WRAP Workshop on Sulfate, Nitrate, and Reasonable Progress
January 10-11, 2006, Tucson, AZ
Meeting Logistics
Agenda: PDF or DOC
Attendees: PDF or XLS
Call In: (913) 312-9376 / Passcode 869711
Interactive Agenda
Tuesday, January 10, 2006:
Reasonable Progress Goals
Background: The State must establish for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State a goal for improving the most impaired days and a goal for preventing deterioration of the least impaired days. The goals (expressed in deciviews) must be based on consideration of the following factors:
- the costs of compliance;
- the time necessary for compliance;
- the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance;
- the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources;
- the emission reduction measures needed to achieve the goals;
- consultation with upwind states; and
- for the most impaired days, the uniform rate of progress needed to achieve natural visibility conditions in 2064.
| 8:30 |
Introductions and Opening Remarks from WRAP Co-Directors |
| 8:45 |
How were the glidepaths determined? [Marc Pitchford, NOAA/EPA]
- Baseline conditions
- Natural conditions
Presentation: Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Goals PDF or PPT |
| 9:15 |
What are the emissions in 2002 and 2018 and how were they determined? [Alice Edwards, AK DEC]
- Presentation: Description and Summary of WRAP Emission Inventories for 2002 and 2018 PDF or PPT (2 MB)
- Demonstration of Stationary and Area Source Pivot Tables HTML
|
| 10:15 |
Break |
| 10:45 |
What are the 2002 and 2018 visibility modeling results and how were they determined?
What are the major caveats in using modeling results in the implementation plans? [John Vimont, National Park Service]
- Presentation: Emissions & Air Quality Modeling for
Regional Haze Planning in the WRAP Region PDF (1.3 MB) or PPT (6.5 MB)
|
| 11:45 |
What are the current visibility projections for 2018 and how do they compare to the uniform rate of progress (i.e., glidepath)? Handouts will be provided for each area. [Lee Alter, WGA]
- Presentation: Annual Average Maps and Caveats PPT or PDF
- 20% Worst Day Results for Each Class I Area XLS
|
| 12:15 |
Lunch |
| 1:15 |
A Weight-of-Evidence Framework for Integrating Technical Results and Supporting Haze-Mitigation Policies [Joe Adlhoch, Air Resource Specialists]
- Presentation: AoH Work Group Weight of Evidence Framework PDF or PPT
- Presentation: Source Tagging Options Using WRAP Air Quality Models PDF or PPT
|
| 2:30 |
Adjourn |
| 3:00 |
Depart for tour of Sabino Canyon and dinner |
Wednesday, January 11, 2006:
Sources and Options for Sulfate and Nitrate
Background: Of the six major visibility-impairing aerosol species (fine soil, coarse mass, elemental carbon, organic carbon, sulfate, and nitrate), sulfate and nitrate share several common characteristics. They are both secondary pollutants whose gasses are emitted predominantly by anthropogenic combustion sources and subject to long-range transport. Together, they typically account for a third or more of the visibility impairment on the 20% worst days. Both aerosols are dependent on and sometimes compete for ammonia emissions. Given these similarities, sulfates and nitrates are often treated with the same assessment techniques and share similar emission control strategy options.
| 8:30 |
Sulfate Session
Stationary Source Emission Trends of SO2 and NOx [Patrick Cummins, WGA]
Presentation: Emission Trends and SIP Scenarios for SO2 and NOx PDF or PPT
Demonstration of the weight-of-evidence framework [Joe Adlhoch]
- How much of the regional haze is due to sulfate?
- What have been the historical trends in sulfate concentrations and sulfur emissions?
- What are the contributions of natural and manmade emissions to sulfate?
- How are these emissions expected to change between now and 2018?
- How is visibility expected to change, and how does this compare to the glidepath?
- What is our confidence in the answers to these questions, and how might a weight-of-evidence approach be used to determine appropriate policies?
Presentation: Sulfate Discussion PDF (2.6 MB) or PPT (3.6 MB)
What are the costs and haze benefits of additional SO2 emission reductions? [Kathy Kaufman, EPA] |
| 10:00 |
Break |
| 10:30 |
Nitrate Session (similar in format to the sulfate session)
Presentation: Nitrate Discussion PDF (2.5 MB) or PPT (3.6 MB) |
| 12:00 |
Lunch |
| 1:00 |
What is meant by all the other factors? How may they be analyzed? How may all the factors be considered together when establishing goals, and how may States and Tribes demonstrate adequate consideration of them in their implementation plans? [Lee Alter, WGA; Bruce Polkowsky, NPS; Invited: Kathy Kaufman, EPA]
- Presentation: Conducting Reasonable Progress Determinations PDF or PPT
- Draft Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program PDF or DOC
|
| 2:30 |
Next Steps |
| 3:00 |
Adjourn |
|
| |
Initiatives Oversight Committee
Tools
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Contact the Webmaster
