### Nevada Regional Haze 5

- Year Progress Report, November 2014



# APPENDIX A

Western Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report, June 28, 2013

Section 6.8 Nevada

### Nevada Regional Haze 5

- Year Progress Report, November 2014WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 1



## STATE AND CLASS I AREA SUMMARIES

As described in Section 2.0, each state is required to submit progress reports at interim points betwe en submittals of Regional Haze Rule (RHR) State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which assess progress towards visibility improvement goals in each state’s mandatory Federal Class I areas (CIAs)

. Data summaries for each CIA in each Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) state, which address Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements for visibility measurements and emissions inventories are provided in this section. These summaries are intended to prov ide individual states with the technical information they need to determine if current RHR implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to meet all established reasonable progress goals, as defined in their respective initial RHR implementati on plans.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 2



## 6.8 Nevada

The goal of the RHR is to ensure that visibility on the 20% most impaired, or worst, days continues to improve at each Federal Class I area (CIA), and that visibility on the 20% least impaired, or best, days does not get worse, as measu red at representative Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring sites. Nevada has one mandatory Federal Class I area, which is depicted in Figure 6.8

- 1 and listed in Table 6.8

- 1 , along with the
associated IMPROVE monitor locations.

This section addresses differences between the 2000

- 2004 baseline and 2005

- 2009 period, for both monitored data and emission inventory estimates. Monitored data are presented for the 20% most impaired, or worst, days and for the 20% least impai red, or best, days, as per Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements. Annual average trend statistics for the 2000

- 2009
10

- year period are also presented here to support assessments of changes in each monitored species that contributes to visibility impairmen t. In general, comparisons of anthropogenic emissions inventory totals for the state showed net decreases, while several of the monitored species increased. Because the JARB1 site is on the northern edge of Nev a da, it is likely that regional emissions sour ces from outside of the state influences the increases in monitored data. Some additional highlights regarding comparisons between the 2000

- 2004 baseline and
2005

- 2009 progress period are listed below, and more detailed state specific information is provi ded in monitoring and emissions sub

- sections that follow.

 

### For the 20% best days, the 5

- year average deciview metric decreased at the JARB1
site.

 

### For the 20% worst days, the 5

- year average deciview metric increased at the JARB1,
site

.

 

### The increase in the 20% worst day 5

- year average deciview value was due to small increases in all aerosol species except particulate organic mass. For these increases:

- No statistically significant increasing annual trends for any aerosol species occurred for the period 2000

- 2 009.

- Higher than average monitored ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate
concentrations in 2005 influenced the 5

- year progress period average for these species.

 

### Emissions inventories indicated net decreases for SO 2 

### and NO X 

### between the baseline
and 2008 emi ssion inventories. For emissions comparisons:

- Slight increases in on

- road mobile and area source inventory totals were offset by larger decreases in point and off

- road mobile totals.

- Annual total EGU emissions for the state showed dramatic decreases in SO 2 

### and

NO X



### .

 

### The fine soil and coarse mass emissions inventories showed increases in fugitive dust and natural windblown dust, which was likely due to updates in inventory development methodologies rather than actual increases.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 3



### Figure 6.8

- 1. Map Depicting t he Federal CIA and Representative IMPROVE Monitor in

Nevada.

Table 6 .8

- 1

Nevada Class I Area and Representative IMPROVE Monitor

Class I Area Representative

IMPROVE Site Latitude Longitude Elevation (m)



### Jarbidge WA JARB1 41.89

- 115.43 1869

6.8.1 Monitoring Data

This section addresses RHR regulatory requirements for monitored data as measured by the JARB1 IMPROVE monitor, representing the Jarbridge Wilderness Are a , which is the only
Federal CIA in Nevada . These summaries are supported by regional data prese nted in Section 4.0 and by more detailed site specific tables and charts in Appendix H.

As described in Section 3.1, regional haze progress in Federal CIAs is tracked using calculations based on speciated aerosol mass as collected by IMPROVE monitors

. The RHR
calls for trackin g haze in units of deciviews (dv), where the deciview metric was designed to be linearly associated with human perception of visibility. In a pristine atmosphere, the deciview metric is near zero, and a one deciview change is approxim ately equivalent to a 10% change in cumulative species extinction. To better understand visibility conditions, summaries here includeWRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 4



### both the deciview metric, and the apportionment of haze into extinction due to the various measured species in units of in verse megameters (Mm - 1 

### ).

6.8.1.1 Current Conditions

This section addresses the regulatory question

, w hat are the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days (40 CFR 51.308 (g)(3)(i))? RHR guidance specifies that 5

- year averages be calculated over successive 5

- year periods, i.e. 2000

- 2004, 2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. 1 

### Current visibility conditions are represented here as the most recent
successive 5

- year average period available, or the 2005

- 2009 period average, although the most

r ecent IMPROVE monitoring data currently available includes 2010 data.

Tables 6.8

- 2 and 6.8

- 3 present the calculated deciview values for the JARB1 site, along with the percent contribution to extinction from each aerosol species for the 20% most impaired

a nd 20% least impaired days. Figure 6.8

- 2 presents 5

- year average extinction for the current progress period for both the 20% most impaired and 20% least impaired days. Note that the percentages in the tables consider only the aerosol species which contribu te to extinction, while the charts also show Rayleigh, or scattering due to background gases in the atmosphere.

Specific observations for the current visibility conditions on the 20% most impaired, or worst, days are as follows:

 

### The largest contributor t o aerosol extinction on the worst days at the JARB1 site was particulate organic mass , followed by coarse mass and ammonium sulfate

.

Specific observations for the current visibility conditions on the 20% least impaired, or best, days are as follows:

 

### Rayleigh, or background visibility impairment in clean air, contributed to approximately 80% of the total extinction (in Mm - 1 

### ) for the best days. Aerosol species
contributions in Table 6.8

- 3 exclude the Rayleigh portion of extinction.

 

### Ammonium sulfate is t he largest contributor to aerosol extinction for the best days.

1 EPA’s September 2003 Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule specifies that progress is tracked against the 2000

- 2004 baseline period using corresponding averages over successive 5

- year periods, i.e.

2005

- 2009, 2010

- 2014, etc. (See page 4

- 2 in the Guidance document.)WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 5 

### Table 6.8

- 2
Nevada Class I Area IMPROVE Site Current Visibility Conditions
2005

- 2009 Progress Period, 20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciviews

(dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extinction by Species (Excludes Rayleigh)
(% of Mm - 1 ) and Rank*

Ammonium

Sulfate Ammonium

Nitrate Particulate

Organic

Mass Elemental

Carbon Soil Coarse

Mass Sea Salt

JARB1 12.4 17% (3) 5% (6) 38% (1) 7% (5) 10% (4) 22% (2) 1% (7)

*Highest aerosol species contribution per site is highlighted in bold.



### Table 6.8

- 3
Nevada Class I Area IMPROVE Site Current Visibility Conditions
2005

- 2009 Progress Period, 20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciviews

(dv) Percent Contribution to Aerosol Extinction by Species (Exclud es Rayleigh)
(% of Mm - 1 ) and Rank*

Ammonium

Sulfate Ammonium

Nitrate Particulate

Organic

Mass Elemental

Carbon Soil Coarse

Mass Sea

Salt

JARB1 2.2 47% (1) 8% (4) 19% (2) 7% (5) 4% (6) 13% (3) 2% (7)

*Highest aerosol species contribution per site is highlighted in bold.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 6



### Figure 6.8

- 2. Average Extinction for Current Progress Period (2005

- 2009) for the Worst (Most Impaired) and Best (Least Impaired) Days Measured at the Nevada Class I Area IMPROVE Site.

6.8.1.2 Differences between Current and Baseline Conditions

This section addresses the regulatory question, w hat is the difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions (40 CFR 51.308 (g)(3)(ii))? Included here are comparis ons between the 5

- year average baseline conditions (2000

- 2004) and current progress period extinction (2005

- 2009).

Table 6.8

- 4 presents the differences between the 2000

- 2004 baseline period average
extinction and the 2005

- 2009 progress period average for the JARB1 site in Nevada for the 20% most impaired days, and Table 6.8

- 5 presents similar data for the least impaired days. Averages that increased are depicted in red text and averages that decreased in blue.

Figure 6.8

- 3 presents the 5

- year average exti nction for the baseline and current progress period averages for the worst days and Figure 6.8

- 4 presents the differences in averages by aerosol species, with increases represented above the zero line and decreases below the zero line. Figures 6.8

- 5 and 6. 8

- 6 present similar plots for the best days.

For the 20% most impaired days, the 5

- year average RHR deciview metric increased at
the JARB1 site

. Notable differences for individual species averages on the most impaired days
were as follows:WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 7  

### All species ex cept particulate organic mass increased slightly at the JARB1 site. The largest increases were measured for ammonium sulfate, coarse mass and ammonium
nitrate.

 

### Increases in 5

- year average ammonium nitrate at the JARB1 monitor were influenced by higher than average ammonium nitrate in 2005, where anomalously high measurements on December 18, 2005, as depicted in Appendix H, Figure H.1

- 8, influenced the annual average.

For the 20% least impaired or best days, the 5

- year average deciview metric decreased at
th e JARB1 site. Notable differences for individual species averages on the best impaired days
were as follows:

 

### The largest decrease on the best days was measured for particulate organic mass. Soil, coarse mass and sea salt measured very small increases for the best days.

Table 6.8

- 4
Nevada Class I Area IMPROVE Sites
Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species

2000

- 2004 Baseline Period to 2005

- 2009 Progress Period

20% Most Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Species (Mm - 1 )*

2000

- 2004
Baseline
Period 2005

-

2009 Progress
Period Change

in dv* Amm.

Sulfate Amm.

Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea
Salt



### JARB1 12.1 12.4 +0.3 +0.4 +0.3 0.0 +0.1 +0.2 +0.4 +0.1

*Change is calculated as progress period average minus baseline period average. Values in red indicate increases in
extinction and values in blue indicate decreases.



### Table 6.8

- 5
Nevada Class I Area IMPROVE Sites
Difference in Aerosol Extinction by Species

2000

- 2004 Baseline Period to 2005

- 2009 Progress Period

20% Least Impaired Days

Site Deciview (dv) Change in Extinction by Species (Mm - 1 )*

2000

- 2004
Baseline
Period 2005

-

2009 Progress
Period Change

in dv* Amm.

Sulfate Amm.

Nitrate POM EC Soil CM Sea
Salt



### JARB1 2.6 2.2

- 0.4

- 0.1

- 0.1

- 0.3

- 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

*Change is calculated as progress period average minus baseline period average. Values in red indicate increases in
extinction and values in blue indicate decreases.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 8



### Figure 6.8

- 3. Average Extinction for Baseline and Progress Period Extinction for Worst (Most Impaired) Days Measured at the Nevada Class I Area IMPROVE Site.

Figure 6.8

- 4. Difference between Average Extinction for Current Progress Period (2005

- 2009)
and Baseline Period (2000

- 2004) for the Worst (Most Impaired) Days Measured at the Nevada

Class I Area IMPROVE Site.

.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 9



### Figure 6.8

- 5

. Average Extinction for Baseline and Progress Period Extinction for Best ( Least Impaired ) Days Measured at the Nevada Class I Area IMPROVE Site

.

Figure 6.8

- 6

. Differe nce between Average Extinction for Current Progress Period (2005

- 2009)
and Baseline Period (2000

- 2004) for the Best ( Least Impaired ) Days Measured at the Nevada

Class I Area IMPROVE Site

.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 10



### 6.8.1.3 Changes in Visibility Impairment

This section addresses the regu latory question, what is the change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5 years (40 CFR 51.308 (g)(3)(iii))? Included here are changes in visibility impairment as characterized by annual average trend statis tics, and some general observations regarding local and regional events and outliers on a daily and annual basis that affected the current 5

- year progress period. The regulatory requirement asks for a description of changes over the past 5

- year period, but trend analysis is better suited to longer periods of time, so trends for the entire 10

- year planning period are presented here.

Trend statistics for the years 2000

- 2009 for species at the Nevada site are summarized in
Table 6.8

- 6 , and regional trends wer e presented earlier in Section 4.1.1. 2 

### Only trends for aerosol species trends with p

- value statistics less than 0.15 (85% confidence level) are presented in the
table here , with increasing slopes in red and decreasing slopes in blue. 3 

### In some cases, trends may show decreasing tendencies while the difference between the 5

- year averages do not (or vice versa), as discussed in Section 3.1.2.2. In these cases, the 5

- year average for the best and worst days is the important metric for RHR regulatory purposes, bu t trend statistics may be of value to understand and address visibility impairment issues for planning purposes.

For each site, a more comprehensive list of all trends for all species, including the associated p

- values, is provided in Appendix H

. Additionally, this appendix includes plots depicting 5

- year, annual, monthly, and daily average extinction for each site. These plots are intended to provide a fairly comprehensive compilation of reference information for individual states to investigate local and regional events and outliers that may have influenced changes in visibility impairment as tracked using the 5

- year deciview metrics. Note that similar summary products are also available from the WRAP TSS website ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ). Some general observations regarding changes in visibility impairment at sites in Nevada are as follows:

 

### No increasing aerosol trends were observed at the JARB1 site for the best, worst or
all sam ple days.

 

### Only particulate organic mass (20% best and all days) and elemental carbon (20% worst days) exhibited statistically significant trends, all decreasing. All other species did not show statistically significant trends for the best, worst or all day s from 2000 to
2009.

2 Annual trends were calculated for the years 20 00

- 2009, with a trend defined as the slope derived using Theil statistics. Trends derived from Theil statistics are useful in analyzing changes in air quality data because these statistics can show the overall tendency of measurements over long periods of time, while minimizing the effects of

year

- to

- year fluctuations which are common in air quality data. Theil statistics are also used in EPA’s National Air EPA’s National Air Quality Trends Reports ( http://www.e pa.gov/airtrends/ ) and the IMPROVE program trend reports ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/improve_reports.htm )

3 The significance of the trend is represented with p

- values calculated using Mann

- Kendall trend statistics. Determining a significance level helps to distinguish random variability in data from a real tendency to increase or decrease over time, where lower p

- values indicate higher confiden ce levels in the computed slopes.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 11 

### Table 6.8

- 6
Nevada Class I Area IMPROVE Site Change in Aerosol Extinction by Species

2000

- 2009 Annual Average Trends

Site Group Annual Trend* (Mm - 1 /year)

Ammonium
Sulfate Ammonium

Nitrate Particulate

Organic

Mass Elemental

Carbon Soil Coarse

Mass Sea

Salt

JARB1 20% Best 0.0 0.0

- 0.1 0.0 0.0

-- --

20% Worst

-- -- -- - 0.1

-- -- -- All Days

-- 0.0

- 0.1 0.0

-- -- 0.0 

### *(

-- ) Indicates statistically insignificant trend (<85% confidence level). Annual averages and complete trend statistics for all significance levels are included for each site in Appendix H.

6.8.2 Emissions Data

Included here are summaries depicting differences between two emission inventory years that are used to represent the 5

- year baseline and current progress periods. The baseline period is represented using a 2002 inventory developed by the WRAP for use in the initial WRAP state SIPs, and the progress period is represented by a 2008 inventory which leverages recent WRAP inventory work for modeling efforts, as referenced in Section 3.2.1. For reference, Table 6.8

- 7 lists the major emitted pollutants inventoried, the related aerosol species, some of the major sources for each pollutant

, and some notes regarding implications of these pollutants. Differences
betwee n these baseline and progress period inventories, and a separate summary of annual emissions from electrical generating units (EGUs), are presented in this section.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 12 

### Table 6.8

- 7
Nevada Pollutants, Aerosol Species, and Major Sources

Emitted

Pollutant Related

Aerosol Major Sources Notes

Sulfur
Dioxide (SO 2 ) Ammonium

Sulfate Point Sources;

On

- a nd Off

Road Mobile
Sources SO 2 emissions are generally associated with anthropogenic

sources such as coal

- burning power plants, other industrial sources such and refineries and cement plants, and both on

- and
off

- road diesel engines.

Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X ) Ammonium

Nitrate On

- a nd Off

Road Mobile Sources; Point Sources;

Area Sources NO X emissions are generally associated with anthropogenic

sources. Common sources include virtually all combustion activities, especially those involving cars, trucks, power plants,
and other industrial processes.

Ammonia (NH 3 ) Ammonium

Sulfate
and

A mmonium
Nitrate Area Sources;

On

- Road
Mobile Sources Gaseous NH 3 has implications in particle formation because it

can form particulate ammonium. Ammonium is not directly measured by the IMPROVE program, but affects formation potential of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate. All
measured nitrate and sulfate is assume d to be associated with ammonium for IMPROVE reporting purposes.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Particulate

Organic

Mass (POM) Biogenic

Emissions;
Vehicle Emissions;

Area Sources VOCs are gaseous emissions of carbon compounds, which are

often converted to POM through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Estimates for biogenic emissions of VOCs have undergone significant updates since 2002, so changes reported here are more reflective of methodology changes than actual changes in
emiss ions (see Section 3.2.1). Primary Organic
Aerosol (POA) POM Wildfires;
Area Sources POA represents organic aerosols that are emitted directly as

particles, as opposed to gases. Wildfires in the west generally dominate POA emissions, and large wildfire events are generally sporadic and highly variable from year

- to

- year. Elemental
Carbon (EC) EC Wildfires;

On

- a nd Off

Road Mobile

Sources Large EC events are often associated with large POM events

during wildfires. Other sources include both on

- and off

- road diesel engines.

Fine soil Soil Windblown Dust; Fugitive Dust; Road Dust;

Area Sources Fine soil is reported here as the crustal or soil components of

PM 2.5
.

Coarse

Mass (PMC) Coarse

Mass Windblown

Dust; Fugitive Dust Coarse mass is reported by the IMPROVE Network as the

difference between PM 10 and PM 2.5 mass measurements. Coarse mass is not separated by species in the same way that PM 2.5 is speciated, but these measurements are generally associated with crustal components. Similar to crustal PM 2.5 , natural windblown dust is often the larges t contributor to PMC.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 13



### 6.8.2.1 Changes in Emissions

This section addresses the regulatory question

, what is the change over the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities
within the State (40 CFR 51.308 (g)( 4) )? For these summaries, emissions during the baseline years are represented using a 2002 inventory, which was developed with support from the WRAP for use in the original RHR SIP strategy dev elopment (termed plan02d). Differences between inventories are represented as the difference between the 2002 inventory, and a 2008 inventory which leverages recent inventory development work performed by the WRAP for the WestJumpAQMS and DEASCO 3 

### modeling projects (termed WestJump2008). Note that the comparisons of differences between inventories does not necessarily reflect a change in emissions, as a number of methodology changes and enhancements have occurred between development of the individual invento ries, as referenced in Section 3.2.1. Inventories for all major visibility impairing pollutants are presented for major source categories, and categorized as either anthropogenic or natural emissions. State

- wide inventories totals and differences are

prese nted here, and inventory totals on a county level basis are available on the WRAP Technical Support System website ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).

Table 6.8

- 8 and Figure 6.8

- 7 present the differ ences between the 2002 and 2008 sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) inventories by source category. Tabl es 6.8

- 9 and Figure 6.8

- 8 present data for oxides of nitrogen (NO X 

### ), and subsequent tables and figures (Tables 6.8

- 10 through 6.8

- 15 and Figures 6.8

- 9 through 6.8

- 14) present data for ammonia (NH 3 

### ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primary organic aerosol (POA), elemental carbon (EC), fine soil and coarse mass

. General observations regarding emissions inventory comparisons are listed below.

 

### State

- wide SO 2 

### inventory totals show a 75% reduction, with some decreases reported for all source categories. The largest decreases are reported from point sources, followed by area sources, natural fire and off

- road mobile sources.

 

### NO X 

### emissions show a 22% reduction, with area a nd on

- road mobile sources showing significant increases, while all other source categories show decreases. The largest decreases were reported from point sources, followed by off

- road mobile, biogenic emissions, and natural fire sources. Note that decrease s in biogenic sources were consistent for all contiguous WRAP states, and likely due to inventory enhancements
in 2008. Also, current natural fire emissions represent only the year 2008, so all fire
events for the 2005

- 2009 progress period are not represen ted in these emissions comparison results. Also, for off

- road sources, the reclassification of some off

- road mobile sources (such as some types of marine vessels and locomotives) into the area source category in 2008, which may have contributed to decrease s in the off

- road inventory totals, but increases in area source totals.

 

### Ammonia emission inventory totals decreased by 34%, with decreases due mostly to
area and off

- road mobile sources.

 

### VOC emissions showed a 61% decrease, mostly due to biogenic emission inventories. A significant increase is shown for area sources. Significant decreases are shown for biogenic, on

- road mobile and natural fire sources. The large difference in biogenic emissions is likely due to enhancements in biogenic inventory methodolog y, asWRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 14 

### described in Section 3.2, rather than decreases of this magnitude in actual emissions. Also, current natural fire emissions represent only the year 2008, so all fire events for
the 2005

- 2009 progress period are not represented in these emissions comp arison
results.

 

### POA showed 52% decrease in inventory totals, and elemental carbon showed a 31% decrease, mostly due to natural fire sources. Note that current natural fire emissions represent only the year 2008, so all fire events for the 2005

- 2009 progres s period are not represented in these emissions comparison results.

 

### Fine soil and coarse mass increased for the windblown dust inventory comparisons and the combined fugitive/ road dust inventories . The large increases in windblown
dust are likely due in pa rt to enhancements in dust inventory methodology, as described in Section 3.2, rather than increases in actual emissions. Most other sources of fine soil and coarse mass showed increases with the exception of natural fire sources for both pollutants, on

- ro ad mobile sources for fine soil, and point sources for

coarse mass.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 15 Table 6.8

- 8
Nevada Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Category

Source Category Sulfur Dioxide Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008

(WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point 50,720 11,155

- 39,565

Area 12,953 4,863

- 8,090

On

- Road Mobile 454 298

- 156

Off

- Road Mobile 1,403 322

- 1,081

Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 12 2

- 11 Total Anthropogenic 65,543 16,641

- 48,903 (

- 75%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 2,200 506

- 1,695 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 2,200 506

- 1,695 (

- 77%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 67,743 17,146

- 50,597 (

- 75%)



### Figure 6.8

- 7. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for

Sulfur Dioxide by Source Category for Nevada

.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 16 Table 6.8

- 9
Nevada Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions by Category

Source Category Oxides of nitrogen Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008

(WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point 59,864 30,090

- 29,774

Area 5,725 11,321 5,597

On

- Road Mobile 41,089 50,068 8,979

Off

- Road Mobile 32,565 17,081

- 15,484

Area Oil and Gas 63 0

- 63 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 48 13

- 35 Total Anthropogenic 139,353 108,574

- 30,779 (

- 22%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 8,026 3,575

- 4,451 Biogenic 15,018 7,364

- 7,654

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 23,044 10,939

- 12,105 (

- 53%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 162,397 119,513

- 42,885 (

- 26%)



### Figure 6.8

- 8

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Oxides of nitrogen by Source Category for Nevada

.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 17 Table 6.8

- 10
Nevada Ammonia Emissions by Category

Source Category Ammonia Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008

(WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point 339 302

- 37

Area 8,009 5,717

- 2,293

On

- Road Mobile 2,030 849

- 1,182

Off

- Road Mobile 22 20

- 2

Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 8 6

- 2 Total Anthropogenic 10,408 6,893

- 3,515 (

- 34%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 1,684 2,490 805 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 1,684 2,490 805 (48%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 12,092 9,382

- 2,710 (

- 22%)



### Figure 6.8

- 9

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for

Ammonia by Source Category for Nevada

.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 18 Table 6.8

- 11
Nevada Volatile Organic Compound Emissions by Category

Source Category Volatile Organic Compound Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008

(WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point 2,215 2,953 738

Area 28,592 40,973 12,381

On

- Road Mobile 36,257 21,302

- 14,955

Off

- Road Mobile 18,094 18,783 688

Area Oil and Gas 129 0

- 129 Fugitive and Road Dust 0 0 0 Anthropogenic Fire 70 16

- 54 Total Anthropogenic 85,357 84,026

- 1,331 (

- 2%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 17,606 4,204

- 13,403 Biogenic 794,139 262,912

- 531,227

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 811,745 267,115

- 544,630 (

- 67%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 897,102 351,142

- 545,960 (

- 61%)



### Figure 6.8

- 10. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Volatile Organic Compounds by Source Category for Nevada.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 19 Table 6.8

- 12
Nevada Primary Organic Aerosol Emissions by Category

Source Category Primary Organic Aerosol Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008

(WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point* 256 46

- 210

Area 687 2,283 1,596

On

- Road Mobile 314 1,053 739

Off

- Road Mobile 572 689 117

Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 332 891 559 Anthropogenic Fire 73 22

- 51 Total Anthropogenic 2,233 4,985 2,751 (>100%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 22,501 6,831

- 15,670 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 22,501 6,831

- 15,670 (

- 70%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 24,734 11,816

- 12,918 (

- 52%) *Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).



### Figure 6.8

- 11

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Differen ce between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Primary Organic Aerosol by Source Category for Nevada

.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 20 Table 6.8

- 13
Nevada Elemental Carbon Emissions by Category

Source Category Elemental Carbon Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008

(WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point* 13 64 50

Area 96 368 272

On

- Road Mobile 235 1,891 1,656

Off

- Road Mobile 1,354 954

- 400

Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 24 14

- 10 Anthropogenic Fire 13 6

- 8 Total Anthropogenic 1,735 3,295 1,561 (90%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 4,674 1,130

- 3,544 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 0 0 0

Total Natural 4,674 1,130

- 3,544 (

- 76%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 6,409 4,425

- 1,984 (

- 31%) *Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ts s/ ).



### Figure 6.8

- 12

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for

Elemental Carbon by Source Category for Nevada

.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 21 Table 6.8

- 14
Nevada Fine Soil Emissions by Category

Source Category Fine Soil Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008

(WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point* 2,158 209

- 1,948

Area 830 1,024 195

On

- Road Mobile 239 190

- 49

Off

- Road Mobile 0 49 49

Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 6,128 19,216 13,087 Anthropogenic Fire 9 10 1 Total Anthropogenic 9,364 20,698 11,334 (>100%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 1,406 2,552 1,146 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 10,438 17,051 6,613

Total Natural 11,845 19,603 7,758 (66%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 21,208 40,301 19,092 (90%) *Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).



### Figure 6.8

- 13

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for Fine Soil by Source Category for Nevada

.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 22 

### Table 6.8

- 15

Nevada
Coarse Mass Emissions by Category

Source Category Coarse Mass Emissions (tons/year)

2002 (Plan02d) 2008

(WestJump2008) Difference (Percent Change) Anthropogenic Sources

Point* 4,093 1,761

- 2,331

Area 897 1,094 198

On

- Road Mobile 245 2,014 1,769

Off

- Road Mobile 0 82 82

Area Oil and Gas 0 0 0 Fugitive and Road Dust 56,779 161,532 104,753 Anthropogenic Fire 7 4

- 3 Total Anthropogenic 62,020 166,488 104,468 (>100%)

Natural Sources

Natural Fire 5,176 1,310

- 3,866 Biogenic 0 0 0

Wind Blown Dust 93,946 153,459 59,513

Total Natural 99,122 154,769 55,647 (56%)

All Sources

Total Emissions 161,142 321,257 160,115 (99%) *Point source data includes only oil and gas and regulated CEM sources

. More comprehensive point source data
were not available at the time this report was prepared but will be made available through the WRAP TSS ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/ ).



### Figure 6.8

- 14

. 2002 and 2008 Emission and Difference between Emissions Inventory Totals, for

Coarse Mass by Source Category for Nevada

.WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support Document 6

- 23



### 6.8.2.2 EGU Summary

As described in previous sections, differences between the baseline and progress period inventories presented here do not necessarily represent changes in actual emissions because numerous updates in inventory methodologies have occurred between the develo pment of the separate inventories. Also, the 2002 baseline and 2008 progress period inventories represent only annual snapshots of emissions estimates, which may not be representative of entire 5

- year monitoring periods compared. To better account for year

- to

- year changes in emissions, annual emission totals for Nevada electrical generating units (EGU) are presented here. EGU emissions are some of the more consistently reported emissions, as tracked in EPA’s Air Markets Program

Database for permitted Title V facilities in the state ( http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ ) . RHR implementation plans are required to pay specific attention to certain major stationary sources, including EGUs, built between 1962 and 1977.

Figu re 6.8

- 1 5 presents a sum of annual NO X 

### and SO 2 

### emissions as reported for Nevada EGU sources between 1996 and 2010. While these types of facilities are targeted for controls in state regional haze SIPs, it should be noted that many of the controls planned for EGUs in the
WRAP states had not taken place yet in 2010, while other controls separate from the RHR may have been implemented. The chart shows a sharp decline for SO 2 

### and NO X 

### between 2005 and 2006, mostly resulting from the closure of the Mohave Generating Stat ion in Clark County, which eliminated approximately 20,000 tons per year (tpy) of NOx and 41,000 tpy of SO 2 

### emissions. S teady decreases for NO X 

### emissions are shown for 2006 through 2010.

Figure 6.8

- 15

. Sum of EGU Emissions of SO 2 

### and NO X 

### reported between 1996 and 2010 for

Nevada.