1. Status of Regional Haze Plans
WRAP Board Meeting
Salt Lake City, UT
February 19, 2008

2. Roundtable discussion to follow
Status Report:
Summary of emissions and visibility trends
Program implementation to date
Status of BART Determinations
Progress and schedule for submitting Regional Haze plans
Roundtable discussion to follow

3. Emissions Sources and Regions + Visibility Trends
Emissions comparison by regions
Trends at 4 sites
4 example sites for visibility trends – 3 Sisters Wild. in OR, Yellowstone NP in WY/ID/MT, Rocky Mtn NP in CO, Petrified Forest NP in AZ
Emissions summarized across large regions – WRAP, CENRAP, Canada, Mexico, Pacific Shipping – modeling all sources and regions, have most confidence in WRAP region EI data from states, tribes, and Forum/Workgroup projects
Issues to discuss:
What pollutants are causing worst days’ haze and what is the trend? – see notes for each site
What sources are contributing to the haze at these sites – how are they projected to change 02 to 18?
Thoughts to consider:
Contribution from WRAP region smaller than other regions for some pollutants
Contributing emissions sources and regions are a diverse mix for states to assess in terms of controllable vs. uncontrollable and natural vs. anthropogenic

4. CAMD data from CEMs
NOx emissions down ~50k tons, ~10% from 02 to 06
SO2 emissions down ~125k tons, ~30% from 02 to 06

5. SO2 emissions used in WRAP regional haze analysis
2002 – used 2000 data from Canada – reported all mobile as on-road
(For 2018 estimates – federal mobile rules, state and federal “rules/permits on the books”, known or presumptive SO2 limits for BART EGUs in WRAP region, CAIR portion in CENRAP, Canadian 2020 projections, Mexico [1999] and Pacific shipping [2002] constant)
Conclusions:
WRAP region point sources declining due to BART
~425k tons in 2002 base year from power plants, down ~30% by 2006
Point 781,203 tons in 2002, 535,310 tons by 2018 – change of ~246,000 tons
Large SO2 source regions around WRAP
Shipping emissions are likely to double, will be assessed in final 2018 modeling

6. NOx emissions before BART used in WRAP regional haze analysis
2002 – used 2000 data from Canada – reported all mobile as on-road
(For 2018 estimates – federal mobile rules, state and federal “rules/permits on the books”, no NOx assumptions for BART sources in WRAP region, CAIR portion in CENRAP, Canadian 2020 projections, Mexico [1999] and Pacific shipping [2002] constant)
Conclusions:
WRAP and CENRAP regions’ mobile sources declining due to federal on-road and non-road rules
just over 500k tons in 2002 base year from power plants, down ~10% by 2006 – no BART assumptions included for 2018
Mobile (on-road and non-road) 2,638,422 tons in 2002, 1,113,419 tons by 2018 – change of ~1,525,000 tons
Large NOx source regions around WRAP
Shipping emissions are likely to double, will be assessed in final 2018 modeling

7. Carbon PM emissions used in WRAP regional haze analysis
2002 – used 2000 data from Canada – reported all mobile as on-road
For 2018 estimates – federal mobile rules, state and federal “rules/permits on the books”, Canadian 2020 projections,
No organic carbon emissions for Pacific Offshore shipping
Tonnage much higher for OC emissions, visibility impact much greater for EC emissions
Held constant - Wildfire [ average in WRAP region], Mexico [1999] and Pacific shipping [2002]
Conclusions:
Elemental Carbon in WRAP and CENRAP regions from mobile diesel-fueled sources declining due to federal on-road and non-road rules
WRAP region dominates carbon PM emissions, large OC and EC source regions east of WRAP, Canada off-road increasing by 2018
Wildfire dominates OC and EC by 2018
Anthro fire drops due to Emissions Reduction Techniques applied through Smoke Management Programs
Small EC from shipping emissions, will be assessed in final 2018 modeling

8. Dust PM emissions used in WRAP regional haze analysis
2002 – used 2000 data from Canada
For 2018 estimates – federal mobile rules, state and federal “rules/permits on the books”, includes PM10 SIP controls, Canadian 2020 projections,
No dust emissions for Pacific Offshore shipping
Mexico national EI incomplete for dust emissions – no windblown or fugitive data
Tonnage much higher for Coarse PM dust emissions, visibility impact greater for Fine PM dust emissions
Held constant – Windblown Dust [2002 meteorology] in WRAP region, Mexico [1999]
Conclusions:
Dust emissions uncertain in general, no policy definition of natural vs. anthro like for fire
Windblown dust largely natural and only partially controllable
Fugitive dust (mechanical activities like agricultural tilling and construction) in WRAP region projected using EPA emissions model driven by population and economic data
Road dust highly uncertain
Large dust source regions north, south, and east of WRAP, Canada road dust increasing by 2018

9. Visibility trends 1995 to 2004 Three Sisters Wilderness, OR
1) No worst visibility days’ trend at 3 Sisters – mix of sources and pollutants
2) Sulfate impacts declining slightly, organic impacts highly variable – big fire years 96, 99, 02-04
3) Nitrate impacts not big – independent of fire impacts
4) Coarse Dust not significant

10. Visibility trends 1997 to 2004 Yellowstone NP, WY/ID/MT
1) Slightly degrading trend on worst visibility days at YNP – dominated by fire
2) Sulfate impacts declining slightly, organics show big impacts from fire 2000, 01
3) Nitrate flat, not related to fire
4) Coarse Dust slightly declining

11. Visibility trends 1995 to 2004 Rocky Mountain NP, CO
1) No worst visibility days’ trend at RMNP – mix of sources and pollutants
2) Sulfate impacts relatively constant, organic impacts as well – 2002 big fire year
3) Nitrate higher in recent years – occurs whether fire big or not
4) Coarse Dust important as well

12. Visibility trends 1995 to 2004 Petrified Forest NP, AZ
1) Slightly degrading trend on worst visibility days at PFNP – mix of sources and pollutants
2) Sulfate impacts declining, organics show big impacts from fire in recent years
3) Nitrate flat, not a big player due to site conditions – not related to fire
4) Coarse Dust variable and important

13. Additional reductions expected from major point sources
All BART sources in WRAP region will be controlled
BART
§309 SO2 Milestone Program
BART is a complicated and time-consuming process
In the West…
No federal rule (i.e., CAIR)
Limited contribution to nonattainment areas

14. NAAQS Nonattainment & CAIR region Maps

15. SO2 Milestone Program status
Annex prepared 2000, EPA adopted, ‘04 court decision nullified
AZ, NM, OR, UT, and WY completed §309 plans with declining regional emissions milestones in 2003
Annual milestone tracking reports since 2003
In 2008, 4 states (OR to use §308) are resubmitting §309 plans with with updated milestones based on:
Improved emissions projections for all sources in program
Maintaining tribal set-aside
Input from stakeholders

17. WRAP Region BART Sources
State
# EGU Plants
# EGU Units
# Non-EGU Plants AK 2 4 3 AZ 12 5 CA 20 CO 8 14 1 HI 6 ID
MT (by EPA R8) NV 10 NM ND 7 OR SD UT WA WY 13
Tribal (by EPA R9)
Totals 44 95 49

18. Probable BART Completion Matrix
State
BART Completion Date
Mid to late 2008
Other
Alaska X
Arizona
California
Later ?
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon
South Dakota
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Tribal

19. Implementation Work Group Co-Chairs
Tina Anderson, Wyoming DEQ
Mike Edwards, Idaho DEQ
IWG is regional haze planners from each state + tribal, FLM, and EPA regional office reps
WRAP staff support

20. 2018 “Reasonable Progress Goals” in Regional Haze Plans
Reasonable Progress for 2018 is based on:
BART, SO2 Milestone Program, and other stationary source reductions
Mobile reductions from federal rules, exceeds GCVTC recommendations
Smoke Management Programs – referenced in SIPs
Implementation of other state air quality programs
Long-term strategy includes:
Evaluating opportunity for additional point and area source controls
O&G in particular
and
Other sources
Uncertain emissions
Controllable vs. Uncontrollable Sources
Addressing fire tracking with Fire Emissions Tracking System
Dust
International transport

21. Tribal Sources (EPA – Navajo, Four Corners)
Section 308 Haze Planning - Estimated Dates of Completion
State
BART Rulemaking
SIP Hearing
SIP Adoption
Comments AK
Jan 2008 – Determs. March 2009
June 2009
Late 2009
Estimates are worst-case dependent on sources’ responses to analyses AZ
1st Quarter 2008
August 2008 CA
Early 2008
July 24-25, 2008
August or September, 2008
BART sources regulated by local districts CO
Complete and submitted
RPG SIP Undetermined – Late 2008
Outstanding BART issues HI
Unknown ID
Rule complete. Determs. In process
July/August 2008
September/October 2008
MT (EPA)
Analyses Nov 2007 Comments Pending
Undetermined
SIP and BART on same schedule  ND
Done!
BART in May, RPG SIP October 2008
BART June/July, RPG SIP November 2008
BART authorization rule complete. BART and SIP separate schedules NM
Determs. February 2008
July 2008
BART Authorization in effect NV
SIP Schedule determined soon after BART OR
Late 2008
Summer 2008 SD
1st half 2008
2nd half 2008 WA
Rule in place. Determs. July 2008
Late Winter 2008 or 2009 WY
DONE!
Mid 2008
Mid to late 2008
Tribal Sources (EPA – Navajo, Four Corners)
Mid
Proposal Mid-2008
Last updated on: 2/16/2008

22. SO2 Trading Rule Revisions
Section 309 Haze Planning - Estimated Dates of Completion
State
SO2 Trading Rule Revisions
SIP Hearing
SIP Adoption
Comments AZ
1st Quarter 2008
June 2008 NM
July 2008
July/August 2008
Alb/BC,NM
Rule completed in 2003.
Pending further notice UT
Done!
April 2007
June/July 2008 WY
Hearing – Feb 2008, Final Rules – April 2008
March, April 2008
Mid–2008
Last updated on: 2/16/2008

23. What is left to do? 4 hurdles
Individual states are processing BART applications and determining emissions limits for permits – complicated
States completing reasonable progress analyses, WRAP staff helping
SIPs require administrative rulemaking and public hearing processes
States must consult with FLMs

24. Thanks! Questions and Roundtable Discussion

26. BART Eligible Power PlantsAK
Anchorage ML&P, GVEA Healy AZ
APS West Phoenix & Cholla, AEPCO Apache & SRP Coronado CO
Colorado Springs Drake, PSC Valmont, Cherokee, Comanche, Hayden & Pawnee, Tri-State Craig & Trigen Golden HI
HECO Kahe & Waiau, HELCO Kanoelehua, Hilo Coast, KIUC Port Allen & MECO Kahului MT
PP&L Colstrip & Corette NV
Sierra Pacific Tracy & Ft. Churchill, Nevada Power Reid Gardner & SoCal Edison Mohave NM
PNM San Juan ND
Basin Leland Olds, Great River Coal Creek & Stanton & Minnkota Milton Young OR
PGE Beaver & Boardman SD
Otter Tail Big Stone UT
Pacificorp Hunter & Huntington WA
Trans Alta Centralia WY
Pacificorp Dave Johnston, Jim Bridger, Naughton & Wyodak & Basin Laramie River
Tribal
SRP Navajo & APS Four Corners

27. BART Eligible Non-EGU SourcesAK
Agrium Urea, Conoco-Phillips LNG & Tesoro Refining AZ
Abitibi Pulp, Arizona Cement, CLC Nelson Lime, Asarco Hayden & PD Miami Copper CA
Too Numerous to List CO
Cemex Lyons Cement HI
Hawaiian Sugar & Tesoro Refining ID
TASCO Sugar, Monsanto/P4 MT
Columbia Falls Aluminum, Ashgrove & Holcim Cement NV
Nevada Cement OR
Ft. James Wauna & Weyerhaeuser Springfield Pulp, Amalgamated Sugar Nyssa WA
BP Cherry Point & Tesoro Refining, Alcoa Ferndale & Wenatchee, Port Townsend & Weyerhaeuser Longview Pulp & Lafarge Cement WY
FMC Granger & Green River, General Chemical Soda Ash Plants