NOX, PERIOD.

AND THAT NOX MAY GO THROUGH A CATALYST OR NOT AND BE REMOVED, BUT YOU'VE GOT -- YOU MAKE THE NOX ON THE SITE.

NOBODY IS STORING NOX IN TANKS AND PUMPING IT AROUND AND USING IT.

IT'S MADE ON THE SITE.

SO TRUCKS, CARS, BUSES, ALL THOSE THINGS, THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING, AND THEY'RE NOT LIKELY TO CHANGE BY LARGE

[00:40:02]

AMOUNTS THROUGHOUT THE WEEK.

SO YOU HAVE BIG VARIATIONS IN OZONE, IT'S UNLIKELY TO BE CAUSED BY BIG VARIATIONS IN NO, BECAUSE THE NO SOURCE IS PRETTY MUCH THERE ALL THE TIME.

THE VOLUME MAY BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, BUT WE'VE ALREADY FOUND OUT THAT VOLUME DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE ABOUT HOW MUCH OZONE YOU CAN MAKE.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS VOCS ARE ALL PRETTY MUCH LIQUIDS OR GASES, AND NOT ONLY THAT, THE CAR MAKES A LITTLE OF IT, BUT THE CAR'S CONSUMING MOST OF THAT RIGHT AWAY.

WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THESE ARE TRUCKED IN, PIPED IN, AND THEY'RE STORED.

SO YOU'VE GOT BIG RESERVOIRS IN VARIOUS PLACES.

A, GAS STATIONS.

THEY'VE GOT -- WHAT DO THEY HAVE IN THE GROUND? THEY'VE GOT LOTS OF GASOLINE, A VOC.

IT VOLATILIZE, IT COMES OUT, THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH IT.

SO THERE'S A COMPLETE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISSUES WITH VOCS AND ISSUES WITH NOX.

AND, REMEMBER, ONE IS MADE ON THE SPOT AND YOU'VE GOT TO BE FOUND HOW IT'S BEING MADE.

THE OTHER ONE IS THIS STUFF'S STORED, AND IT MIGHT BE STORED SOMEWHERE OR CREATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT'S -- IT'S NOT CONNECTED WITH NOX AT ALL.

YOU DON'T KNOW.

NOW, THIS IS THE SORT OF CLEAR -- WHERE YOU BEGIN TO SEE WHAT'S DIFFERENT.

THIS IS 2015 WIND QUADRANTS AND OZONE EXCEEDENCES AT BULLIS ON THE LEFT AND AT SAN ANTONIO NORTHWEST ON THE RIGHT.

FOR A WHOLE YEAR, THIS IS 2015, IT'S 365 DAYS, AND WHAT I'VE DONE ON THE PIE CHART IS HOW MANY DAYS CAME FROM [INDISCERNIBLE].

THAT WAS 11% OR 43 DAYS.

DARK GREEN IS HOW MANY CAME FROM TWO DIRECTIONS THAT DAY.

AND THAT'S -- I CAN'T READ IT.

16 OR 19 OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE.

[LAUGHTER]

>> BLUE, AT THE BOTTOM, IS HOW MANY CAME FROM THREE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS DURING THE DAY.

AND DARK BLUE IS HOW MANY CAME FROM FOUR.

NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS TO NOTICE IS, MUCH OF THE VIOLATIONS -- RED IS AN EIGHT-HOUR VIOLATION AND PURPLE IS A ONE-HOUR VIOLATION? WHAT'S A ONE-HOUR VIOLATION? THAT'S WHERE IT GOES OVER 100, BUT IT MIGHT BE A VERY NARROW [INDISCERNIBLE].

BUT IT WENT OVER 100 OR NOT, SO THE EIGHT-HOUR VALUE MAY NOT HAVE EXCEEDED BUT THE ONE-HOUR VALUE WENT WAY UP.

SO I DISTINGUISHED THOSE TWO.

YOU CAN SEE THAT MOST OF THE BIG VIOLATIONS ARE EITHER THREE OR FOUR QUADRANTS AND IT HAPPENS AT BOTH SITES.

HERE YOU CAN SEE THERE IS ONE 2Q.

I'LL EXPLAIN THAT IN A FEW MINUTES.

THAT'S RARE, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN THAT ONE.

IF YOU GO TO 2016, YOU'RE DOWN TO ONE VARIATION AT THREE, DOWN TO ONE AT THREE AND ONE AT FOUR AT SAN ANTONIO NORTHWEST.

THE OTHER THING TO DO IS GO BACK, LOOK AT THE SHIFT IN THE QUADS, THAT ONE AND THAT ONE.

THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE EL NINO LA NINA CHANGE OF THE HIGH PRESSURE, LOWER PRESSURES GOING ACROSS.

SO EVERY OTHER YEAR HAS A QUAD DIAGRAM THAT LOOKS SIMILAR AND VICE VERSA.

YOU'RE GETTING A TWO-YEAR SWITCH IN THE FREQUENCY OF THE WINDS JUST CAUSED BY LA NINA, EL NINO.

NOW, THIS IS THE BACK UP TRAJECTORY.

THIS IS THE 2Q ONE THAT VIOLATED.

IF YOU SEE A NORMAL 2Q, THAT'S THE WIND, ■MIDNIGHTTOMIDNIGHT.

IF YOU GO ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE NEW TYPE WE'RE SEEING, LOOK IT STARTS AT THE BLACK DOT BUT THEN IT TURNS SOUTH AND THEN IT TURNS AROUND INSTANTLY AND GOES BACK OVER ITSELF AND THEN GOES AWAY.

THAT WAS JUST 180° REVERSAL.

BAM.

IN AN HOUR, AND RIGHT BACK OVER WHERE IT CAME FROM.

WE'RE NOT -- WE HAVEN'T ANALYZED EXACTLY WHAT THE METEOROLOGICAL DYNAMICS THAT DO THIS, BUT YOU GUYS EXHIBIT IT.

IT'S NOT EXHIBITED IN HOUSTON.

EL PASO EXHIBITS IT, NOT EXHIBITED IN HOUSTON.

SO I THINK WHAT IT IS, IT'S GOT SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOUR TERRAIN, AND AS YOU'RE GOING IN YOU'RE GOING UP, IT'S GOT SOME ISSUE THAT ALLOWS THAT.

WE WILL EXAMINE IT IN DETAIL AND EXPLAIN IT BETTER.

OKAY.

SO SAN ANTONIO, HOUSTON, EL PASO, PEOPLE HAVE HEARD ME SAY THAT AND SAY, NO, WE LOOK NOTHING LIKE HOUSTON.

NO, I'M SORRY, THE WIND FLOWS LOOK VERY SIMILAR TO HOUSTON.

THE NUMBER OF QUADS LOOK VERY SIMILAR.

WHAT THEY MEAN IS WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME KIND OF INVENTORY.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE REST OF EVERYTHING YOU'RE DEALING WITH, YOU'RE 30°, JUST LIKE THEY ARE.

YOU'RE GETTING THE SAME WIND SYSTEMS, YOU'RE DOMINATED BY THE SAME PROCESSES, SO IT'S NOT UNEXPECTED THAT BULLIS AND SAN ANTONIO WEST WOULD HAVE SIMILAR DISTRIBUTIONS EACH YEAR, AND AS SPECTED, SAN ANTONIO, HOUSTON AND EL PASO HAVE SIMILAR DISTRIBUTIONS EACH YEAR.

[00:45:01]

THE DISTRIBUTIONS ABOVE THE 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q CHANGE BIANNALLY AS I TOLD YOU.

SO THERE IS A SIMILARITY THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT MORE.

NOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS JUST NUMBER.

HOW ABOUT THIS? WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT DIRECTION DID IT COME FROM? SO MY Q PLOTS DON'T TELL YOU.

I HAVE A 2Q THAT IT COULD BE COUNTING ONE THAT CAME THIS WAY AND WENT THAT WAY OR ONE THAT CAME THIS WAY AND WENT THAT WAY.

NOW I WANT TO KNOW WHAT DIRECTION DID IT COME FROM WHEN THAT HAPPENED? SO THIS IS AN OCTAVE PLOT.

WE DIVIDE THE COMPASS UP TO EIGHT PLOTS.

THOSE ARE THE QUADRANTS.

AND THEN WITHIN THOSE, WE HAVE -- WHETHER IT'S A 1Q, 2Q, 3Q OR 4Q DAY, THEN THE GREEN BAR MEANS NO VIOLATIONS, THE RED BAR MEANS AN EIGHT-HOUR VIOLATION AND THE PURPLE BAR MEANS EIGHT-HOUR/1-HOUR VIOLATION.

SO WHAT YOU CAN SEE AT THE SAN JUAN -- AT THE SAN ANTONIO NORTHWEST MONITOR, VIRTUALLY ALL THE VIOLATIONS CAME FROM THE NORTH.

THE MORNING WINDS THAT CREATED THOSE OZONE VIOLATIONS CAME FROM BETWEEN NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST WITH THE DOMINANT ONES COMING FROM NORTHWEST TO NORTH.

LOOK DOWN AT THE GREEN ONES AT THE BOTTOM.

MORE THAN 30 DAYS OF EACH OF THOSE PEDALS CAME FROM THE CITY SIDE.

SO NOTHING IS STARTING IN THE MORNING FROM THE CITY SIDE.

EVERYTHING'S STARTING FROM THE MORNIN SIDE AT THAT MONITOR.

THEN IF YOU GO OVER ON THE OTHER SIDE AND LOOK AT BULLIS, IT'S SHIFTED.

SO WHERE IS SAN ANTONIO NORTH? IT'S OVER HERE.

WHERE'S BULLIS, IT'S UP OVER HERE? SO IF THIS IS POINTING UPWARD AND THAT ONE'S POINTING THAT WAY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOME TARGET THAT'S AT THE INTERSECTION OF THOSE TWO LINES HERE.

ONE COMING THAT WAY AND ONE GOING THAT WAY.

THAT'S THAT QUADRANT RIGHT ABOVE AND TO THE WEST OF BULLIS.

IT'S ABOVE SAN ANTONIO NORTHWEST, AND TO THE WEST, SO IT'S NORTH OF THAT ONE AND EAST OF THAT ONE.

LET'S GO ON.

THAT'S 2015, THIS IS -- SORRY? THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS 12.

THAT'S THE MODEL YEAR.

THAT'S THE MODEL YEAR.

THE NEXT ONE IS 2015, AND IT'S VERY SIMILAR, BUT NOTICE THAT YOU'VE GOT VIOLATIONS COMING OUT OF THE SOUTH TOWARD SAN ANTONIO NORTHWEST.

BULLIS IS EVEN MORE DOMINANT TO THE NORTH, AND THERE'S A FEW COMING IN FROM THE SOUTH.

LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

ON THE 16TH, LOOK, EVERYTHING'S SHRUNK AT SAN ANTONIO, STILL LOTS OF WINDS FROM THE SOUTH, AND ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS ARE COMING FROM ONE SINGLE NARROW LOCATION AT BULLIS.

SO LET'S TURN THIS OVER ON A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THOSE AND SINCE THEY TELL YOU THE DIRECTION BUT THEY DON'T TELL YOU THE DATE, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT SO THAT YOU SEE THE DATE.

SO WHAT'S ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE ARE THE SAME WEDGES, EAST TO SOUTHEAST, SOUTHEAST TO SOUTH, THOSE ARE THE MORNING DIRECTION FLOWS TO THE MONITOR.

AND THEN ALONG THE BOTTOM IS THE TIME FROM APRIL THE FIRST TO NOVEMBER THE FIRST.

AND WHAT YOU SEE IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME LOOKING ALONG THOSE DARK BLACK LINES RUNNING BETWEEN SOUTHEAST AND SOUTH.

THAT'S THE NORMAL GEO STROPHIC FLOW BEING DRIVEN BE I THE SYSTEM.

THE WIND HAS TO SHIFT, AND SO THOSE VERTICAL LINES WILL SHOW YOU IN SHIFTS FROM THE NORMAL FLOW THE DAY BEFORE UP TO ONE OF THESE FLOWS BETWEEN NORTHWEST, NORTH AND NORTHEAST THAT ACTUALLY CAUSED -- NOW, YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF THOSE WHICH CAUSE NOTHING.

BUT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, YOU GET A RED DOT.

AND LOOK WHERE THE RED DOTS ARE.

AND SO ONE IS FROM BULLIS ON THE RIGHT, AND THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS SAN ANTONIO NORTH.

THEY SEEM TO GO TOGETHER, BUT THEY'RE NOT EXACTLY REPEATABLE, BUT YOU BASICALLY PRETTY MUCH -- AND THEY'RE SPACED WEIRDLY.

OFTEN THEY OCCUR SORT OF LIKE NEAR WEEKENDS, NOT QUITE WEEKENDS, NOT QUITE END OF MONTHS.

SOMETHING'S FISHY ABOUT THE TIMING ON THOSE, BUT WE CAN DO THIS -- THAT WAS FOR '12.

THIS IS FOR '15.

THERE'S DATA MISSING ON THE LEFT SIDE, BUT ON THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU SEE THE PATTERN AGAIN IS VERY SIMILAR, THEY'RE SPREAD OUT.

WHY ARE THEY SPREAD OUT LIKE THIS? THIS IS -- YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON ON THOSE KINDS OF DAYS? NOT ONLY -- AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP, THE GREEN AND THE PURPLE, PURPLE DAYS ARE ALL POSSIBLE DAYS BUT NOTHING HAPPENED ON THOSE DAYS.

SO WHAT'S GOING ON THAT YOU HAVE THESE DAYS, YOU COULD HAVE HAD PROBLEMMED BUT YOU DON'T, AD THEN YOU HAVE THESE DAYS AND YOU DO HAVE PROBLEMS. NOW A DIFFERENT WAY, HOW FAR DID

[00:50:01]

THE WIND TRAVEL IN THE MORNING TO GET TO THE SITE? AND ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, WHAT WAS THE SITE'S OZONE FINDING? SO THIS IS AN OZONE VERSUS MORNING DISTANCE SCATTER PLAT.

AND THE DOTS ARE CODED WHETHER IT CAME FROM THE NORTH OR SOUTH/SOUTHWEST OR CAME FROM ALL THESE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.

AND WHAT YOU SEE IS THE HIGHEST OZONE AT ONE-HOUR WAS ON 6:27.

IT CAME FROM THE NORTH/NORTHWEST, THE DISTANCE WAS PROBABLY TWOS CAN KILOMETERS THAT IT TRAVELED THAT MORNING TO GET THERE.

PRETTY DEAD FLOW.

THEN THE SECOND ONE WAS THE ONE THAT'S RED, AND THE DATE'S RIN ON THAT, AND YOU CAN -- WRITTEN ON THAT AND YOU CAN TELL.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE ISSUES ARE UNDER 20 KILOMETERS.

SO YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT MEXICO, IT'S THE WRONG DIRECTION.

YOU'RE NOT EVEN LOOKING AT SOME OF THE OTHER STATES, WRONG DIRECTION.

YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT AUSTIN, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT HOUSTON.

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING OVER THERE.

NOW, IT VARIES FROM YEAR TO YEAR, BECAUSE THE FLOWS OBVIOUSLY VARY, SO THERE'S SOMETHING WEIRD ABOUT 2012.

I HAVEN'T INVESTIGATED THIS IN ENOUGH DETAIL YET BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE GETTING TRAVEL DISTANCES AT BULLIS THAT ARE OUT TO 50.

THEY'RE NULL BLUE SO THEY COME FROM THE NORTH/NORTHWEST BUT THEY DISAPPEAR THE NEXT YEAR, AND THEY DIDN'T APPEAR IN '12, SO THAT IS THE KEY -- IF WE KEEP DOING THIS, YOU'LL SEE -- YOU GO BACK ON '15, AND IT'S ALL SQUEEZED BACK UNDER 30 AGAIN.

I WANT TO GO TO THIS PIECE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO TCEQ'S CAMEX MODEL HAS A 152-DAY SCENARIO FOR GO THOUSAND 12.

-- 2012.

THAT'S THE CURRENT MODEL THAT THEY'RE USING, THAT AACOG IS USING AND SO ON.

SO THAT MODEL WAS NESTED GRIDS, LIKELY TO BE USED BY TCEQ, OR SOMETHING VERY CLOSE TO IT.

ITS HIGHEST RESOLUTION IS A 4K CELL.

EXTENDING FROM WEST OF SAN ANTONIO ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE OF HOUSTON, SO IT'S A BIG GIANT 4K GRID AND ALL THE DATA'S IN THERE.

IF WE CAN PULL OUT ANY MONITOR OR ANYTHING IN THERE AND LOOK AT WHAT IT SAYS.

SO BOTH ACOG HAVE RUN THOSE AND SO HAS ALPINE GEOPHYSICS IS A GROUP WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME WORKING WITH.

THEY'VE DONE THE WORK IN HOUSTON.

WE WERE UNABLE TO GET THE DATA FROM ACOG IN TIME FOR ME TO FINISH BEFORE MY CONTRACT RAN OUT, AND I DON'T LIKE WORKING WHEN I'M NOT BEING PAID, SO I GOT THE DATA FROM ALPINE GEOPHYSICS, BUT I GOT IT FOR HOUSTON.

SO I'M GOING TO DEMO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS MODEL IN HOUSTON AND I ALMOST TOTALLY POSITIVELY GUARANTEE YOU IT'S GOING ON IN THE MODEL IN SAN ANTONIO.

I WILL KNOW THAT IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT YET.

HERE I'VE TAKEN THE MONITOR OBSERVATIONS FROM 2012 AND I'VE EXTRACTED THE DATA AND I'VE USED IT.

SO HERE'S THE GRID.

THIS BLACK BAR AROUND HERE IS A 4-KILOMETER GRID AND SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF IT -- THE BOTTOM HALF HAVE THE SHIP CHANNEL, THE TOP HALF IS THE RESIDENTIAL AREA.

THE GOLD THING IN THE MIDDLE IS WHERE THE MONITOR IS.

SO WE GET ALL THE DATA, YOU GET ONE NUMBER FOR THAT WHOLE GRID FOR EVERY HOUR, FOR EVERY SPECIES.

AND THEN YOU GET THE WINDS FROM THE BOTTOM AND FROM THE LEFT.

SO IF YOU TAKE THAT AND TREAT IT JUST LIKE YOU TREAT OBSERVATIONAL DATA, SO HERE ON THE LEFT IS OBSERVATIONAL DATA FOR THE HO3 MONITOR, AND ON THE RIGHT, IT IS MODEL DATA.

FOR THE NUMBER OF WIND DAYS IN EACH QUAD AND FOR THE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS.

AND WHAT YOU SEE IS THE -- THAT, THE MODEL HAS HUGE DIFFERENCES IN THE WIND FLOW COMPARED TO WHAT THE REAL WORLD HAS.

LET'S DO THIS AGAIN.

WE'LL GO TO CLINTON, A DIFFERENT MONITOR.

AND IT'S THE SAME.

SO IF WE SUMMARIZE THAT ONE, 152 DAYS, THERE WERE ACTUALLY FIVE VIOLATIONS, FOUR 4Q AND ONE 3Q.

THE MOD HAD 152 DAYS, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT AWAY, WHERE WE HAD 11/1, THEY HAD 32.

SO THEY HAD A LOT OF BLOW-THROUGH DAYS IN THEIR MODEL.

THEY MADE A 22-DAY ERROR IN THE NUMBER OF DAYS WITH THE RIGHT WINDS, AND THEY MADE A SIX-DAY EXTRA VIOLATION AT THE HOUSTON MONITOR.

AT THE CLINTON MONITOR, THEY MADE A SEVEN-DAY EXTRA VIOLATION AND THEY'RE 27 DAYS IN WRONG IN THE WAY THE WINDS WORKED THAT DAY.

SO FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THIS

[00:55:03]

SIMULATION IS PLANNED, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE GOING TO REALLY TALK TO TCEQ, WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON A LOT OF OTHER STUFF, AND TRY TO -- HOUSTON'S EXTREMELY INTERESTED.

THIS IS HOUSTON.

I EXPECT TO SEE EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF RESULTS HERE.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT PROBABLY IN ANOTHER MONTH.

WHAT'S COMMON IN A MODEL IS WHAT'S CALLED A COMPENSATING ERROR.

ALL THE PIECES ARE THERE AND THEY ALL HAVE TOOLS AND THEY ALL WORK, BUT WHEN YOU STICK THE PIECES TOGETHER, THIS ONE WAS TOO LOW AND THIS ONE WAS TOO HIGH, AND WHEN YOU ADD THEM TOGETHER, THEY GET THE RIGHT ANSWER, BUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS.

AND THAT WAS THE NUMBER ONE QUOTATION OF THE MAN WHO HEADED THE EPA LAB MODELING DEVELOPMENT GROUP.

HE STARTED EVERY PRESENTATION SAYING IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT MODELS GET THE RIGHT ANSWER, BUT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.

NOW, THIS IS A CASE WHERE, NO, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE DON'T EVEN KNOW -- I WILL TELL YOU, BUT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FOURTH HIGHEST VALUE WOULD BE THAT THEY WOULD ACTUALLY CALCULATE A CONTROL VALUE FROM, YOU KNOW, AN EIGHT-HOUR AVERAGE VALUE FROM IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO A DESIGN VALUE.

SO THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT.

FURTHER MORE, KNOWING NASA HAD ALREADY DONE A BUNCH OF RESEARCH RECENTLY, THEY FOUND BASED ON SATELLITES AND OTHER MEASUREMENTS ON THE GROUND AND OTHER THINGS THEY'VE DONE, RUNNING NOT THIS PARTICULAR MODEL BUT RUNNING ESSENTIALLY THE SAME MODEL THEY FOUND AND OVERESTIMATION OF NOX AND CO, EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES.

THE OLD MODEL IS USING A SYSTEM THAT WAS DEVELOPED PART OF THE NEI, THE NATIONAL INVENTORY SYSTEM DEVELOPED BY EPA OVER TIME.

THE NOAA NASA PEOPLE DEVELOPED A FUEL BASE.

THEY ACTUALLY LOOKED AT HOW MUCH FUEL IS BEING CONSUMED IN EACH SPACE AND COUNTY AND WHATEVER, THEY'VE GOT MARVELOUS DATA TO CONVERT FUEL CONSUMED INTO NOX AND CO.

WHAT THEY FOUND OUT THE MODEL IS OVERPREDICTING BOTH.

SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH THE INVENTORY PIECE OF THE MODEL THAT EVERYBODY IN THE UNITED STATES IS USING.

SO THIS IS GOING TO GET A LOT OF ATTENTION FROM A LOT MORE PEOPLE.

ALL RIGHT.

REACTIVE SOURCE AREAS, I'M WITHIN TWO OR THREE SLIDES OF FINISHING.

HERE'S THE ARGUMENT.

THE LOW FREQUENCY OF PRODUCING OZONE HAS DEMONSTRATED A VIOLATION OF THE EIGHT-HOUR STANDARD OR A VIOLATION OF THE ONE-HOUR STANDARD COMPARED TO THE MUCH LARGER NUMBER OF 3Q, 4Q NECESSARY DAYS FOR MAKING OZONE IMPLIES THAT THERE'S A LIMIT ON THE SUFFICIENT CAUSES OF THOSE VIOLATIONS; THAT IS, THE REACTIVE INGREDIENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE OFTEN ENOUGH UNDER 3Q, 4Q CONDITIONS TO ACTUALLY RESULT IN MORE XS.

THE SUFFICIENT CAUSES MUST BE NOX OR VOCS THAT ARE NOT RAPIDLY DISPERSED BY THE 1Q OR 2Q WINDS.

NOW, FURTHER, THE STRENGTH OF THE NOX SOURCE IS HIGHLY REPEATABLE AS MORNING AND EVENING TRAFFIC AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS.

THE NOX IS MADE BYPRODUCT OF THESE ACTIVITIES.

VOCS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE MOSTLY BROUGHT IN AS LIQUID OR GAS AND STORED, SO THEY'RE AVAILABLE, AND THEY CAN BE VENTED OR LEAKED TO THE ATMOSPHERE, WHICH IS EXACTLY THIS SITUATION THAT WAS IN HOUSTON.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S YOUR SITUATION.

I'M DESCRIBING IN GENERAL THE ORIGINS AND HANDLING OF VOCS AS OPPOSED TO NOX BEING CREATED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLES.

SO THE BIGGEST REMAINING ISSUE Y'ALL HAVE IS THIS: ARE YOU GOING TO BE NOX CONTROLLED OR ARE YOU GOING TO BE VOC CONTROLLED OR ARE YOU GOING TO DO SOMETHING IN BETWEEN? THE BIGGEST ISSUES ARE WHAT ARE THE VOCS AND WHAT ARE THEIR SOURCES AND WHY IN THE HELL ARE THEY IN THE NORTHWEST FOR THOSE MONITORS IN VIOLATION.

THERE'S NO VOC MEASUREMENTS FOR 2012 WHEN THE MODEL WAS RUN.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY MEASUREMENTS FOR THOSE.

VOC MEASUREMENTS SPECIATED ARE AVAILABLE IN PART OF 2016 AT BULLIS, THEY DON'T SHOW VERY MUCH.

ONE COMMENT MADE BY EPA, THEY SHOWED A LOT OF ISOPRENE, MUST BE COMING FROM TREES.

I'M SATISFIED WITH THAT.

VOCS ARE BASED -- GET THIS: MODEL VOCS ARE BASE ON OZONE SEASON AVERAGE VALUES, SO THEY'RE GOING IN WITH WHAT THE INVENTORY IS BEING REPORTED OVER THE WHOLE PERIOD.

WE TRIED IN HOUSTON TO DO WHAT WAS CALLED A SPECIAL INVENTORY.

WE WANTED TO INDUSTRY EVERY SINGLE INDUSTRY HAD TO REPORT EVERY SIX HOURS WHAT THE HELL THEY WERE EMITTING FOR A YEAR.

YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THAT COST? YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE MAD? THEY DID IT FOR ONE YEAR. IT'S SPECTACULAR.

WHAT IT SHOWS IS HUGE DIFFERENCES ON A DAY AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION COMPARED TO

[01:00:02]

THE ANNUAL AVERAGE.

AND IF YOU PUT THE MODEL, IF YOU PUT THE ANNUAL AVERAGE IN AND YOU MISS ALL OF THESE SPECIFIC DATAS, MAYBE IT'S THOSE CONDITIONS THAT ARE ACTUALLY CAUSING THE VIOLATIONS ON THESE OPTIMAL DAYS.

SO WHAT WE FOUND WAS IF YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THESE, YOU'VE GOT TO FIND SOMETHING THAT CAN SEE THEM.

IT EIGHT AN AUTO GC, IT'S NOT A CANISTER.

AUTO GC DRAWS ABOUT 10 SECONDS -- NOT EVEN A MINUTE WORTH OF AIR AND SPENDS AN HOUR ANALYZING IT.

SO YOU GET A GRAB SAMPLE EVERY MINUTE.

IF SOMETHING HAPPENED HALFWAY THROUGH, YOU DON'T SEE IT AT ALL, OKAY? THE OTHER CHOICE IS YOU SUCK IT ALL IN AND HOLD IT, BUT YOU HOLD IT FOR A WEEK PANNED -- AND YOU ONLY GET ONE EVERY FOUR DAYS, AND THAT'S NOT ENOUGH EITHER.

YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT VOCS.

YOU SURE CAN'T TRUST THE INVENTORIES.

YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH AUTO GC.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SHORT ON IS YOU DON'T KNOW NOTHING ABOUT YOUR VOCS, REALLY? YOU KNOW ALL THE AVERAGE ANNUAL STUFF BUT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DAY-TO-DAY VARIATION IN THOSE CONDITIONS.

SO WHAT DO YOU DO? THIS CAMERA, LET ME -- I'M GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

HERE'S WHAT YOU DO.

YOU PUT A CAMERA LIKE I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU ON A HELICOPTER BELONGING TO THE HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH HAD NO AUTHORITY TO FLY OVER THESE, BUT WHO WAS SO MAD ABOUT WHATS WAS GOING ON THEY FLEW OVER THEM ANYWAY.

EVERY BLACK PLUME YOU SEE OVER LEER IS TOTALLY INVISIBLE.

THE TANKS LEAK.

THEY WERE LEAKING ALL THE TIME.

NOT ONLY THAT, THE BARGES ARE LEAKING, NOT ONLY THAT THE COMPANIES ARE LEAKING.

ONCE YOU DID ALL OF THIS, IT BECAME SO OBVIOUS, THEY WENT OUT AND THEY FIXED IT THEY COULDN'T FIX THE BARGES BECAUSE THE COAST GUARD IS IN CHARGE OF THE BARGES.

SO THE COMPANIES FORCED THE BARGES TO DO SOMETHING OR YOU CAN'T HAUL MY PRODUCT.

SO THAT HAPPENED.

SO THIS IS STILL GOING ON.

HERE'S HOW TCEQ SOLVED THIS PROBLEM.

THEY GOT CAMERAS.

BUT INSTEAD OF ENTERING THROUGH COURT FIGHTS AND SO FORTH, THEY WOULD DRIVE UP AND DOWN THE FENCE LINE, SPOT IT, GET IT ON THE CAMERA, KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND SAID YOU SEE THIS? THE GUY GOES, I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE DOING THAT.

I'LL GO FIX IT.

THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

AND SO YOU CAN -- BUT IF YOU DON'T SEE IT YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

NOW, HERE'S THE PROBLEM.

THIS CAMERA IS $100,000.

IT CAN SEE ALL KINDS OF THING.

THE FIRST MO I EVER SAW OF IT, THE GUY CAME OUT, HE SCRATCHED ON THE CARPET, HE SCRATCHED HIS INITIALS ON THE CARPET, TURNED THE CAMERA DOWN AND YOU COULD READ THEM.

AND SOUTHWEST IS DOING A TON OF RESEARCH IN THIS.

THEY HAVE CAMERAS.

THEY'RE DOING ALL KINDS OF WORK.

WE'RE TALKING YESTERDAY THEY MAY PUT THEM ON DRONES.

AND HAVING DRONES FLY AROUND AND TELL YOU, OH, ALL THESE GUYS.

AND, AGAIN, YOU COULDN'T GET THIS OUT OF THEIR INVENTORY.

THEY DON'T KNOW.

THEY DON'T COUNT THIS STUFF.

IT'S NOT THERE.

IT'S GONE.

THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUGITIVES ARE.

AND SO THEY TELL YOU THE SORT OF ANNUAL INPUT/OUTPUT AND STUFF LIKE THIS.

AND YOU DO NOT HAVE, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE AUTHORITY TO SAY I'M GOING TO WALK ON YOUR PROPERTY AND TAKE A LOOK AROUND AT ALL THE PLACES YOU'RE HAVING PROBLEMS. THAT DOESN'T WORK EITHER.

AND ALREADY THE LAWYERS FOR THESE COMPANIES IN HOUSTON HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO WRITE UP THE REPORT IN VERY CAREFUL TERMS TO GET THROUGH THIS.

SO YOU NEED YOUR OWN TOOL THAT CAN GO ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME AND SEE WHAT YOU CAN SEE.

NOW, YOU DON'T DO IT ALL THE TIME.

YOU KNOW AT CERTAIN TIMES OF PERIODS WHERE THINGS ARE HAPPENING, OR IF YOU SEE A VIOLATION YOU GO UP THERE.

IT DOESN'T TAKE A LOT TO KNOW HOW TO DO THIS.

I'M GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT BULLIS.

WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON IN BULLIS? THAT'S THE MONITOR AT BULLIS.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT TERRITORY IS TO THE NORTH? THAT'S THE CAMP.

SO THAT'S OFF LIMITS.

SO THE MONITOR IS WITHIN ABOUT 200 FEET OF THE EDGE OF CAMP BULLIS.

THERE'S A GREEN THING THERE.

AND BEYOND THAT I HAVE WRITTEN A LITTLE YELLOW THING.

AND I CALL THESE -- ARE THESE FIELDS? IF YOU LOOK ON THE RIGHT, GUESS WHAT THAT IS? THAT'S AN ALGAE POND.

IT'S A WASTE TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY FOR BULLIS.

WHAT'S THAT THING AT THE TOP UP THERE? IT'S A DIGESTER.

WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU PUT WASTE IN IT AND BACTERIA IN IT AND YOU STIR IT AND STIR IT AND THEY CAN CONVERT ALL THAT WASTE INTO GASES AND A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS.

WHY DO YOU SMELL WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS? THEY HAVE VOCS.

THIS IS A TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OF AN AIR

[01:05:03]

QUALITY MONITOR .

I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DID THIS.

AND BULLIS HAS BEEN MOVED ONCE, BUT THEY KEPT THIS.

NOW, YOU CAN'T SEE THIS FROM THE MONITOR.

YOU HAVE TO GO UP AND GET ON THE PROPERTY AND LOOK.

NOW, I WAS TOLD BY ONE MEMBER TODAY THAT THEY THOUGHT WHAT I WAS CALLING FIELDS WERE ACTUALLY SHOOTING RANGES.

SO YOU DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO GO CLIMBING UP THE HILL TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, WHAT'S GOING ON? YOU GOT TO HAVE ROTATING WINDS IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE EXEEDANCES, PERIOD.

REACTIVE SOURCE AREAS ARE SOURCES OF SUFFICIENT VOC.

THESE ARE SUPPORTED BY MORNING WIND DIRECTION AND SCATTER PLOT.

MORNING WIND DIRECTIONS AT BULL SITE ARE FROM THE WEST, NORTHWEST, NORTH.

AND DOWN AT SAN ANTONIO NORTHWEST THEY ARE FROM THE NORTHWEST/NORTH.

ON EIGHT-HOUR AND NINE-HOUR EXEEDANCE DAYS, AND THEY ARE ALMOST RARE FROM SOUTHEAST TO SOUTH.

SITE POOR NOX CORRELATION WITH SITE ONE HOUR AND ONE HOUR PEAKS.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT YOUR DAYS OF VIOLATION ARE BECAUSE THERE'S EXTRA NOX THERE.

WE'VE GOT LOTS OF DAYS THAT HAVE BIG VIOLATIONS THAT DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EXTRA NOX.

HAVE VIOLATIONS.

IT'S HARDLY LIKELY THAT THAT'S THE CASE.

THEN THE MODEL INCORRECTLY OVERPREDICTS EXEEDANCE DAYS.

AND ONE QUADRANT, TWO QUADRANT WINDS ARE DISCRIMINATING FACTORS.

IF YOU COMPARE TWO HOUSTON SITES WITH THE MODEL, IT SHOWS SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF WINDS AND IN OZONE EXEEDANCES BY SIX AND SEVEN MORE DAYS.

SO --

>> NOW IT'S MY TURN.

>> OKAY.

I MIGHT HAVE RUN OVER, AND I'M SORRY IF I DID.

>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

I'LL GO FAST.

IS EVERYBODY STILL WITH US?

>> YEP.

VOCS AND SUNLIGHT/HEAT.

IN ORDER TO MAKE OZONE WE NEED TO ADD WIND TO THE -- YEP.

TO THE EQUATION.

THANK YOU.

WE CAN LEARN A LOT ABOUT OZONE FROM HOUSTON AND EL PASO BECAUSE OUR WINDS ARE SIMILAR.

AND NOX IS NOTDOMINATING OZONE FORMATION.

WE HAVE PEAKS OF OZONE SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT VOCS AS A RESULT.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, ON OZONE EXEEDANCE DAYS, THE WIND IS BLOWING FROM NORTH/NORTHWEST.

AND NOT FROM VERY FAR.

AND THAT AREA OF THE CITY.

SO THAT IS KIND OF MY KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM DR. JEFFREY'S PRESENTATION.

I WANT TO REALLY QUICKLY GO THROUGH WHERE WE ARE AS A CITY AND OUR PLANNING EFFORTS.

SO IF WE COULD HAVE THAT SLIDE COME UP.

SO WE ARE WORKING ON AN ACTION PLAN.

AND THAT GETS THERE.

WE HAVE AN INTERNAL WORKING GROUP, WHICH I VERY LITERALLY AM CALLING THE GETTING TO 70 WORK GROUP.

BECAUSE, REMEMBER, THAT'S OUR GOAL.

WE ARE TRYING TO GET TO 70.

WE MEET ONCE A WEEK AND WE HAVE DEVELOPED -- YOU HAVE AT YOUR TABLE IN FRONT OF YOU A VERY HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW.

SO YOU CAN SEE FOR EACH OF THE BUCKETS OF WORK THE HIGH-LEVEL ACTION STEPS THAT WE WILL BE TAKING AND WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.

THIS WILL FORM THE BASIS OF THE VERY IN-DEPTH PLAN THAT I OWE YOU IN MARCH.

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY GOOD FOR THAT.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE.

EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS UPDATED THEIR OZONE ACTION PLAN, AND WE ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWING THOSE TO

[01:10:04]

IDENTIFY SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR SYNERGY BETWEEN DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.

WE'RE ALSO USING THIS.

WE WANTED TO GET THIS OUT OF THE GATE RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING BUSINESSES.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE REGULATED.

WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING BUSINESSES TO HELP US WITH THIS.

AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WAS WALKING THE WALK AND LEADING THE WAY.

SO THAT'S WHY WE PUT THIS TOGETHER FIRST RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE.

WE'VE ALSO DONE A LOT OF WORK.

YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THE VW SETTLEMENT AND FOCUSED A LOT ON NON-ATTAINMENT, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET TO ATTAINMENT, WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT LOOK LIKE.

I HAVE HAD MY MONTHLY MEETINGS WITH THE EPA, WITH TCEQ.

WE'RE STARTING THIS MONTH WITH MONTHLY MEETINGS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, BECAUSE THIS IS A CITY-COUNTY PROBLEM.

WE HAVE RELIED A LOT ON AACOG TO LEAD THE WAY ON AIR QUALITY, BUT AACOG IS A REGIONAL ENTITY AND THIS IS A CITY-COUNTY PROBLEM.

SO WE ARE GOING TO BE WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN LOCK STEP IN THE SOLUTIONS FOR THIS.

WE, BECAUSE OF THE FINDINGS FROM DR. JEFFERIES' RESEARCH, AND ONE OF HIS KEY FINDINGS THAT WE NEED TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCES OF VOCS, I THINK LATER TODAY WE ARE ISSUING AN RFI AND ASKING EXPERTS SO THAT WILL GIVE US BETTER INFORMATION ABOUT HOW TO ACTUALLY CRAFT AN RFP TO BRING SOMEBODY IN AND START TO HELP US IDENTIFY THIS.

AGAIN, WE'VE GOT THIS NICE PERIOD BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH WHERE IT ISN'T OZONE SEASON.

SO WE'RE GOING TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GET EVERYTHING READY TO GO SO THAT WE CAN START TO MITIGATE SOME OF THESE SOURCES AS SOON AS OZONE SEASON STARTS.

ALSO, DOUG AND I ARE CONTINUING TO WORK REALLY CLOSELY ON THE SYNERGY BETWEEN OZONE ATTAINMENT AND CLIMATE ACTION.

A LOT OF WHAT HAPPENS IN ONE AFFECTS THE OTHER AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STAY ON THE SAME PAGE.

SO AS FAR AS NEXT STEPS GO, AGAIN, I OWE YOU A PLAN IN MARCH.

AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE'RE DEVELOPING THAT PLAN THAT WE'RE GETTING STAKEHOLDER INPUT, THAT WE'RE COMMUNICATING REALLY CLEARLY ABOUT THIS.

I GO BACK TO MY FIRST POINT ABOUT DR. JEFFREY'S PRESENTATION, OZONE IS MESSY AND DIFFICULT.

DEVELOP A COMMUNICATION PLAN AROUND THAT.

SO WE'RE REALLY GOING TO BE FOCUSING ON THAT SO WE CAN HELP MAKE SENSE OF THIS.

VW IS GOING TO BE A HUGE PRIORITY FOR US.

WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT WHAT WE CALL BEST IN CLASS CITIES.

CITIES WHO HAVE MADE REALLY GREAT PROGRESS ON REDUCING THEIR OZONE.

WHAT ARE THEY DOING, WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THEM, WHAT CAN WE STEAL FROM THEM AND HOW CAN WE REPLICATE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.

WE'RE CONTINUING TO LOOK FOR FUNDING SOURCES TO BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, BUY $100,000 CAMERA, FOR EXAMPLE, AND LOOK FOR GRANT OPPORTUNITIES TO FUND SOME OF THE WORK THAT WE NEED TO DO AROUND OZONE.

REALLY, REALLY WORKING HARD TO HAVE BUSINESSES BE SHOULDER TO SHOULDER WITH US ON THIS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE RIDING AROUND IN POLICE HELICOPTERS AND FILMING THINGS THAT PEOPLE DON'T WANT US TO FILM.

WE REALLY DO WANT THIS TO BE A SHOULDER TO SHOULDER WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND IT'S IN EVERYBODY'S BEST INTEREST TO GET OUT OF MARGINAL NONATTAINMENT AND BACK INTO ATTAINMENT.

OUR PRIMARY FOCUS IS IDENTIFY AND MITIGATING BOTH NOX AND VOCS.

SO THAT IS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.

AND DR. JEFFERIES AND I ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DR. BRIDGER.

THANK YOU, DR. JEFFERIES FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I FEEL LIKE I GOT A DEGREE IN ABOUT AN HOUR, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

[LAUGHTER] IT'S PRETTY REMARKABLE HOW FAR THE TESTING HAS COME IN THE LAST DECADE IN TERMS OF THE PRECISION WHICH WE CAN IDENTIFY WHAT THE SOURCES OF OUR OZONE ISSUES ARE.

FOR ME IT'S NOT ENTIRELY USEFUL TO GET TOO FAR IN THE WEEDS BUT TO REMIND ME OF WHAT MY ROLE IS IN THIS WHOLE SITUATION, AND THAT IS MORE AKIN TO WHAT DR. BRIDGER IS DOING IS THAT OUR BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT COMMUNITY HEALTH.

AND THEN OUR STRATEGY AS THE

[01:15:03]

TOOLS GET MORE PRECISE AND WE IDENTIFY HOW WE CAN MEASURE BETTER AND UNDERSTAND SOURCING BETTER IS TO ALWAYS EXCEED WHAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

AND, AGAIN, KNOWING THAT THE ORIGIN OF THIS CONVERSATION IS NOT BECAUSE THERE'S SOME TROPHY TO BE GIVEN FOR AIR QUALITY.

IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE FEWER DEATHS AND FEWER SICKNESSES IN OUR COMMUNITY WHEN WE DO THAT.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO GET UPDATED AS THE RFI TURNS INTO AN RFP.

AND THEN CERTAINLY AS WE GET INTO THE SPRING WITH THE FINALITY OF THE REPORT.

BUT I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE WHEREWITHAL AND THE PATIENCE TO BRING SUCH A DIFFICULT TOPIC TO US IN THIS FORM.

THANK YOU, DR. BRIDGER.

COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL.

>> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I RECEIVED SOME TEXTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES WHILE I WAS HERE.

I WON'T READ THEM BUT THEY BASICALLY SAID YOU MUST BE LOVING THIS.

AND THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION, DR. JEFFERIES AND DR. BRIDGER.

AND LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, THANK YOU FOR COMING TO HELP US UNDERSTAND THIS AND HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT WE CAN DO AS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND REALLY TO REDUCE -- BASICALLY TO REDUCE OZONE POLLUTION AND PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.

THAT'S THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THIS PRESENTATION AND OUR TASK TODAY.

I HAVE NOT HEARD SOME OF THE WORDS YOU SAID TODAY, LIKE GEOSTROPHIC WIND PATTERN SINCE I WAS A STUDENT IN MY COMPUTER LAB BEFORE I HAD MY OWN LAPTOP OR ANYBODY HAD THEIR OWN LAPTOP, AND RUNNING SOME FOR TREND MODELS.

ULTIMATELY I DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE A PH.D. IN THAT FIELD.

I THINK MY SKILLS ARE BEST SPENT IN OTHER PLACES.

BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS BUT I THINK I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM WHEN IT COMES TO USING ONE TYPE OF MODEL OVER ANOTHER.

AND WE KNOW THAT MODELS AREN'T PERFECT.

AND PEOPLE WHO RUN MODELS AND BUILD MODELS WITH KEENLY AWARE OF THAT.

AND AS YOU MENTIONED TODAY.

AND THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO TO DO, IT SEEMS LIKE, IS TO GIVE INACCURATE INFORMATION.

AT LEAST WHEN I WAS IN THAT POSITION, I LOVED RUNNING MODELS.

I LOVED THE EXACTNESS OF MATHEMATICS AND WHEN THINGS GET MESSY I DIDN'T LIKE IT.

SO YOU BASICALLY NARROW DOWN WHAT YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE OR WHAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DEDUCE TO WHAT'S TRUE.

YOU KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF NOISE OUT THERE, BUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU GIVE US, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT YOU VALIDATED, THAT YOU HAVE FAITH IN.

AM I WRONG?

>> NO.

>> THE PROBLEM IS, THE EPA MODELING BRANCH SAID, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THE MODELS WE USE GIVE ACCURATE ANSWERS BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT WE DO IT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT IF WE HAVE THE RIGHT REASONS.

ONCE YOU KNOW YOUR MODEL IS DISAGREEING WITH REALITY, THERE'S A WHOLE SERIES YOU HAVE TO DO.

IT TURNS OUT THE MODELS ARE EQUIPPED WITH MOST OF THESE TOOLS, JUST LIKE YOU SUGGESTED.

THEY PROBABLY ALL HAVE THEM BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS WERE INTERESTED IN THIS.

THAT'S NOT ALWAYS TRUE FOR APPLICATIONS PEOPLE.

THEY HAVE A CONTRACT.

THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO DO THE KINDS OF QUALITY DETAILED ASSESSMENTS.

AND THEY DO GIVE YOU WHAT THEY THINK IS THE BEST ANSWER.

>> SANDOVAL: I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT REAL QUICK.

WHEN YOU SAY FOR THE RIGHT REASONS, YOU DON'T MEAN FOR THE RIGHT MORAL REASONS.

YOU MEAN BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT ASSUMPTIONS GOING THROUGH.

>> WELL, YOU HAVE DONE EFFORTS.

YOU WORKED ON EFFORTS TO SHOW THAT YOU'VE EXAMINED POTENTIAL COMPENSATING ERRORS.

SO IN ONE CASE -- OFTEN THE MODELER RUNNING IT FOR PURPOSE OF REGULATION -- HE'S ASSUMED THAT THE BUILDER BUILT IT RIGHT.

BUT THE BUILDER HAD A CERTAIN SET OF CASES AND HE GOT THE RIGHT ANSWER AND IT WORKED FOR HIM.

BUT YOU DIDN'T GET THE RIGHT ANSWER, EVEN THOUGH HIS ANSWER WAS RIGHT WHEN HE DID IT.

BECAUSE TWO THINGS SHIFTED BETWEEN HIS WORK AND YOUR WORK.

AND THOSE TWO THINGS DIDN'T COMPENSATE THEM CORRECTLY IN THE SAME WAY.

SO THERE'S A DESIGN YOU CAN DO.

[01:20:02]

THERE'S A SERIES OF TESTS YOU CAN ASK PEOPLE TO DO TO CONFIRM THIS.

WHAT'S GOING ON NOW IS MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING MODELERS TO GIVE THEM ANSWERS DON'T CARE.

THEY DON'T ASK.

THEY'RE UNWILLING TO PAY.

TO GET THAT ANSWER THEY HAVE TO MAKE LOTS MORE RUNS.

THEY HAVE TO TINKER WITH STUFF.

THEY HAVE TO DO TESTS.

AND THAT ADDS TIME AND IT ADDS MONEY TO THE COST OF AN APPLICATIONS CONTRACT.

THAT'S WHY MOST MODELERS DON'T ACTUALLY FINISH THAT PIECE OUT.

AND SO THAT MEANS THAT IF YOU'RE CONTRACTING WITH PEOPLE TO DO MODEL RUNS, YOU NEED TO INCORPORATE IN THE CONTRACT THOSE WORK STATEMENTS, THOSE DELIVERABLES AND ASK THEM TO PRODUCE IT.

THEY WILL PRODUCE A NICE SINGLE GRAPH THAT SHOWS A STRAIGHT LINE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF SCATTER, AND THAT'S ALL YOU EVER SEE.

>> SANDOVAL: OKAY.

HAVING YOU HERE, IT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO DO SOME OF THAT.

>> I WILL GIVE YOU A LONG LIST OF THINGS AND I WILL LOOK AT ANYTHING YOU HAVE DONE AND DO MY OWN.

NOW, TO REALLY DO IT YOU HAVE TO GET INTO THE INTERNALS OF THE MODELS.

BUT I WOULD BE GLAD TO COOPERATE WITH ANY MODELING GROUP THAT YOU GUYS PICK OUT.

THAT'S CLEAR.

AND ASK THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT OUGHT TO BE ASKED.

THAT'S WHAT I DID THIS WHEN I DID THIS INVOLVEMENT FOR NORTH CAROLINA.

I WOULD MEET WITH THE STATE BOARD AND WITH ALL THE PEOPLE AND I WOULD HAMMER THE HELL OF THE MODELERS AND THIS AND THAT AND THE OTHER.

THEY LEARNED NOT TO COME IN WITHOUT ANSWERS.

>> SANDOVAL: SO WE HAVE GOTTEN PRESENTATIONS.

I HAVE SAT ON ONE OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEES THAT AACOG HAD A WHILE BACK, SO WE HAVE GOTTEN PLENTY OF PRESENTATIONS ON THEIR MODELING RUNS.

AND ACTUALLY SOME OF THOSE FINDINGS LOOKED DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SHOWN US.

AND I THINK WHAT YOU'VE JUST DONE IS EXPLAINED WHY IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT, RIGHT? OKAY.

SO MY THREE TAKEAWAYS FROM YOUR PRESENTATION ARE THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE METEOROLOGY ON HIGH OZONE DAYS IN SAN ANTONIO, YOU FIND THAT AIR MASSES ARE NOT COMING FROM HOUSTON AND THEY'RE NOT COMING FROM MEXICO.

THEY ARE COMING FROM SOMEPLACE NEARBY IN THE NORTH OR NORTHWEST.

>> YOU HAVE TO CALIBRATE THIS A LITTLE BIT.

YOU HAVE TO CALIBRATE THIS A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE HERE'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.

BECAUSE OF THE ROTATING WINDS, THE MORNING TRANSPORT DISTANCES ARE SHORT.

THE AFTERNOON TRANSPORT DISTANCES COULD BE QUITE LONG.

SO YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL TO DISTINGUISH AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ANALYSIS.

SO ALL OF MY NUMBERS I'M PRESENTING YOU ABOUT ARRIVAL TIMES, THEY'RE ALL MORNING TRAVEL DISTANCES WHERE THE WINDS ARE SLOW.

YOU DON'T SEE MODELERS DOING THIS.

THE QUESTION IS CAN THE METEOROLOGY MODEL EVEN REPRODUCE THE REAL WINDS? THEY HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED THAT YET.

>> SANDOVAL: SO BASED ON THAT FINDING OR THAT CONCLUSION, WHAT IT MEANS TO US AS POLICYMAKERS IS WE DON'T HAVE TO IMPLEMENT SOME CITYWIDE OR COUNTY-WIDE MEASURE RIGHT NOW TO FIND A REDUCTION IN OZONE.

WE CAN USE A SCALPEL AND LOOK AT THAT AREA WHERE THE WIND IS COMING FROM.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME.

MOST OF THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM.

MOST OF THE CITY IS NOT THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM AT BULLIS AND SO ON.

YOU HAVE TWO MONITORS THAT ARE IN VIOLATION.

THE OTHERS AREN'T REGULATORY MONITORS.

YOU FIX THOSE TWO MONITORS.

THAT'S WHAT YOU DO.

AND YOU FIX THOSE TWO MONITORS BY SAYING WHY DID THEY DO IT.

AND THEN YOU REMOVE WHATEVER WAS THE CAUSE OF DOING IT.

IT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU DO IT EVERY FREAKING WHERE.

YOU'VE GOT TO GET THOSE TWO MONITORS TO DO IT.

>> SANDOVAL: ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT'S THE CONCLUSION, THE POLICY IMPACT.

AND THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT'S GOING TO BE A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE THAN DOING SOMETHING COUNTY-WIDE OR CITY-WIDE IS IF IT'S TARGETED.

WE'LL KNOW MORE DETAILS WHEN WE FIND OUT WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.

BUT I THINK THAT'S POTENTIALLY GOOD NEWS.

I WANT TO MOVE ON TO MY SECOND CONCLUSION FROM YOUR PRESENTATION IS WHEN YOU REVIEW THE NOX DATA YOU FIND THAT NOX IS NOT THE DRIVER.

SO NITROUS OXIDE IS NOT THE DRIVER ON HIGH OZONE DAYS.

>> WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THERE ARE HIGH OZONE DAYS THAT HAVE HIGH NOX AND LOW NOX.

IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.

ONE DAY AFTER THE OTHER.

SO THE NOX PROBABLY -- I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THE NOX PARTICIPATES.

BUT IT CAN PARTICIPATE IN SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.

REMEMBER, NOX IS -- I SHOWED YOU THE CURVE WHERE IF YOU INCREASE NOX, YOU INCREASE OZONE.

IF YOU INCREASE NOX MORE YOU DECREASE OZONE.

YOU HAVE THIS FUNNY BEHAVIOR AND YOU NEVER KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE.

BUT WHAT I SEE FROM LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS IS THERE'S NO REAL CORRELATION BETWEEN HIGH OZONE AND HIGH NOX.

>> SANDOVAL: SO THE POLICY IMPLICATION FOR THAT CONCLUSION OR FOR THAT OBSERVATION, THE RECOMMENDATION TO US AS POLICYMAKERS IS FOCUS ON VOC, NOT NOX.

>> FINDING THE VOC SOURCES.

[01:25:02]

I DOUBT THAT YOU HAVE SOMEPLACE SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF SAN ANTONIO THAT EVERY FOURTH DAY PUFFS OUT SOMETHING EXTRA.

MAYBE.

BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THE TWO MONITORS THAT ARE VIOLATING SAYS, NO.

THEY ARE UP THERE.

>> SANDOVAL: SO OUR TIME IS BETTER SPENT ON VOC THAN ON NOX.

THAT MAY SOUND LIKE JARGON, BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT VOC VERSUS NOX, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES OR DIFFERENT SOURCES THAT IT COULD BE COMING FROM.

>> YEAH, BUT VOCS CAN COME OUT ALL OVER THE PLACE.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT LARGE QUANTITIES.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PLUME THAT MIGHT BE A KILOMETER OR TWO WIDE THAT GOT CAUGHT IN THE WIND AND IT'S TAKEN FOUR HOURS TO GET ACROSS.

IT COULD BE ONE GUY UP THERE WITH SOME PARTICULAR THING.

WE DON'T KNOW.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU NEED THE CAMERA.

LOOK, YOU COULD HAVE A TANK THAT SAT THERE FOREVER AND NOTHING SHOWS UP.

AND THEN ONE DAY A HOLE APPEARS IN IT AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS SHOW UP.

TO FIX IT IS EASY ONCE YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS.

SO THE PROBLEM IS WE DON'T KNOW.

YOU HAVE AN ALMOST NO VOC DAY THAT'S MEANINGFUL.

>> SANDOVAL: THAT'S BAD NEWS.

>> IT'S PROBABLY LIMITED WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.

AND SO NOW YOU WOULD DO EXTRA THINGS BESIDES TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, RIGHT? YOU WOULD FIND OTHER WAYS OF CONFIRMING WHAT MY INSIGHTS ARE.

>> SANDOVAL: SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE MOBILE MONITORING TO FIND THAT.

>> YES.

>> SANDOVAL: WE DON'T HAVE TO ESTABLISH A WHOLE NEW MONITORING STATION.

>> NO, YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

>> SANDOVAL: WHICH IS ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS.

WE CAN HAVE A LOWER COST MOBILE MONITOR THAT'S GOING TO GIVE US A BETTER SENSE OF WHERE IT MAY BE COMING FROM.

>> HERE'S ANOTHER THING I WOULD DO, AND THIS WOULD MAKE A LOT OF TROUBLE BUT IT MAY NOT WORK.

BULLIS IS IN THE WRONG DAMN PLACE.

HAS BEEN FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.

NOW, THE FACT THAT IT IS THE CONTROLLING REGULATORY MONITOR, THEY AIN'T GOING TO LET YOU MOVE IT BETWEEN NOW AND 2020.

>> SANDOVAL: OKAY.

>> BUT YOU WANT TO HAVE THEM DISCOUNTED.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY NEED TO THINK ABOUT, HUH, IF I'M LOCATET A WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY DOES TO AN AIR QUALITY MONITOR.

WE DON'T KNOW.

WE DON'T KNOW IF ALL THIS CRAZY BEHAVIOR AT BULLIS IS DUE TO BULLIS' OWN OPERATION NEARBY.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT BULLIS' OPERATING CONDITIONS ARE.

THEY SHOULD TELL US.

SO GO TO BULLIS AND GET THEM TO TELL YOU WHEN DOES THE PLANT OPERATE.

WHEN DO THEY DO THIS AND THAT.

WHEN ARE THERE ALGAE BLOOMS. DO THOSE CORRELATE WITH YOUR OZONE PROBLEM? IF THEY DO, BULLIS OUGHT TO HAVE SOME PIECE OF THIS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE FEDERAL.

THIS IS A MYSTERY.

IT'S LIKE PLAYING -- BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

YOU DON'T WANT TO GO BROAD AND REGULATE EVERYBODY AND DO ALL OF THIS.

NO, YOU WANT TO TARGET THIS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

>> SANDOVAL: ALL RIGHT.

THAT WILL BE A BETTER USE OF OUR TIME AND OUR DOLLARS.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> SANDOVAL: AND WILL ACTUALLY GET RESULTS.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> SANDOVAL: AND THE LAST CONCLUSION I'M DRAWING FROM THIS IS THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO TO AFFECT OUR OZONE LEVELS.

SAYING THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE TRUE.

>> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.

>> SANDOVAL: OKAY.

>> I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING YOU CAN DO.

IT'S STILL A MYSTERY.

I CAN'T TELL YOU THE EXACT ANSWER.

BUT GIVEN THE BEHAVIOR AND THE WAY IT WORKS AND SO FORTH, IT'S CLEARLY NOT CITYWIDE.

THE MONITORS AREN'T VIOLATING WHEN THE WINDS ARE COMING IN FROM THE SOUTH.

EVEN IN THE EVENING, IN THE AFTERNOON WHEN THEY FLOW THROUGH.

THEY DO PICK UP STUFF.

BUT I DON'T SEE OZONE, IN THE PERIOD THAT I HAVE LOOKED AT, I DON'T SEE OZONE VIOLATIONS IN THE BODY OF THE CITY.

WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUE IF IT WAS COMING FROM -- WHAT'S THE BIG SHALE THING? EAGLE FORD.

THERE'S NOTHING COMING OUT OF EAGLE FORD THAT'S MAKING OZONE IN BULLIS.

>> SANDOVAL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DR. JEFFERIES.

I HAVE SOME FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FOR DR. BRIDGER.

LIKE I MENTIONED A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO I WAS ON A WORKING GROUP AT AACOG AND THEY RAN AN AIR QUALITY COMMITTEE SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON ATTAINMENT.

THIS WAS WHEN WE WERE CLOSE TO NONATTAINMENT.

THAT COMMITTEE WAS CHAIRED BY JUDGE WOLFF.

THEN IT WAS CHAIRED BY RON NIRENBERG, NOW OUR MAYOR.

MOST RECENTLY COUNCILMAN TREVINO WAS THE VICE CHAIR OF THAT.

I THOUGHT IT WAS A REALLY GREAT COMPENSATION BECAUSE IT WAS SEPARATED FROM THE AACOG BOARD ITSELF.

IT'S ONLY FOCUS WAS AIR QUALITY STAFFED BY AACOG, WHICH WAS GREAT, BUT THEY ALSO HAD A NUMBER OF WORKING GROUPS.

THEY HAD A TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP, THEY HAD AN ADVISORY

[01:30:01]

WORKING GROUP, WHICH WAS BASICALLY INDUSTRY ADVISING ON WHAT THEY COULD POSSIBLY DO.

THEY ALSO HAD A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT GROUP.

I'M GLAD TO HEAR YOU TALK ABOUT A WORKING GROUP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.

CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT AS WELL AS BRINGING IN OTHER EXPERTISE LIKE FROM THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OR IN TERMS OF ADVISORY GROUPS.

>> SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER DOCUMENT THAT YOU HAVE, THIS OZONE ATTAINMENT ACTION PLAN, I THINK THAT GETS AT A LOT OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BRING IN EXPERTS AND KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNITY INPUT AROUND THE IMPORTANT MAJOR WORK AREAS TO GETTING US BACK INTO ATTAINMENT.

THERE IS THAT WORK THAT'S ALREADY UNDERWAY.

AND THEN USING THIS AS A DOCUMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY AND THE COUNTY ALWAYS KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE MEETING MONTHLY TO DISCUSS THIS, MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE CITY.

MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE COUNTY.

AND MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY IN LOCK STEP AS WE MOVE TOGETHER.

BECAUSE IT'S ONLY BEXAR COUNTY THAT IS IN AN OZONE NONATTAINMENT OF ALL OF THE AACOG REGION.

AND SO WE NEED TO BE THE ONES TO KIND OF DRIVE THE SOLUTION.

>> SANDOVAL: OKAY.

I AGREE.

SO I THINK AACOG SAID THAT THEY WERE GOING TO TRANSFER THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS ONE COMMITTEE, THE AIR COMMITTEE, TO THEIR FULL BOARD.

AM I GETTING THAT RIGHT?

>> THERE IS A COMMITTEE AT AACOG, AND YOU AND I ARE IT.

YEAH.

>> SANDOVAL: I JUST THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO BE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY.

WHAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT HAVING THIS HOUSED IN ANY WAY AT THE COMING, THEY THEY HAVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND THE COORDINATING POINT, BUT IT'S A 13-COUNTY BODY.

AND TODAY WE FIND OUT IT'S JUST ONE COUNTY DEALING WITH NONATTAINMENT, AND THAT'S US , SO I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON US TO TAKE THAT LEADERSHIP.

I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT YOU'RE DOING THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DR. BRIDGER.

I THINK ON THE WHOLE THIS IS GOOD NEWS.

IT'S MANAGEABLE.

YOU HAVE A PLAN GOING FORWARD, SO I'M REALLY GLAD TO SEE THAT.

THANK YOU, DR. BRIDGER.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL.

COUNCILMAN PELAEZ.

>> PELAEZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR.

ARE YOU MAKING A FACE BECAUSE I REALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU GUYS TALKED ABOUT FOR A WHILE.

[LAUGHTER] I LOOKED AT ALL THE CHARTS AND THE GRAPHS AND I TRIED TO UNDERSTAND AND NOBODY SAID THERE WOULD BE MATH OR PHYSICS OR CHEMISTRY IN THIS JOB.

AND THEN YOU GUYS -- SOMEBODY LIED TO ME.

I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS I NEED TO FIGURE OUT HERE.

SO PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR COMING ACROSS AS OBTUSE.

I'M NOT TRYING TO BE OBTUSE.

AND SO WHAT I READ SOMEWHERE IN THE PRESENTATION MORNING WIND DIRECTIONS AND BULL SITES ARE FROM WEST/NORTHWEST NORTH [INDISCERNIBLE] FOR 8X AND 9X OZONE DAYS AND VERY RARE FROM SOUTHEAST/SOUTH TOWARDS THE CITY CORE.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS.

BUT I THINK IT MEANS THAT WE'RE SEEING A SOURCE OF EMISSIONS FROM OR NEAR DISTRICT 8.

>> YES.

THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT'S POTENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

>> PELAEZ: THANK YOU FOR NOT SAYING IT.

[LAUGHTER] BUT SO NOW MY QUESTION IS NOW THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT IS THIS JUST AN EXAMPLE THAT YOU'RE GIVING US? OR IS THIS A BIG PROBLEM? BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

I NEED TO KNOW IF THIS IS JUST ONE OF MANY ISSUES OR IF THIS IS LIKE HEY, GUYS, SERIOUSLY, THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

>> THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE TARGETING FINDING POTENTIAL SOURCES OF VOCS.

BECAUSE IF WE FIND THOSE SOURCES AND CAN TAP THEM OFF, THEN WE CAN MAKE ENOUGH OF A DIFFERENCE IN THE CHEMISTRY TO REDUCE THE OZONE BACK WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE.

>> PELAEZ: OKAY.

I GET IT.

WHAT I ALSO GET IS THAT WHAT

[01:35:01]

WOULD HELP US ACCOMPLISH THAT IS ADDITIONAL WORK, YOU KNOW, MORE INVESTIGATION WITH THE HELP OF SOME INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY THAT FLEER CAMERA IS A USEFUL TOOL.

WHILE YOU WERE TALKING, I WAS LOOKING IT UP, UTSA HAS A FEW, SO DOES A&M.

THERE'S SOME IN PRIVATE HANDS.

I QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO BUY A $100,000 CAMERA.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING IN OUR RFI.

>> PELAEZ: MAYBE SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO PARTNER UP WITH US AND LEND US THEIR REALLY COOL CAMERA .

DOCTOR, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT YOU SAID.

ONE OF THEM WAS THAT THE CAMX MODEL SIMULATION WITH NESTED GRIDS IS LIKELY TO BE USED FOR ESTIMATING OZONE CONTROL.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT THANK GOD THEY'RE NESTED GRIDS.

[LAUGHTER] AND THEN THE SECOND THING I'LL TELL YOU IS YOU DID SAY SOMETHING, WHICH I WANT TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

YOU KNOW WE OUGHT TO PUSH ON CAMP BULLIS AND KNOCK ON THEIR DOOR AND THEY OUGHT TO BE CARRYING SOME OF THAT COST.

DID I GET THAT RIGHT?

>> YES.

NOW WHETHER YOU CAN DO IT OR NOT LEGALLY, I DON'T KNOW.

>> PELAEZ: AS SOON AS YOU SAID THAT I LOOKED OVER AT MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMAN PERRY, AND HE AND I ARE BOTH IN SYNC WITH THIS ONE.

WE DON'T GO AND DICTATE TERMS TO CAMP BULLIS EVER.

THEY ARE OUR LIFE BLOOD HERE IN TOWN.

WHAT WE DO IS TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR MISSIONS ARE AS EASY FOR THEM TO ACCOMPLISH AS POSSIBLE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S NOT ON THE LIST, WHICH IS TO GO PUSH THEM AROUND.

>> NO.

>> PELAEZ: THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I APPRECIATE IT.

MESSY, UNPREDICTABLE IS ALSO ROBERTO TREVINO.

THANKS, MAYOR.

I TOLD HIM WHILE I WAS LISTENING THAT I WAS WRITING A LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY MAKE THIS EXPERIENCE AS INTELLECTUALLY STIMULATING FOR YOU AS IT WAS FOR US.

I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU GIVE ANY THOUGHT TO SODIUM HYPOBROMITE AND THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER THAT SHOULD COME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH IS NAW BRO.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THERE'S A WHOLE LAYER OF THAT JOKE THAT NOBODY GOT.

SO WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN IT TO THEM, MANNY?

>> YOU EITHER GET IT OR YOU DON'T.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL GOT THE JOKE.

COUNCILMAN TREVINO.

>> TREVINO: I DIDN'T CHIME IN.

>> OH, YOUR NAME WAS ON IT.

>> TREVINO: NO.

I DIDN'T CHIME IN.

THANKS.

THANKS, MAYOR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: COUNCILMAN PERRY.

>> PERRY: THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT.

A LOT OF DATA, A LOT OF INFORMATION.

BUT, YEAH, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE.

YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE CHARTS ON HERE -- AND THIS IS COMPARING SEVERAL DIFFERENT CITIES HERE.

THEY HAVE ALL MADE REDUCTIONS OVER THE LAST 15, 18 YEARS.

I MEAN, HOUSTON, I THINK YOU WERE CLAIMING SOME CREDIT IN THAT.

THEIR IMPROVEMENT IS ABOUT ON THE SAME LINE AS THE REST OF THESE CITIES.

I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THESE GRAPHS AND THEY'RE ALL GOING DOWN.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> PERRY: I'M SORRY?

>> I'M ONLY LOOKING AT A FEW YEARS THERE.

HOUSTON STARTS IN 2000 AND THE DECLINE WAS MASSIVE.

THEN WHAT HAPPENED AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT, THE PROBLEM WAS TYPICAL.

IT WAS PASSED IN 2004.

IT WAS EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL.

OZONE DROPPED LIKE A STONE.

IT WAS PERFECTLY STRAIGHT LINE FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

YOU KNOW WHAT EPA DID? THEY LOWERED THE STANDARD.

THEN YOU SAY, OKAY.

WELL, IT KEPT UP FOR A WHILE.

SO HOUSTON CONTINUED TO ATTAIN.

THEN THEY LOWERED THE STANDARD.

AND THEN HOUSTON CONTINUED TO ATTAIN.

THEN THEY LOWERED THE STANDARD.

AND NOW, GUESS WHAT? HOUSTON DOESN'T ATTAIN.

YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE OF ALL THE SOURCES THEY DIDN'T CONTROL IN 2004, WHICH

[01:40:01]

THEY COULD HAVE CONTROLLED BUT DECIDED NOT TO.

AND IT WOULD HAVE ADDED A LARGER REDUCTION.

AND WHO KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO REDUCE THE OZONE STANDARD.

SO WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW IS COMPOUNDS THAT -- VOCS THAT USED TO BE EXEMPT ARE NOW THE ONES ACTUALLY MAKING THE PROBLEM IN HOUSTON.

SO YOU GOT TO EXPAND THE REDUCTION OUT TO COVER THOSE GUYS WHO DIDN'T.

THOSE ARE THE LESS REACTIVE ONES.

THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE THE ONES YOU GUYS HAVE HERE.

NOW, Y'ALL DON'T HAVE THE HR VOCS THAT HOUSTON HAS, SO YOU DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF PROBLEM.

BUT THE STANDARD'S GOTTEN LOWER.

WE'RE NOW STRUGGLING WITH THE LOWEST STANDARD WE HAVE EVER HAD AND IT IS TOUGH.

IT IS REALLY TOUGH.

>> PERRY: I WOULD SUSPECT THAT IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO GO DOWN EVEN FURTHER, LOOKING AT HISTORY HERE.

BUT, YEAH, JUST A GENERAL COMMENT.

I SEE THAT ALL THE CITIES HAVE A DOWNWARD TREND.

>> YEAH.

>> PERRY: YOU KNOW, AND I THINK HOUSTON INVESTED 3 TO $5 BILLION BETWEEN 2001 AND 2007.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING AT THESE OTHER CITIES AND THEY DIDN'T INVEST THAT KIND OF MONEY AND THEY'RE STILL GOING DOWN AS WELL IN ALL OF THESE READINGS.

JUST A COMMENT ABOUT THAT.

JUST FROM MY OBSERVATIONS ON YOUR DATA FROM THE REPORT.

>> THAT GRAPH YOU'RE HOLDING, I DON'T KNOW THAT GRAPH.

IS IT MY STUFF OR SOMEBODY ELSE'S? I THINK THAT'S AACOG'S.

>> PERRY: AACOG, YES.

>> THAT'S DIFFERENT.

I DON'T KNOW SOME OF THEIR DATA IN DETAIL.

>> PERRY: BUT YOU SAID YOU HAVE THEIR DATA NOW?

>> I DO.

AND I WILL BE ABLE TO COME BACK WITH GRAPHS THAT MATCH UP THE ONES THAT I SHOWED YOU SO WE'RE COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES INSTEAD OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR ABOUT HOUSTON.

Y'ALL WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS AND COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL RAISED THE QUESTION.

ONE OF THE WAYS HOUSTON GOT TO DO WHAT THEY GOT TO DO WAS THEY LEVERAGED THE HELL OUT OF WASHINGTON.

AND THEY WENT AND THEY GOT MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF GRANT FUNDS BROUGHT IN AND RESEARCH PROJECTS BROUGHT IN.

THEY GOT NASA, NOAH AND OTHERS.

THEY GOT AIRCRAFT.

THEY GOT ALL THIS DONE BY SIMPLY GOING TO THE LOBBYISTS WHO WENT TO WASHINGTON WHO GOT THE BUDGET SET UP AND HAD THE RESEARCHERS AND PEOPLE COME DOWN.

THAT'S WHAT MADE TCEQ CHANGE THEIR MIND A LOT BECAUSE THEY HAD WORLD-CLASS RESEARCHERS STANDING THERE SAYING, NO, THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS.

IT WORKS LIKE THIS.

Y'ALL HAVE NOT DONE ANY OF THIS.

YOU HAVEN'T MADE ANY EFFORT TO THINK ABOUT -- BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T HAD TO UP UNTIL NOW.

DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH -- AND I DON'T KNOW THE POLITICAL SIDE.

DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH CLOUT AND SO FORTH TO ACTUALLY BEGIN TO SAY WE NEED SOME MONEY SPENT HERE? I HEARD YOU TALK ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT WITH TOYOTA, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST STANDARD BUDGETS OUT OF THIS NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, OUT OF NOAA AND OTHER PLACES WHO ARE LOOKING FOR PLACES TO DO FIELD STUDIES.

NOW, THERE WAS A RECENT SMALL ONE DONE HERE.

THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE SHALE.

THEY WEREN'T LOOKING AT YOU GUYS.

THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THE SHALE WAS CAUSING PROBLEMS OR NOT.

SO THERE'S SOME WAYS TO BRING OTHER DOLLARS, AND HOUSTON BROUGHT BIG DOLLARS TO MAKE THAT KIND OF EFFORT WORK.

SO THAT'S ONE WAY TO MAKE -- TO HELP THIS.

THE PROBLEM HERE IS CURIOUS.

I MEAN, IT WOULD HAVE SCIENTIFIC INTEREST.

>> PERRY: YEAH, I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN YOUR INFORMATION ABOUT THE BULLIS AND THE NORTHWEST MONITORS UP THERE.

YEAH, IF YOU LOOK ON GOOGLE THERE'S NOTHING UP THERE.

THERE'S NOTHING.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT WOULD BE CAUSING THAT.

UNLESS IT'S THAT --

>> TREATMENT PLANT.

>> PERRY: THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE AT CAMP BULLIS.

BUT THAT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO -- YOU KNOW, AND I ASKED THAT QUESTION OF TCEQ.

I SAID HOW LONG HAVE THOSE MONITORS BEEN THERE.

WELL, THEY'VE BEEN THERE IN AUDIO] THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD COST THAT MUCH MONEY JUST TO MOVE A MONITOR BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES IN THE CITY, THE COUNTY.

YOU KNOW, OPERATIONS AT CAMP BULLIS, WHATEVER.

>> THEY HAVE DONE IT IN OTHER CITIES.

>> PERRY: WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT BASED ON CHANGES IN OUR CITY HERE AND COUNTY.

SO I'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION.

THEY HAVEN'T ANSWERED ME AS TO WHY IT CANNOT BE MOVED.

DR. BRIDGER, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO PRESS THAT AS TO WHY THAT HAS TO STAY IN THAT LOCATION.

YOU TALK ABOUT THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE PHOTOCHEMICAL MODELING IN

[01:45:02]

YOUR REPORT.

BUT HOW DO WE GET AROUND THAT SINCE THAT'S WHAT DRIVES ALL THIS ANYWAY? I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO REPORT TO TCEQ.

HOW WOULD WE GET --

>> I'LL TELL YOU PRECISELY, BECAUSE WE DID IT IN HOUSTON.

FIRST OF ALL, THE WAY TO DO IT CORRECTLY IS YOU DO THE MEASUREMENTS AND THE EXERCISES AND YOU FIND OUT WHY THE MODEL'S NOT GIVING YOU THE RIGHT ANSWERS AND YOU FIX IT.

THAT'S A RESEARCH PROJECT.

IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK, A LOT OF TIME.

THAT'S WHAT THE EPA USED TO DO AND THE POLICY GUYS STOPPED THEM BECAUSE IT HAD GOTTEN SO COSTLY AND SO COMPLICATED.

THE OTHER WAY TO DO IT IS WHAT I DID IN HOUSTON.

THE MODEL IN HOUSTON HAD THE SAME ISSUES, SAME PROBLEMS. SO I WENT -- I WOULD GO TO MEETINGS AT EPA AND I WOULD BEAT UP THE MODEL REPEATEDLY.

AND FINALLY NORM, WHO RAN THE PROGRAM SAID, YEAH, WE KNOW ALL THAT BUT IT'S REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WE USE IT.

HERE'S WHAT YOU DO.

GO AHEAD AND USE IT AND YOU PROVIDE A WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE ARGUMENT AS TO WHY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW IT.

AND THAT'S LEGAL.

IT'S CALLED A WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE ARGUMENT.

AND TCEQ DID THAT.

SO THEY'RE USED TO IT.

OTHER PLACES ARE USED TO IT.

THE MODEL FAILS, DOESN'T REPRODUCE.

INSTEAD OF FIGHTING AND ARGUING AND TRYING TO THROW THE MODEL AWAY YOU SIMPLY, AT THE END OF THE PROCESS SAY, WELL, BECAUSE OF ALL THESE ISSUES WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A WEIGHT OF EVIDENCS THE CORRECT PLAN.

AND IF YOU DO THAT THEY GO, OKAY.

SEE, THEY'RE JUST FACED AGAINST THE LAW.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

THEY CANNOT LET YOU DO THE MODELING.

YOU HAVE TO DO THE MODELING.

IT'S REQUIRED.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THE MODELING AS THE SOLE DECIDING FACTOR OF WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO.

YOU GIVE THEM A WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE ARGUMENT.

THERE'S AT LEAST A DOZEN CONTRACTOR IN THE COUNTRY THAT KNOW HOW TO CONSTRUCT A WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE ARGUMENT.

YOU SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND EFFORT TO BUILD A WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE ARGUMENT BASED ON OBSERVATIONS, REAL DATA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

THEN AT THE END YOU TELL TCEQ THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE IS HAPPENING.

IF YOU THINK YOU'VE GOT ANY BETTER INFORMATION THAN WE DO ABOUT WHY THIS IS HAPPENING, YOU SHOW IT TO US.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY GOT TO DO TO EPA.

SO YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT TO EPA AND THEY'LL ALMOST WELCOME IT.

NOW, BECAUSE EPA, THEY HATE TEXAS BECAUSE Y'ALL HAVE THIS HUGE METEOROLOGY DIFFERENCE FROM ANYBODY ELSE.

YOU'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAS THESE ISSUES.

THEY DON'T HAVE THESE ISSUES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COUNTRY.

THEY DON'T HAVE THESE ISSUES IN THE NORTHEAST.

THEY DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE SO DIFFERENT.

AND THE LAST THING THEY WANT TO DO IS COME UP WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.

THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING OVER AND OVER.

CALIFORNIA SAYS WE'RE DIFFERENT.

WASHINGTON SAYS WE'RE DIFFERENT.

THEY WANT THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

SO IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A MODEL THAT YOU'VE DONE THE BEST YOU CAN, YOU STILL GET ANSWERS THAT DON'T FIT OR DON'T WORK CORRECTLY AND YOU MAKE A WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE ARGUMENT AND YOU JUST TAKE IT TO EPA AND THEY WILL BUY IT.

THAT'S THE EASY WAY OUT.

>> PERRY: I HOPE THAT'S IN YOUR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.

[LAUGHTER]

>> I MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT.

I DON'T KNOW.

YOU CAN QUOTE ME.

>> PERRY: IS THIS FINALIZED?

>> MY REPORT? YES.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

>> NOW, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE HOPEFULLY COMING.

>> PERRY: WELL, OKAY.

TALK ABOUT BACKGROUND OZONE.

WHAT'S YOUR ESTIMATE ON THAT? WHERE IS THAT COMING FROM?

>> YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE GRAPHS.

IT'S OBVIOUS.

I ONLY SHOWED YOU TWO GRAPHS.

I HAVE 2,000 GRAPHS OF DATA AND TIME.

AND YOU CAN WATCH ALL THIS VARIATION AND SO FAR.

WHAT YOU SEE IN THE HIGH WIND DAYS, THOSE LONG STRAIGHT DAYS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THEM THE BOTTOM OZONE DOESN'T GO BELOW -- IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT THE OZONE DOESN'T GO BELOW 25 PPB.

THAT'S THE CONTINENTAL BACKGROUND AND THE OCEAN BACKGROUND.

AND THIS WIND IS HAULING IN FROM A LONG WAYS AWAY RIGHT PAST EVERYTHING.

THAT'S WHAT YOUR MONITOR SEES.

IF YOU HAVE A SLOW WIND, WHAT'S HAPPENING IS ANY BACKGROUND -- FIRST OF ALL THERE'S NOT MUCH BACKGROUND OZONE BEING BROUGHT IN BECAUSE IT'S NOT HAVING TO COME.

THE MODEL, BY THE WAY, HAS BOUNDARY CONDITIONS THEY WIRE IN.

SO THEY WIRE IN AROUND THE EDGE OF THE MODEL, BACKGROUND.

AND WHEN THE WIND COMES FROM OVER THERE THEY JUST BRING IN THE BACKGROUND, SO IT COMES ACROSS.

NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT ANOTHER CONDITION YOU'LL SEE OZONE SITTING NOT GOING ALL THE WAY TO ZERO ON SEVERAL NIGHTS.

AND WHAT THAT IS IS THAT YOU RAN OUT OF NOX.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE OZONE WAS HIGH AND OFTEN THE NOX TRAFFIC GOING HOME WILL EAT THE OZONE DOWN, DOWN, DOWN, DOWN, DOWN, DOWN, DOWN.

AND ON MOST TIMES WHEN YOU HAVE THESE SLOW WIND CONDITIONS IT GOES TO ZERO.

THERE'S STILL NOX LEFT, PERHAPS,

[01:50:02]

BUT THERE'S NO OZONE THAT'S BEEN EATEN UP.

IF YOU SEE OZONE OVERNIGHT SITTING AT 30, 40, THE REASON THAT IS IS THAT WAS OZONE FROM THE DAY BEFORE THAT DIDN'T GET BLOWN AWAY AND THE NOX EMISSIONS FROM THE CARS GOING HOME WEREN'T ABLE AND YOU GOT OZONE LEFT OVER.

YOU SEE THAT.

AND THAT'S TRUE IN THE EXAMPLE I GAVE YOU.

THERE'S TWO WINDOWS, ALL IN THE SAME MONTHS.

THREE DAYS EXACTLY ALIKE.

ONE OF THEM DID NOT GO TO ZERO.

ONE OF THEM WENT ALL THE WAY TO ZERO? WHY? NOX WAS HIGHER IN THE ONE THAT WENT TO ZERO AND IT WASN'T IN THE ONE THAT DID.

YOU CAN HAVE ALL KINDS OF POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS ABOUT WHERE YOU GET THE OZONE AND WHAT THE TEMPORAL PATTERN LOOKS LIKE.

YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT A LOT OF DAYS TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE TREND IS.

OZONE IS BEING BROUGHT IN BY TRANSPORT.

IT'S 20, 30.

IT'S RARE THAT IT'S THE LEFTOVER OZONE FROM HOUSTON.

I NEVER SAW A SINGLE CASE.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE OZONE IN HOUSTON, IT ALL GOES NORTHEAST WITH THE HIGH-SPEED WINDS AT NIGHT.

SAME THING FOR AUSTIN.

I INCLUDED AUSTIN MONITORS TO START WITH.

USELESS.

THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU GUYS.

I DIDN'T SEE ANY CONTRIBUTION FROM THE SHALE.

DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING COMING THROUGH THE CITY THAT LOOKED LIKE ANYTHING WAS COMING OUT OF THE SHALE.

NOW, I MIGHT EXPECT NOX BECAUSE OF ALL THE TRUCKS SITTING THERE.

IF IT IS, YOU'RE NOT GETTING OZONE IN THE SOUTH.

THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM.

THE PROBLEM IS, LIKE YOU SAID, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HECK IS UP THERE.

IT'S WEIRD, WHATEVER IT IS.

BUT IT CERTAINLY COMES FROM THAT QUADRANT UP THERE.

WHICH MADE ME EXPECT THAT IT'S SOME SORT OF MOBILE SOURCE.

HOW ABOUT ROAD CONSTRUCTION? THERE'S A LOT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION GOING ON THERE SINCE '12.

>> PERRY: YEAH.

THERE'S QUITE A BIT.

>> COULD BE THAT THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE OPERATION OF THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION.

IS IT TAR? IS IT ASPHALT PRODUCTION THEY'RE DOING? I DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S WHY YOU GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAN SEE THIS STUFF.

AND THEN YOU GO LOOK.

AND YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED AT WHAT IT IS.

AND, AGAIN, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE HUGE IN TERMS OF MASS.

IT NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO CREATE A PLUME ABOUT A KILOMETER OR SO WIDE.

MAYBE 15 KILOMETERS LONG.

SO SOME SOURCE SITTING THERE COOKING IN A STEADY SLOW WIND COULD SEND A PLUME DOWN THAT DOESN'T GET VERY SPREAD OUT AND GOES BY THE MONITOR AND YOU GET A HUGE VIOLATION.

SOME SMALL SOURCE.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

JUST ABOUT TCEQ.

>> YEAH.

>> PERRY: HAVE YOU WORKED WITH TCEQ ON THIS MODELING AND THEORIES ON THIS?

>> OH, YEAH.

>> PERRY: ARE THEY ACCEPTING YOUR WORK AND ARE THEY APPROVING YOUR WORK?

>> I'M NOT HAVING TO SUBMIT ANYTHING THEY HAVE TO APPROVE.

I'M DOING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

SO THE LAST THREE SEMINARS I GAVE WITHIN THE LAST YEAR, THE ROOM WAS PACKED FULL.

AND WE HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSION.

BRIMMER WAS THERE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO USE THAT TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS.

IT'S WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE NITTY-GRITTY OF HAVING TO MAKE UP A POLICY AND ALL THIS THAT THINGS GET MEAN.

SOMEBODY UP THERE GOT THE IDEA THAT I SAID THERE'S HR VOCS DOWN HERE.

HIGHLY REACTIVE.

THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT GOT CONTROL IN HOUSTON AND THEY WERE CAUSING ALL THE PROBLEMS IN HOUSTON BECAUSE OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY.

YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE THAT.

I NEVER SAID THAT THE HYDROCARBONS HERE WERE THOSE.

HERE'S WHAT'S HAPPENED.

THEY LOWERED THE STANDARD LOWER AND LOWER.

YOU USED TO HAVE TO HAVE THOSE TO GET ABOVE THE HIGH STANDARD THEY HAD AT A SHORT TIME.

THE STANDARD NOW IS 70.

SO IT'S NOT HARD TO HAVE AROMATICS, GASOLINE SPILLS THAT ARE ADEQUATE TO GET THE OZONE ABOVE THAT 70.

Y'ALL ARE GETTING THE -- THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS GETTING SQUEEZED AT 70 BECAUSE IT'S SO EASY TO GET THERE.

AND LOTS OF THINGS YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH AND NOBODY HAS PAID ANY ATTENTION TO, THEY'RE NOW GOING TO COME TO THE FOREFRONT.

THAT'S LIKELY WHAT'S GOING ON.

YOU HAVE A SOURCE THAT'S NOT ILLEGAL, THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS DONE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, BUT THE STANDARD HAS DROPPED.

AND NOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING THAT USED TO BE OKAY AIN'T OKAY ANYMORE.

THAT'S WHAT I THINK IS THE ESSENCE OF THE PROBLEM.

IT'S NOT SOME PLANT SITTING SOMEWHERE SPEWING OUT OCCASIONALLY, HR VOCS OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

NOBODY IS DOING THIS DELIBERATELY AND THEY MAY NOT EVEN KNOW THEY'RE DOING IT.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

DR. BRIDGER, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

ARE WE GOING TO USE THIS REPORT OR HAS AACOG SEEN THIS REPORT?

[01:55:03]

>> AACOG GOT THIS REPORT THE SAME DAY I DID.

>> PERRY: AND IS TCEQ GOING TO GET THIS REPORT?

>> TCEQ HAS THIS REPORT.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

HAVE THEY MADE ANY COMMENTS OR ONE WAY OR THE OTHER SAYING, YEAH, THIS IS GREAT.

OR NO WE'RE NOT PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO IT.

>> WE HAVE NOT HAD OUR MONTHLY CALL SINCE THEY GOT THE REPORT, SO MY GUESS IS THAT MAY COME UP AT OUR NEXT MONTHLY CALL.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

I WOULD REALLY BE INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

YOU KNOW, COUNCILWOMAN SANDOVAL, I HEAR WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT AACOG BUT, REALLY, THEY ARE THE AGENCY THAT DEALS WITH TCEQ ON THE MONITORING, ARE THEY NOT? DON'T THEY GET THE GRANTS FOR THE MONITORS AND GO OUT AND DO THE READINGS?

>> WE DO THE READINGS.

>> PERRY: YOU DO THE READINGS?

>> YES, SIR.

>> PERRY: WHERE DO THE READINGS GO?

>> TCEQ.

>> PERRY: DIRECTLY TO TCEQ.

SO AACOG REALLY ISN'T IN THE MIX.

>> I MEAN, THEY'RE AN IMPORTANT PARTNER.

BEFORE WE WERE IN NONATTAINMENT AND IT WAS A REGIONAL EFFORT TO IMPROVE OVERALL AIR QUALITY, THEY WERE THE LEAD.

BUT NOW THAT IT IS SPECIFIC TO BEXAR COUNTY, SPECIFIC TO OZONE, WE'RE NEEDING TO FIND OUR WAY ON OUR OWN.

>> PERRY: DOES THAT MEAN THEY'RE NOT A PART OF THIS PROCESS? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ON OUR OWN?

>> THEY'RE OUR PARTNER RATHER THAN THE LEADER.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

ON THIS -- ISN'T THERE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE EPA FROM THE STATE?

>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> PERRY: OKAY.

YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT LAWSUIT? WHAT IT IS OR WHAT IT'S ABOUT?

>> I HEARD THAT WE NEEDED TO KEEP LOWERING THE OZONE, THAT'S WHAT I FOCUSED ON.

SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.

>> PERRY: ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S ALL OF MY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, DOCTOR.

APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MAYOR NIRENBERG: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PERRY.

[Executive Session]

THANK YOU DR. BRIDGERS, THANK YOU DR. JEFFERIES.

THE PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY CHAPTER 551 IN THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.087, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

PURCHASE EXCHANGE, LEASE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.072, REAL PROPERTY.

AND LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO CONTEMPLATE OR ANTICIPATED LITIGATION INVOLVING ZONING

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.