## Chapt er Five – B e st A v ailabl e R e tr ofit T ech nology

5.1 OVERVIEW OF THE BART PROCES S

5.2 BART-ELIGIBLE S O URCES IN NEVADA

5.3 EXEMPTION MODELING SETUP AND ANALYSIS

5.4 SUMMARY OF EXEMPT ION MODELING RESULTS

5.4.1 Subject-to-B A RT Sources 5.4.2 BART-Exe mpt Sources



### 5.5 SUMMARY OF BART CONTROL ANALYSES

5.5.1 BART at Tracy 5.5.2 BART at Fort Church ill 5.5.3 BART at Re id Gardner 5.5.4 BART at M ohave 5.5.5 Cum u lative Em issions Reductions



### 5.6 VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT DUE TO BART IMPLEMENTATION

5.6.1 Tracy 5.6.2 Fort Church ill 5.6.3 Reid Gardner 5.6.4 Mohave

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-15.1 OVERVIEW OF THE BART PROCESS

The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) at 40 CFR 51.308(e) requires the installation of Best Availab l e Retrofit Technology (BART) controls on a specific se t of existing sources as one tool to m eet the CAA visibility protection provisi on s

. A BART-elig ible sou r ce is one wh ich m eets th e f o llowing criteria: 1. Contains an em ission unit from one of 26 source catego r ies id entif ied in th e CAA and regulations, 2. The em ission unit was in existence on Augus t 7, 1977; however, not in operation before August 7, 1962. 3. The potential em issions from all the em issi on units identified in steps 1 and 2 are currently 250 tons per year or m o re of any air pollutant.

A BART-eligible source that is re sponsible for a 1.0 deciview (dv) change or m o re is considered to “cause or contribute” to visi bility impairm ent. Although th e appropriate thresho l d m a y vary, the USEPA guidelines indicate that the caus e or contribute thres hold used for BART applicability should not exceed 0.5 d v. Thus, Neva da consid ers a BART-elig ible sou r ce that is responsible for a 0.5 dv increase or more to cause or contribute to visibility im pair m e nt. Any BART-eligible sourc e d e term ined to cause or contribute to visibili ty im pairm e nt in any

m a ndatory Class I area is subject to a BART determ ination.

To assess visibility im pa irm e nt from BART-eligib le sources in Nevada, an individual source attribution approach was used to predict si ngle source contribution. The USEPA gui delines direct that states revi ew sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and particula t e m a tter (PM)

em issions in determ ining whether sources cause or contribute to visibility impairm ent. States

m a y use their best judgment to determ ine wh ether volatile organic com pounds or ammonia

em issions are likely to have an im pact on visibility in an area.

Sources identified as subject to BART are required, through a BA RT engineering analysis, to identify what types of co ntrols, if any

, shoul d be p l aced on the source. The RHR also requires
states to con s ider the following f actors in m a king BART determ inations: 1. The technology available, 2. The costs of com p liance, 3. The energy and nonair quality en vir onm ental im pacts of com p liance, 4. Any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, 5. The rem a ining useful life of the source, and 6. The degree of im provem ent in visibility wh ich m a y reason ably be an tic ipated to re s u lt from the use of such technology.

Upon determ ination of BART, each source is required to install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the SIP

.

5.2 BART–ELI GIBLE SOURCES IN NEVADA

The BART- e ligible sources were id entified using the m e thodology in the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule or “Guidelines” found in 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-2Fourteen units at seven facilities were identified as BART-eligibl e. The BART-eligible facilities are: NV Ene r gy’s gene ra ting stations at Tracy, Fo rt Church ill, Reid Gardner and Sunrise; Southern California Edison’s (S CE) generating station at Moha ve; Nevada Cem e nt Com p any’s Fernley f acility; and Chem ical Lim e Com p any’ s Apex f acility. BART-eligible sourc e s in Nevada are listed in Table 5-1.

TABLE 5-1

BART-ELI GIBLE SOURCE S IN NEVADA

Facility Pot e ntial to Emit (tons per year) S o u r c e L o c a t i o n U n i t S o u r c e Category Date in Operation NO x SO 2 PM 10

Boiler 1 1963

Boiler 2 1965 Tracy Mustang, NV Boiler 3 Electric Generating

Station 1974 1

, 1 6 7 2 1 1 2 5

Boiler 1 1968 Fort Churchill Yerington, NV Boiler 2 Electric Generating

Station 1971 2

, 2 2 1 9 4 1

Boiler 1 1965

Boiler 2 1968 Reid Gardner Moapa, NV

Boiler 3 Electric Generating

Station 1976 7
, 0 4 5 1

, 0 2 0 1

, 3 4 3

Sunrise Las Vegas, NV Boiler 1 Electric Generating

Station 1 9 6 4 8 5 1 1 1 3

Boiler 1 1969 M o h a v e L a u g h l i n , N V Boiler 2 Electric Generating

Station 1969 2 0

, 2 6 7 4 0

, 3 4 7 1

, 9 5 8

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-3Facility Pot e ntial to Emit (tons per year) S o u r c e L o c a t i o n U n i t S o u r c e Category Date in Operation NO x SO 2 PM 10 Kiln 1 1963 Nevada Ce m e nt Com p any Fernley, NV Kiln 2 Portland Ce m e nt

Plant 1967-1968 2

, 0 6 5 9 6 8 0

Chem ical Lim e Com p any Apex, NV Kiln 3 Portland Ce m e nt

Plant 1 9 6 8 1

, 1 2 1 1 7 8 2 4 1

5.3 EXEMPTION MODELING SETUP AND ANALYSIS

Air quality modeling was conducted by the W e ster n Regional Air Partnership (W RAP) Regional Modeling C e nter (RMC), at the requ est of Nevada, to in itially assess whic h BART-eligible sources are subject to a full BART determ in ation and which are exem pt. Modeling w a s conducted f o r all of the sources listed in Table 5-1 by the WRAP . Neva da Cem e nt Com p any later exercised their option to c onduct their own assessm ent.

WRAP’s BART modeling was perform e d in acco rdance with the W R AP Modeling Protocol (2006) and the April 2007 explanation of ch anges using the C A LPUFF modeling system (Version 6). The m odeling analysis utili zed three years (2001, 2002, 2003) of 36-km MM5

m e teorological data, processed through CALMET. Modeled em issions represent the 24-hour average actu a l em ission r a te f r om the highest em itting day of the m e teorological p e rio d m odeled. The results for a given year of m e teorology are presented as the 98 th percentile delta dv for each Class I area and the number of days that exceed 0.5 delta dv. In other words, the results are based on the eighth highest delta dv results for each year of analysis. Modeled species included SO 2 , NO x and PM 10 . The m odeling procedures used are ou tlined in the W R AP BART Modeling Protocol and Explanation of Changes in the April 2007 Revised Final Modeling Analysis available at http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm / 308/bart.shtm l . The modeling dom a in included all

m a ndatory Class I areas within 300 km of the BART–eligible sources. F i gure 5-1 depicts the location of the f aciliti es and Class I areas.

Nevada Cem e nt developed their own exem ption m odeling protocol consistent with the W R AP’s modeling protocol with the exception of refinem e nts to the meteorological data and the use of the EPA-approved version of the CALPUFF modeling system (i.e., Ve rsion 5). Their protocol is available at http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/planm odeling/rhaze.htm l

.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-4FIGURE 5-1

LOCATION OF NE VADA’S B A R T SOURCE S

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-55.4 SUMMARY OF EXEMPTION MODELING RESULTS

BART-eligible sources responsible for a 0.5 dv change or m o re in visibility at any Class I area are subjec t to a f u ll BART determ ination to iden tif y and im ple m e n t BART. BART-eligible sources that do not cause or contribute to visibility im pairm e nt at a threshold greater than 0.5 dv are exem pt from further BART determ ination. The RMC produced BART exe m ption m odeling reports for BART-eligible sources, available at http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/planm odeling/rhaze.htm l . Nevada Ce m e nt Company conducted their own exe m ption m ode ling, and their report is also available at http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/planm odeling/rhaze.htm l

.

5.4.1 Subject-to -BART Sour ces
Four BART-eligible facilities m odeled above the 0.5 dv “cau se or contrib u te” visibility im pairm e nt thresho l d an d are subject to a f u ll BA RT analysis. These subject- t o-BART f acilities are th e gene rating sta tio ns at Tra c y, Fort Church ill, Re id Gar dner and Mo have. Table 5-2 lis ts the Class I areas within 300 km of e ach source and identifies the 98 th percentile dv value for 2001 through 2003 and the num ber of days the mode led im pact exceeded the 0.5 dv threshold. Only those Class I areas im pacted by visibility impairm ent at a value of 0.5 dv or greater are listed.

TABLE 5-2

BART EXE M PTION MODELING RESU L T S – SOURCES SUBJECT T O BART 1

Facility Class I Area Distance to Class I Area (km) 98 th Percentile dv 2001-2003 Days > 0.5 dv 2001-2003 T r a c y D e s o l a t i o n Mokelum n e Hoover Yosem ite Caribou Lassen Volc anic

South W a rner

Lava Beds 81 101 142 153 170 175 189 286 1.20 0.88 0.52 0.50 1.03 0.94 0.99 0.74 47 32 11 11 48 44 62 25 Fort Church ill Mokelum n e Desolation

Hoover Em igrant Yosem ite Ansel Adams

John Muir

Caribou 78 85 99 100 112 132 169 226 1.24 1.25 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.70 0.56 0.77 69 72 32 25 29 28 24 34

1 A su mm ary o f th e WRAP R M C BART m o d e lin g fo r th ese facilities is av ailab l e at ht t p : / / nde p. n v

. g o v / b a q p/ pl a n m odel i ng/ rhaz e.ht m l

.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-6Facility Class I Area Distance to Class I Area (km) 98 th Percentile dv 2001-2003 Days > 0.5 dv 2001-2003 Lassen Volc anic

South W a rner Thousand Lakes 231 245 265 0.77 0.72 0.60 33 62 21 Reid Gardner Grand Canyon Zion Joshua Tree 85 148 292 1.72 0.83 0.88 60 38 48 Mohave Grand Canyon Joshua Tree Sycam ore Canyon San Gorgonio

San Jacinto Zion Pine Mountain

Dom e Land

Mazatal Agua Tibia Cucam onga 110 137 223 225 234 262 265 268 279 286 287 4.61 4.58 1.51 1.44 1.62 2.58 1.21 1.97 1.19 1.15 1.38 498 248 111 75 74 270 49 72 45 54 51

5.4.2 BART-Exempt Source s

Three facilities m odeled below the 0.5 dv visibil ity im pair m e nt threshold and are not required to perform a BART determination. These facilities are the Sunris e Generating Station, the Nevada Ce m e nt Company facility and the C h em ical Lime Com p any facility. The 98 th percentile dv value for 2001 through 2003 and th e num b er of days the dv valu e exceeded 0.5 dv are presented in Table 5-3.

TABLE 5-3

BART M O DELING RESULTS – BART-E XE MPT SOURCES 2

Facility Class I Area Distance to Class I Area (km) 98 th Percentile dv 2001-2003 Days > 0.5 dv 2001-2003 Sunrise Grand Canyon Zion Joshua Tree Dom e Land San Gorgonio

John Muir Bryce Canyon 95 207 228 237 271 282 284 0.20 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.04 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 A su mm ary o f th e WRAP R M C BART ex em p t io n m o d e lin g fo r th ese facilities is av ail a b l e at ht t p : / / nde p. n v

. g o v / b a q p/ pl a n m odel i ng/ rhaz e.ht m l

.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-7Facility Class I Area Distance to Class I Area (km) 98 th Percentile dv 2001-2003 Days > 0.5 dv 2001-2003 Sequoia San Jacinto Sycam ore Canyon 288 290 290 0.04 0.06 0.03 0 0 0 Nevada Ce m e nt Com p any Desolation Mokelum n e

Em igrant

Hoover Yosem ite Caribou Ansel Adams Lassen Volc anic

South W a rner

John Muir Thousand Lakes Kaiser Kings Canyon

Lava Beds 101 115 148 150 161 185 186 191 224 224 254 267 294 294 0.27 0.31 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.48 0.18 0.46 0.49 0.14 0.26 0.08 0.11 0.22 3 3 0 0 0 6 0 6 7 0 4 0 0 0 Chem ical Lim e Com p any Grand Canyon Zion Joshua Tree Dom e Land Bryce Canyon

John Muir Sycam ore

Sequoia San Gorgonio 89 185 254 256 263 290 292 296 297 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5.5 SUMMARY OF BART CONTROL ANALYSES

A f u ll BART determ ination was co mpleted f o r the generating stations at Tracy, Fort Churchill, Reid Gardner and Mohave. Em ission lim itations f o r BART were established on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the technology available, the cost s of com p liance, the energy and non-air quality environm ental im pa cts of com p l i ance, any pollution control equipm e n t in use or in exis tence at the source or unit, the rem a ining useful life of th e unit and the degree of im prove m e nt in visibility which m a y reasonably be anticipa ted to resu lt f r om the use of control technology.

The contro l m easures identif ied by Nevada as BART will be insta lled an d operating f o r NV Energy’s generating stations at T r acy, Fort Church ill and Reid Gardner on or before January 1, 2015 or no later than 5 years af ter approval of Nevada’s RH SIP by the USEPA, whic hever occurs sooner. SCE’s generating station at Moha ve is tem por arily shut down; they m u st have

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-8BART installed and operating at the tim e each unit resum e s operation. 3 The designated BART controls, emission lim its and com p liance deadli nes are enforceable through Nevada state regulation R 190-08, adopted on February 11, 2009 4 (see Appe ndix A). BART will be incorporated into th e NV Energy facilities ’ Titl e V operating perm its over the norm a l course of renewals. A m odif i catio n to Mohave ’s Title V pe rm it incorpo r ating BART was subm itted in Decem ber 2008 and is b e ing rev i ew ed.

NV Energy and SCE prepared BART determ inations f o r th e elig ible un its at th eir res p ectiv e facilities. Based on the data presented by NV Energy, Nevada determ ined that the BART conclusions proposed for Tracy and F o rt Churchill were not supported for NO x , but were acceptable f o r SO 2 and PM 10 . The BART conclusions for Reid Gardner were not supported for NO x , whereas for SO 2 and PM 10 , the proposed co ntrol techno logies were acceptab l e, b u t the

em ission lim its were not supported

. Mohave ’s BART determ ination was fully accep ted by Nevada. Detailed BART determ in ation reports from the facility for each of these sou r ces and Nevada’s BART determination reviews of NV Energy’s repo rts a r e available at http://ndep.nv.gov/baqp/planm odeling/rhaze.htm l (see Appendix B).

Where facility BART de term inations were not accepted, the s t ate m a de its own determinations using the facility repo rts as a foundation. NDEP prepared BART determ ination review s for each of the NV Energy facilities including an econom ic analysis summ ary. The econom ic analysis summaries are pres ented in Table 1 in each of ND EP’s BART determ inatio n review rep o rts.

NDEP established baseline em issions representative of actual em issions using acid rain data for NO x and, where available, for SO 2. For PM 10 , annual em issions data reported to NDEP were used to establish a baseline. Nevada used the N D EP baseline data in its cost analyses and NO x BART control technology determ inations. The NDE P baselin e data wer e also used to estab lish the BART em ission lim its f o r PM 10 at Reid Gardner and NO x at all th ree NV Energy f acilities. An alternative dataset w a s used in conjunction w ith the ba s e line em issions to establish the BART SO 2 e m ission lim its for Reid Gardner. Finall y, the NDEP ba seline heat input was used in conjunction with the BART e m ission lim its to ca lculate the post-BART-c ontrol annual em issions for the NV Energy facilities. The following de scribes how Nevada established baseline

em issions for the NV Energy facilities.

For Tracy and Fort Churchill, NDEP established baseline em ission scenarios for N O x and SO 2 using acid rain data repor ted for calendar years 2002 through 2007. These years were determ ined to be m o st representative of operatio n s for these u n its s i nce th ey are load-f ollowing and not base-load units. For Mohave, a base-loa d unit, NDEP used acid rain data reported for calendar years 2001 through 2005 for the SO 2 and NO x baseline. Mohave suspended operation at the end of 2005. Reid Gardner is also a base-load unit; theref ore, NDEP used acid rain data

3 O n J une 1 0

, 2 0 0 9
, t h e o w ne r s o f t h e M o ha v e Ge nerat i n g S t at i on, i n cl u d i n g S o ut he rn C a l i f or ni a E d i s o n (SC E )

, an nou n c ed t h e d ecision to d e co mmissio n th e statio n an d rem o v e th e g e n e ratin g facility fro m th e site. Th e SCE n e ws release states t h at in 20 10 , the p l an t ’ s g e n e ratin g eq u i p m e n t will b e rem o v e d and its op eratin g p e rm its t e rm in ated ( ht t p : / / www .ed i son

. com / press r o o m / pr.asp ? b u=sce&y ear= 2 00 9&i d =7 2 3 4 ).
4 I n re sp o n se t o pu bl i c com m ent s on t h e dra f t R H S I P (c ont a i ned i n Ap pe n d i x D )

, Ne vada i s re vi si n g t h e B A R T req u irem ents at NV E n er gy ’s Reid-Ga r dne r Gene ratin g Statio n

. A regu lato ry am en d m en t lo wering th e SO 2
e m issio n limits fo r un its 1, 2 an d 3 fro m 0

. 2 5 to 0

. 1 5 lb /MMBtu

, 2 4 -hou r av erag e, h a s b e en su b m itted to th e State Environm ental Commission for prese n tation at their December 9, 2009 He aring. See Appendix A.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-9for NO x and SO 2 reported for calendar years 2001 through 2007 to calculate ba seline em issions. The baseline em issions scenario for PM 10 was established from the annual em issions data reported to NDEP for the calend a r y ears ind i cated above for each facility

.

Consisten t with the c a lc ulation of baselin e em issions for the Prevention o f Significant Deterioration program , the average of the highest two consecutive years of annual em i ssions, on a pollu tant-b y-pollu tant basis, were used to es tablish a b a seline em ission scenario for each pollutant, except Reid G a rdner, which was established as follows. The SO 2 acid rain data for Reid Gardner contained periods (Q 1, 2003) of invalid data due to O 2 m o nitor p r oble m s identif ied by NDEP during a com p liance investigation, whic h lead to the joint NDEP/EPA enforcem ent action and consent agreem ent described in Chapter Six, section 6.5.2.2. Therefore, NDEP

om itted th e invalid da ta f r om the calc u lation of baselin e SO 2 em issions. The om ission of the invalid data effectively lowe red the baseline em issions, in lb/MMBtu, by nearly half.

The baseline annual heat input and baseline annual em issions were used to calculate baseline

em ission rates in lb/MMBtu. The control efficien cies provided by NV Energy were then applied to the ba seline NO x em ission ra tes to calcu late the BART em ission lim its in lb/MMBtu and the post-BART annual em issions, as shown in Ta ble 1 of the NDEP BART reviews.

Nevada initially (for the January 2009 FLM re view draft) used the NDEP baseline in its determ inatio n of the BART SO 2 e m i ssions lim its for the three units at Reid Gardner. The 98 th percentile em issions value, afte r discarding the invalid data, was determ ined to be th e SO 2 BART

em ission lim it f o r Reid Gardner’s u n its. Thes e BART em ission lim its a llowed f o r f u ture operation within 98 percent of historical em issi ons (after discard of the inv a lid da ta) an d provided som e flexibility under a new post-BA RT operating scenario including operation under a balanced draft versus f o rced draf t s cenar io due to the insta l lation of fabric filters and a potential change in coal type.

However, in late 2008 and early 200 9, fabric filters required by th e consent decree described in section 6.5.2.2 of this SIP were installed at Reid Gardner upstream of the existing wet soda ash FGD, resulting in a new dataset to evaluate the proposed SO 2 BART em ission lim it. NDEP conducted f u rther review of NV En ergy’s BART analyses and the acid rain dataset. Because the acid rain data is not compliance data, Nevada incorporated th e recen t 40 CFR Part 60 CEMS

em issions com p liance data into the evaluation. These data represent ac tual operations of the f

a bric f ilter contro ls cou p led with th e exis ti ng w e t soda ash FGD syste m and provided the basis of the SO 2 BART em ission lim it f o r all three un its at Reid Ga rdner.

A com p arison of the post-BART annual em issi ons from the 2001 through 2003 W R AP baseline and the NDEP baseline are presented for each facil ity below. The W R AP calculated baseline

em issions using the h i gh est 24-hou r em issions rate from each unit at each facility for the period 2001 through 2003. The W R AP e m i ssions rates result in an inflated annual baseline em issions scenario because the units did not op erate at the highe st 24 -h our rate con s isten tly f o r the f u ll year. Nevada deem s the NDEP baseline annual em i ssions as more representative of actual baseline em issions from each unit at each facil ity on a per pollutan t basis than those of the WRAP. The BART control techno lo gies, em issions lim it for each unit an d the es tim ated

em issions reductions upon im ple m e n tation of BART are presented for each facility b e low.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-105.5.1 BART at Tracy

For units 1 and 2, BART for NO x is low NO x bur ners (LNB) with flue ga s recircu l ation (FGR) with em ission lim its of 0.15 lb/MMBtu a nd 0.12 lb/MMBtu, based on a 12-m onth rolling
average, res p ectiv ely. F o r unit 3, B A RT for NO x is LNB with selec tive n on-catalytic reduction (SNCR) with an em ission lim it of 0.19 lb/MMBtu, based on a 12-m onth rolling average. For all units at Tracy, BART for SO 2 is pipeline natural gas (PNG) and/or No. 2 fuel oil with an

em ission lim it of 0.05 l b /MMBtu, based on a 24-hour averaging period. For PM 10 , BART is also PNG and/or No. 2 fuel oil, but with an em ission lim it of 0.03 l b /MMBtu, based on a 3-hour averaging period, for all units.

The em ission reductions resulting from the insta llation of BART control technologies and the associated em ission lim i t s are shown below. NDEP used the NDEP baseline heat input and BART e m is sion lim its to calculate th e post-BART annual em issions for NO x , SO 2 a nd PM 10
. Table 5-4 shows the annual em ission reductions from the WRAP baseline, as well as em ission reductions from the NDEP baseline.

TABLE 5-4

TRAC Y: B A RT EMIS SIONS RE DUCTIONS IN TONS P E R YE AR

WRAP NDEP
Baseline Emissions Emissions afte r BART Controls Emission Re duc tions Baseline Emissions Emissions afte r BART Controls Emission Re duc tions Unit 1 - 55 MW NO x 1

, 3 6 1 1 3 3 1

, 2 2 8 2 2 1 1 3 3 8 8 SO 2 3 4 4

- 4 1 1 4 4

- 4 3 PM 10 6 2 7

- 2 1 3 4 2 7 7 Unit 2 - 83 MW NO x 1

, 7 2 8 1 5 6 1

, 5 7 2 3 2 1 1 5 6 1 6 5 SO 2 2

, 3 1 7 6 5 2

, 2 5 2 2 6 5

- 6 3 PM 10 8 3 6 3 9 7 9 7 7 0 3 9 3 1 Unit 3 - 113 MW NO x 1

, 5 8 7 5 2 1 1

, 0 6 6 7 9 5 5 2 1 2 7 4 SO 2 2

, 7 2 0 1 3 7 2

, 5 8 3 8 2 1 3 7

- 5 5 PM 10 2 6 7 8 2 1 8 5 1 2 2 8 2 4 0

Total NO x 4

, 6 7 6 8 1 0 3

, 8 6 6 1

, 3 3 7 8 1 0 5 2 7 Total SO 2 5

, 0 4 0 2 4 6 4

, 7 9 4 8 5 2 4 6

- 1 6 1 Total PM 10 1

, 1 0 9 1 4 8 9 6 1 2 2 6 1 4 8 7 8
No te: Neg a tive v a lu es reflect ann u a l em issio n s in creases.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-115.5.2 BART at Fort Churchill

For units 1 and 2 at Ft. C hurchill, BART for NO x is LNB with FGR with em ission lim i t s of 0.20 lb/MMBtu and 0.16 lb/MMBtu, ba sed on a 12-month rolling aver age, respectively. For SO 2 , BART is PNG and/or No. 2 fuel oil for all uni ts with an em ission lim it of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, based on a 24-hour averaging period. For P M 10 , BART is also PNG and/or No. 2 fuel oil for all units, with an em ission lim it of 0.03 lb/MMBtu, based on a 3-hour averaging period.

The annual em ission reductions resulting from the installatio n of BART controls and the associated em ission lim i t s are shown below. NDEP used the NDEP baseline heat input and BART e m is sion lim its to calculate th e post-BART annual em issions for NO x , SO 2 a nd PM 10
. Table 5-5 shows the annual em ission reductions from the WRAP baseline, as well as em ission reductions from the NDEP baseline.

TABLE 5-5

FORT CHURCHILL: BART EMIS SIONS RE DUCTIONS IN TONS P E R YE AR

WRAP NDEP
Baseline Emissions Emissions afte r BART Controls Emission Re duc tions Baseline Emissions Emissions afte r BART Controls Emission Re duc tions Unit 1

- 113 MW NO x 2

, 5 0 9 5 4 7 1

, 9 6 2 1

, 2 0 9 5 4 7 6 6 2 SO 2 3

, 3 6 4 1 3 7 3

, 2 2 7 8 1 3 7

- 1 2 9 PM 10 1 1 0 8 2 2 8 1 6 6 8 2 8 4 Unit 2

- 113 MW NO x 2

, 4 0 5 4 1 6 1 9 8 9 8 6 2 4 1 6 4 4 6 SO 2 3

, 6 0 1 1 3 0 3

, 4 7 1 1 1 1 3 0

- 1 1 9 PM 10 2 3 1 7 8 1 5 3 1 6 0 7 8 8 2

Total NO x 4

, 9 1 4 9 6 3 3

, 9 5 1 2

, 0 7 1 9 6 3 1

, 1 0 8 Total SO 2 6
, 9 6 5 2 6 7 6
, 6 9 8 1 9 2 6 7

- 2 4 8 Total PM 10 3 4 1 1 6 0 1 8 1 3 2 6 1 6 0 1 6 6
No te: Neg a tive v a lu es reflect ann u a l em issio n s in creases.

5.5.3 BART at Reid Gardner

For all un its at Reid Gard ner, BART controls for NO x are rotating opposed fire air (R OFA) with Rotam i x with em ission lim its of 0.20 lb/MMBtu f o r units 1 and 2, and 0.28 lb/MMBtu for unit 3, based on a 12-m onth rolling average. Rotam i x is a technology for adding SNCR using ammonia or urea-based reagent. BART controls for SO 2 are wet soda ash flue gas desulfurization on all units with an em ission lim it of 0.15 l b /MMBt u, based on a 24-hour averaging period. For PM 10 , BART controls are fab r ic filter on all units with an em ission lim it of 0.015 lb/MMBtu , based on

3

- h o u r a v e r a g i n g p e r i o d

. a The em ission reductions resulting from the insta llation of BART controls and the associated

em ission lim its are shown below. NDEP used the NDEP baseline heat input and B A RT

em ission lim its to calcu late the pos t-BART annual em ission s for NO x , SO 2 and PM 10 . Table 5-6

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-12shows the em ission reductions from the W R AP base line, as well as em ission reductions from the NDEP baseline.

TABLE 5-6

REID GAR DNER: B A RT EMISSIONS R E DUCTIONS IN TONS P E R YEAR

WRAP NDEP
Baseline Emissions Emissions afte r BART Controls Emission Re duc tions Baseline Emissions Emissions afte r BART Controls Emission Re duc tions Unit 1 - 100 MW NO x 3

, 1 4 5 9 8 2 2

, 1 6 3 2

, 2 6 7 9 8 2 1

, 2 8 5 SO 2 1

, 7 5 1 7 3 6 1 0 1 5 6 2 1 7 3 6

- 1 1 5 PM 10 2 5 2 7 4 1 7 8 6 0 2 7 4 5 2 8 Unit 2 - 100 MW NO x 3

, 3 7 9 1

, 0 5 0 2

, 3 2 9 2

, 4 4 5 1

, 0 5 0 1

, 3 9 5 SO 2 1

, 4 9 0 7 8 8 7 0 2 3 9 8 7 8 8

- 3 9 0 PM 10 2 3 4 7 9 1 5 5 6 5 3 7 9 5 7 4 Unit 3 - 100 MW NO x 3

, 2 0 7 1

, 4 0 9 1

, 7 9 8 2

, 2 6 8 1

, 4 0 9 8 5 9 SO 2 1

, 7 3 4 7 5 5 9 7 9 4 2 2 7 5 5

- 3 3 3 PM 10 2 1 7 7 5 1 4 2 6 5 8 7 5 5 8 3

Total NO x 9
, 7 3 1 3

, 4 4 1 6
, 2 9 0 6
, 9 8 0 3

, 4 4 1 3

, 5 3 9 Total SO 2 4

, 9 7 5 2 2 7 9 2

, 6 9 6 1

, 4 4 1 2

, 2 7 9

- 8 3 8 Total PM 10 7 0 3 2 2 8 4 7 5 1

, 9 1 3 2 2 8 1

, 6 8 5

No te: Neg a tive v a lu es reflect ann u a l em issio n s in creases.

5.5.4 BART at Mohave

Mohave is currently in a tem porary period of non-operation and will not o p erate in th e future without first m eeting the requirem e nts specified in the Nevada vi sibility federal im plem entation plan (FIP) (40 CFR 52.1488). No tably, these requirem e nts are ba sed on the consent decree entered into by SCE and the Grand Canyon Trust, the Sierra C l ub and the National Parks and Conservatio n Associatio n on December 15, 1999

. The NDEP was not a party to the consent decree. In addition, state regula tion requires Mohave to install a nd operate BART controls prior to the tim e that each un it resum e s operation (App endix A).

The baseline em issions modeled by the W R AP r e fl ect m a ximum coal-fired operations at Mohave for 2001 through 2003. SCE has proposed a fuel convers ion f r om coal to natural gas as part of their BART determ inatio n. Despite the f u el conv er sion to natural gas, the Nevada visibility FIP prohibits M ohave from em itting pollutan t s in amount s greater than that allowed by paragraph (d ) of 40 CFR 52.1488. SCE’s BART determ ination pr oposes that the instal lation of LNB with OFA will meet or excee d the em ission reduction s specif i ed in the consen t decr ee and the requirem e nts of the visibility FIP.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-13For units 1 and 2, BART for NO x is LNB with OFA and a fuel conversion to PNG wi th an

em ission lim it of 0.15 l b /MMBtu, on a 12-m onth rolling average, and a m a ss e m ission lim it of 788 lb/hr. F o r SO 2 and PM 10 , BART is conversion to PNG only with em ission lim i t s of 0.0019 lb/MMBtu, on a 30-day rolling average, and 0.0077 lb/MMBtu, on a 3-hour average, respectively.

The em ission reductions resulting from the insta llation of BART controls and the associated

em ission lim its are shown below. NDEP used the NDEP baseline heat input and B A RT

em ission lim its to calcu late the pos t-BART annual em ission s for SO 2 and PM 10 . The postcontrol NO x annual em ission rates w e re calculated us ing an hourly m a ss em ission rate of 788 lb/hr and applying the annual capacit y factor calculated from the ac id rain data. Table 5-7 shows the em ission reductions from the WRAP baseline, as well as em ission reductions from the NDEP baseline.

TABLE 5-7

MOHAVE: BART EMISSIONS RE DUCTIONS IN TONS P E R YE AR

WRAP NDEP
Baseline Emissions Emissions afte r BART Controls Emission Re duc tions Baseline Emissions Emissions afte r BART Controls Emission Re duc tions Unit 1 - 790 MW NO x 1 6
, 3 4 2 2

, 4 5 7 1 3

, 8 8 5 1 0

, 7 6 1 2

, 4 5 7 8

, 3 0 4 SO 2 2 7
, 8 5 2 5 0 2 7
, 8 0 2 2 1

, 5 0 7 5 0 2 1

, 4 5 7 PM 10 1

, 5 6 4 2 3 0 1

, 3 6 1 1

, 3 1 7 2 3 0 1

, 1 1 4 Unit 2 - 790 MW NO x 1 5

, 0 0 7 2

, 4 2 3 1 2

, 5 7 9 1 0

, 0 6 8 2

, 4 2 3 7
, 6 4 5 SO 2 2 7
, 1 9 5 4 9 2 7
, 1 4 6 2 1

, 0 8 3 4 9 2 1

, 0 3 4 PM 10 1

, 8 5 3 2 0 0 1

, 6 5 3 1

, 3 4 2 2 0 0 1

, 1 4 2

Total NO x 3 1

, 3 4 4 4

, 8 8 0 2 6
, 4 6 4 2 0

, 8 2 9 4

, 8 8 0 1 5

, 9 4 9 Total SO 2 5 5

, 0 4 7 9 9 5 4

, 9 4 8 4 2

, 5 9 0 9 9 4 2

, 4 9 1 Total PM 10 3

, 4 1 7 4 0 3 3

, 0 1 4 2

, 6 5 9 4 0 3 2

, 2 5 6

5.5.5 Cumulative Emissions Reductions

Substantial reductions in NO x , SO 2 and PM 10 em issions result f r om th e installa tion of BART controls. Post-BART em issions reductions from the W R AP baseline ar e calculated to be 40,571 tpy for NO x , 69,136 tpy for SO 2 and 4,631 tpy for PM 10 . Comparatively, post-BART em issions reductions from the NDEP baseline, calculated from the reporte d acid rain data, are 21,123 tpy for NO x , 41,244 tpy for SO 2 and 4,185 tpy for PM 10 . Figures 5-2 and 5-3 show cumulative preBART and post-BART em issions for NO x , SO 2 a nd PM 10 as calcu lated from the W R AP and NDEP baselines, respectively.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-14FIGURE 5-2

CUMUL A T I VE PRE-BART AND POST-BART EMISSIONS CALCULATED FROM W R AP BASELINE

5 066 5

1 009 4 7 202 7

289 1 557 0

93 9
0 10, 0 0 0 20, 0 0 0 30, 0 0 0 40, 0 0 0 50, 0 0 0 60, 0 0 0 70, 0 0 0 80, 0 0 0

P r e

- BA RT P o s t

- B A R TAnnualEmissions(tpy) NO x
SO 2

PM 1 0

FIGURE 5-3

CUMUL A T I VE PRE-BART AND POST-BART EMISSIONS CALC ULATED FR OM NDEP BAS ELINE

31217

10094 44135

2891 5124 939 0 10, 000 20, 000 30, 000 40, 000 50, 000 60, 000 70, 000 80, 000

P r e

- BA RT P o s t

- B A R TAnnualEmissions(tpy) NOx
SO 2

PM 1 0

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-15Table 5-8 compares the em ission rates in both lb /MMBtu and tons per year for W R AP’s BART

exem ption modeling, NV Energy’s modeled rates (d iscussed in the follow ing section) and the NDEP BART em ission lim its. TABLE 5-8

COMPARIS ON OF EXEMPTION MODELI NG EMISSION RAT E S, NVENERGYMODELED EMISSION RATES AN D BART E M ISSION LIMITS

NO x SO 2 PM 10 NO x SO 2 PM 10 (l b/10 6 B t u) (lb/ 10 6 B t u) (l b/10 6 Bt u ) (tpy ) ( t p y ) (tpy )

U n i t 1 0 .425 0.001 0.0 0 2 1361 3 6 U n i t 2 0 .393 0.527 0.0 1 9 1728 2317 836 U n i t 3 0 .315 0.540 0.0 5 3 1587 2720 267
U n i t 1 0 .434 0.582 0.0 1 9 2509 3364 110 U n i t 2 0 .416 0.623 0.0 4 0 2405 3601 231
U n i t 1 0 .591 0.329 0.0 474 3,145 1,751 252 U n i t 2 0 .635 0.280 0.0 4 4 3 ,379 1,490 234 U n i t 3 0 .592 0.320 0.0 4 0 3 ,207 1,734 217

U n i t 1 0 .40 0 .05 0 .0 3 269 34 20 U n i t 2 0 .40 0 .05 0 .0 3 580 73 44 U n i t 3 0 .40 0 .05 0 .0 3 1 ,169 146 88
U n i t 1 0 .40 0 .05 0 .0 3 1 ,079 135 81 U n i t 2 0 .40 0 .05 0 .0 3 1 ,102 138 81
U n i t 1 0 .46 0 .40 0 .0 3 1 ,962 1,706 128 U n i t 2 0 .46 0 .40 0 .0 3 2 ,050 1,783 134 U n i t 3 0 .46 0 .40 0 .0 3 2 ,081 1,810 136

U n i t 1 0 .15 0 .05 0 .0 3 133 44 27 U n i t 2 0 .12 0 .05 0 .0 3 156 65 39 U n i t 3 0 .19 0 .05 0 .0 3 521 137 82
U n i t 1 0 .20 0 .05 0 .0 3 547 137 82 U n i t 2 0 .16 0 .05 0 .0 3 416 130 78
U n i t 1 0 .20 0 .15 0 .0 15 982 736 74 U n i t 2 0 .20 0 .15 0 .0 15 1,050 788 79 U n i t 3 0 .28 0 .15 0 .0 15 1,409 755 75 Fort Chur chi l l

Reid Gardner W R A P E x e m pt ion M o de ling R a te s

N V En er gy M o de le d R a t e s

N D EP BA R T Em ission Lim i ts Fort Chur chi l l

Reid Gardner Tracy

Tracy

Fort Chur chi l l

Reid Gardner F a c ili ty a nd Unit

Tracy

5.6 VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT DUE TO BART IMPLEMENTATION

A com p arison of the visibility im provem ent betw een pre-B A RT and post-B ART controls at the Tracy, Fort Churchill, Reid Gar dner and Mohave facili ties is presented in Tables 5-9 through 5- 12. These com p arisons summarize visibility im pacts presented in e ach facility’s BART determ inatio n report and indicate futu re vis i bi lity improvem e nt based upon installation of BART controls. Nevada anticipates even greater visib ility im provem e nt at each Class I area because

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-16more stringent final em ission lim its than t hose proposed and modeled by NV Energy will be im ple m ented at Tracy and Fort Churchill for NO x . Likewise, m o re stringent em ission lim its for NO x , SO 2 and PM 10 will be im plem ented at Re id Gardne r. In genera l, the r e is a linea r relationship in CALPUFF m odele d visibility and em ission rates. The em issions data are presented in Table 5-8 above, to provide com p arison of the m o deled em ission rates and BART

em ission lim its. The visibility im provem e nt resu lting from BART installation is expected to be proportional to the difference in m odeled annual em issions and the annual NDEP BART

em issions.

5.6.1 Tracy

Em ission reductions due to the inst allation of BART controls at Tr acy result in 82 less days with visibility im pacts greater than 0.5 dv at Class I areas w ith 300 km of the fa cility, as shown in Table 5-9. In addition, most Class I areas show a decrease in the 98 th percentile dv impact, although for som e Class I areas the visibility im pact rem a ins the sam e or slightly increases. The im prove m e nt in visibility im pair m e nt resulting fr om BART controls is si gnificant. However, Nevada anticipates even greater vi sibility im provem e nt than that s hown in Table 5-9, as the total annual post-control em issi ons are 50 percent of the m odeled em issions.

TABLE 5-9

TRAC Y PRE-BART AND POST -BART C O NTROL MODELE D VISIBILITY RESUL T S

98 th Percentile NV Energy

Baseline NV Energy Modeled Rate Class I Area Distance (km) Unit d v d a y s >0.5 dv d v d a y s >0.5 dv 1 0

. 2 2 1 0

. 2 6 1 2 0

. 5 2 1 1 0

. 3 0 2 D e s o l a t i o n 8 1 3 0

. 5 7 1 3 0

. 3 3 5 1 0

. 1 7 1 0

. 1 9 1 2 0

. 4 2 5 0

. 2 5 1 Mokelum n e 1 0 1 3 0

. 4 4 6 0

. 2 8 1 1 0

. 0 9 0 0

. 0 9 0 2 0

. 2 3 2 0

. 1 3 0 Em i g r a n t 1 3 9 3 0

. 2 7 2 0

. 1 6 1 1 0

. 1 0 0 0

. 1 1 0 2 0

. 2 3 1 0

. 1 5 0 H o o v e r 1 4 3 3 0

. 2 5 2 0

. 1 8 1 1 0

. 1 0 0 0

. 1 0 0 2 0

. 2 3 2 0

. 1 4 0 Yose m i t e 1 5 3 3 0

. 2 6 2 0

. 1 7 0 1 0

. 2 4 1 0

. 2 6 1 C a r i b o u 1 7 1 2 0

. 5 3 9 0

. 3 4 3

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-1798 th Percentile NV Energy

Baseline NV Energy Modeled Rate Class I Area Distance (km) Unit d v d a y s >0.5 dv d v d a y s >0.5 dv 3 0

. 5 1 9 0

. 3 6 5 1 0

. 2 2 1 0

. 2 5 1 2 0

. 5 4 8 0

. 3 2 2 Lassen Volcanic 176 3 0

. 4 5 6 0

. 2 8 1 1 0

. 0 6 0 0

. 0 6 0 2 0

. 1 7 1 0

. 0 8 0 Ansel Adams 182 3 0

. 1 9 1 0

. 0 9 5 0 1 0

. 1 8 1 0

. 1 9 1 2 0

. 4 4 7 0

. 2 5 2 South W a rner 190 3 0

. 4 6 8 0

. 3 0 3 1 0

. 1 1 0 0

. 1 2 0 2 0

. 3 1 5 0

. 1 7 0 Thousand Lakes 210 3 0

. 3 3 6 0

. 2 1 1 1 0

. 0 7 0 0

. 0 7 0 2 0

. 1 9 0 0

. 0 9 0 John Muir 221 3 0

. 2 1 0 0

. 1 1 0 1 0

. 0 4 0 0

. 0 4 0 2 0

. 1 4 0 0

. 0 6 0 K a i s e r 2 4 9 3 0

. 1 5 0 0

. 0 7 0 1 0

. 0 6 0 0

. 0 6 0 2 0

. 1 8 0 0

. 0 9 0 Kings Canyon 265 3 0

. 2 0 0 0

. 1 0 0 1 0

. 0 9 0 0

. 0 9 0 2 0

. 2 2 1 0

. 1 2 0 Lava Beds 286 3 0

. 2 4 1 0

. 1 4 0 1 0

. 0 4 0 0

. 0 4 0 2 0

. 1 6 2 0

. 0 6 0 Yolla Bolly 287 3 0

. 2 0 2 0

. 0 7 0

5.6.2 Fort Churchill

Em ission reductions due to the inst allation of BART controls at Fort Churchill result in 227 less days with visibility im pa cts greater than 0.5 dv at Class I areas with 300 km of the fa cility, as shown in Table 5-10. In addition, all Class I areas show significant decreases in the 98 th percentile dv im pact (e.g., approxim a tely half of the pre-BART value). The im provem ent in visibility im pairm e nt resulting from BART contro ls is s i gnif i cant. However, NDEP antic ipate s substantially greater visi bility im provem e nt than that shown in Table 5-10, as the total annual post-control em issions are 53 pe rcent of those m o deled.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-18TABLE 5-1 0

FORT CHURCHILL PRE-BART AND POST -BART C O NTROL MODELE D VISIBILITY RESUL T S

98 th Percentile NV Energy Baseline NV Energy Modeled Rate Class I Area Distance (km) Unit d v d a y s >0.5 dv d v d a y s >0.5 dv 1 1

. 0 7 4 1 0

. 5 8 1 4 Mokelum n e 7 9 2 1

. 0 8 4 1 0

. 5 8 1 4 1 1

. 0 2 2 9 0

. 5 4 1 5 D e s o l a t i o n 8 6 2 1

. 0 2 2 9 0

. 5 3 1 4 1 0

. 5 5 1 3 0

. 2 7 1 H o o v e r 9 9 2 0

. 5 6 1 3 0

. 2 7 1 1 0

. 5 7 1 4 0

. 2 7 3 Em i g r a n t 1 0 1 2 0

. 5 8 1 5 0

. 2 7 3 1 0

. 4 8 1 1 0

. 2 4 2 Yose m i t e 1 1 2 2 0

. 4 9 1 1 0

. 2 4 2 1 0

. 3 2 4 0

. 1 4 1 Ansel Adams 133 2 0

. 3 3 4 0

. 1 4 1 1 0

. 3 6 4 0

. 1 8 0 John Muir 170 2 0

. 3 7 5 0

. 1 8 0 1 0

. 2 2 1 0

. 0 9 0 K a i s e r 2 0 0 2 0

. 2 4 1 0

. 0 9 0 1 0

. 3 6 5 0

. 1 7 0 Kings Canyon 212 2 0

. 3 7 5 0

. 1 7 0 1 0

. 4 8 9 0

. 2 5 3 C a r i b o u 2 2 7 2 0

. 5 0 9 0

. 2 6 3 1 0

. 4 8 9 0

. 2 5 3 Lassen Volcanic 231 2 0

. 4 9 9 0

. 2 4 3 1 0

. 6 2 1 5 0

. 3 5 5 South W a rner 246 2 0

. 6 2 1 5 0

. 3 5 5 1 0

. 3 6 5 0

. 1 7 1 Thousand Lakes 266 2 0

. 3 7 5 0

. 1 7 1 1 0

. 3 8 4 0

. 1 8 1 S e q u o i a 2 7 4 2 0

. 3 9 4 0

. 1 8 1

5.6.3 Reid Gardner

Em ission reductions due to the in stallation of BART controls at Reid Gardner result in only 5 less days with visibility impacts greater than 0.5 dv at Class I areas with 300 km of the facility, as shown in Table 5-11. In addition, most Class I areas show a decrease in the 98 th percentile dv im pact, although for som e Class I areas the visib ility im pact rem a ins the sam e or slightly

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-19increases. However, NDEP anticip ates significantly greater visibility im provem e nt than shown in Table 5-11, as the total annua l post-BART control em issions ar e 50 percent of those modeled. Specif i cally, the to tal an nual post-BART control NO x e m issions are 57 percent of those m odeled, SO 2 is 43 percent and PM 10 is 57 percent.

TABLE 5-1 1

REID GAR DNER PRE-BART AND POST -BART C O NTROL MODELE D VISIBILITY RESUL T S

98 th Percentile NV Energy Baseline NV Energy Modeled Rate Class I Area Distance (km) Unit d v d a y s >0.5 dv d v d a y s >0.5 dv 1 0

. 8 5 1 9 0

. 8 3 1 9 2 0

. 8 6 2 1 0

. 7 3 1 5 Grand Canyon 86 3 0

. 7 9 1 7 0

. 7 3 1 8 1 0

. 2 2 3 0

. 2 2 2 2 0

. 2 2 3 0

. 1 9 2 Z i o n 1 4 8 3 0

. 2 2 3 0

. 2 0 2 1 0

. 1 3 0 0

. 1 2 0 2 0

. 1 3 0 0

. 1 2 0 Bryce Canyon 227 3 0

. 1 3 0 0

. 1 3 0 1 0

. 0 6 0 0

. 0 6 0 2 0

. 0 6 0 0

. 0 6 0 Sycam ore Canyon 289 3 0

. 0 7 0 0

. 0 7 0 1 0

. 3 2 3 0

. 3 3 4 2 0

. 3 2 3 0

. 3 2 3 Joshua Tree 292 3 0

. 3 3 3 0

. 3 4 4

5.6.4 Mohave

Em ission reductions due to the in stallation of BART controls at Mohave result in 538 less days with visibility im pacts greater than 0.5 dv at Cl ass I areas with 300 km of the facility, as shown in Table 5-12. For m a ny of the Class I areas w ithin 300 km of Mohave th e num ber of days with visibility im pact greater than 0.5 dv has b een reduced to zero. In addition, the 98 th percentile dv im pacts are approxim a tely 5 to 15 percent of the pre-BART impacts. The im prove ment in visibility im pairm e nt resulting from BART controls is significant.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-20TABLE 5-1 2

MOHAVE PRE-BART AND POST -BART C O NTROL MODELE D VISIBILITY RESUL T S

98 th Percentile SCE Baseline SCE BART Limit Class I Area Distance (km) Unit d v d a y s >0.5 dv d v d a y s >0.5 dv 1 Grand Canyon 110 2 2

. 9 1 1 9 4 0

. 5 3 8

1 Joshua Tree 137 2 3

. 9 6 9 0 0

. 7 6 1 4

1 Z i o n 2 6 2 2 1

. 4 5 8 0 0

. 2 0 0

1 Sycam ore Canyon 223 2 1

. 3 8 2 9 0

. 1 2 0

1 Agua Tibia 286 2 1

. 1 1 1 9 0

. 1 0 0

1 Cucam onga 2 8 7 2 1

. 0 5 2 0 0

. 1 1 0

1 San Gorgonio 225 2 1

. 5 0 2 7 0

. 1 4 1

1 San Jacinto 234 2 1

. 4 6 2 9 0

. 1 5 1

1 M a z a t a l 2 7 9 2 0

. 9 8 2 5 0

. 0 4 0

1 Pine Mountain 265 2 0

. 9 8 2 3 0

. 0 4 0

1 Dom e Land 268 2 1

. 3 4 2 6 0

. 1 0 0

Significant visibility im provem e nt will be realized in Clas s I ar eas with in 300 km of Nevada’s subject-to-BART sources. Installa tion of BART controls at Moha ve and Reid Gardner result in more than 500 fewer days with visibility im p act of greater than 0.5 dv to Class I areas in southern California, Arizona and Utah. Insta llation of BART controls at Tracy and F o rt Churchill result in m o re than 300 fewer days with visibility impact of greater than 0.5 dv to Class I areas in central and northern California. In addition, because NV Energy sources w e re modeled at em ission rates greater than thos e identified as BART by Neva da, greater im provem e nt in vis i bility will be rea lized than that presented h e re.

NEVADA REGIONAL HAZE S T ATE IMPLEMEN TATI ON PLAN, October 2009 5-21