Early
Action
Plan
for
the
Fayetteville
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
North
Carolina
A
joint
effort
by
USEPA
Region
4,
North
Carolina
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources,
and
the
Cumberland
County
Board
of
Commissioners,
Town
of
Falcon,
City
of
Fayetteville,
Fort
Bragg
Military
Reservation,
Town
of
Godwin,
Town
of
Hope
Mills,
Town
of
Linden,
Pope
Air
Force
Base,
Town
of
Spring
Lake,
Town
of
Stedman
and
Town
of
Wade
and
the
Fayetteville
Area
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
March
31,
2004
Table
of
Contents
1.
Introduction...........................................................................................................
1
1.1
Background
.......................................................................................................
1
1.2
Stakeholders
Involvement..................................................................................
2
1.3
Cumberland
County
Characteristics
...................................................................
4
1.31Local
and
Regional
Efforts
...............................................................................
6
1.4
Modeling
Background
.......................................................................................
6
2.
Overview
of
Air
Quality
In
Cumberland
County
................................................
8
3.
Ozone
And
Its
Health
Effects
And
Sources
........................................................
10
3.1
Overview
of
Ozone..........................................................................................
10
3.2
Ozone
Health
Effects.......................................................................................
10
3.3
Ozone
Sources.................................................................................................
11
3.3.1
Volatile
Organic
Compounds........................................................................
11
3.3.2
Nitrogen
Oxides............................................................................................
11
3.3.3
Sources
of
NOx
and
VOCs
...........................................................................
11
4.
Emissions
Inventories..........................................................................................
13
4.1
Description
......................................................................................................
13
4.2
Current
Year
Inventories..................................................................................
13
4.3
2007
Future
Year
Inventories...........................................................................
15
4.4
Comparison
of
2000
and
2007
Inventories
.......................................................
16
4.5
Comparison
of
2000
and
2010
Inventories
.......................................................
20
4.6
2012
and
2017
Future
Year
Inventories
...........................................................
21
5.
Control
Measures
................................................................................................
22
5.1
Local
EAC
Control
Measures
..........................................................................
22
5.2
State
Control
Measures
....................................................................................
34
5.2.1
Clean
Air
Bill
...............................................................................................
34
5.2.2
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule........................................................................................
34
5.2.3
Clean
Smokestacks
Act.................................................................................
34
5.3
Federal
Control
Measures
................................................................................
34
5.3.1
Tier
2
Vehicle
Standards...............................................................................
34
5.3.2
Heavy­
Duty
Gasoline
and
Diesel
Highway
Vehicles
Standards.....................
35
5.3.3
Large
Nonroad
Diesel
Engines
Proposed
Rule
..............................................
35
5.3.4
Nonroad
Spark­
Ignition
Engines
and
Recreational
Engines
Standard
............
35
6.
MODELING
STATUS
........................................................................................
36
6.1
Status
of
Current
Modeling
36
6.2
Preliminary
Modeling
Results..........................................................................
37
6.3
Geographic
Area
Needing
Further
Controls
.....................................................
43
6.4
Anticipated
Resource
Constraints
....................................................................
44
APPENDIX
A..............................................................................................................
46
APPENDIX
B
 
EARLY
ACTION
COMPACT........................................................
57
APPENDIX
C
 
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
ADOPTIONS
.......................................
68
APPENDIX
D
 
MODEL,
EPISODE
AND
METEREOLOGY
...............................
69
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
1
­
1.
Introduction
1.1
Background
The
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA),
as
amended
in
1990
is
the
most
recent
version
of
a
law
first
passed
in
1970.
The
1990
Amendment
made
some
major
changes
in
the
act,
by
empowering
the
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
to
set
up
permitting
and
enforcing
programs
for
larger
sources
that
release
pollutants
into
the
air.

In
addition,
the
EPA's
principal
responsibilities
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
were:

 
to
set
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)
for
pollutants
considered
harmful
to
the
public
health
and
the
environment
(
Primary
Standards
limits
to
protect
public
health,
including
the
health
of
"
sensitive"
population
such
as
asthmatics,
children
and
the
elderly;
Secondary
Standards
limits
to
protect
public
welfare,
including
protection
against
decreased
visibility,
damage
to
animals
and
crops,
vegetation
and
buildings)
 
to
ensure
that
air
quality
standards
are
met
or
attained
 
to
ensure
that
the
sources
of
toxic
air
pollutants
are
controlled
 
to
monitor
the
effects
of
the
program
On
July
17,
1997,
the
EPA
promulgated
revised
National
Ambient
and
Air
Quality
Standards,
addressing
changes
in
the
Ozone
and
Particulate
Matter.
Soon
after,
the
American
Trucking
Association
sued
the
EPA
in
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
DC
Circuit
disputing
the
legality
of
how
the
standard
was
set
and
how
it
would
be
implemented.
In
May
of
1999
the
Appeals
Court
ruled
against
the
EPA
finding
that
the
Agency
had
acted
in
an
unconstitutional
manner
in
setting
the
standards
and
that
the
implementation
approach
improperly
ignored
CAA
requirements
dealing
with
ozone
non­
attainment
areas.
The
EPA
appealed
to
the
Supreme
Court.
In
a
decision
dated
March
26,
2001,
the
Supreme
Court
found
that
the
EPA's
setting
of
the
standards
was
constitutional,
and
that
the
Agency
could
set
NAAQS
at
levels
necessary
to
protect
public
health
and
welfare
without
considering
costs,
however
the
EPA
could
not
ignore
Subpart
2
of
the
CAA
when
implementing
the
8
hour
ozone
standard.
The
final
designation
of
non­
attainment
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
will
take
place
on
April
15,
2004.

On
June
19,
2002,
EPA
Region
6
endorsed
Texas'
Protocol
for
an
"
Early
Action
Compact"
(
EAC).
The
protocol
described
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
for
ozone
and
it
provided
for
Early
Reduction
Compacts.
The
purpose
of
the
Compact
would
be
to:

 
Develop
early
voluntary
8­
hour
air
quality
plans
between
Local,
State
government
and
the
EPA
 
Apply
to
areas
that
are
in
attainment
for
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard,
but
approach
or
monitor
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standard
 
Designed
to
develop
and
implement
control
strategies,
account
for
growth,
and
achieve
and
maintain
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
2
­
 
Include
all
necessary
elements
of
a
comprehensive
air
quality
plan,
but
tailored
to
local
needs
and
driven
by
local
decisions
 
Offers
more
expeditious
timeline
to
achieve
emission
reductions
 
Provides
for
fail­
safe
provisions
for
the
area
to
revert
to
traditional
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
process
if
specific
milestones
are
not
met
(
Source:
Air
Quality
Update
 
Sheila
Holman
 
MPO
Conference,
Rocky
Mount,
September
26,
2002)

After
review
of
the
proposed
Compact,
the
EPA
decided
to
extend
participation
in
the
EAC
to
the
entire
country.
Each
area
that
met
the
criteria
was
to
have
an
Early
Action
Compact
Memorandum
of
Agreement
signed
by
December
31,
2002.

Since
the
introduction
of
the
revised
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
Cumberland
County
has
registered
values
that
will
make
this
area
non­
attainment
for
ozone.
There
are
two
monitoring
sites
in
Cumberland
County:
one
in
Wade
and
one
in
Golfview
(
Hope
Mills).
To
establish
if
an
area
will
be
designated
as
non­
attainment
for
ozone,
the
North
Carolina
Department
of
the
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
(
NC
DENR)
Division
of
Air
Quality
(
DAQ)
averages
the
fourth
highest
reading
during
an
ozone
season
(
May
through
September)
for
three
consecutive
years.
If
the
average
is
of
0.085
ppm
or
above,
the
area
will
be
designated
as
non­
attainment.
Cumberland
County
has
registered
a
reading
of
0.087
for
the
years
2001­
2003
for
both
monitoring
sites,
which
is
a
"
marginal"
reading,
making
participation
in
the
EAC
a
logical
step
for
this
area.

1.2
Stakeholders
Involvement
The
Cumberland
County
Board
of
Commissioners
approved
the
EAC
and
then
Chairman
Baggett
signed
the
Memorandum
of
Agreement
on
December
13,
2002.
During
the
following
months,
every
municipality
within
the
then
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
signed
a
resolution
of
support
of
and
participation
in
the
Early
Action
Compact.
Fort
Bragg
Military
Reservation
and
the
Fayetteville
Area
MPO
also
agreed
to
support
this
effort.
Commissioners
instructed
the
Planning
and
Inspections
Director
to
oversee
the
EAC
process
and
the
Fayetteville
Area
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
(
FAMPO)
Staff
to
provide
administrative
and
logistical
support.
FAMPO
staff
immediately
began
to
solicit
volunteers
to
participate
in
the
process.
Efforts
were
made
to
contact
environmental
and
health
groups
to
join
in
this
effort.
Both
the
Sierra
Club
and
the
American
Lung
Association
could
not
find
individuals
interested
in
participating,
because
there
are
no
local
chapters
in
this
area,
and
volunteers
would
have
to
commute
from
the
Raleigh/
Durham
area.
One
of
the
volunteers
is
a
member
of
the
Sandhills
Area
Land
Trust
(
SALT)
Board
of
Directors,
but
agreed
to
serve
as
a
citizen
Stakeholder,
and
not
as
a
SALT
representative.
Thus
no
major
environmental
group
is
a
member
of
the
Cumberland
County
Stakeholders.
Table
1
lists
the
names
and
affiliations
of
Stakeholders
as
of
March
2004.

On
April
3,
2003,
the
first
Cumberland
County
Air
Quality
Stakeholders'
Meeting
took
place
in
the
Pate
Room
of
the
Library
Headquarters.
The
purpose
of
the
meeting
was
to
give
the
newly
appointed
Stakeholders
an
opportunity
to
familiarize
themselves
with
the
compact
efforts
and
to
communicate
with
representatives
of
NC
DENR
and
US
EPA.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
3
­
Table
1
­
Air
Quality
Stakeholders
of
Cumberland
County
as
of
March
2004.

NAME
AFFILIATION
Dr.
Adegoke
O.
Ademiluyi
Fayetteville
State
University
Department
of
Government
and
History
Ms.
Charlotte
G.
Agnew,
RN
Citizen
Commissioner
Eleanor
Ayers
Town
of
Stedman
Commissioner
Talmage
S.
Baggett
Cumberland
County
COL.
Gregory
G.
Bean
Fort
Bragg
Military
Reservation
Mr.
Steven
Blanchard
Public
Work
Commission
Mr.
George
Breece
Citizen
Alderwoman
Marguerite
Corgan
Town
of
Spring
Lake
Mayor
Edwin
S.
Deaver
Fayetteville
Area
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
Mr.
Daniel
Dodd
Construction
Industry
­
Barnhill
Contracting
Company
Mr.
Robert
Duffy
Major
Industries
Dr.
Joseph
Follet
Medical
Representative
Mr.
Michael
Green
Cohen
&
Green
Mr.
Demetrius
Haddock
Citizen
Mr.
Henry
Holt
Petroleum
Distributor
 
Holt
Oil
Co.

Mr.
Jay
Jarvis
Chemical
Industry
­
Univar
USA
Inc
Mr.
Karl
Legatski
Citizen
Mr.
Bill
Martin
Cumberland
County
Business
Council
Councilman
Robert
Massey
City
of
Fayetteville
Dr.
Harold
E.
Maxwell
D.
D.
S.
Cumberland
County
Board
of
Health
Commissioner
Eddie
Maynor
Town
of
Hope
Mills
Mr.
Donovan
McLaurin
Home
Builders
Association
Dr.
Larry
Norris
Fayetteville
Technical
Community
College
Ms.
Shirley
Pillow
Airport
Commission
Mr.
Steven
Schultz
Cape
Fear
Health
Systems
Ms.
Denise
Sykes
Town
of
Falcon,
Godwin,
Linden,
Wade
Mr.
Stephen
C.
Waters,
Sr.
Ashland
Industries
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
4
­
On
May
15,
2003
the
Stakeholders
held
the
first
regular
meeting.
At
that
time
the
Committee
unanimously
agreed
to
use
the
"
Consensus"
method
to
review
and/
or
approve
related
documents
and
processes
and
selected
a
Chairman,
Mr.
George
Breece,
and
a
Vice­
Chairman,
Mayor
Edwin
S.
Deaver.
The
Stakeholders
approved
a
Logo
(
see
cover
of
this
document)
and
adopted
the
goal
to
provide
"
A
healthful
environment
for
all
current
and
future
citizens
of
Cumberland
County"

The
Stakeholders
met
monthly
for
the
first
three
months
and
now
meet
quarterly
at
a
minimum,
or
as
required.

The
Stakeholders'
Committee
is
supported
by
an
Air
Quality
Technical
Committee,
which
meets
more
often
and
provides
the
Stakeholders
with
technical
information
and
administrative
assistance.
The
Public
Involvement
does
not
end
with
the
Stakeholders.
An
aggressive
process
of
education
and
outreach
into
the
community
has
been
documented
since
the
beginning
of
this
endeavor,
to
include
involvement
of
the
Public
School
Systems
(
Cumberland
County
and
Fort
Bragg/
Pope
AFB),
utility
providers,
and
of
any
Organization
requesting
presentations.
The
Air
Quality
web
page,
maintained
by
FAMPO
staff,
provides
information
on
the
local
effort
and
related
links
(
http://
www.
fampo.
org/
airquality.
htm).
The
Fayetteville
MPO
is
also
a
community
partner
in
the
"
It
All
Adds
Up
to
Cleaner
Air"
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation
(
US
DOT)/
EPA
initiative,
and
uses
and
distributes
the
material
available
through
the
IAAU
web
site.

Minutes
of
the
Stakeholders'
and
Technical
Committee
meetings
and
list
of
outreach
and
presentations
are
on
file
and
open
to
the
public.

1.3
Cumberland
County
Characteristics
The
Cumberland
County
landscape
is
a
mixture
of
urban
and
rural
lands.
The
2000
census
population
for
Cumberland
County
was
of
302,963,
of
which
20,540
is
rural
population
and
282,423
is
within
the
Urbanized
Area
Boundary.
Population
density
is
also
varied,
as
shown
in
Table
2.
Because
of
the
difference
in
land
use
and
densities,
care
was
exercised
when
proposing
and
selecting
strategies
to
be
implemented
by
such
Table
2.
Census
2000
Demographic
Information
JURISDICTION
POPULATION
AREA
(
Sq.
Mi.)
DENSITY/
Sq.
Mi.
Falcon
328
1.26
262.4
Fayetteville
121,015
59.96
2,059.2
Godwin
112
0.25
450.2
Hope
Mills
11,237
6.24
1,844.6
Linden
127
0.48
263.8
Spring
Lake
8,098
3.69
2,203.9
Stedman
664
1.37
484
Wade
480
1.32
367.6
Cumberland
County
302,963
658.46
464.2
Source:
U.
S.
CENSUS
BUREAU
 
Census
2000
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
5
­
diverse
jurisdictions.
The
Cantonment
Area
of
Fort
Bragg
Military
Reservation,
one
of
the
largest
military
installations
in
this
country,
and
Pope
Air
Force
Base
are
also
located
within
Cumberland
County,
as
shown
on
Figure
1.
The
presence
of
such
a
large
military
facility
is
an
additional
factor
in
the
population
makeup
of
our
area.
Cumberland
County
has
a
combined
minority
population
of
approximately
45%,
with
34.9%
African­
American.
Statistical
information
shows
that
12.8%
of
the
overall
population
is
below
the
poverty
level
(
Source:
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
 
Census
2000).
All
of
these
factors
were
taken
into
consideration
when
preparing
for
the
implementation
of
the
Early
Action
Plan.

Figure
1
 
Proposed
Non­
Attainment
Area
for
the
Fayetteville
MSA


Spring
Lake
Spring
Lake
Spring
Lake
Wade
Hope
Mills
Hope
Mills
Hope
Mills
City
of
City
of
City
of
Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Fayetteville
City
of
of
City
of
Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Linden
Linden
Linden
Falcon
Falcon
Falcon
Godwin
Godwin
Godwin
Stedman
Stedman
Fort
Bragg
Fort
Bragg
Fort
Bragg
Military
Reservation
Military
Military
Reservation
and
and
and
Pope
AFB
Pope
AFB
Pope
AFB
LEGEND
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
BOUNDARY
FORT
BRAGG
AND
POPE
AFB
MUNICIPALITIES
METROPOLITAN
AREA
BOUNDARY

MONITOR
LOCATION
(

MAP
NOT
TO
SCALE
JUNE
2003
­
MC
­
FAMPO
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
6
­
1.31
Local
and
Regional
Efforts
In
April
2001,
inspired
in
part
by
Governor
James
Hunt's
1998
challenge
on
sustainability
and
smart
growth,
Fort
Bragg
Military
Reservation
embarked
on
the
difficult
journey
to
become
a
sustainable
installation.
As
part
of
this
effort,
several
individuals
within
the
surrounding
counties
began
working
with
the
Military
Installation
to
aid
in
the
process,
including
the
planning
and
implementation
schedule
of
air
quality
initiatives
for
the
metropolitan
area.
At
that
point,
a
sustainable
region
was
the
next
logical
and
necessary
step.
In
partnership
with
the
North
Carolina
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
and
stakeholders
from
the
surrounding
counties
and
communities,
Sustainable
Sandhills
began
in
February
2003,
covering
the
environmental
needs
and
wants
of
a
six
county
region.
Subsequently,
a
Steering
Committee
of
interested
participants
was
formed.
Later,
the
Steering
Committee
became
the
Leadership
Council
and
many
of
the
individuals
involved
in
this
endeavor
are
also
members
of
the
Cumberland
County
Air
Quality
Stakeholders
and/
or
Technical
Committee.
The
Sustainable
Sandhills
Action
Plan
describes
five
focus
areas:
Air,
Energy,
Land
Use,
Materials
Use
and
Waste,
and
Water.

The
local
and
regional
efforts
to
attain
sustainability
began
prior
to
the
development
of
the
EPA's
Early
Action
Compact,
demonstrating
the
commitment
of
this
area
in
attaining
and
maintaining
a
healthy
environment
now,
and
for
generations
to
come.
The
Cumberland
County
Air
Quality
Stakeholders/
Technical
Committee,
Sustainable
Fort
Bragg
and
Sustainable
Sandhills
participants
are
working
together
to
ensure
a
united
campaign
and
to
avoid
duplicated
efforts.

1.4
Modeling
Background
The
modeling
analysis
is
a
complex
technical
evaluation
that
begins
by
selection
of
the
modeling
system
and
selection
of
the
meteorological
episodes.
North
Carolina
Division
of
Air
Quality
(
NCDAQ)
decided
to
use
the
following
modeling
system:

 
Meteorological
Model:
MM­
5
 
This
model
generates
hourly
meteorological
inputs
for
the
emissions
model
and
the
air
quality
model,
such
as
wind
speed,
wind
direction,
and
surface
temperature.
 
Emissions
Model:
Sparse
Matrix
Operator
Kernel
Emissions
(
SMOKE)
­
This
model
takes
daily
county
level
emissions
and
temporally
allocates
across
the
day,
spatially
locates
the
emissions
within
the
county,
and
transfers
the
total
emissions
into
the
chemical
species
needed
by
the
air
quality
model.
 
Air
Quality
Model:
MAQSIP
(
Multi­
Scale
Air
Quality
Simulation
Platform)
 
This
model
takes
the
inputs
from
the
emissions
model
and
meteorological
model
and
predicts
ozone
hour
by
hour
across
the
modeling
domain,
both
horizontally
and
vertically.

The
modeling
system
being
used
for
this
demonstration
and
the
episodes
being
modeled
were
discussed
in
detail
in
the
June
30,
2003
progress
report
(
see
Appendix
D).
The
following
historical
episodes
were
selected
to
model
because
they
represent
typical
meteorological
conditions
in
North
Carolina
when
high
ozone
is
observed
throughout
the
State:
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
7
­
 
July
10­
15,
1995
 
June
20­
24,
1996
 
June
25­
30,
1996
 
July
10­
15,
1997
The
meteorological
inputs
were
developed
using
MM5
are
discussed
in
detail
in
Appendix
D.

The
precursors
to
ozone,
Nitrogen
Oxides
(
NOx),
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(
VOCs),
and
Carbon
Monoxide
(
CO)
were
estimated
for
each
source
category.
These
estimates
were
then
spatially
allocated
across
the
county,
temporally
adjusted
to
the
day
of
the
week
and
hour
of
the
day
and
speciated
into
the
chemical
species
that
the
air
quality
model
needs
to
predict
ozone.
The
emission
inventories
used
for
the
current
year
and
future
year
modeling
are
discussed
in
detail
in
Section
4.
The
State,
Federal
and
Local
control
measures
currently
in
practice
and
those
being
implemented
in
the
future
to
reduce
point
and
mobile
(
highway
and
nonroad)
source
emissions
are
discussed
in
Section
5.
The
status
of
the
modeling
work
is
discussed
in
Section
6.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
8
­
2.
Overview
of
Air
Quality
In
Cumberland
County
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
under
the
authority
of
the
Federal
Clean
Air
Act,
regulates
outdoor
air
pollution
in
the
United
States.
The
EPA
sets
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)
for
six
"
criteria
pollutants"
that
are
considered
harmful
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
1
These
six
pollutants
are
carbon
monoxide,
lead,
ozone,
nitrogen
dioxide,
particulate
matter
and
sulfur
dioxide.
Particulate
matter
is
further
classified
into
two
categories:
PM
10,
or
particles
with
diameters
of
10
micrometers
or
less,
and
fine
particulate
matter
(
PM
2.5),
particles
with
diameters
of
2.5
micrometers
or
less.
Levels
of
a
pollutant
above
the
health­
based
standard
pose
a
risk
to
human
health.
The
NCDAQ
monitors
levels
of
all
six
criteria
pollutants
in
Cumberland
County
and
reports
these
levels
to
the
EPA.
According
to
the
most
recent
data,
Cumberland
County
is
meeting
national
ambient
standards
for
five
of
the
pollutants,
but
is
not
meeting
the
Federal
8­
hour
standard
for
ground­
level
ozone.
Federal
enforcement
of
the
ozone
NAAQS
is
based
on
a
3­
year
monitor
"
design
value".
The
design
value
for
each
monitor
is
obtained
by
averaging
the
annual
fourth
highest
daily
maximum
8­
hour
ozone
values
over
three
consecutive
years.
If
a
monitor's
design
value
exceeds
the
NAAQS,
that
monitor
is
in
violation
of
the
standard.
The
EPA
may
designate
part
or
all
of
the
metropolitan
statistical
area
(
MSA)
as
nonattainment
even
if
only
one
monitor
in
the
MSA
violates
the
NAAQS.
There
are
two
ozone
monitors
in
Cumberland
County.
One
of
the
monitors
is
located
northeast
of
Fayetteville
(
Wade)
and
the
other
is
southeast
of
Fayetteville
(
Golfview),
as
shown
in
Figure
2­
1.

Figure
2­
1:
Cumberland
County
8­
hour
Ozone
Monitor
Design
Values
2001
 
2003
For
the
3­
year
periods
2000
 
2002
and
2001
 
2003,
both
monitors
marginally
violated
the
8­
hour
ground­
level
ozone
NAAQS,
see
Table
2.1.
The
historical
ozone
monitoring
data,
including
the
years
for
which
the
design
values
are
based
on,
is
listed
in
Table
2.2.
Monitor
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
9
­
design
values
are
dependant
on
which
three­
year
period
the
4th
highest
8­
Hour
ozone
concentrations
are
averaged.

Table
2.1
Cumberland
County
Ozone
Monitor
Design
Values
in
parts
per
million
(
ppm)

Monitor
Name
County
00­
02
01­
03
Wade
Cumberland
0.086
0.086
Golfview
(
Hope
Mills)
Cumberland
0.087
0.087
Table
2.2
Historical
4th
Highest
8­
Hour
ozone
values
(
1994­
2003)

4th
Highest
8­
Hour
Ozone
Values
(
ppm)
Monitor
Site
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Wade
0.084
0.081
0.086
0.085
0.093
0.100
0.086
0.080
0.094
0.086
Golfview
0.085
0.087
0.091
0.085
0.098
0.093
0.083
0.084
0.095
0.082
NCDAQ
forecasts
ozone
levels
on
a
daily
basis
from
May
1
 
September
30
for
Fayetteville.
This
forecast
is
issued
to
the
public
using
EPA's
Air
Quality
Index
(
AQI)
color
code
system.
Table
2­
3
lists
the
ozone
regulatory
standard
and
AQI
breakpoints
with
their
corresponding
health
risks.

Table
2­
3:
Air
Quality
Index
Color
Code
System
Pollutant
concentration
(
ppm)
ranges
for
AQI
color
codes
Pollutant/
Standard
Standard
Value
Green
AQI
0
 
50
Good
Yellow
AQI
51­
100
Moderate
Orange
AQI
101­
150
Unhealthy
for
Sensitive
Groups
Red
AQI
151­
200
Unhealthy
Purple
AQI
201­
300
Very
Unhealthy
Ozone/
8­
hour
average
0.08
ppm
averaged
over
8
hours
0­
0.064
0.065­
0.084
0.085­
0.104
0.105­
0.124
0.125­
0.374
The
AQI
color
codes
standardize
the
reporting
of
different
pollutants
by
classifying
pollutant
concentrations
according
to
relative
health
risk,
using
colors
and
index
numbers
to
describe
pollutant
levels.
The
AQI
is
also
used
to
report
the
previous
day's
air
quality
to
the
public.
In
the
Fayetteville
area,
the
forecast
and
previous
day
air
quality
reports
appear
on
the
weather
page
of
local
newspapers
and
NCDAQ's
website:
http://
daq.
state.
nc.
us/
airaware/
forecast.
Additionally,
the
ozone
forecast
is
broadcasted
during
the
local
news
on
television
and
radio.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
10
­
3.
Ozone
And
Its
Health
Effects
And
Sources
3.1
Overview
of
Ozone
Ozone
(
O3)
is
a
tri­
atomic
ion
of
oxygen.
In
the
stratosphere
or
upper
atmosphere,
ozone
occurs
naturally
and
protects
the
Earth's
surface
from
ultraviolet
radiation.
Ozone
in
the
lower
atmosphere
is
often
called
ground­
level
ozone,
tropospheric
ozone,
or
ozone
pollution
to
distinguish
is
from
upper­
atmospheric
or
stratospheric
ozone.
Ozone
does
occur
naturally
in
the
lower
atmosphere
(
troposphere),
but
only
in
relatively
low
background
concentrations
of
about
30
parts
per
billion
(
ppb),
well
below
the
NAAQS.
The
term
"
smog"
is
also
commonly
used
to
refer
to
ozone
pollution.
Although
ozone
is
a
component
of
smog,
smog
is
a
combination
of
ozone
and
airborne
particles
having
a
brownish
or
dirty
appearance.
It
is
possible
for
ozone
levels
to
be
elevated
even
on
clear
days
with
no
obvious
"
smog".
In
the
lower
atmosphere,
ozone
is
formed
when
airborne
chemicals,
primarily
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs),
combine
in
a
chemical
reaction
driven
by
heat
and
sunlight.
These
ozone­
forming
chemicals
are
called
precursors
to
ozone.
Man­
made
NOx
and
VOC
precursors
contribute
to
ozone
concentrations
above
natural
background
levels.
Since
ozone
formation
is
greatest
on
hot,
sunny
days
with
little
wind,
elevated
ozone
concentrations
occur
during
the
warm
weather
months,
generally
May
through
September.
In
agreement
with
EPA's
guidance,
North
Carolina
operates
ozone
monitors
from
April
1
through
October
31
to
be
sure
to
capture
all
possible
events
of
high
ozone.

3.2
Ozone
Health
Effects
The
form
of
oxygen
we
need
to
breathe
is
O2.
When
we
breathe
ozone,
it
acts
as
an
irritant
to
our
lungs.
Short­
term,
infrequent
exposure
to
ozone
can
result
in
throat
and
eye
irritation,
difficulty
drawing
a
deep
breath,
and
coughing.
Long­
term
and
repeated
exposure
to
ozone
concentrations
above
the
NAAQS
can
result
in
reduction
of
lung
function
as
the
cells
lining
the
lungs
are
damaged.
Repeated
cycles
of
damage
and
healing
may
result
in
scarring
of
lung
tissue
and
permanently
reduced
lung
function.
Health
studies
have
indicated
that
high
ambient
ozone
concentrations
may
impair
lung
function
growth
in
children,
resulting
in
reduced
lung
function
in
adulthood.
In
adults,
ozone
exposure
may
accelerate
the
natural
decline
in
lung
function
that
occurs
as
part
of
the
normal
aging
process.
Ozone
may
also
aggravate
chronic
lung
diseases
such
as
emphysema
and
bronchitis
and
reduce
the
immune
system's
ability
to
fight
off
bacterial
infections
in
the
respiratory
system.
Asthmatics
and
other
individuals
with
respiratory
disease
are
especially
at
risk
from
elevated
ozone
concentrations.
Ozone
can
aggravate
asthma,
increasing
the
risk
of
asthma
attacks
that
require
a
doctor's
attention
or
the
use
of
additional
medication.
According
to
the
EPA,
one
reason
for
this
increased
risk
is
that
ozone
increases
susceptibility
to
allergens,
which
are
the
most
common
triggers
for
asthma
attacks.
In
addition,
asthmatics
are
more
severely
affected
by
the
reduced
lung
function
and
irritation
that
ozone
causes
in
the
respiratory
system.
There
is
increasing
evidence
that
ozone
may
trigger,
not
just
exacerbate,
asthma
attacks
in
some
individuals.
Ozone
may
also
contribute
to
the
development
of
asthma.
A
recent
study
published
in
the
British
medical
journal
The
Lancet
found
a
strong
association
between
elevated
ambient
ozone
levels
and
the
development
of
asthma
in
physically
active
children.
2
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
11
­
All
children
are
at
risk
from
ozone
exposure
because
they
often
spend
a
large
part
of
the
summer
playing
outdoors,
their
lungs
are
still
developing,
they
breathe
more
air
per
pound
of
body
weight,
and
they
are
less
likely
to
notice
symptoms.
Children
and
adults
who
frequently
exercise
outdoors
are
particularly
vulnerable
to
ozone's
negative
health
effects,
because
they
may
be
repeatedly
exposed
to
elevated
ozone
concentrations
while
breathing
at
an
increased
respiratory
rate.
3
3.3
Ozone
Sources
Ozone­
forming
pollutants,
or
precursors,
are
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs).

3.3.1
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
Volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs)
are
a
class
of
hydrocarbons,
and
therefore
are
sometimes
referred
to
as
hydrocarbons.
However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
hydrocarbons,
as
a
class
of
chemical
compounds,
include
less­
reactive
compounds
not
considered
VOCs.
In
other
words,
although
all
VOCs
are
hydrocarbons,
not
all
hydrocarbons
are
VOCs.
In
North
Carolina,
large
portions
of
precursor
VOCs
are
produced
by
natural,
or
biogenic,
sources,
which
are
primarily
trees.
Man­
made,
or
anthropogenic,
VOCs
also
contribute
to
ozone
production,
particularly
in
urban
areas.
Sources
of
anthropogenic
VOCs
include
unburned
gasoline
fumes
evaporating
from
gas
stations
and
cars,
industrial
emissions,
and
consumer
products
such
as
paints,
solvents,
and
the
fragrances
in
personal
care
products.

3.3.2
Nitrogen
Oxides
Nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
are
produced
when
fuels
are
burned,
and
result
from
the
reaction
of
atmospheric
nitrogen
at
the
high
temperatures
produced
by
burning
fuels.
Power
plants,
highway
motor
vehicles,
the
major
contributor
in
urban
areas,
and
off­
road
mobile
source
equipment,
such
as
construction
equipment,
lawn
care
equipment,
trains,
boats,
etc.,
are
the
major
sources
of
NOx.
Other
NOx
sources
include
"
area"
sources
(
small,
widely­
distributed
sources)
such
as
fires
(
forest
fires,
backyard
burning,
house
fires,
etc.),
and
natural
gas
hot
water
heaters.
Other
residential
combustion
sources
such
as
oil
and
natural
gas
furnaces
and
wood
burning
also
produce
NOx,
but
these
sources
generally
do
not
operate
during
warm­
weather
months
when
ground­
level
ozone
is
a
problem.
In
general,
area
sources
contribute
only
a
very
small
portion
of
ozone­
forming
NOx
emissions.
Generally,
North
Carolina,
including
the
Fayetteville
area,
is
considered
"
NOx­
limited"
because
of
the
abundance
of
VOC
emissions
from
biogenic
sources.
Therefore,
current
ozone
strategies
focus
on
reducing
NOx.
However,
VOC
reduction
strategies,
such
as
control
of
evaporative
emissions
from
gas
stations
and
vehicles,
could
reduce
ozone
in
urban
areas
where
the
biogenic
VOC
emissions
are
not
as
high.

3.3.3
Sources
of
NOx
and
VOCs
The
following
lists
the
sources,
by
category,
that
contribute
to
NOx
and
VOC
emissions.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
12
­
Biogenic:
Trees
and
other
natural
sources.

Mobile:
Vehicles
traveling
on
paved
roads:
cars,
trucks,
buses,
motorcycles,
etc.

Nonroad:
Vehicles
not
traveling
on
paved
roads:
construction,
agricultural,
and
lawn
care
equipment,
motorboats,
locomotives,
etc.

Point:
"
Smokestack"
sources:
industry
and
utilities.

Area:
Sources
not
falling
into
above
categories.
For
VOCs,
includes
gas
stations,
dry
cleaners,
print
shops,
consumer
products,
etc.
For
NOx,
includes
forest
and
residential
fires,
natural
gas
hot
water
heaters,
etc.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
13
­
4.
Emissions
Inventories
4.1
Description
Emissions
modeling
performed
by
NCDAQ
estimates
NOx
and
VOC
emissions
for
an
average
summer
day,
given
specific
meteorological
and
future
year
conditions
and
using
emission
inputs
based
on
emission
inventories
that
include
anticipated
control
measures.
The
biogenic
emissions
are
kept
at
the
same
level
as
the
episodic
biogenic
emissions
since
these
emissions
are
based
on
meteorology
and
the
meteorological
conditions
in
the
future
years
are
kept
the
same
as
the
episodic
meteorology.
There
are
various
types
of
emission
inventories.
The
first
is
the
base
year
or
episodic
inventory.
This
inventory
is
based
on
the
year
of
the
episode
being
modeled
and
is
used
for
validating
the
photochemical
model
performance.
The
second
inventory
used
in
this
project
is
the
"
current"
year
inventory.
For
this
modeling
project
it
will
be
the
2000
emission
inventory,
which
is
the
most
current.
This
inventory
is
processed
using
all
of
the
different
meteorological
episodes
being
studied.
The
photochemical
modeling
is
processed
using
the
current
year
inventory
and
those
results
are
used
as
a
representation
of
current
air
quality
conditions
for
the
meteorological
conditions
modeled.
Next
is
the
future
base
year
inventory.
For
this
type,
an
inventory
is
developed
for
some
future
year
for
which
attainment
of
the
ozone
standard
is
needed.
The
future
base
year
projections
for
2007
take
into
account
all
State
and
Federal
control
measures
expected
to
operate
at
that
time,
including
Federal
vehicle
emissions
controls,
NOx
SIP
Call
controls,
and
North
Carolina
Clean
Smokestacks
controls.
For
this
modeling
project
the
attainment
year
is
2007
and
the
additional
years
for
which
a
showing
of
continued
maintenance
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
are
2012
and
2017.
An
additional
year,
2010,
was
modeled
since
this
is
the
year
for
which
the
Charlotte/
Gastonia
and
Raleigh/
Durham
areas
must
demonstrate
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
It
is
the
future
base
year
inventories
that
control
strategies
and
sensitivities
are
applied
to
determine
what
controls,
to
which
source
classifications
must
be
made
in
order
to
attain
the
ozone
standard.
The
base
year
inventories
used
for
each
source
classifications
are
discussed
in
Appendix
D.
In
the
sections
that
follow,
the
inventories
used
for
the
current
and
the
future
years
are
discussed.
Emission
summaries
by
county
for
2000
and
2007
(
entire
State)
are
in
Appendix
A.

4.2
Current
Year
Inventories
For
the
large
utility
sources,
year
specific
Continuous
Emissions
Monitoring
(
CEM)
data
is
used
for
base
year
episode
specific
modeling.
However,
it
did
not
make
sense
to
use
2000
CEM
data
for
the
current
year
inventory
since
the
meteorology
used
for
the
current
year
modeling
runs
are
the
1995,
1996,
and
1997
episode
specific
meteorology.
The
concern
is
that
the
utility
day
specific
emissions
for
2000
would
not
correspond
to
the
meteorology
used
in
the
modeling.
After
discussing
this
issue
with
EPA,
the
decision
was
made
to
continue
to
use
the
episodic
CEM
data
for
the
current
year
inventory.
Since
only
CEM
NOx
emissions
are
reported
to
the
EPA,
Acid
Rain
Division
(
ARD),
the
CO
and
VOC
emissions
are
calculated
from
the
NOx
emissions
using
emission
factor
ratios
(
CO/
NOx
and
VOC/
NOx)
for
the
particular
combustion
processes
at
the
utilities.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
14
­
The
inventory
used
to
model
the
other
point
sources
is
the
1999
National
Emissions
Inventory
(
NEI)
release
version
2.0
obtained
from
the
EPA's
Clearinghouse
for
Inventories
and
Emission
Factors
(
CHIEF)
website
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
chief/
net/
1999inventory.
html).
In
addition,
North
Carolina
emissions
for
forest
fires
and
prescribed
burns
are
treated
as
point
sources
and
are
episode
specific
similar
to
CEM
data.
These
emissions
were
kept
the
same
as
the
episodic
emissions.

Similar
to
the
other
point
source
emissions
inventory,
the
inventory
used
to
model
the
stationary
area
sources
is
the
1999
NEI
release
version
2.0
obtained
from
the
EPA's
CHIEF
website.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina
where
a
2000
current
year
inventory
was
generated
by
NCDAQ
following
the
current
methodologies
outlined
in
the
Emissions
Inventory
Improvement
Program
(
EIIP)
Area
Source
Development
Documents,
Volume
III
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
chief/
eiip/
techreport/
volume03/
index.
html).

For
the
nonroad
mobile
sources
that
are
calculated
within
the
NONROAD
mobile
model,
a
2000
current
year
inventory
was
generated
for
the
entire
domain.
The
model
version
used
is
the
Draft
NONROAD2002
distributed
for
a
limited,
confidential,
and
secure
review
in
November
2002.
A
newer
draft
version
of
this
model
was
released
by
the
EPA
in
June,
2003.
A
comparison
was
done
between
the
results
from
the
two
models
and
the
differences
were
not
significant
for
NOx
emissions,
however
they
were
large
for
CO.
Since
CO
does
not
play
a
large
role
in
ozone
formation,
it
is
not
believed
that
these
differences
will
impact
the
ozone
concentrations
in
the
air
quality
model.
However,
since
there
are
differences,
when
the
final
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
modeling
is
carried
out
the
updated
emissions
will
be
used.

The
nonroad
mobile
sources
not
calculated
within
the
NONROAD
model
include
aircraft
engines,
railroad
locomotives
and
commercial
marine
vessels.
The
2000
current
year
inventory
used
for
these
sources
is
the
1999
NEI
release
version
2.0
obtained
from
the
EPA's
CHIEF
website.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina
where
a
2000
current
year
inventory
was
generated
by
NCDAQ
following
the
methodologies
outlined
in
the
EPA
guidance
document
EPA­
450/
4­
81­
026d
(
Revised),
Procedures
for
Inventory
Preparation,
Volume
IV:
Mobile
Sources.

In
order
to
accurately
model
the
mobile
source
emissions
in
the
EAC
areas,
the
newest
version
of
the
MOBILE
model,
MOBILE6.2,
was
used.
This
model
was
released
by
EPA
in
2002
and
differs
significantly
from
previous
versions
of
the
model.
Key
inputs
for
MOBILE
include
information
on
the
age
of
vehicles
on
the
roads,
the
speed
of
those
vehicles,
what
types
of
road
those
vehicles
are
traveling
on,
any
control
technologies
in
place
in
an
area
to
reduce
emissions
for
motor
vehicles
(
e.
g.,
emissions
inspection
programs),
and
temperature.
The
development
of
these
inputs
is
discussed
in
detail
in
Appendix
D.

Biogenic
emissions
used
in
the
2000
current
year
modeling
are
the
same
as
those
used
in
the
base
year
episodic
modeling.
This
is
due
to
the
use
of
the
same
meteorology
for
the
current
year
modeling
runs.
The
development
of
this
source
category
is
discussed
in
Appendix
D.

The
emissions
summary
for
the
2000
current
year
modeling
inventories
for
the
Fayetteville
EAC
area
is
listed
in
Table
4.2­
1.
These
emissions
represent
typical
weekday
emissions
and
are
reported
in
tons
per
day.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
15
­
Table
4.2­
1
2000
Current
Year
Modeling
Emissions
Source
CO
NOX
VOC
Point
1
3
4
Area
6
0.5
12
Nonroad
Mobile
59
7
5
Highway
Mobile
197
28
18
Biogenic
0
0.4
46
Total
Emissions
263
39
85
4.3
Future
Year
Inventories
The
inventory
used
for
the
preliminary
2007
point
source
inventory
is
the
EPA's
May
1999
release
of
the
NOx
SIP
call
future
year
modeling
foundation
files,
obtained
from
the
EPA
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
(
OAQPS).
This
is
a
2007
emissions
inventory,
projected
from
a
1995
base
year
inventory
and
controlled
in
accordance
to
the
NOx
SIP
call
rule.
The
decision
to
use
this
inventory
for
initial
2007
future
year
modeling
runs
was
made
since
all
of
the
point
sources
required
to
have
controls
due
to
the
NOx
SIP
call
rule
making
are
reflected
in
this
inventory.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina.
For
the
major
North
Carolina
utility
sources,
NCDAQ
obtained
estimated
future
year
hour
specific
data
for
the
two
largest
utility
companies
within
North
Carolina,
Duke
Energy
and
Progress
Energy.
Additionally,
the
day
specific
forest
fires
and
prescribed
fires
inventory
were
the
episodic
emissions.

The
final
modeling
run
for
the
2007
future
year
point
source
inventory
uses
the
EPA's
1999
NEI
inventory
grown
to
2007
using
growth
factors
from
the
EPA's
Economic
Growth
Analysis
System
(
EGAS)
version
4.0.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina,
where
State
specific
growth
factors,
and
where
available
source
specific
growth
factors,
were
used
to
grow
the
North
Carolina
1999
inventory.
Additionally,
NCDAQ
created
a
new
control
file
that
reflect
how
the
states
surrounding
North
Carolina
plan
to
implement
the
NOx
SIP
call
rule
as
well
as
all
other
rules
that
are
on
the
books.
The
2012
future
year
point
source
inventory
was
generated
using
this
same
methodology.

The
inventory
used
to
model
the
stationary
area
sources
for
2007
and
2012
is
the
1999
NEI
release
version
2.0
obtained
from
the
EPA's
CHIEF
website
and
were
grown
to
2007
using
growth
factors
from
the
EPA's
Economic
Growth
Analysis
System
(
EGAS)
version
4.0.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina,
where
the
2000
current
year
inventory
was
grown
using
a
mixture
of
EGAS
growth
factors
and
state­
specific
growth
factors
for
the
furniture
industry.
For
the
nonroad
mobile
sources
that
are
calculated
within
the
NONROAD
mobile
model,
a
2007
and
2012
future
years
inventories
were
generated
for
the
entire
domain
using
the
same
model
used
to
generate
the
current
year
inventory.
In
the
final
modeling,
the
NONROAD2002a
model
will
be
used
to
create
the
nonroad
inventory.
The
remaining
nonroad
mobile
source
categories,
the
1999
NEI
release
version
2.0
obtained
from
the
EPA's
CHIEF
website
and
were
grown
to
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
16
­
2007
and
2012
using
growth
factors
from
the
EPA's
Economic
Growth
Analysis
System
(
EGAS)
version
4.0.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina,
where
the
2000
current
year
inventory
was
grown
with
EGAS
growth
factors.

The
same
MOBILE
model
was
used
to
create
the
2007
and
2012
future
years
highway
mobile
source
inventories.
The
vehicle
miles
traveled
(
VMT)
were
projected
using
the
methodologies
prescribed
by
EPA.
The
exception
to
this
was
for
North
Carolina.
In
the
urban
areas
of
North
Carolina
VMT
from
travel
demand
models
(
TDM)
for
future
years
was
available.
The
future
years
VMT
were
estimated
by
interpolating
between
the
TDM
future
year
estimates.
Additionally,
estimated
future
year
speeds
were
obtained
from
the
North
Carolina
Department
of
Transportation
(
NCDOT).

Biogenic
emissions
used
in
the
future
years
modeling
are
the
same
as
those
used
in
the
base
year
episodic
modeling.
This
is
due
to
the
use
of
the
same
meteorology
for
the
future
year
modeling
runs.
The
development
of
this
source
category
is
discussed
in
Appendix
D.

The
emissions
summary
for
the
2007
and
2012
future
years
modeling
inventories
for
the
Fayetteville
EAC
area
is
listed
in
Table
4.3­
1.
These
emissions
represent
typical
weekday
emissions
and
are
reported
in
tons
per
day.

Table
4.3­
1
Future
Year
Modeling
Emissions
2007
2012
Source
CO
NOX
VOC
CO
NOX
VOC
Point
1
4
7
1
3
4
Area
7
0.5
12
7
0.6
13
Nonroad
Mobile
68
6
4
68
5
3
Highway
Mobile
108
19
10
81
11
8
Biogenic
0.0
0.4
46
0
0.4
46
Total
Emissions
184
30
79
157
20
74
Note
that
in
the
maintenance
year
2012
the
emissions
are
expected
to
be
lower
than
the
attainment
year
2007,
therefore
continued
maintenance
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
is
expected.

4.4
Comparison
of
2000
and
2007
Inventories
The
total
predicted
NOx
emissions
for
Cumberland
County
decreased
by
25%,
from
39
tons
per
day
(
TPD)
in
2000
to
30
TPD
in
2007.
This
data
is
tabulated
in
Table
4.4­
1.
This
same
data
is
displayed
in
Figures
4.4­
1
and
4.4­
2
as
pie
charts
with
the
percent
contribution
by
each
source
category.

Table
4.4­
1:
Estimated
NOx
and
VOC
emissions,
in
tons
per
day
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
17
­
Nonroad
20%
Area
2%
Point
13%
Biogenic
1%

Mobile
64%

Nonroad
5%
Area
15%
Point
9%

Biogenic
58%
Mobile
13%
Nonroad
6%
Area
14%
Point
5%

Biogenic
54%
Mobile
21%
NOx
Emissions
VOC
Emissions
Source
2000
2007
2000
2007
Point
3
4
4
7
Area
0.5
0.5
12
12
Nonroad
7
6
5
4
Mobile
28
19
18
10
Biogenic
0.4
0.4
46
46
Total
Emissions
39
30
85
79
Figure
4.4­
1:
2000
Cumberland
County
Figure
4.4­
2:
2007
Cumberland
County
Nonroad
17%
Area
1%
Point
8%
Biogenic
1%

Mobile
73%

NOx
Emissions
by
Source
NOx
Emissions
by
Source
The
total
predicted
VOC
emissions
for
Cumberland
County
decreased
by
7%,
from
85
TPD
in
2000
to
79
TPD
in
2007.
This
data
is
also
tabulated
in
Table
4.4­
1.
This
same
data
is
displayed
in
Figures
4.4­
3
and
4.4­
4
as
pie
charts
with
the
percent
contribution
by
each
source
category.
The
percent
of
each
source
category
Figure
4.4­
3:
2000
Cumberland
County
Figure
4.4­
4:
2007
Cumberland
County
VOC
Emissions
by
Source
VOC
Emissions
by
Source
There
are
few
control
measures
expected
for
area
and
point
sources
in
Cumberland
County,
so
they
continue
to
grow,
however,
there
are
significant
decreases
in
highway
and
nonroad
mobile
source
emissions
to
produce
an
overall
decrease
in
both
NOx
and
VOC
emissions.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
18
­
HDDV
55%

HDGV
7%
LDGT1
16%
LDGT2
7%
LDGV
14%
Other
1%

HDDV
56%

HDGV
6%
LDGT1
13%
LDGT2
5%
LDGV
20%
Other
0%
For
both,
highway
and
nonroad
mobile
sources,
diesel
vehicles
contribute
the
majority
of
NOx
emissions.
Figures
4.4­
5
and
4.4­
6
show
the
relative
contributions
of
vehicle
types
for
the
highway
mobile
source
category
in
2000
and
2007
for
Cumberland
County.
As
shown
in
these
figures,
the
relative
contributions
from
vehicle
types
do
not
change
greatly
between
2000
and
2007.
The
estimated
emissions
for
each
vehicle
type
are
tabulated
in
Table
4.4­
2.

Figure
4.4­
5:
2000
Cumberland
County
Figure
4.4­
6:
2007
Cumberland
County
Highway
Mobile
NOx
Sources
Highway
Mobile
NOx
Sources
HDDV
=
Heavy­
duty
diesel
vehicles
(
trucks)
HDGV
=
Heavy­
duty
gasoline
vehicles
(
trucks)
LDGT
(
1&
2)
=
Light­
duty
gasoline
trucks
LDGV
=
Light­
duty
gasoline
vehicles
Other
=
Motorcycles,
light­
duty
diesel
vehicles
&
trucks
Table
4.4­
2:
Estimated
Highway
NOx
Emissions,
by
vehicle
type
NOx
Emissions
in
TPD
Source
2000
2007
Heavy­
duty
diesel
vehicles
15.5
10.3
Light­
duty
gasoline
vehicles
5.8
2.7
Light­
duty
gasoline
trucks
(
1)
3.7
2.9
Light­
duty
gasoline
trucks
(
2)
1.5
1.3
Heavy­
duty
gasoline
vehicles
1.8
1.3
Other
0.1
0.1
Total
28.4
18.6
Figures
4.4­
7
and
4.4­
8
show
the
relative
contributions
of
equipment
types
for
the
nonroad
mobile
source
category
in
2000
and
2007
for
Cumberland
County.
As
can
be
seen
in
these
figures,
diesel
construction
equipment
contributes
about
half
of
nonroad
mobile
source
NOx
for
both
years.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
19
­
Diesel
Construction
50%
Other
Diesel
4%
Railroad
13%

LPG
Engines
11%
2
&
4­
Stroke
Engines
5%
Aircraft
4%
CNG
Engines
1%
Diesel
Agricultural
6%

Diesel
Commercial
2%

Diesel
Industrial
4%
Diesel
Construction
51%
Other
Diesel
4%
Railroad
16%

LPG
Engines
8%
2
&
4­
Stroke
Engines
5%
Aircraft
3%
CNG
Engines
1%
Diesel
Agricultural
6%
Diesel
Commercial
2%

Diesel
Industrial
4%
Figure
4.4­
3:
2000
Cumberland
County
Nonroad
NOx
sources
Figure
4.4­
4:
2007
Cumberland
County
Nonroad
NOx
sources
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
20
­
4.5
Comparison
of
2000
and
2010
Inventories
North
Carolina
developed
the
2010
future
year
emissions
inventory
as
an
intermediate
year
between
2007,
where
attainment
of
the
8­
hr
Ozone
standard
is
to
be
demonstrated,
and
2012
where
continued
maintenance
of
the
standard
is
required.
This
year
was
chosen
since
it
is
the
year
that
the
Charlotte/
Gastonia
and
Raleigh/
Durham
areas
must
show
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.

The
inventory
used
for
the
2010
point
source
inventory
is
EPA's
2010
emission
inventory
used
for
their
heavy­
duty
diesel
rule
making.
The
decision
to
use
this
inventory
for
the
2010
future
year
modeling
runs
was
made
since
all
of
the
point
sources
required
to
have
controls
due
to
the
NOx
SIP
call
rule
making
are
reflected
in
this
inventory.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina.
For
the
major
North
Carolina
utility
sources,
NCDAQ
obtained
estimated
future
year
hour
specific
data
for
the
two
largest
utility
companies
within
North
Carolina,
Duke
Energy
and
Progress
Energy.
Additionally,
the
day
specific
forest
fires
and
prescribed
fires
inventory
were
the
episodic
emissions.
The
inventory
used
to
model
the
stationary
area
sources
is
also
the
EPA's
emission
inventory
used
for
the
heavy­
duty
diesel
engine
rule
making.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina,
where
the
2000
current
year
inventory
was
grown
using
a
mixture
of
EGAS
growth
factors
and
state­
specific
growth
factors
for
the
furniture
industry.
For
the
nonroad
mobile
sources
that
are
calculated
within
the
NONROAD
mobile
model,
a
2010
future
year
inventory
was
generated
for
the
entire
domain
using
the
same
model
used
to
generate
the
current
year
inventory.
The
remaining
nonroad
mobile
source
categories,
EPA's
2010
emission
inventory
used
for
their
heavy­
duty
diesel
engine
rule
making
was
used.

The
same
MOBILE
model
was
used
to
create
the
2010
future
year
highway
mobile
source
inventory.
The
vehicle
miles
traveled
(
VMT)
were
projected
using
the
methodologies
prescribed
by
EPA.
The
exception
to
this
was
for
North
Carolina.
In
the
urban
areas
of
North
Carolina
VMT
from
travel
demand
models
(
TDM)
for
future
years
was
available.
The
2010
VMT
was
estimated
by
interpolating
between
the
TDM
future
year
estimates.
Additionally,
estimated
future
year
speeds
were
obtained
from
the
North
Carolina
Department
of
Transportation
(
NCDOT).

Biogenic
emissions
used
in
the
2010
future
year
modeling
are
the
same
as
those
used
in
the
base
year
episodic
modeling.
This
is
due
to
the
use
of
the
same
meteorology
for
the
future
year
modeling
runs.

The
emissions
summary
for
the
2010
future
year
modeling
inventories
for
the
Fayetteville
EAC
area
is
listed
in
Table
4.5­
1.
These
emissions
represent
typical
weekday
emissions
and
are
reported
in
tons
per
day.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
21
­
Table
4.5­
1:
Estimated
NOx
and
VOC
emissions,
in
tons
per
day
NOx
Emissions
VOC
Emissions
Source
2000
2007
2010
2000
2007
2010
Point
3
4
3
4
7
1
Area
0.5
0.5
0.5
12
12
12
Nonroad
7
6
7
5
4
8
Mobile
28
19
12
18
10
8
Biogenic
0.4
0.4
0.4
46
46
46
Total
Emissions
39
30
23
85
79
75
The
total
predicted
NOx
emissions
for
the
Fayetteville
area
decreased
by
~
41%,
from
39
tons
per
day
(
TPD)
in
2000
to
23
TPD
in
2010.
The
total
predicted
VOC
emissions
for
the
Fayetteville
area
decreased
by
~
12%,
from
85
TPD
in
2000
to
75
TPD
in
2010.
The
2010
highway
mobile
source
emissions
show
a
continuing
decrease
even
from
the
2007
emission
levels
for
both
NOx
and
VOC.
The
difference
in
the
point
source
VOC
emissions
is
believed
to
be
an
artifact
of
the
differences
between
the
EPA
point
source
inventories
used
in
the
modeling.
In
future
modeling
runs
a
consistent
North
Carolina
inventory
will
be
used
and
grown
using
State
specific
growth
factors
instead
of
relying
on
EPA's
future
year
inventories.

4.6
2017
Future
Year
Inventory
The
State
is
in
the
process
of
developing
the
2017
future
year
emission
inventory
for
purposes
of
showing
continued
maintenance
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
The
air
quality
modeling
runs
will
be
completed
in
the
next
couple
of
months
and
will
be
part
of
the
final
State
submittal
in
December
2004.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
22
­
5.
Control
Measures
Several
control
measures,
already
in
place
or
being
implemented
over
the
next
few
years,
will
reduce
point,
highway
mobile,
and
nonroad
mobile
sources
emissions.
State
and
federal
control
measures
were
modeled
for
2007,
and
are
discussed
in
the
Sections
below.

5.1
Local
EAC
Control
Measures
Through
the
Stakeholders'
and
Public
involvement
process,
the
Fayetteville
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
submitted
to
all
of
the
County's
jurisdictions
and
Fort
Bragg
a
list
of
proposed
strategies
to
be
implemented
in
the
efforts
to
decrease
NOx
and
VOC
emissions.

While
reviewing
the
strategies
to
be
implemented,
the
Early
Action
Compact
and
Milestones
were
carefully
reviewed.
This
area
is
very
supportive
of
this
process
and
wishes
for
a
healthful
environment
for
its
citizens
and
a
high
quality
of
life.
Logistically,
many
of
the
strategies
that
could
be
selected
and
implemented
require
more
time
to
develop
and
enforce
than
the
two
years
outlined
in
the
Milestones
of
the
EAC.
For
this
reason
some
of
the
following
strategies
have
a
deadline
of
December
2005,
whereas
efforts
to
develop
new
or
amended
ordinances
and
documents
are
already
on­
going.
It
is
the
hope
of
all
of
the
jurisdictions
within
the
Fayetteville
MSA
that
several
Strategies
will
be
implemented
and
enforced
during
this
year,
however,
knowing
that
ordinances
and
new
program
implementations
take
time,
we
will
maintain
the
December
2005
deadline,
to
assure
that
all
of
our
efforts
will
be
fully
completed
by
the
deadline.

Upon
implementation
of
the
strategies,
the
EAC
binds
local
areas
to
submit
semi­
annual
reports
to
the
EPA
until
2007
and
to
perform
modeling
for
the
year
2012.
The
EAC
signed
by
this
area
includes
modeling
for
the
year
2017,
ten
years
after
designation.

The
Fayetteville
MSA
will
continue
to
monitor
and
report
on
accomplishments
beyond
2007
and
will
compile
and
submit
such
report
during
the
review
and
update
of
the
MPOs
Long
Range
Transportation
Plan,
whether
required
every
five
years,
as
currently
set,
or
every
three
years,
if
modified
in
the
Reauthorization
of
TEA­
21,
the
current
Transportation
Bill,
to
the
year
2019.
AIR
QUALITY
STAKEHOLDERS
OF
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
SELECTED
OZONE
CONTROL
STRATEGIES
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
­
23
­

STRATEGY
STRATEGY
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
OF
NOX
REDUCTIONS
(
if
available)
DRAFT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
ADOPTING
JURISDICTIONS
LAND
USE
Landscape
Ordinance
Require
landscaping
of
major
nonresidential
developments
within
the
MSA,
including
retrofitting
older
developments
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions.

The
emission
reductions
are
not
currently
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
December
2005
 
County­
wide
December
2003
 
Fort
Bragg
implements
the
Sustainable
Installation
Design
Guide.
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Hope
Mills
Linden
Spring
Lake
Stedman
Wade
Fort
Bragg
Conduct
a
Smart
Growth
Audit
Conduct
a
benchmark
land
use
assessment
and
compare
it
with
Smart
Growth
policies.
To
complete
in
conjunction
with
new
Zoning
Ordinance
and
Land
Use
Plans
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions.

The
emission
reductions
are
not
currently
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
December
2005
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Hope
Mills
Linden
Spring
Lake
Stedman
Wade
AIR
QUALITY
STAKEHOLDERS
OF
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
SELECTED
OZONE
CONTROL
STRATEGIES
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
­
24
­

STRATEGY
STRATEGY
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
OF
NOX
REDUCTIONS
(
if
available)
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
ADOPTING
JURISDICTIONS
LAND
USE
Transit/
Pedestrian/
Mixed
Use
Oriented
Development
Add
a
mixed­
use
alternative
to
zoning
ordinance
along
transit
lines
and
include
sidewalks,
shade
trees,
benches,

and
landscaping
as
well
as
bike
paths/
lanes,
which
will
increase
the
desirability
of
walking
and
biking
and
promote
the
use
of
transit.

Work
with
schools
and
parks
to
facilitate
pedestrian
crossing
from
subdivisions
to
schools.

Fort
Bragg
is
building
upon
existing
mixed
used
development
by
adding
pedestrian
trails
and
sidewalks.
NO
QUANTIFICATION­
base
line
and
extensive
study
would
be
required
to
obtain
NOx
emission
reductions
for
Cumberland
County.

NOx
reductions
are
supported
by
the
Portland,
Oregon
study
cited
on
Page
26
of
"
Improving
Air
Quality
Through
Land
Use
Activities"

www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
transp/
landguid.
htm
Portland
Oregon
study
supports
8%

decrease
in
VMT
and
NOX
emissions
decrease
of
6%.
December
2005
Ongoing
at
Fort
Bragg
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Hope
Mills
Linden
Spring
Lake
Stedman
Wade
Fort
Bragg
Infill
Development
Promote
infill
and
brownfield
development
in
urban
areas,

to
utilize
existing
infrastructure
and
to
decrease
and/
or
maintain
VMTs.

Strengthening
the
downtown
area.
Economic
Incentives
are
available
for
businesses
in
the
downtown
area
through
the
Downtown
Loan
Program
and
Historic
Properties,
a
public/
private
partnership.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions
by
decreasing
VMT
(
promotes
Pedestrian
Transit
and
Mass
Transit
Use).

The
emission
reductions
are
not
currently
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
Ongoing
City
of
Fayetteville
allows
Zero
Lot
Line
Subdivision
Development
encouraging
infill
development.

Fort
Bragg
will
continue
to
redevelop
existing
urban
land
use.
The
majority
of
projects
are
built
on
the
currently
developed
sites
instead
of
new,
undisturbed
sites.
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Hope
Mills
Linden
Spring
Lake
Stedman
Wade
Fort
Bragg
AIR
QUALITY
STAKEHOLDERS
OF
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
SELECTED
OZONE
CONTROL
STRATEGIES
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
­
25
­

STRATEGY
STRATEGY
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
OF
NOX
REDUCTIONS
(
if
available)
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
ADOPTING
JURISDICTIONS
LAND
USE
Shared
Parking
Facilities
and
Connectivity
This
will
reduce
the
amount
of
impervious
surface,
which
contributes
to
the
heat
island
effect
and
reduces
the
amount
of
stop
and
go
traffic.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions
by
decreasing
VMT.

The
emission
reductions
are
not
currently
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
December
2005
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Hope
Mills
Linden
Spring
Lake
Stedman
Wade
Urban
Reforestation/

Green
Space
Public
Works
Commission
has
policies
to
maintain
tree
coverage
in
watershed
areas
and
seek
to
expand
land
acquisition
for
preservation
of
the
watershed.

NC
Forest
Services
is
seeking
grant
funding
to
plant
at
least
100
trees.
Cumberland
County
to
complete
a
public
green
space
inventory
of
the
entire
county.

Conservation
Subdivision
Option
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions
by
reducing
the
heat
island
affect.

The
emission
reductions
are
not
currently
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
Ongoing
Ongoing
March
2004
Under
Investigation
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Hope
Mills
Linden
Spring
Lake
Stedman
Wade
The
following
is
from
the
EPA
Air
and
Radiation
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
"
Improving
Air
Quality
Through
Land
Use
Activities",

EPA420­
R­
01­
001,
January
2001.

The
physical
characteristics
and
patterns
of
land
development
in
a
region
can
affect
air
quality
by
influencing
the
travel
mode
choices
citizens
have
available
to
them.
Development
patterns
that
locate
jobs,
housing
and
recreation
in
closer
proximity
to
each
other,
can
mean
shorter
and
fewer
car
and
truck
trips,
thus
reducing
vehicle
miles
traveled
(
VMT)
and
likely
reducing
motor
vehicle
emissions.
Other
development
patterns
have
the
potential
to
improve
or
mitigate
air
quality
problems
by
providing
and
promoting
alternatives
to
vehicular
travel,
such
as
mass
transit,
walking,
or
biking.
The
most
significant
urban
form
features
that
can
affect
travel
activity
are:

 
Density
=
infill
 
Land
Use
Mix
 
incorporating
different
land
uses
(
e.
g.
recreation,
housing,
employment,
shopping)
with
a
development,
a
neighborhood,
or
a
region.
­
26
­

 
Transit
Accessibility
 
locating
high­
density
commercial
and
residential
development
around
transit
stations,
also
known
as
"
transit
oriented
development,"
or
TOD.

 
Pedestrian­
Environment/
Urban
Design
Factors
 
features
that
improve
the
pedestrian
environment
such
as
sidewalks,
clearly
marked
crosswalks,
shade
trees,
benches,
and
landscaping;
also
refers
to
features
that
improve
the
bicycling
environment
such
as
bike
paths
and
dedicated
bike
lanes,
bike
parking
and
clear
signs.

 
Regional
Patterns
of
Development
 
patterns
of
dispersion,
centralization,
or
clustering
of
activities
within
a
metropolitan
area,
as
well
as
the
relationship
of
development
to
highway
and
transit
systems;
involves
the
interrelationships
between
employment
and
residential
development
and
the
transportation
connection
between
sets
of
origin
and
destination
points
The
air
quality
impacts
of
land
use
activities
on
transportation
depend
on
numerous
factors,
including
density
and
location
of
development,
amount
of
development,
mix
of
uses,
and
access
to
transportation
alternatives.
The
interaction
of
these
factors
is
complex,
and
due
to
the
variations
from
one
development
project
to
another,
each
development
needs
to
be
analyzed
individually.
Studies
have
been
conducted
in
Portland,
Oregon;
Sacramento
and
Los
Angeles,
California;
Baltimore,
Maryland;
and
Washington,
DC
that
support
VMT
reduction
associated
with
land
use
strategies
over
a
20
year
time
horizon.
AIR
QUALITY
STAKEHOLDERS
OF
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
SELECTED
OZONE
CONTROL
STRATEGIES
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
­
27
­

STRATEGY
STRATEGY
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
OF
NOX
REDUCTIONS
(
if
available)
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
ADOPTING
JURISDICTIONS
MOBILE
SOURCES
Alternative
Fuels
and
AF
Vehicles
Fort
Bragg
has
developed
a
plant
to
convert
its
fleet
to
Bio­

Diesel
20
and
Ethanol
E85.
This
project
includes
an
AF
fueling
station.

185
vehicles
will
be
converted
to
B20
(
100,000
gallons
of
diesel
fuel).

158
Flexible
Fuel
vehicles
to
use
approximately
55,000
gallons
of
E85
per
year.
CACPS
was
used
to
get
these
approximate
reductions:

VOC
=
326
lbs.
Per
year
This
strategy
shows
a
slight
increase
in
NOx
emissions
(
102
lbs./
yr),
however
it
also
shows
reductions
in
all
other
pollutants
and
PM,
which
could
be
a
potential
problem
for
this
area
NOx
=
2261
lbs.
Per
year
VOC
=
3261
lbs.
Per
year
December
2005
Fort
Bragg
Idling
Restrictions
Festival
Park
will
include
electrical
outlets
for
use
to
reduce
truck
idling
during
festivals.
It
is
expected
that
this
project
will
decrease
NOx
emissions.

Emission
reductions
will
be
quantified
upon
project
completion
and
based
upon
events
scheduled.
October
2005
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Linden
Stedman
Wade
Retrofitting
Diesel
School
Buses
Fort
Bragg
has
received
a
grant
to
fund
retrofitting
of
school
buses
serving
the
Fort
Bragg
Schools.
It
is
expected
that
this
project
will
decrease
NOx
emissions.
Summer
2004
Fort
Bragg
The
Fayetteville
MSA
reviewed
many
AF
and
AFV
possibilities,
but,
because
the
infrastructure
is
not
in
place
at
this
time
and
developing
it
would
be
cost
prohibitive
and
it
could
not
be
implemented
by
December
2005,
no
other
governments
agreed
to
participate.
Mobile
source
strategies
will
be
reviewed
and
evaluated
for
long
range
planning
in
this
area.
AIR
QUALITY
STAKEHOLDERS
OF
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
SELECTED
OZONE
CONTROL
STRATEGIES
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
­
28
­

STRATEGY
STRATEGY
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
OF
NOX
REDUCTIONS
(
if
available)
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
ADOPTING
JURISDICTIONS
TRANSPORTATION
Using
Intelligent
Transportation
Systems
(
ITS)
and
Dynamic
Message
Signs
(
DMS)
for
Congestion
Management
and
Ozone
Alerts
Project
U­
3635
Closed
Loop
Signal
System
will
provide
a
new
area­
wide
closed
loop
signal
system.

Dynamic
Message
Signs
will
be
installed
at
congested
intersections/
corridors.

Expansion
of
existing
continuous
flow
right
turn
lanes
in
the
urbanized
area.
It
is
expected
that
this
project
will
decrease
NOx
emissions
by
decreasing
traffic
congestion.

It
is
currently
difficult
to
quantify
this
effort,
however
other
examples
of
this
system
have
shown
anywhere
from
0­
20%

reductions
in
traffic
congestion
resulting
in
less
idling,
travel
time,
and,
as
a
result,
NOx
2004
is
expected
completion
year
for
Project
U­
3635.
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Hope
Mills
Enhance
Mass
Transit
System
Redesign
routes
to
be
more
convenient
to
riders.

Increase
frequency
of
transit
services
to
15
minutes.

Fort
Bragg
initiated
a
shuttle
service
providing
service
around
the
post
and
connecting
with
municipal
transit.
CACPS
was
used
to
get
an
approximate
reduction:

VOC
=
17,698
lbs
per
year
NOx
=
5,533
lbs
per
year
CACPS
was
used
to
get
an
approximate
reduction:

VOC
=
147
lbs
per
year
NOx
=
54
lbs
per
year
December
2005
­
FAST
Ongoing
 
Fort
Bragg
City
of
Fayetteville
Fort
Bragg
Formulate
Car
and
Van
Pooling
Increase
Rural
Transportation
Paratransit
Development
of
Database
to
connect
riders.
Vanpooling
and
carpooling
programs
are
being
advertised
by
transit
provider.

Rural
transportation
is
currently
being
expanded
to
connect
outlying
areas
of
the
county
and
smaller
municipalities.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions.

Quantification
will
be
provided
when
implemented.
December
2004
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Stedman
Wade
AIR
QUALITY
STAKEHOLDERS
OF
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
SELECTED
OZONE
CONTROL
STRATEGIES
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
­
29
­

STRATEGY
STRATEGY
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
OF
NOX
REDUCTIONS
(
if
available)
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
ADOPTING
JURISDICTIONS
TRANSPORTATION
Encourage
Park
and
Ride
for
Large
Events
FAST
and
Private
Transportation
providers
(
i.
e.
Festival
of
Flight)
are
providing
shuttle
at
nominal
cost
to
public.

For
Bragg
provides
internal
transportation
services
for
large
on­
post
events
at
no
cost
to
the
rider.
Emission
reductions
will
be
quantified
for
each
event
and
included
in
semi­
annual
updates.
Ongoing
City
of
Fayetteville
Fort
Bragg
AIR
QUALITY
STAKEHOLDERS
OF
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
SELECTED
OZONE
CONTROL
STRATEGIES
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
­
30
­

STRATEGY
STRATEGY
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
OF
NOX
REDUCTIONS
(
if
available)
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
ADOPTING
JURISDICTIONS
CONSERVATION
Use
renewable
energy
sources
when
available
(
i.
e.
solar
and
methane)
Cumberland
County
Landfill
harvests
methane
and
through
a
contract
with
Biomass
Energy,
sells
the
energy
to
Cargill
Inc.,
a
local
industry.
Cargill
Inc.
is
using
1000
cubic
feet/
minute
of
landfill
gas.
Biomass
Energy
estimates
that
this
usage
can
be
increased
to
1600
cubic
feet/
minute
over
the
next
4­
5
years.

Encourage
residents
and
businesses
to
support
NC
Green
Power,
a
nonprofit
program
working
to
encourage
development
of
renewable
energy
sources.
A
$
4.00
contribution
purchases
one
block
of
green
power
(
equivalent
to
100
kilowatt­
hours).
Estimated
NOx
reduction
=
5
tons
per
year.

AP42,
Table
2.4­
5
was
used
to
obtain
emission
reduction
estimates.
NOx
savings
were
approximated
using
the
flare
NOx
emission
rate
of
40
lb/
million
cubic
feet,
252
million
cubic
feet/
min
of
landfill
gas
usage
(
which
is
600
cubic
feet/
minute
multiplied
by
7000
operating
hours
per
year).

Update:
Working
with
NC
Green
Power
to
obtain
the
number
of
blocks
of
green
power
purchased
by
Cumberland
County
Residents.
Ongoing
Spring
2004
 
Promote
during
AQ
outreach,
include
link
on
County
website.
Cumberland
County
Countywide
Retrofitting
of
public
buildings.

Encourage
construction
of
energy
efficient
buildings.
Through
the
"
Guaranteed
Energy
Savings
Contract",
the
County
will
engage
a
company
to
evaluate
and
upgrade
buildings
equipment
and
material
to
increase
energy
efficiency.

PWC
is
a
member
of
the
"
Good
Cents"
Housing
Program.

Participating
builders
receive
heat
pump
rebates
and
free
listing
of
energy
efficient
homes
for
sale
in
the
local
newspaper
and
on
the
PWC
website.
Smaller
municipalities
are
also
promoting
the
"
Good
Cents"
Housing
Program.

Fort
Bragg
is
currently
implementing
energy
reduction
per
Executive
Order
13123
and
as
part
of
its
Sustainability
Plan
by
partnering
with
Honeywell
Corporation
to
retrofit
buildings
on
Fort
Bragg
(
replacing
inefficient
interior/

exterior
lighting,
installing
new
HVAC
systems
with
energy
controls
for
optimum
building
performance.
Fort
Bragg
also
constructs
new
homes
and
retrofits
older
homes
to
meet
"
ENERGY
STAR"
standards.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions
by
reducing
the
output
needed
from
fossil
fuel
plants
to
heat
and
cool
homes
and
public
building.

We
are
still
trying
to
quantify
emission
reductions,
but
feel
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
December
2004
 
"
Guaranteed
Energy
Savings
Contract"

Ongoing
 
Promotion
of
"
Good
Cents"

Housing
Program
Ongoing
 
Fort
Bragg
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Linden
Spring
Lake
Stedman
Wade
Fort
Bragg
AIR
QUALITY
STAKEHOLDERS
OF
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
SELECTED
OZONE
CONTROL
STRATEGIES
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
­
31
­

STRATEGY
STRATEGY
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
OF
NOX
REDUCTIONS
(
if
available)
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
ADOPTING
JURISDICTIONS
CONSERVATION
Encourage
Construction
and
Use
of
Energy
Efficient
Equipment.

Promote
Purchase
of
"
Green"/

less
polluting
products.
Fort
Bragg
is
implementing
energy
reduction
strategies
including
low
NOX
burners
in
new
major
emission
sources,
is
increasing
the
use
of
water­
based
paints
to
reduce
VOC
emissions
and
has
installed
a
paint
booth
which
uses
only
water­
based
paint,
and
is
researching
alternatives
to
replace
two
incinerators.
These
strategies
will
lower
NOx
and
VOC
emissions.
Research
efforts
will
include
emission
reductions.
Ongoing
 
specified
under
current
contract.

Summer
2004
 
initiate
research
on
alternatives
for
the
incinerators.
Fort
Bragg.

Landfill
gas­
to­
energy
projects
provide
environmental
value
by
capturing
methane
emissions
from
landfills
and
displacing
fossil
fuel.

Landfill
gas
is
an
attractive
renewable
energy
alternative
for
many
applications
because
of
its
24
X
7
availability
and
high
capacity
factor
(
between
95
and
98%).

Burning
landfill
gas
converts
methane
into
carbon
dioxide,
and
therefore
dramatically
reduces
the
impact
on
climate
change
by
reducing
greenhouse
gas
(
GHG)
emissions.
Landfill
gas
(
LFG)
procurement
is
both
an
opportunity
for
corporations
to
reduce
their
GHG
emissions
footprint
and
to
create
a
more
diversified
energy
portfolio.

The
World
Resources
Institute
published
a
report,
Corporate
Guide
to
Green
Power
Markets.
"
Opportunities
with
Landfill
Gas"
is
Installment
2
of
this
report.
The
Group
has
found
that
the
most
environmentally
and
economically
attractive
use
of
landfill
gas,
particularly
in
the
absence
of
policy
incentives
such
as
production
tax
credits,
is
a
medium­
Btu
"
direct
use"
application,
which
Cargill,
Inc.
is
currently
using.
AIR
QUALITY
STAKEHOLDERS
OF
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
SELECTED
OZONE
CONTROL
STRATEGIES
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
­
32
­

STRATEGY
STRATEGY
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
OF
NOX
REDUCTIONS
(
if
available)
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
ADOPTING
JURISDICTIONS
AWARENESS
Student
Outreach
through
Education
Systems
Ongoing
effort
using
the
"
GLOBE"
program,
a
worldwide
hands­
on,
primary
and
secondary
school­
based
educational
science
program.
This
is
a
cooperative
effort,
led
in
the
US
by
a
federal
interagency
program
supported
by
NASA
(
National
Aeronautics
&
Space
Administration),
NSF
(
National
Science
Foundation),
EPA
(
Environmental
Protection
Agency)
and
the
U.
S.
State
Department.
There
are
currently
9,000
teachers
in
our
area
who
are
trained
and
present
the
program
that
promotes
environmental
stewardship
and
research.

Staff,
Air
Quality
Stakeholders,
and
Technical
Committee
members
are
also
providing
classroom
presentations
upon
request.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions.

The
emission
reductions
are
not
currently
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
Ongoing
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Linden
Stedman
Wade
Public
Education/
Outreach
at
Community
Events
&
Churches
Ongoing
effort
through
the
Speakers
Bureau.
Staff
and
volunteers
participate
in
festivals,
fairs,
community
meetings,
etc
to
provide
information
on
air
quality
and
the
individual
measures
that
can
be
taken
to
improve
the
air
we
breathe.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions.

The
emission
reductions
are
not
currently
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
Ongoing
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Linden
Spring
Lake
Stedman
Wade
Speakers
Bureau
Participation
in
radio/
television
programs
to
reach
the
general
public
with
air
quality
information
and
tips,

advertise
meetings
and
involve
the
local
newspapers
and
churches
in
disseminating
information
to
increase
public
awareness
and
participation
in
implementing
voluntary
reduction
strategies.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions.

The
emission
reductions
are
not
currently
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
Ongoing
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Linden
Spring
Lake
Stedman
Wade
Air
Quality
Web
Page
Maintained
and
updated
by
FAMPO
(
Fayetteville
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization).
Provides
information
on
upcoming
meetings,
seasonal
air
quality
tips,
the
Early
Action
Compact
program
and
other
relevant
topics.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions.
This
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
Ongoing
Cumberland
County
for
all
participating
agencies
AIR
QUALITY
STAKEHOLDERS
OF
CUMBERLAND
COUNTY
SELECTED
OZONE
CONTROL
STRATEGIES
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
­
33
­

STRATEGY
STRATEGY
DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATE
OF
NOX
REDUCTIONS
(
if
available)
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
ADOPTING
JURISDICTIONS
AWARENESS
Promote
Bus
Ridership
for
Youth
Fayetteville
Area
System
of
Transit
(
FAST)
is
promoting
bus
tours
for
children
of
all
ages,
educating
them
on
how
to
use
the
transit
system
and
the
benefits
of
using
transit
(
including
air
quality
and
health
issues).

Various
organizations
have
tours
for
groups
(
i.
e.
Boys
and
Girls
Club)
that
include
giving
them
free
bus
passes.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions
by
increasing
future
mass
transit
use
and
decreasing
VMT.

The
emission
reductions
are
not
currently
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
Ongoing
City
of
Fayetteville
Air
Quality
Educational
System
at
the
local
libraries.
Air
Quality
handouts
and
flyers
available
at
all
branches.

Children's
summer
program.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions.

The
emission
reductions
are
not
likely
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
Ongoing
Summer
of
2004
Cumberland
County
for
all
participating
agencies
Air
Quality
poster/
essay
contest
for
schools.
Air
Quality
related
contest
to
raise
air
awareness.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions.

The
emission
reductions
are
not
likely
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.
Ongoing
(
public
schools)

Spring
2005
(
public
and
private
schools)
Cumberland
County
for
all
participating
agencies
Fort
Bragg
Discourage
Open
Burning
on
Ozone
Alert
Days
(
orange
or
above)
Representation
on
OBOT
(
NC
DAQ
Open
Burning
Outreach
Team).
Will
assist
NCDAQ
in
distributing
outreach
material
targeted
to
reduce
open
burning.
It
is
believed
that
this
strategy
will
lower
NOX
emissions.

The
emission
reductions
are
not
likely
quantifiable,
but
this
strategy
is
directionally
correct.

OBOT
will
provide
materials
for
public
outreach
efforts.
Ongoing
Cumberland
County
City
of
Fayetteville
Falcon
Godwin
Linden
Spring
Lake
Stedman
Wade
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
34
­
5.2
State
Control
Measures
5.2.1
Clean
Air
Bill
The
1999
Clean
Air
Bill
expanded
the
vehicle
emissions
inspection
and
maintenance
program
from
9
counties
to
48,
and
improved
the
testing
method.
Vehicles
are
being
tested
using
the
onboard
diagnostic
system,
which
indicates
NOx
emissions,
among
other
pollutants.
The
previously
used
tailpipe
test
did
not
measure
NOx.
The
inspection
and
maintenance
program
was
instituted
in
Cumberland
County
on
July
1,
2003
and
is
quantifiable
and
enforceable.
This
is
not
a
federally
mandated
program
therefore
we
take
credit
for
it
in
the
SIP
and
it
results
to
a
4%
of
mobile
NOx
reduction
in
Cumberland
County.

5.2.2
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule
North
Carolina's
NOx
SIP
Call
rule
will
reduce
summertime
NOx
emissions
from
power
plants
and
other
industries
by
68%
by
2006.
The
North
Carolina
Environmental
Management
Commission
adopted
rules
requiring
the
reductions
in
October
2000.

5.2.3
Clean
Smokestacks
Act
In
June
2002,
the
N.
C.
General
Assembly
enacted
the
Clean
Smokestacks
Act,
requiring
coalfired
power
plants
to
reduce
annual
NOx
emissions
by
78%
by
2009.
These
power
plants
must
also
reduce
annual
sulfur
dioxide
emissions
by
49%
by
2009
and
by
74%
in
2013.
The
Clean
Smokestacks
Act
could
potentially
reduce
NOx
emissions
beyond
the
requirements
of
the
NOx
SIP
Call
Rule.
One
of
the
first
state
laws
of
its
kind
in
the
nation,
this
legislation
provides
a
model
for
other
states
in
controlling
multiple
air
pollutants
from
old
coal­
fired
power
plants.

5.2.4
Open
Burning
Bans
In
June
2004,
the
Environmental
Management
Commission
should
approve
a
new
rule
that
would
ban
open
burning
during
the
ozone
season
on
code
orange
and
code
red
ozone
action
days
for
those
counties
that
NCDAQ
forecasts
ozone.
NCDAQ
will
determine
what
rule
penetration
and
rule
effectiveness
would
be
most
appropriate
to
use
for
this
rule.

5.3
Federal
Control
Measures
5.3.1
Tier
2
Vehicle
Standards
Federal
Tier
2
vehicle
standards
will
require
all
passenger
vehicles
in
a
manufacturer's
fleet,
including
light­
duty
trucks
and
Sports
Utility
Vehicles
(
SUVs),
to
meet
an
average
standard
of
0.07
grams
of
NOx
per
mile.
Implementation
will
begin
in
2004,
and
most
vehicles
will
be
phased
in
by
2007.
Tier
2
standards
will
also
cover
passenger
vehicles
over
8,500
pounds
gross
vehicle
weight
rating
(
the
larger
pickup
trucks
and
SUVs),
which
are
not
covered
by
current
Tier
1
regulations.
For
these
vehicles,
the
standards
will
be
phased
in
beginning
in
2008,
with
full
compliance
in
2009.
The
new
standards
require
vehicles
to
be
77%
to
95%
cleaner
than
those
on
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
35
­
the
road
today.
Tier
2
rules
will
also
reduce
the
sulfur
content
of
gasoline
to
30
ppm
by
2006.
Most
gasoline
currently
sold
in
North
Carolina
has
a
sulfur
content
of
about
300
ppm.
Sulfur
occurs
naturally
in
gasoline
but
interferes
with
the
operation
of
catalytic
converters
in
vehicle
engines
resulting
in
higher
NOx
emissions.
Lower­
sulfur
gasoline
is
necessary
to
achieve
Tier
2
vehicle
emission
standards.

5.3.2
Heavy­
Duty
Gasoline
and
Diesel
Highway
Vehicles
Standards
New
EPA
standards
designed
to
reduce
NOx
and
VOC
emissions
from
heavy­
duty
gasoline
and
diesel
highway
vehicles
will
begin
to
take
effect
in
2004.
A
second
phase
of
standards
and
testing
procedures,
beginning
in
2007,
will
reduce
particulate
matter
from
heavy­
duty
highway
engines,
and
will
also
reduce
highway
diesel
fuel
sulfur
content
to
15
ppm
since
the
sulfur
damages
emission
control
devices.
The
total
program
is
expected
to
achieve
a
90%
reduction
in
PM
emissions
and
a
95%
reduction
in
NOx
emissions
for
these
new
engines
using
low
sulfur
diesel,
compared
to
existing
engines
using
higher­
content
sulfur
diesel.

5.3.3
Large
Nonroad
Diesel
Engines
Proposed
Rule
The
EPA
has
proposed
new
rules
for
large
nonroad
diesel
engines,
such
as
those
used
in
construction,
agricultural,
and
industrial
equipment,
to
be
phased
in
between
2008
and
2014.
The
proposed
rules
would
also
reduce
the
allowable
sulfur
in
nonroad
diesel
fuel
by
over
99%.
Nonroad
diesel
fuel
currently
averages
about
3,400
ppm
sulfur.
The
proposed
rules
limit
nonroad
diesel
sulfur
content
to
500
ppm
in
2007
and
15
ppm
in
2010.
The
combined
engine
and
fuel
rules
would
reduce
NOx
and
particulate
matter
emissions
from
large
nonroad
diesel
engines
by
over
90
%,
compared
to
current
nonroad
engines
using
higher­
content
sulfur
diesel.

5.3.4
Nonroad
Spark­
Ignition
Engines
and
Recreational
Engines
Standard
The
new
standard,
effective
in
July
2003,
will
regulate
NOx,
HC
and
CO
for
groups
of
previously
unregulated
nonroad
engines.
The
new
standard
will
apply
to
all
new
engines
sold
in
the
US
and
imported
after
these
standards
begin
and
large
spark­
ignition
engines
(
forklifts
and
airport
ground
service
equipment),
recreational
vehicles
(
off­
highway
motorcycles
and
allterrain
vehicles),
and
recreational
marine
diesel
engines.
The
regulation
varies
based
upon
the
type
of
engine
or
vehicle.

The
large
spark­
ignition
engines
contribute
to
ozone
formation
and
ambient
CO
and
PM
levels
in
urban
areas.
Tier
1
of
this
standard
is
scheduled
for
implementation
in
2004
and
Tier
2
is
scheduled
to
start
in
2007.
Like
the
large
spark­
ignition,
recreational
vehicles
contribute
to
ozone
formation
and
ambient
CO
and
PM
levels.
They
can
also
be
a
factor
in
regional
haze
and
other
visibility
problems
in
both
state
and
national
parks.
For
the
off­
highway
motorcycles
and
all­
terrain­
vehicles,
model
year
2006,
the
new
exhaust
emissions
standard
will
be
phased­
in
by
50%
and
for
model
years
2007
and
later
a
100%.
Recreational
marine
diesel
engines
over
37
kW
are
used
in
yachts,
cruisers,
and
other
types
of
pleasure
craft.
Recreational
marine
engines
contribute
to
ozone
formation
and
PM
levels,
especially
in
marinas.
Depending
on
the
size
of
the
engine,
the
standard
for
will
begin
phase­
in
in
2006.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
36
­
When
all
of
the
standards
are
fully
implemented,
an
overall
72%
reduction
in
HC,
80%
reduction
in
NOx,
and
56%
reduction
in
CO
emissions
are
expected
by
2020.
These
controls
will
help
reduce
ambient
concentrations
of
ozone,
CO,
and
fine
PM.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
37
­
6.
ATTAINMENT
DEMONSTRATION
6.1
Status
of
Current
Modeling
Modeling
completed
to
date
include:
the
base
case
model
evaluation/
validation
runs,
the
current
year
modeling
runs
and
the
preliminary
2007
future
year
modeling
runs.
The
results
of
these
modeling
runs
can
be
viewed
at
the
NCDAQ
modeling
website:

http://
www.
cep.
unc.
edu/
empd/
projects2/
NCDAQ/
PGM/
results/

NCDAQ
will
complete
the
final
2007
future
year
modeling
run
with
the
updates
described
in
the
emissions
inventory
section.
Additionally,
the
continued
maintenance
demonstration
modeling
runs
for
2012
and
2017
will
be
completed
in
the
following
months.
The
results
of
these
modeling
runs
will
be
part
of
the
State's
submittal
in
December
2004.

Some
errors
were
found
in
the
base
year
modeling
inventories
outside
of
North
Carolina.
The
magnitude
of
the
errors
will
be
evaluated
and,
if
warranted,
the
base
year
model
evaluation/
validation
runs
may
be
re­
run.

6.2
Preliminary
Modeling
Results
The
base
case
model
runs
for
all
three
episodes
met
the
validation
criteria
set
by
the
EPA.
The
model
evaluation
statistics
can
be
viewed
at
the
NCDAQ
modeling
website
cited
above.
Figures
6.2­
1
and
6.2­
2
display
the
modeling
results
for
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
2000
current
year
and
the
2007
future
year,
respectively,
for
the
1996
modeling
episode.
One
can
see
a
significant
decrease
in
the
8­
hour
ozone
episode
maximum
between
the
current
year
and
the
future
year.
This
is
better
visualized
with
Figure
6.2­
3,
the
difference
plot
between
the
2007
future
year
and
the
2000
current
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1996
episode
(
i.
e.,
2007
modeling
result
minus
2000
modeling
results).
In
this
figure
cool
colors,
the
blues
and
greens,
represents
decreases
in
the
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum.
These
decreases
were
the
results
of
the
all
of
the
State
and
Federal
control
measures
listed
in
Section
5
that
are
expected
to
be
in
place
by
2007.

The
1997
episode
shows
similar
results.
Figures
6.2­
4
through
6.2­
5
are
the
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
2000
current
year
and
the
2007
future
year,
respectively,
for
the
1997
episode
and
Figure
6.2­
6
is
the
difference
plot
between
the
2007
future
year
and
the
2000
current
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1997
episode.

Although
the
modeling
demonstrating
continued
maintenance
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
into
2012
and
2017
has
not
been
completed
to
date,
modeling
has
been
completed
for
future
year
2010
for
a
project
outside
of
the
EAC
modeling.
These
results
can
be
used
to
show
continued
decrease
in
expected
ozone
formation
beyond
the
2007
attainment
year.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
38
­
Modeling
results
for
the
1996
and
1997
episodes
using
the
2010
future
year
inventory
does
continue
to
show
attainment
and
further
reduction
in
ozone
levels
compared
to
the
2007
modeling.
Figure
6.2­
7
and
6.2­
8
display
the
modeling
results
for
the
1996
episode
using
the
2010
emissions
inventory,
showing
the
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
and
the
difference
plot
between
2010
future
year
and
the
2000
current
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum,
respectively.
In
the
2010
difference
plots,
cool
colors
of
blue
and
green
represent
decreases
in
the
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum.
Figures
6.2­
9
and
6.2­
10
display
the
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
and
difference
plot,
respectively,
for
the
1997
episode
as
modeled
for
future
year
2010
(
compared
to
current
year
2000).
These
results
are
consistent
with
the
1996
episode
results.

Figure
6.2­
1
2000
current
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1996
episode.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
39
­
Figure
6.2­
2
2007
future
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1996
episode.

Figure
6.2­
3
Difference
plot
between
the
2007
future
year
and
the
2000
current
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1996
episode.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
40
­
Figure
6.2­
4
2000
current
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1997
episode.

Figure
6.2­
5
2007
future
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1997
episode.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
41
­
Figure
6.2­
6
Difference
plot
between
the
2007
future
year
and
the
2000
current
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1997
episode.

Figure
6.2­
7
2010
future
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1996
episode.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
42
­
Figure
6.2­
8
Difference
plot
between
the
2010
future
year
and
the
2000
current
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1996
episode.

Figure
6.2­
9
2010
future
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1997
episode
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
43
­
Figure
6.2­
10
Difference
plot
between
the
2010
future
year
and
the
2000
current
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1997
episode
6.3
Geographic
Area
Needing
Further
Controls
The
current
draft
version
of
EPA's
attainment
test
was
applied
to
the
modeling
results.
In
very
basic
and
general
language
the
attainment
guidance
states
if
the
future
year
design
value
for
a
given
monitor
is
below
0.085
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
then
the
monitor
passes
the
attainment
test.
The
future
year
design
value
of
a
monitor
is
calculated
by
multiplying
the
current
year
design
value
of
a
monitor
by
a
relative
reduction
factor
(
Equation
6.3­
1).

Equation
6.3­
1
DVF
=
DVC
x
RRF
Where
DVF
is
the
Future
year
Design
Value,
DVC
is
the
Current
year
Design
Value,
and
RRF
is
the
relative
reduction
factor.
The
Current
year
Design
Value
(
DVC)
in
the
attainment
test
framework
is
defined
as
the
higher
of:
(
a)
the
average
4th
highest
value
for
the
3­
yr
period
used
to
designate
an
area
"
nonattainment",
and
(
b)
the
average
4th
highest
value
for
the
3­
yr
period
straddling
the
year
represented
by
the
most
recent
available
emissions
inventory.
In
this
exercise,
the
DVC
used
to
designate
an
area
nonattainment
will
be
2001­
2003
and
the
DVC
straddling
the
year
represented
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
44
­
by
the
most
recent
available
emissions
inventory
is
1999­
2001.
The
higher
of
those
two
values
is
shown
in
Table
6.3­
1
as
the
DVC.
The
relative
reduction
factor
(
RRF)
is
calculated
by
taking
the
ratio
of
the
future
year
modeling
8­
hour
ozone
daily
maximum
to
the
current
year
modeling
8­
hour
ozone
daily
maximum
"
near"
the
monitor
averaged
over
all
of
the
episode
days
(
Equations
6.3­
2).

RRF
=
mean
future
yr.
8­
hr
daily
max
"
near"
monitor
"
x"
Equation
6.3­
2
mean
current
yr.
8­
hr
daily
max
"
near"
monitor
"
x"

The
results
of
applying
the
attainment
test
showed
both
monitors
in
the
Cumberland
County
EAC
area
in
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
in
2007.
These
results
are
displayed
in
Table
6.3­
1
below.

Table
6.3­
1
2007
Attainment
Test
Results
for
Cumberland
County
EAC
Area
Monitor
DVC
(
ppm)
RRF
DVF
(
ppm)
Wade
0.088
0.91
0.080
Golfview
(
Hope
Mills)
0.087
0.90
0.078
Table
6.3­
2
shows
the
results
of
applying
the
attainment
test
for
the
EAC
monitors
in
2010.
These
preliminary
results
indicate
that
the
expected
State
and
Federal
control
measures
already
in
place
by
2010
results
in
all
monitors
in
the
Fayetteville
EAC
area
continuing
to
attain
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
In
fact,
all
of
the
expected
future
year
design
values
dropped
between
the
2007
and
2010
modeling
runs,
indicating
that
continued
maintenance
of
the
standard
in
2012
would
be
expected.

Table
6.3­
2
2010
Attainment
Test
Results
for
Cumberland
County
EAC
Area
Monitor
DVC
(
ppm)
RRF
DVF
(
ppm)
Wade
0.088
0.85
0.074
Golfview
(
Hope
Mills)
0.087
0.85
0.073
6.4
Anticipated
Resource
Constraints
The
resource
constraint
of
most
concern
is
the
funding
needed
to
implement
some
of
the
local
control
measures.
NCDAQ
and
the
local
EAC
areas
are
both
looking
for
grant
opportunities
to
help
fund
EAC
initiatives.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
45
­
References:

1.
U.
S.
EPA.
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
airs/
criteria.
html.

2.
McConnell
et
al.
2002.
Asthma
in
exercising
children
exposed
to
ozone:
a
cohort
study.
Lancet
359:
386­
391.

3.
U.
S.
EPA.
"
Smog
 
Who
Does
It
Hurt?
What
You
Need
to
Know
about
Ozone
and
Your
Health"
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
airnow/
health/
index.
html.
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
46
­
APPENDIX
A
Stationary
Point
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
0.68
0.66
1.60
0.07
0.76
1.03
Alexander
0.03
0.04
1.38
0.02
0.00
1.66
Alleghany
0.00
0.01
0.03
Anson
0.13
0.46
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ashe
0.23
0.16
0.34
0.03
0.01
1.23
Avery
0.00
0.01
0.00
Beaufort
0.04
0.20
0.30
1.48
2.48
0.34
Bertie
0.69
0.36
0.57
0.18
0.27
1.04
Bladen
0.40
1.19
0.49
0.23
2.33
0.58
Brunswick
14.55
6.64
3.87
4.78
9.81
2.79
Buncombe
1.25
53.32
3.60
13.78
13.79
3.10
Burke
2.55
0.84
5.18
7.87
0.61
13.73
Cabarrus
0.82
3.03
4.06
0.18
2.10
3.60
Caldwell
1.35
1.19
21.88
0.51
0.16
28.09
Camden
0.00
0.00
0.00
Carteret
0.15
0.22
0.30
0.01
0.11
0.00
Caswell
Catawba
4.16
96.23
18.81
13.14
51.84
20.46
Chatham
4.51
21.19
2.21
7.90
4.72
2.16
Cherokee
0.02
0.02
0.22
Chowan
0.03
0.21
0.37
0.03
0.15
0.01
Clay
Cleveland
0.82
1.70
1.04
0.80
4.46
1.62
Columbus
20.82
15.41
6.93
15.75
9.05
2.53
Craven
4.94
4.21
3.73
4.54
4.94
1.85
Cumberland
1.22
3.16
4.08
0.51
3.76
6.86
Currituck
0.08
0.01
0.00
Dare
0.05
0.19
0.01
0.01
0.34
0.00
Davidson
3.31
12.16
15.05
3.02
6.34
20.47
Davie
0.17
0.20
1.98
0.09
0.04
3.79
Duplin
0.24
1.10
0.14
1.11
2.41
0.02
Durham
1.00
1.58
1.19
0.30
1.03
5.73
Edgecombe
0.49
5.95
0.90
0.43
7.29
0.02
Forsyth
2.09
6.15
9.76
1.96
6.78
19.96
Franklin
0.28
0.21
1.71
0.01
0.13
0.12
Gaston
3.67
86.48
5.40
21.44
38.21
7.51
Gates
0.08
0.03
0.10
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
47
­
Stationary
Point
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Graham
0.09
0.08
1.29
0.02
0.02
1.38
Granville
0.34
0.36
1.79
0.37
0.13
1.92
Greene
0.00
0.07
0.00
Guilford
1.59
1.83
18.13
0.17
0.88
39.44
Halifax
6.22
10.72
1.71
17.11
12.80
0.41
Harnett
0.20
0.33
1.12
0.23
0.63
0.62
Haywood
7.85
12.48
5.00
9.26
16.05
2.44
Henderson
0.25
0.31
3.79
0.03
0.43
4.53
Hertford
1.33
0.47
1.13
0.02
0.17
0.24
Hoke
0.08
0.25
0.40
34.24
1.00
10.35
Hyde
0.00
0.04
0.00
Iredell
3.58
9.98
20.42
3.63
11.15
4.37
Jackson
0.60
0.52
0.38
0.00
0.05
0.00
Johnston
0.80
0.46
1.80
0.02
0.15
2.46
Jones
Lee
1.37
0.42
1.27
1.14
0.28
0.75
Lenoir
0.63
2.27
1.30
0.14
3.10
0.23
Lincoln
0.76
5.82
2.73
8.90
14.26
2.18
McDowell
2.12
1.04
3.87
0.78
0.71
1.33
Macon
0.11
0.08
0.05
Madison
0.02
0.07
0.00
Martin
10.72
10.38
3.24
31.74
9.97
3.18
Mecklenburg
5.49
2.30
11.99
3.32
3.73
23.26
Mitchell
0.41
0.50
2.49
0.13
0.02
2.09
Montgomery
0.24
0.32
1.99
0.05
0.01
0.02
Moore
0.17
0.14
2.29
0.02
0.00
1.74
Nash
9.02
0.97
2.67
0.50
1.06
0.56
NewHanover
35.65
31.96
6.52
46.31
49.30
6.49
Northampton
1.10
0.30
0.86
0.14
0.30
0.10
Onslow
0.34
1.77
0.16
0.09
1.22
0.02
Orange
2.86
1.80
0.37
3.37
0.78
0.01
Pamlico
Pasquotank
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.03
Pender
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.01
Perquimans
Person
5.79
205.34
1.36
13.83
32.70
1.22
Pitt
1.06
0.88
1.95
0.37
0.75
1.11
Polk
0.02
0.03
0.00
Randolph
0.53
0.38
4.01
0.02
0.07
2.33
Richmond
0.33
0.26
0.17
323.38
11.45
10.71
Robeson
0.92
17.43
1.12
1.64
13.56
2.28
Rockingham
5.60
34.09
16.65
17.02
16.47
8.01
Rowan
2.28
37.52
8.27
15.19
19.17
11.65
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
48
­
Stationary
Point
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Rutherford
3.24
49.60
2.56
4.66
13.67
3.45
Sampson
0.24
0.23
0.22
Scotland
0.38
6.14
3.60
0.57
8.50
7.33
Stanly
26.81
1.15
1.79
17.59
1.36
1.94
Stokes
8.15
324.10
1.01
5.16
22.79
0.62
Surry
3.28
1.09
6.10
6.10
1.06
4.12
Swain
0.00
0.00
0.12
Transylvania
0.21
5.00
2.83
0.25
7.01
2.55
Tyrrell
Union
0.81
0.68
1.81
0.03
0.17
2.54
Vance
0.34
1.52
1.16
0.04
1.45
0.00
Wake
1.59
1.49
4.24
0.27
0.94
10.08
Warren
0.18
0.08
0.07
Washington
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
Watauga
0.17
0.18
0.13
0.02
0.05
0.00
Wayne
5.08
19.84
3.38
24.50
27.43
1.85
Wilkes
1.88
0.97
5.69
3.68
0.83
6.11
Wilson
0.51
1.48
3.74
0.22
2.51
1.99
Yadkin
0.01
0.03
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.03
Yancey
Stationary
Area
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
6.21
0.47
5.78
6.65
0.50
6.17
Alexander
3.26
0.20
2.96
3.42
0.21
2.93
Alleghany
1.00
0.08
0.79
1.03
0.08
0.81
Anson
3.83
0.16
1.40
4.14
0.17
1.47
Ashe
2.29
0.17
1.42
2.36
0.17
1.50
Avery
1.61
0.12
0.85
1.66
0.13
0.90
Beaufort
22.68
0.30
5.75
25.28
0.31
5.93
Bertie
6.46
0.16
3.25
7.09
0.17
3.20
Bladen
5.37
0.25
3.08
5.79
0.25
3.13
Brunswick
5.25
0.39
3.12
5.47
0.40
3.26
Buncombe
5.74
0.55
8.11
5.91
0.58
8.66
Burke
4.02
0.32
3.48
4.15
0.33
3.64
Cabarrus
5.81
0.38
5.88
6.26
0.41
6.52
Caldwell
3.19
0.25
3.91
3.32
0.25
4.05
Camden
7.54
0.05
1.35
8.43
0.05
1.40
Carteret
5.22
0.20
2.96
5.67
0.20
3.10
Caswell
3.96
0.18
1.69
4.24
0.19
1.71
Catawba
7.04
0.43
11.22
7.48
0.44
11.37
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
49
­
Stationary
Area
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Chatham
4.82
0.34
2.46
5.18
0.36
2.58
Cherokee
2.29
0.19
1.15
2.35
0.20
1.19
Chowan
2.70
0.09
1.61
2.96
0.09
1.65
Clay
0.83
0.08
0.46
0.85
0.08
0.51
Cleveland
8.89
0.43
4.45
9.53
0.45
4.70
Columbus
10.62
0.41
5.37
11.52
0.42
5.36
Craven
6.34
0.28
4.92
6.87
0.29
5.06
Cumberland
6.32
0.51
11.54
6.76
0.54
12.12
Currituck
8.37
0.14
1.61
9.27
0.14
1.71
Dare
0.86
0.08
1.21
0.89
0.08
1.30
Davidson
9.36
0.65
7.74
9.81
0.67
7.96
Davie
4.37
0.19
1.76
4.69
0.20
1.87
Duplin
17.79
0.37
5.91
19.65
0.38
5.95
Durham
2.25
0.35
7.67
2.42
0.39
8.18
Edgecombe
4.60
0.25
5.60
4.96
0.26
5.50
Forsyth
3.94
0.40
11.46
4.18
0.44
12.21
Franklin
7.51
0.36
3.18
8.19
0.37
3.25
Gaston
5.05
0.52
6.85
5.35
0.56
7.35
Gates
1.82
0.08
1.14
1.95
0.09
1.12
Graham
0.75
0.06
0.35
0.77
0.06
0.37
Granville
7.05
0.27
3.27
7.65
0.28
3.34
Greene
5.83
0.15
2.95
6.40
0.16
2.88
Guilford
10.99
0.95
19.33
11.77
1.04
20.36
Halifax
9.79
0.30
5.16
10.73
0.31
5.19
Harnett
8.91
0.51
5.74
9.49
0.52
5.80
Haywood
2.44
0.21
2.08
2.51
0.21
2.18
Henderson
4.02
0.37
3.51
4.14
0.38
3.72
Hertford
5.54
0.13
2.34
6.11
0.13
2.38
Hoke
3.54
0.16
1.85
3.82
0.16
1.88
Hyde
4.91
0.05
1.45
5.48
0.05
1.45
Iredell
9.47
0.51
6.14
10.19
0.54
6.46
Jackson
2.45
0.21
1.23
2.52
0.21
1.30
Johnston
12.71
0.73
9.46
13.78
0.76
9.42
Jones
4.70
0.08
1.81
5.20
0.09
1.78
Lee
4.54
0.21
2.57
4.90
0.22
2.68
Lenoir
8.28
0.26
5.44
9.09
0.27
5.45
Lincoln
6.50
0.30
2.82
7.01
0.31
3.04
McDowell
2.28
0.20
1.30
2.35
0.21
1.37
Macon
1.85
0.14
0.98
1.90
0.14
1.02
Madison
1.87
0.18
1.41
1.93
0.18
1.42
Martin
5.52
0.23
3.59
5.93
0.24
3.54
Mecklenburg
4.61
0.99
25.87
4.97
1.12
28.14
Mitchell
1.47
0.11
0.91
1.52
0.11
0.93
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
50
­
Stationary
Area
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Montgomery
2.44
0.18
1.81
2.53
0.19
1.83
Moore
4.97
0.35
3.49
5.20
0.37
3.66
Nash
9.24
0.42
7.76
10.02
0.44
7.75
NewHanover
0.77
0.12
6.04
0.79
0.13
6.51
Northampton
5.09
0.16
2.65
5.55
0.17
2.60
Onslow
6.21
0.34
5.99
6.59
0.35
6.29
Orange
5.03
0.40
4.54
5.42
0.43
4.79
Pamlico
6.27
0.10
1.38
6.95
0.11
1.44
Pasquotank
12.97
0.14
3.18
14.47
0.14
3.37
Pender
5.90
0.28
2.47
6.30
0.29
2.61
Perquimans
6.91
0.09
1.76
7.68
0.09
1.79
Person
6.29
0.23
2.42
6.85
0.24
2.49
Pitt
9.95
0.46
9.13
10.78
0.47
9.36
Polk
1.57
0.13
0.70
1.61
0.13
0.74
Randolph
10.44
0.66
9.38
11.07
0.68
9.47
Richmond
2.58
0.20
2.01
2.71
0.21
2.11
Robeson
28.32
0.70
9.95
31.17
0.72
10.19
Rockingham
8.86
0.46
4.47
9.48
0.48
4.64
Rowan
9.50
0.46
5.66
10.28
0.49
6.08
Rutherford
4.44
0.31
2.68
4.64
0.33
2.96
Sampson
17.24
0.43
7.57
18.96
0.44
7.53
Scotland
7.55
0.17
2.36
8.33
0.17
2.47
Stanly
8.31
0.32
3.28
9.01
0.33
3.42
Stokes
4.56
0.26
2.42
4.82
0.27
2.45
Surry
6.15
0.37
4.01
6.47
0.38
4.16
Swain
1.22
0.10
0.50
1.26
0.10
0.52
Transylvania
1.75
0.16
1.08
1.80
0.17
1.14
Tyrrell
10.04
0.03
1.72
11.27
0.04
1.79
Union
23.79
0.55
7.20
26.31
0.58
7.68
Vance
4.19
0.19
2.43
4.52
0.19
2.51
Wake
10.49
1.24
24.71
11.31
1.35
26.08
Warren
4.18
0.16
1.44
4.52
0.16
1.47
Washington
12.80
0.08
2.51
14.34
0.09
2.60
Watauga
2.41
0.20
1.82
2.48
0.20
1.91
Wayne
16.32
0.48
7.91
17.91
0.49
8.07
Wilkes
4.79
0.37
3.35
4.95
0.38
3.49
Wilson
5.47
0.29
6.51
5.92
0.30
6.46
Yadkin
6.30
0.23
2.77
6.82
0.23
2.85
Yancey
1.67
0.12
0.90
1.72
0.13
0.92
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
51
­
Nonroad
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
29.54
2.98
2.37
33.64
2.91
2.04
Alexander
4.00
0.51
0.37
4.36
0.53
0.33
Alleghany
2.49
0.36
0.18
2.78
0.33
0.14
Anson
4.19
1.13
0.50
4.55
0.95
0.39
Ashe
3.91
0.44
0.41
4.54
0.43
0.44
Avery
5.37
0.52
0.59
6.39
0.47
0.65
Beaufort
13.85
2.81
2.74
15.07
2.51
2.30
Bertie
6.43
1.66
1.12
6.78
1.48
0.88
Bladen
8.96
1.81
1.44
10.50
1.59
1.66
Brunswick
27.00
2.10
4.70
30.90
1.88
4.16
Buncombe
48.93
4.51
4.43
57.45
4.28
4.27
Burke
14.79
2.10
1.51
16.50
2.05
1.51
Cabarrus
44.68
4.19
3.28
51.35
3.78
2.38
Caldwell
16.55
2.38
1.77
18.65
2.34
1.89
Camden
2.84
0.41
0.99
2.90
0.39
0.80
Carteret
49.17
1.82
14.18
54.95
1.90
12.43
Caswell
2.26
1.07
0.23
2.51
0.85
0.17
Catawba
47.03
5.15
4.20
53.29
5.17
3.95
Chatham
12.91
1.83
1.40
14.40
1.68
1.09
Cherokee
3.99
0.40
0.56
4.58
0.40
0.57
Chowan
4.05
0.47
1.14
4.45
0.46
1.03
Clay
2.19
0.15
0.43
2.72
0.14
0.54
Cleveland
21.51
2.13
1.75
24.58
2.08
1.52
Columbus
9.85
2.12
1.11
11.13
1.89
1.00
Craven
24.08
2.20
2.66
27.45
1.94
1.98
Cumberland
59.31
6.51
4.85
68.38
5.86
3.84
Currituck
15.63
0.77
4.69
17.55
0.77
4.24
Dare
46.18
1.33
18.14
49.76
1.54
15.68
Davidson
30.96
4.24
2.64
35.03
3.90
2.24
Davie
6.77
0.61
0.88
8.20
0.61
1.12
Duplin
10.19
2.36
0.97
11.18
2.13
0.73
Durham
70.50
9.63
6.04
79.17
9.06
5.09
Edgecombe
11.11
2.57
0.97
12.27
2.28
0.78
Forsyth
91.57
6.94
6.70
105.60
6.76
5.27
Franklin
8.37
1.05
0.78
9.71
0.93
0.70
Gaston
54.10
4.77
3.98
61.82
4.70
3.33
Gates
1.58
0.50
0.21
1.69
0.45
0.16
Graham
1.40
0.13
0.25
1.55
0.12
0.20
Granville
13.73
1.39
1.23
15.64
1.32
1.03
Greene
2.31
0.70
0.21
2.52
0.64
0.16
Guilford
194.02
14.69
14.06
226.39
13.97
10.89
Halifax
8.68
2.13
0.92
9.77
1.86
0.83
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
52
­
Nonroad
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Harnett
22.07
1.84
1.65
25.33
1.72
1.21
Haywood
11.35
1.08
1.15
13.38
1.00
1.19
Henderson
31.53
2.07
3.82
38.22
1.95
4.41
Hertford
4.08
0.54
0.48
4.74
0.50
0.48
Hoke
3.35
0.64
0.28
3.61
0.62
0.24
Hyde
25.38
1.93
11.68
25.59
1.94
9.56
Iredell
21.67
2.88
2.10
24.69
2.78
1.97
Jackson
6.55
0.51
0.75
7.75
0.46
0.76
Johnston
35.04
3.41
2.84
40.55
3.09
2.26
Jones
1.83
0.46
0.15
2.05
0.41
0.12
Lee
16.81
2.46
1.35
18.80
2.29
1.07
Lenoir
16.43
2.14
1.31
18.63
2.00
1.01
Lincoln
14.00
1.49
1.27
16.03
1.38
1.10
McDowell
7.93
1.84
1.14
9.18
1.61
1.36
Macon
10.89
0.53
0.97
12.89
0.50
0.91
Madison
1.73
0.56
0.17
1.96
0.45
0.13
Martin
4.71
1.32
0.51
5.37
1.16
0.51
Mecklenburg
351.64
23.31
24.93
298.78
21.99
18.42
Mitchell
3.61
1.02
0.51
4.27
0.85
0.61
Montgomery
4.89
0.71
0.58
5.34
0.66
0.48
Moore
27.52
1.89
1.95
31.86
1.73
1.41
Nash
21.77
2.69
1.71
24.83
2.47
1.32
NewHanover
58.02
4.59
5.80
67.25
4.20
4.55
Northampton
4.56
0.97
0.71
5.20
0.86
0.65
Onslow
26.34
3.52
3.92
29.60
3.21
3.31
Orange
31.55
3.66
3.18
37.13
3.19
3.09
Pamlico
9.11
0.88
3.58
9.63
0.85
3.09
Pasquotank
9.56
0.93
1.42
10.86
0.88
1.12
Pender
13.17
1.02
1.77
15.00
0.95
1.44
Perquimans
3.95
0.65
1.27
4.10
0.60
1.02
Person
8.34
0.85
0.80
9.41
0.82
0.64
Pitt
25.16
4.26
1.98
28.79
3.78
1.53
Polk
2.69
0.46
0.22
3.03
0.39
0.17
Randolph
27.23
2.82
2.20
30.77
2.85
1.94
Richmond
14.38
4.66
1.43
15.38
4.02
1.05
Robeson
19.63
5.97
1.91
21.45
5.21
1.62
Rockingham
15.35
2.44
1.55
17.39
2.26
1.63
Rowan
28.37
5.47
2.59
31.85
4.75
2.11
Rutherford
13.10
2.19
1.27
14.86
2.00
1.27
Sampson
10.67
2.15
0.92
11.89
1.96
0.70
Scotland
8.59
1.82
0.75
9.46
1.64
0.63
Stanly
16.77
2.09
1.54
19.02
1.96
1.29
Stokes
8.18
0.68
0.72
9.54
0.61
0.64
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
53
­
Nonroad
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Surry
30.76
1.96
2.43
35.44
1.98
2.05
Swain
4.84
0.35
1.35
6.47
0.32
1.88
Transylvania
15.89
0.68
2.79
20.28
0.67
3.77
Tyrrell
6.72
0.61
2.94
6.76
0.61
2.38
Union
47.65
3.89
3.56
55.34
3.56
2.71
Vance
6.24
1.24
0.75
6.84
1.14
0.62
Wake
242.05
18.83
17.61
281.90
17.33
12.59
Warren
3.51
0.70
0.58
3.85
0.56
0.43
Washington
5.43
1.03
1.44
5.68
0.95
1.16
Watauga
9.79
0.50
1.19
12.02
0.48
1.41
Wayne
26.05
3.51
2.10
29.98
3.27
1.71
Wilkes
16.62
1.37
1.38
19.09
1.32
1.17
Wilson
23.57
2.99
1.95
27.15
2.67
1.56
Yadkin
6.59
0.89
0.52
7.45
0.83
0.40
Yancey
7.75
0.37
0.87
9.32
0.34
0.94
Highway
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
93.84
13.48
8.34
54.81
9.52
5.01
Alexander
15.87
1.75
1.41
10.67
1.27
1.02
Alleghany
6.87
0.74
0.61
3.84
0.45
0.37
Anson
22.65
2.93
1.90
14.23
2.00
1.25
Ashe
15.28
1.61
1.36
8.98
1.03
0.86
Avery
13.78
1.66
1.18
7.98
1.05
0.73
Beaufort
31.89
3.55
2.81
19.36
2.35
1.81
Bertie
19.81
2.38
1.70
12.41
1.61
1.14
Bladen
29.89
3.22
2.65
18.60
2.18
1.78
Brunswick
67.90
8.19
5.82
39.68
5.53
3.69
Buncombe
149.98
23.51
13.10
87.96
16.25
7.83
Burke
65.51
12.34
5.64
36.98
7.79
3.38
Cabarrus
69.09
12.04
6.19
50.62
8.59
4.20
Caldwell
44.10
5.01
3.89
25.98
3.41
2.48
Camden
7.47
0.90
0.64
4.68
0.61
0.43
Carteret
43.77
5.41
3.74
22.53
3.19
2.10
Caswell
16.69
2.00
1.44
10.41
1.34
0.95
Catawba
113.03
15.57
10.08
66.68
10.71
6.25
Chatham
45.51
5.79
3.85
27.65
4.01
2.55
Cherokee
17.05
2.25
1.42
12.85
1.73
1.15
Chowan
8.16
0.92
0.72
4.87
0.60
0.45
Clay
6.05
0.68
0.53
3.81
0.46
0.36
Cleveland
68.95
10.19
5.97
37.44
6.17
3.49
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
54
­
Highway
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Columbus
43.72
5.12
3.80
27.16
3.52
2.47
Craven
57.77
6.75
5.06
34.07
4.53
3.19
Cumberland
197.16
28.43
17.85
108.27
18.56
10.31
Currituck
21.48
2.50
1.86
14.09
1.77
1.33
Dare
37.56
4.27
3.27
20.22
2.55
1.89
Davidson
105.57
17.25
9.73
61.60
11.04
6.06
Davie
32.17
7.98
2.67
20.32
5.05
1.78
Duplin
46.97
8.80
4.00
32.00
6.34
2.86
Durham
130.59
24.00
11.93
90.71
14.51
7.74
Edgecombe
41.11
4.72
3.61
23.96
3.17
2.28
Forsyth
188.14
33.73
18.97
125.17
19.34
12.44
Franklin
32.41
3.79
2.81
19.70
2.63
1.89
Gaston
87.61
16.61
8.66
56.34
9.20
5.28
Gates
8.85
1.12
0.75
5.30
0.73
0.47
Graham
4.84
0.50
0.43
3.31
0.39
0.32
Granville
48.49
9.82
5.02
27.96
5.43
3.29
Greene
14.77
1.63
1.30
9.41
1.14
0.89
Guilford
274.08
47.66
27.88
179.81
26.94
18.09
Halifax
48.63
11.44
4.09
31.41
7.19
2.75
Harnett
58.38
9.34
5.01
34.75
6.19
3.25
Haywood
58.30
14.16
4.81
33.85
8.92
2.99
Henderson
59.39
10.05
5.15
34.27
6.56
3.17
Hertford
15.08
1.71
1.32
9.26
1.14
0.87
Hoke
18.56
2.22
1.60
12.36
1.62
1.13
Hyde
4.39
0.48
0.39
2.61
0.32
0.25
Iredell
119.96
29.26
10.08
71.75
18.66
6.42
Jackson
36.42
4.77
3.04
23.49
3.29
2.08
Johnston
123.04
28.31
10.21
81.29
19.92
7.25
Jones
14.67
1.89
1.23
8.62
1.19
0.76
Lee
39.67
4.49
3.51
23.25
3.03
2.21
Lenoir
44.38
4.70
4.04
23.50
2.85
2.31
Lincoln
37.27
4.27
3.28
21.48
2.82
2.08
McDowell
42.05
9.85
3.48
26.32
3.48
2.37
Macon
24.61
3.09
2.08
15.13
2.02
1.37
Madison
13.33
1.64
1.14
8.25
1.10
0.75
Martin
25.08
3.06
2.15
15.47
3.65
1.34
Mecklenburg
341.23
67.76
34.75
222.60
36.34
21.26
Mitchell
9.55
1.09
0.83
5.95
0.75
0.55
Montgomery
26.55
3.60
2.27
18.18
2.61
1.66
Moore
53.39
5.90
4.73
29.76
3.77
2.87
Nash
93.59
17.62
7.97
53.90
10.92
4.94
NewHanover
81.67
9.12
7.49
48.41
6.14
4.72
Northampton
23.32
4.79
1.95
13.92
2.79
1.24
Fayetteville
MSA
EAP
March
31,
2004
­
55
­
Highway
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Onslow
67.91
7.55
6.03
35.66
4.56
3.41
Orange
62.40
18.80
5.30
44.95
11.91
3.63
Pamlico
9.21
0.93
0.83
5.79
0.64
0.56
Pasquotank
17.53
1.94
1.57
11.15
1.36
1.03
Pender
40.59
8.15
3.41
28.50
5.88
2.53
Perquimans
9.69
1.24
0.82
6.19
0.86
0.54
Person
21.02
2.25
1.89
12.96
1.51
1.23
Pitt
78.82
8.47
7.05
43.54
5.36
4.24
Polk
19.00
4.60
1.56
13.94
3.39
1.19
Randolph
97.79
13.69
8.46
57.60
9.14
5.31
Richmond
40.70
4.98
3.52
24.96
3.35
2.22
Robeson
107.26
20.38
9.20
61.34
12.86
5.62
Rockingham
66.14
7.51
5.82
37.21
4.86
3.57
Rowan
89.79
17.34
7.75
53.43
11.46
4.96
Rutherford
40.07
4.52
3.53
20.79
2.69
2.01
Sampson
51.06
8.35
4.42
32.73
5.69
2.97
Scotland
29.90
3.44
2.64
18.93
2.37
1.73
Stanly
37.66
4.01
3.39
20.69
2.53
2.03
Stokes
24.78
2.82
2.17
13.71
1.79
1.32
Surry
64.94
12.67
5.54
37.68
7.79
3.49
Swain
13.82
1.69
1.18
7.71
1.01
0.70
Transylvania
22.41
2.47
1.99
14.04
1.68
1.33
Tyrrell
3.78
0.49
0.32
2.31
0.33
0.20
Union
56.79
7.70
5.15
39.75
5.00
3.48
Vance
33.57
6.29
2.89
22.07
4.29
1.95
Wake
306.82
59.29
27.61
224.96
39.69
18.67
Warren
15.84
3.56
1.32
10.53
2.39
0.92
Washington
11.19
1.43
0.94
6.82
0.95
0.60
Watauga
25.14
3.08
2.17
15.08
2.02
1.34
Wayne
68.83
7.28
6.20
39.66
4.84
3.87
Wilkes
47.93
5.55
4.18
25.57
3.39
2.45
Wilson
61.49
10.12
5.37
35.49
6.44
3.32
Yadkin
34.98
7.13
2.92
21.93
4.42
1.92
Yancey
11.33
1.45
0.96
6.74
0.93
0.60
APPENDIX
B
 
EARLY
ACTION
COMPACT
Application
of
the
Early
Action
Compact
for
8­
hour
State
Implementation
Plan
Development
in
the
Fayetteville
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
North
Carolina
An
Agreement
of
Partnership
by
USEPA
Region
4,
North
Carolina
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources,
and
the
Cumberland
County
Board
of
Commissioners
December
2002
­
57
­
I.
Purpose
of
the
Early
Action
Compact
The
Early
Action
Compact
(
EAC)
is
an
agreement
between
the
North
Carolina
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
(
DENR),
local
governments
and
organizations,
and
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Region
4
(
EPA)
office.
This
EAC
represents
a
partnership
of
Local,
State,
and
Federal
agency
efforts
to
develop
a
State
implementation
plan
(
SIP)
for
the
Fayetteville
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area.
The
SIP
is
the
technical
analysis
showing
what
control
measures
are
necessary
to
attain
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
as
well
as
the
adopted
rules
for
those
measures.
The
SIP
will
be
a
combination
of
Local,
State,
and
Federal
rules.
This
EAC
includes
the
memorandum
of
agreement
by
all
parties,
the
protocol
for
the
local
Early
Action
Plan
(
EAP)
and
the
overall
SIP
development
and
the
schedule
the
plan
development
will
follow.
The
result
of
this
EAC
is
that
the
SIP
will
be
developed
early,
the
control
measures
implemented
sooner,
and
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
achieved
in
a
more
expeditious
manner
than
following
the
normal
SIP
development
timeline.
Under
the
EAC
schedule,
the
SIP
is
due
no
later
than
December
31,
2004.
Under
the
normal
schedule,
the
SIP
is
due
three
years
after
the
nonattainment
designation
(
expected
in
2004,
so
the
SIP
would
be
due
in
2007).
The
ultimate
result
of
the
EAC
approach
is
that
North
Carolinians
will
breathe
clean
air
sooner.
If
any
party
to
the
EAC
fails
to
achieve
a
milestone,
then
the
nonattainment
designation
becomes
effective
upon
EPA
finding
that
failure,
and
all
consequences
of
nonattainment
designation
apply
to
the
area.
The
EAC
contains
necessary
and
appropriate
mechanisms
to
return
the
area
to
the
regular
nonattainment
planning
process
should
any
party
fail
to
meet
the
agreed
upon
milestones
contained
in
the
EAC.

II.
Background
and
History
of
Air
Quality
Ozone,
or
O3,
is
formed
in
the
atmosphere
when
two
primary
pollutants,
volatile
organic
compounds
and
oxides
of
nitrogen
react
in
the
presence
of
sunlight.
DENR
operates
the
ozone
monitors
from
April
1
through
October
31
of
each
year,
though
most
exceedances,
or
days
above
the
ozone
standard,
occur
in
the
May
through
September
timeframe.
There
are
currently
two
ozone
standards
that
have
been
set
by
EPA
to
protect
the
public's
health.
The
first
standard
is
a
1­
hour
standard,
which
was
set
in
1977.
The
standard
is
set
at
0.12
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
ozone
in
the
air.
The
Fayetteville
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
has
always
met
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.

The
second
standard
is
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
set
by
EPA
in
1997.
This
new
standard
is
based
on
the
maximum
8­
hour
average
concentration
and
is
set
at
.08
ppm.
This
compact
is
intended
to
address
the
new
8­
hour
standard
and
how
the
Fayetteville
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
(
MSA)
will
­
58
­
attain
this
new
standard.
There
are
two
monitors
in
the
Fayetteville
MSA
 
one
in
the
Town
of
Wade,
and
one
in
the
Town
of
Hope
Mills
(
Golfview),
both
of
which
are
in
Cumberland
County.
Both
monitors
currently
violate
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.

III.
Current
Air
Quality
Levels
Ozone
data
is
evaluated
over
a
three
year
period
to
determine
compliance
with
the
ozone
standard.
The
current
design
value
based
on
2000
to
2002
ozone
season
data
is
as
follows:
Wade
monitor
­
.087
ppm,
Golfview
monitor
­
.087
ppm.
Table
1
presents
the
number
of
days
that
each
monitor
exceeded
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
over
the
most
recent
three
years.

Table
1
Number
of
Days
Over
the
8­
Hour
Standard
Year
2000
2001
2002
Wade
4
2
17
Golfview
3
3
14
IV.
Components
of
the
Early
Action
Compact
A.
Area
Covered
by
the
Compact
The
area
covered
by
this
compact
is
the
Fayetteville
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area,
which
includes
all
of
Cumberland
County.

B.
Participating
Agencies
in
the
Compact
The
State
agency
will
be
the
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources.
USEPA
will
be
represented
by
the
Region
4
office.
At
a
minimum,
the
local
agencies
will
be
represented
by
the
Chair
of
the
Board
of
County
Commissioners.
(
or
designee)
for
the
county.
Other
local
organizations
are
invited
to
participate.

C.
Requirements
of
the
Early
Action
Compact
There
are
certain
key
requirements
that
will
be
addressed
in
the
EAC
and
in
the
SIP
development.
These
requirements
are
described
in
more
detail
below:
i.
Milestones
and
Reporting
The
EAC
must
identify
key
milestones
and
an
associated
schedule.
The
milestones
include
the
development
of
the
emissions
inventories,
base
case
modeling
evaluation,
identification
of
local
measures,
evaluation
of
local
measures,
adoption
of
local
measures,
and
submittal
of
SIP
incorporating
local
measures.
Status
reports
are
required
every
six
months.
The
status
reports
­
59
­
must
contain
information
regarding
the
completion
of
the
milestones,
or
progress
on
an
upcoming
milestone.

ii.
Emissions
Inventory
The
NC
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
(
NCDENR)
will
be
responsible
for
developing
several
emissions
inventories
for
the
project.
Episode
specific
inventories
will
be
developed
for
the
July
1995,
June
1996,
and
July
1997
events.
Additionally,
a
current
year
inventory
will
be
developed
for
2000
or
2001
for
purposes
of
applying
the
attainment
test.
Finally,
future
year
inventory
for
2007,
2012
and
2017
will
also
be
developed.

iii.
Modeling
The
NCDENR
will
be
responsible
for
conducting
the
meteorological
and
air
quality
modeling
analysis.
The
NCDENR
will
conduct
the
modeling
analysis
based
on
USEPA's
"
Draft
Guidance
on
the
use
of
Models
and
Other
Analyses
in
Attainment
Determinations
for
the
8­
hour
Ozone
NAAQS",
May
1999
(
EPA­
454/
R­
99­
004).
The
technical
analysis
will
follow
the
guidance
as
facilitated
by
the
EPA
Regional
office.

iv.
Control
Strategies
All
of
the
signatories
will
participate
in
the
evaluation
and
selection
of
control
strategies.
The
Local
agency
signatories
will
primarily
be
responsible
for
the
identification
of
the
local
measures.
The
NCDENR
will
be
responsible
for
the
state
measures
and
for
the
development
of
the
complete
SIP
including
state
and
local
measures.

v.
Maintenance
for
Growth
A
key
component
of
the
plan
is
the
annual
check
of
growth
from
the
mobile
and
stationary
source
sector.
In
addition,
a
projection
of
growth
to
2012
is
required
by
the
protocol.
An
additional
projection
of
growth
to
2017
will
also
be
performed.

vi.
Public
Involvement
The
development
of
the
control
measures
and
the
SIP
will
be
done
through
a
public
involvement
process.
Stakeholders
from
throughout
the
community
will
be
invited
to
participate
in
this
open
process.
­
60
­
Fayetteville
Area
Early
Action
Compact
Memorandum
of
Agreement
This
Early
Action
Compact
(
EAC)
is
a
Memorandum
of
Agreement
between
the
local
government
representing
the
county
of
Cumberland,
the
North
Carolina
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
(
NCDENR)
and
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
It
is
for
the
express
purpose
of
developing
and
implementing
an
Early
Action
Plan
(
EAP)
that
will
reduce
ground­
level
ozone
concentrations
in
the
Fayetteville
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
to
comply
with
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
by
December
31,
2007,
and
maintain
the
standard
beyond
that
date.
Failure
to
meet
these
obligations
results
in
immediate
reversion
to
the
traditional
nonattainment
process.

I.
General
Provisions
A.
The
signatory
parties
commit
to
develop,
implement
and
maintain
the
EAP
according
to
EPA
Protocol
for
Early
Action
Compacts
issued
June
19,
2002,
and
adhere
to
all
terms
and
conditions
stated
in
the
guidelines.
See
Appendix
A
for
EPA
Protocol
for
Early
Action
Compacts
Designed
to
Achieve
and
Maintain
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
Standard.

B.
If
the
region
does
not
meet
all
the
terms
of
the
EAC,
including
meeting
agreed­
upon
milestones,
then
it
will
forfeit
its
participation,
deferral
of
the
area's
non­
attainment
designation
will
be
withdrawn
and
its
non­
attainment
designation
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAASQ
will
become
effective.

C.
Before
formal
adoption
into
the
SIP,
this
agreement
may
be
modified
or
terminated
by
mutual
consent
of
all
signatory
parties,
or
any
party
may
withdraw
from
the
agreement.
The
local
government
signatories
will
approve
the
local
control
measures
before
they
are
submitted
to
NCDENR
for
inclusion
in
the
SIP.
Once
the
EAP
is
incorporated
into
the
SIP,
any
modifications
will
be
treated
as
SIP
revisions.

D.
The
signature
date
of
the
EAC
is
the
start
date
of
the
agreement's
term
and
the
agreement
remains
in
effect
until
December
31,
2007.
­
61
­
II.
Local
Government
Responsibilities
The
local
government
agrees
to
develop
and
implement
a
local
EAP
that
will,
when
combined
with
State
and
Federal
measures,
demonstrate
attainment
by
year's
end
2007
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
and
maintenance
until
at
least
2012.
The
local
government
will
develop
this
plan
in
coordination
with
NCDENR,
EPA,
stakeholders
and
the
public.
The
EAP
will
include
a
process
to
monitor
and
maintain
long­
term
compliance
with
the
standard.
The
local
government
will
develop
and
submit
a
list
of
control
measures
being
considered
for
adoption
as
part
of
the
EAP
by
June
16,
2003.
The
EAP
will
be
submitted
to
NCDENR
and
EPA
for
review
by
January
31,
2004,
and
finalized
by
March
31,
2004,
for
inclusion
in
the
SIP
by
December
31,
2004.

In
the
event
a
development
or
issue
arises
that
may
impact
performance
or
progress
toward
milestones
(
including
if
a
milestone
will
be
or
has
been
missed
and/
or
if
a
termination
or
modification
has
been
requested),
the
Fayetteville
Area
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
Staff,
serving
as
the
Lead
Planning
Agency,
or
the
signatory
party
responsible
will
notify
all
other
signatories
as
soon
as
possible.

III.
The
North
Carolina
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
The
state,
represented
by
NCDENR,
will
provide
support
to
areas
throughout
the
planning
and
implementation
process,
including:
1.
Development
of
emission
inventories,
modeling
process,
trend
analysis
and
quantification
and
comparison
of
emission
reduction
strategies;

2.
Necessary
information
on
all
Federal
and
State
adopted
emission
reduction
strategies
which
affect
the
area;

3.
Technical
and
strategic
assistance,
as
appropriate,
in
the
selection
and
implementation
of
emission
reduction
strategies;

4.
Technical
and
planning
assistance
in
developing
and
implementing
processes
to
address
the
impact
of
emissions
growth
beyond
the
attainment
date;

5.
Maintenance
of
monitors
and
reporting
and
analysis
of
monitoring
data;

6.
Support
for
public
education
efforts;

7.
Coordinate
communication
between
local
areas
and
EPA
to
facilitate
continuing
EPA
review
of
local
work;
­
62
­
8.
Expeditious
review
of
the
locally
developed
EAP,
and
if
deemed
adequate,
propose
modification
of
the
SIP
to
adopt
the
EAP;

9.
Adoption
of
emission
reduction
strategies
into
the
SIP
as
expeditiously
as
possible.
The
final
complete
SIP
revision
must
be
completed,
adopted,
and
submitted
by
the
state
to
EPA
by
December
31,
2004.

IV.
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1.
The
EPA
will
provide
technical
assistance
to
the
state
and
local
area
in
the
development
of
the
early
action
plan.

2.
The
EPA
will
take
final
action
by
September
30,
2005
on
any
SIP
revisions
submitted
by
December
31,
2004
pursuant
to
the
compact
3.
When
EPA's
8­
hour
implementation
guidelines
call
for
designations,
if
the
area
has
met
the
first
two
milestones
(
signed
compact
by
December
31,
2002
and
list
of
measures
being
considered
for
local
adoption
by
June
16,
2003),
EPA
will
defer
the
effective
date
of
nonattainment
designation
and
related
requirements
for
participating
areas
that
fail
to
meet
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
until
September
30,
2005,
contingent
upon
the
area's
submission
of
local
control
measures
by
March
31,
2004.
As
part
of
the
SIP
approval
mentioned
in
item
2
above
and
assuming
the
SIP
is
approvable,
EPA
will
propose
as
part
of
the
SIP
approval
action,
the
second
deferral
of
the
effective
date
of
non­
attainment
designation
until
December
31,
2006.
If
the
June
30,
2006
progress
assessment
is
submitted,
implementation
of
the
SIP
measures
have
occurred,
and
air
quality
improvement
is
taking
place,
EPA
will
propose
and,
if
appropriate,
take
final
action
on
the
third
deferral
of
the
effective
date
until
April
15,
2008.

4.
Provided
that
the
monitors
in
the
area
reflect
attainment
by
December
31,
2007,
EPA
will
move
expeditiously
to
designate
the
area
as
attainment
and
impose
no
additional
requirements.

5.
If
at
any
time
the
area
does
not
meet
all
the
terms
of
this
EAC,
including
meeting
agreed­
upon
milestones,
then
it
will
forfeit
its
participation,
deferral
of
the
area's
non­
attainment
designation
may
be
withdrawn
and
its
non­
attainment
designation
will
become
effective.
The
EPA
will
offer
such
an
area
no
delays,
exemptions
or
other
favorable
treatment
because
of
its
previous
participation
in
this
program.

6.
If
the
area
violates
the
standard
as
of
December
31,
2007,
and
the
area
has
had
a
nonattainment
designation
deferred,
the
non­
attainment
designation
will
become
effective
no
later
than
April
15,
2008.
The
state
will
then
submit
a
revised
attainment
demonstration
SIP
revision
according
to
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
and
EPA's
8­
hour
implementation
rule,
unless
the
8­
hour
implementation
schedule
­
63
­
requires
SIPs
from
8­
hour
non­
attainment
areas
before
December
31,
2008.
In
that
event,
a
revised
attainment
demonstration
SIP
revision
for
the
participating
area
will
be
due
as
soon
as
possible
but
no
later
than
December
31,
2008.
In
no
event
will
EPA
extend
the
attainment
date
for
the
area
beyond
that
required
by
the
CAA
and/
or
EPA's
8­
hour
implementation
rule.

7.
The
region
will
not
be
allowed
to
renew
this
EAC
after
December
31,
2007,
or
to
initiate
a
new
compact
if
it
has
previously
forfeited
its
participation.

V.
The
Protocol
for
Completing
the
EAP
and
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
SIP
A.
Milestones
and
Reporting
1.
Milestones
EAC/
CAAP
Milestones
(
Responsible
Party)
December
31,
2002
Signed
EAC
(
All
parties)
Initial
modeling
emissions
inventory
completed
(
NCDENR)
Conceptual
modeling
completed
(
NCDENR)
May
31,
2003
Base
case
modeling
completed
(
NCDENR)
June
16,
2003
Identify
and
describe
local
strategies
being
considered
for
inclusion
in
local
clean
air
plans
(
Local
Governments)
June
30,
2003
Biannual
status
reports
to
begin
(
Lead
Planning
Agency/
NCDENR)
Future
year
emissions
inventory
modeling
completed
(
NCDENR)
Emissions
inventory
comparison
and
analysis
completed
(
NCDENR)
October
31,
2003
Future
case
modeling
completed
(
NCDENR)
Attainment
maintenance
analysis
completed
(
NCDENR)
One
or
more
modeled
control
cases
completed
(
NCDENR)
Local
emission
reduction
strategies
selected
(
Local
Governments)
January
31,
2004
Submission
of
preliminary
EAP
to
NCDENR
and
EPA
(
Local
Governments)

Final
revisions
to
modeled
control
cases
completed
(
NCDENR)
Final
revisions
to
local
emission
reduction
strategies
completed
(
Local
Governments)
Final
revisions
to
attainment
maintenance
analysis
completed
(
NCDENR)
March
31,
2004
Submission
of
final
EAP
to
NCDENR
and
EPA
(
Local
Governments)
December
31,
2004
EAP
adopted
and
incorporated
into
the
SIP,
SIP
submitted
to
EPA
(
NCDENR)
December
31,
2005
Local
emission
reduction
strategies
implemented
no
later
than
this
date
(
Implementing
Agency)
June
30,
2006
Biannual
status
reports
on
implementation
of
measures
begin
on
this
date
(
Lead
Planning
Agency/
NCDENR)
December
31,
2007
Attainment
of
the
8­
hour
standard
no
later
than
this
date
(
All
Parties)
­
64
­
2.
Reporting
In
order
to
facilitate
self­
evaluation
and
communication
with
EPA,
NCDENR,
stakeholders,
and
the
public,
the
region
will
assess
and
report
progress
towards
milestones
in
a
regular,
public
process,
at
least
every
six
months.

B.
Emissions
Inventories
1.
An
initial
modeling
emissions
inventory
will
be
developed
by
May
31,
2003.
This
inventory
will
include:
a.
Emissions
modeling
data
for
a
July
1995,
June
1996
and
July
1997
episode,
all
of
which
are
representative
of
a
typical
ozone
season
event
and
meets
EPA
episode
selection
guidance;
b.
MOBILE6
data
with
link
based
Travel
Demand
Model
(
TDM)
mobile
data
in
urban
areas;
c.
NONROAD
model
data
adjusted
for
local
equipment
populations
and
usage
rates
where
available;
d.
Area
source
data,
based
on
local
survey
data,
when
possible.

2.
A
2007
future
year
modeling
emissions
inventory
will
be
developed
by
July
31,
2003.
This
inventory
will
sufficiently
account
for
projected
future
growth
in
ozone
precursor
emissions
through
2007,
particularly
from
stationary,
non­
road
and
on­
road
mobile
sources.

3.
Selection
of
specific
episode
inventories
was
partially
determined
by
the
conceptual
model,
which
reflects
an
analysis
of
meteorological
conditions
typical
of
high
ozone
events.
The
conceptual
model
will
be
updated
by
May
31,
2003.

4.
Emissions
inventories
will
be
compared
and
analyzed
for
trends
in
emission
sources
over
time.
The
emissions
inventory
comparison
and
analysis
will
be
completed
by
October
31,
2003.

C.
Modeling
1.
Base
case
modeling
will
be
completed
by
May
31,
2003
and
future
case
modeling
will
be
completed
by
October
31,
2003.
One
or
more
modeled
control
cases
will
be
completed
by
January
31,
2004,
with
final
revisions
completed
by
March
31,
2004.
All
modeling:
a.
Will
be
SIP
quality,
consistent
with
the
latest
EPA
modeling
guidance,
and
performed
within
EPA's
accepted
margin
of
accuracy;
­
65
­
b.
Will
be
carefully
documented;
c.
Will
sufficiently
account
for
projected
future
growth
in
ozone
precursor
emissions;
d.
Will
be
accomplished
by
NCDENR
and
reviewed
by
EPA;
e.
Will
be
used
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
NOx
and/
or
VOC
reductions.
The
control
case(
s)
will
be
used
to
determine
the
relative
effectiveness
of
different
emission
reduction
strategies
and
to
aid
in
the
selection
of
appropriate
emission
reduction
strategies.

D.
Emission
Reduction
Strategies
1.
All
adopted
Federal
and
State
emission
reduction
strategies
that
have
been
or
will
be
implemented
by
the
December
31,
2007
attainment
date
will
be
included
in
base,
future
and
control
case
modeling.
2.
Additional
local
emission
reduction
strategies
needed
to
demonstrate
attainment
for
the
Fayetteville
MSA
by
December
31,
2007
will
be
selected
by
January
31,
2004,
with
final
revisions
completed
by
March
31,
2004.
The
selected
local
strategies
will
be
implemented
as
soon
as
practical,
but
no
later
than
December
31,
2005.

3.
Local
emission
reduction
strategies
will
be
specific,
quantified,
permanent
and
enforceable.
The
strategies
will
also
include
specific
implementation
dates
and
detailed
documentation
and
reporting
processes.

4.
Voluntary
strategies
can
play
a
supporting
role
in
the
EAP.
If
emission
reductions
from
voluntary
strategies
are
quantified
and
credit
is
taken
for
them
in
the
EAP,
those
emission
reductions
will
be
enforceable.
Additional
strategies
must
be
implemented
to
meet
those
quantified
reduction
requirements
if
quantified
voluntary
strategies
fail.
This
is
true
for
all
quantified
emission
reductions,
which
must
be
made
part
of
the
SIP.

5.
Local
emission
reduction
strategies
will
be
designed
and
implemented
by
the
community
with
stakeholder
participation.

6.
Local
emission
reduction
strategies
will
be
incorporated
by
the
state
into
the
SIP.
In
the
event
that
the
region
desires
to
add,
delete
or
substitute
strategies
after
SIP
submittal,
the
region
will
request
a
modification.
EAP
modifications
will
be
treated
as
SIP
revisions
and
facilitated
by
the
state.

E.
Maintenance
for
Growth
1.
The
EAP
will
include
a
component
to
address
emissions
growth
at
least
five
years
beyond
December
31,
2007,
ensuring
that
the
area
will
remain
in
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
standard
during
that
period.
Attainment
­
66
­
maintenance
analysis
will
be
completed
by
January
31,
2004,
with
final
revisions
completed
by
March
31,
2004.
The
analysis
will
employ
one
or
more
of
the
following
or
any
other
appropriate
techniques
necessary
to
make
such
a
demonstration:
a.
Modeling
analysis
showing
ozone
levels
below
the
8­
hour
standard
in
2012;
b.
An
annual
review
of
growth
(
especially
mobile
and
stationary
source)
to
ensure
emission
reduction
strategies
and
growth
assumptions
are
adequate;
c.
Identification
and
quantification
of
federal,
state,
and/
or
local
measures
indicating
sufficient
reductions
to
offset
growth
estimates.

2.
A
continuing
planning
process
that
includes
modeling
updates
and
modeling
assumption
verification
(
particularly
growth
assumptions)
will
be
conducted
concurrent
with
the
tracking
and
reporting
process
for
the
EAP.
This
update
and
verification
will
be
an
ongoing
process
between
the
signatories,
stakeholders
and
the
public.
Modeling
updates
and
planning
processes
must
consider
and
evaluate:
a.
All
relevant
actual
new
point
sources;
b.
Impacts
from
potential
new
source
growth;
and
c.
Future
transportation
patterns
and
their
impact
on
air
quality
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
the
most
current
adopted
Long
Range
Transportation
Plan
and
most
current
trend
and
projections
of
local
motor
vehicle
emissions.

3.
If
the
review
of
emissions
growth
in
conjunction
with
the
continuing
planning
process
demonstrates
that
adopted
emission
reduction
strategies
are
inadequate
to
address
growth
in
emissions,
additional
measures
will
be
added
to
the
EAP.

4.
In
the
event
that
the
continuing
planning
process
identifies
the
need
to
add,
delete,
or
substitute
emission
reduction
strategies
after
the
EAP
has
been
incorporated
into
the
SIP,
the
local
area
will
initiate,
and
NCDENR
will
facilitate
a
SIP
revision
to
accommodate
changes.

F.
Public
Involvement
1.
Public
involvement
will
be
conducted
in
all
stages
of
planning
by
the
signatory
parties.
Outreach
may
include
one
or
more
of
the
following
­
67
­
techniques:
public
meetings
and
presentations,
stakeholder
meetings,
websites,
print
advertising
and
radio.

2.
Public
education
programs
will
be
used
to
raise
awareness
regarding
issues,
opportunities
for
involvement
in
the
planning
process,
implementation
of
emission
reduction
strategies,
and
any
other
issues
important
to
the
area.

3.
Interested
stakeholders
will
be
involved
in
the
planning
process
as
early
as
possible.
Planning
meetings
will
be
open
to
the
public,
with
posted
meeting
times
and
locations.
EAP
drafts
will
be
publicly
available,
and
the
drafting
process
will
have
sufficient
opportunities
for
comment
from
all
interested
stakeholders.

4.
Public
comment
on
the
proposed
final
EAP
will
follow
the
normal
SIP
revision
process
as
implemented
by
the
State.

5.
Semi­
annual
reports
detailing,
at
a
minimum,
progress
toward
milestones,
will
be
publicly
presented
and
publicly
available.

VI.
Signatures:

Talmage
S.
Baggett,
Jr.
Chairman
County
of
Cumberland
Board
of
Commissioners
J.
I.
Palmer,
Jr.
Administrator,
Region
4,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
William
G.
Ross,
Jr.
Secretary,
North
Carolina
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
­
68
­
APPENDIX
C
 
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
ADOPTIONS
The
local
governing
bodies
adopted
selected
strategies
on
the
dates
listed
below.
Minutes
are
available
upon
request.

Town
of
Falcon:
August
4,
2003
Town
of
Linden:
August
19,
2003
Town
of
Stedman:
September
4,
2003
Town
of
Spring
Lake:
September
8,
2003
Town
of
Wade:
September
9,
2003
Town
of
Godwin:
September
15,
2003
Cumberland
County:
October
6
and
December
15,
2004
Town
of
Hope
Mills:
November
12,
2003
City
of
Fayetteville:
February
2,
2004
­
69
­
APPENDIX
D
 
MODEL,
EPISODE
AND
METEREOLOGY
70
1
INTRODUCTION
As
a
requirement
of
the
Fayetteville
Early
Action
Compact
(
EAC),
the
progress
report
due
June
30,
2003,
must
include
a
status
report
regarding
the
air
quality
modeling.
This
report
satisfies
this
requirement.
Discussed
in
this
report
are
the
photochemical
model
selection,
episode
selection,
meteorological
model
development,
emissions
inventory
development,
and
the
modeling
status.

The
modeling
system
being
used
for
this
demonstration
and
the
episodes
being
modeled
are
discussed
below
in
further
detail
in
Sections
2
and
3.

The
modeling
analysis
is
a
complex
technical
evaluation
that
begins
by
selection
of
the
modeling
system
and
selection
of
the
meteorological
episodes.
North
Carolina
Division
of
Air
Quality
(
NCDAQ)
decided
to
use
the
following
modeling
system:

 
Meteorological
Model:
MM­
5
 
This
model
generates
hourly
meteorological
inputs
for
the
emissions
model
and
the
air
quality
model,
such
as
wind
speed,
wind
direction,
and
surface
temperature.

 
Emissions
Model:
Sparse
Matrix
Operator
Kernel
Emissions
(
SMOKE)
­
This
model
takes
daily
county
level
emissions
and
temporally
allocates
across
the
day,
spatially
locates
the
emissions
within
the
county,
and
transfers
the
total
emissions
into
the
chemical
species
needed
by
the
air
quality
model.

 
Air
Quality
Model:
MAQSIP
(
Multi­
Scale
Air
Quality
Simulation
Platform)
 
This
model
takes
the
inputs
from
the
emissions
model
and
meteorological
model
and
predicts
ozone
hour
by
hour
across
the
modeling
domain,
both
horizontally
and
vertically.

The
following
historical
episodes
were
selected
to
model
because
they
represent
typical
meteorological
conditions
in
North
Carolina
when
high
ozone
is
observed
throughout
the
State:

 
July
10­
15,
1995
 
June
20­
24,
1996
 
June
25­
30,
1996
 
July
10­
15,
1997
The
meteorological
inputs
were
developed
using
MM5
and
are
discussed
in
detail
in
Section
4.

The
precursors
to
ozone,
Nitogen
Oxides
(
NOx),
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(
VOCs),
and
Carbon
Monoxide
(
CO)
were
estimated
for
each
source
category.
These
estimates
were
then
spatially
allocated
across
the
county,
temporally
adjusted
to
the
day
of
the
71
week
and
hour
of
the
day
and
speciated
into
the
chemical
species
that
the
air
quality
model
needs
to
predict
ozone.
The
development
of
the
emission
inventories
are
discussed
in
detail
in
Section
5.

The
status
of
the
modeling
work
and
the
issues
that
have
been
encountered
are
discussed
in
Section
6.
72
2
MODEL
SELECTION
2.1
Introduction
To
be
useful
in
a
regulatory
framework,
photochemical
grid
models
and
their
applications
must
be
defensible.
Not
only
must
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
be
convinced
of
this,
but
members
of
the
regulated
community
(
stakeholders)
as
well.
Failure
to
convince
EPA
can
result
in
rejection
of
an
implementation
or
maintenance
plan.
Failure
to
convince
the
regulated
community
can
lead
to
diminished
rule
effectiveness
and
litigation.
In
none
of
these
cases
are
the
state's
air
quality
goals
advanced.

To
ensure
that
a
modeling
study
is
defensible,
care
must
be
taken
in
the
selection
of
the
models
to
be
used.
The
models
selected
must
be
scientifically
appropriate
for
the
intended
application
and
be
freely
accessible
to
all
stakeholders.
Scientifically
appropriate
means
that
the
models
address
important
physical
and
chemical
phenomena
in
sufficient
detail,
using
peer
reviewed
methods.
Freely
accessible
means
that
model
formulations
and
coding
are
freely
available
for
review
and
that
the
models
are
available
to
stakeholders,
and
their
consultants,
for
execution
and
verification
at
no
or
low
cost.

In
the
following
sections
we
outline
the
criteria
for
selecting
a
modeling
system
that
is
both
defensible
and
capable
of
meeting
the
study's
goals.

2.2
Selection
of
Photochemical
Grid
Model
2.2.1
Criteria
For
a
photochemical
grid
model
to
qualify
as
a
candidate
for
use
in
an
attainment
demonstration
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS),
a
State
needs
to
show
that
it
meets
several
general
criteria.

 
The
model
has
received
a
scientific
peer
review
 
The
model
can
be
demonstrated
applicable
to
the
problem
on
a
theoretical
basis
 
Data
bases
needed
to
perform
the
analysis
are
available
and
adequate
 
Available
past
appropriate
performance
evaluations
have
shown
the
model
is
not
biased
toward
underestimates
 
A
protocol
on
methods
and
procedures
to
be
followed
has
been
established
 
The
developer
of
the
model
must
be
willing
to
make
the
source
code
available
to
users
for
free
or
for
a
reasonable
cost,
and
the
model
cannot
otherwise
be
proprietary
73
2.2.2
Overview
of
MAQSIP
The
photochemical
model
selected
for
this
study
is
the
Multiscale
Air
Quality
SImulation
Platform
(
MAQSIP).
MAQSIP
is
a
fully
modularized
three­
dimensional
system
with
various
options
for
representing
the
physical
and
chemical
processes
describing
regional­
and
urban­
scale
atmospheric
pollution.
The
governing
model
equations
for
tracer
continuity
are
formulated
in
generalized
coordinates,
thereby
providing
the
capability
of
interfacing
the
model
with
a
variety
of
meteorological
drivers.
The
model
employs
flexible
horizontal
grid
resolution
with
multiple
multi­
level
nested
grids
with
options
for
one­
way
and
two­
way
nesting
procedures.
In
the
vertical,
the
capability
to
use
nonuniform
grids
is
provided.
Current
applications
have
used
horizontal
grid
resolutions
from
18­
80
km
for
regional
applications
and
2­
6
km
for
urban
scale
simulations,
and
up
to
30
layers
to
discretize
the
vertical
domain.

The
MAQSIP
framework
with
the
detailed
gas­
phase
and
aerosol
model
provides
a
modeling
system
that
can
be
used
for
investigating
the
various
processes
that
govern
the
loading
of
chemical
species
and
anthropogenic
aerosols
at
various
scales
of
atmospheric
motions
from
urban,
regional
to
intercontinental
scales.
For
example,
MAQSIP
has
been
used
to
support
the
Southeastern
States
Air
Resources
Management
(
SESARM)
project
to
produce
seasonal
simulations
of
ozone
over
eastern
United
States.
The
gas­
aerosol
version
of
the
MAQSIP
(
hereinafter
the
MAQSIP­
PM)
has
been
used
in
urban­
toregional
scale
applications
over
the
eastern
and
western
United
States,
and
western
Europe,
to
study
the
production
and
distribution
of
fine
and
coarse
PM,
and
its
effects
on
visibility
and
the
radiation
budget.

For
regulatory
application,
a
specific
configuration
of
MAQSIP
has
been
used
in
this
study.
This
configuration
of
MAQSIP
follows
a
series
a
sensitivity
tests
to
determine
the
best
performing
modules.
This
configuration
has
the
following
components:

 
Horizontal
Coordinate
System:
Lambert
Conformal
Projection
 
Vertical
Coordinate
System:
Non­
Hydrostatic
Sigma­
Pressure
Coordinates
 
Gas
Phase
Chemistry:
Carbon
Bond
IV
with
Isoprene
updates
 
Aqueous
Phase
Chemistry:
Included
in
cloud
package
 
Chemistry
Solver:
Modified
QSSA
 
Horizontal
Advection:
Bott
 
Cloud
Physics:
Kain­
Fritsch
parameterization
and
explicit,
as
needed
 
Horizontal
Turbulent
Diffusion:
Fixed
Kh
 
Vertical
Turbulent
Diffusion:
K­
Theory
 
Photolysis
Rates:
Madronich
 
Dry
Deposition:
Resistance
 
Wet
Deposition:
Included
in
cloud
package
74
2.3
Selection
of
Meteorological
Model
2.3.1
Criteria
Meteorological
models,
either
through
objective,
diagnostic,
or
prognostic
analysis,
extend
available
information
about
the
state
of
the
atmosphere
to
the
grid
upon
which
photochemical
grid
modeling
is
to
be
carried
out.
The
criteria
for
selecting
a
meteorological
model
are
based
on
both
the
models
ability
to
accurately
replicate
important
meteorological
phenomena
in
the
region
of
study,
and
the
model's
ability
to
interface
with
the
rest
of
the
modeling
systems
­­
particularly
the
photochemical
grid
model.
With
these
issues
in
mind,
the
following
criteria
were
established
for
the
meteorological
model
to
be
used
in
this
study:

 
Non­
Hydrostatic
Formulation
 
Reasonably
current,
peer
reviewed
formulation
 
Simulates
Cloud
Physics
 
Publicly
available
on
no
or
low
cost
 
Output
available
in
I/
O
API
format
 
Supports
Four
Dimensional
Data
Assimilation
(
FDDA)

 
Enhanced
treatment
of
Planetary
Boundary
Layer
heights
for
AQ
modeling
2.3.2
Overview
of
MM5
The
meteorological
model
selected
for
this
study
is
the
nonhydrostatic
PSU/
NCAR
Mesoscale
Model
Version
5
(
MM5).
MM5
(
Dudhia
1993;
Grell
et
al.
1994)
is
one
of
the
leading
three­
dimensional
prognostic
meteorological
models
available
for
air
quality
studies.
It
uses
an
efficient
split
semi­
implicit
temporal
integration
scheme
and
has
a
nested­
grid
capability
that
can
use
up
to
ten
different
domains
of
arbitrary
horizontal
resolution.
This
allows
MM5
to
simulate
local
details
with
high
resolution
(
as
fine
as
~
1
km),
while
accounting
for
influences
from
great
distances,
using
horizontal
resolutions
ranging
to
about
200
km.

MM5
uses
a
terrain­
following
nondimensionalized
pressure,
or
"
sigma",
vertical
coordinate
similar
to
that
used
in
many
operational
and
research
models.
In
the
nonhydrostatic
MM5,
the
sigma
levels
are
defined
according
to
the
initial
hydrostatically
balanced
reference
state
so
that
these
levels
are
also
time­
invariant.
The
meteorological
fields
also
can
be
used
in
other
photochemical
grid
models
with
different
coordinate
systems
by
performing
a
vertical
interpolation
followed
by
a
mass­
consistency
reconciliation
step.

The
model
contains
two
types
of
planetary
boundary
layer
(
PBL)
parameterizations
suitable
for
air­
quality
applications,
both
of
which
represent
subgrid­
scale
turbulent
fluxes
of
heat,
moisture,
and
momentum.
A
modified
Blackadar
PBL
(
Zhang
and
Anthes
1982)
uses
a
first­
order
eddy
diffusivity
formulation
for
stable
and
neutral
environments
and
a
nonlocal
closure
for
unstable
regimes.
The
Gayno­
Seaman
PBL
(
Gayno,
1994)
75
uses
a
prognostic
equation
for
the
second­
order
turbulent
kinetic
energy,
while
diagnosing
the
other
key
boundary
layer
terms.
This
is
referred
to
as
a
1.5­
order
PBL,
or
level­
2.5,
scheme
(
Mellor
and
Yamada
1974).

Initial
and
lateral
boundary
conditions
are
specified
for
real­
data
cases
from
mesoscale
3­
D
analyses
performed
at
12­
hour
intervals
on
the
outermost
grid
mesh
selected
by
the
user.
Surface
fields
are
analyzed
at
three­
hour
intervals.
A
Cressman­
based
technique
is
used
to
analyze
standard
surface
and
radiosonde
observations,
using
the
National
Meteorological
Center's
spectral
analysis,
as
a
first
guess
(
Benjamin
and
Seaman
1985).
The
lateral
boundary
data
are
introduced
using
a
relaxation
technique
applied
in
the
outermost
five
rows
and
columns
of
the
coarsest
grid
domain.

For
most
traditional
(
1­
hour
standard)
high­
ozone
episodes,
precipitation
is
not
the
dominant
factor.
On
the
other
hand,
precipitation
events
may
have
a
greater
impact
on
8­
hour
average
ozone
episodes.
The
MM5
contains
five
convective
parameterization
schemes
(
Kuo,
Betts­
Miller,
Fritsch­
Chappell,
Kain­
Fritsch,
and
Grell).
It
also
has
an
explicit
resolved­
scale
precipitation
scheme
(
Dudhia
1989)
that
solves
prognostic
equations
for
cloud
water/
ice
(
qc)
and
larger
liquid
or
frozen
hydrometeors
(
qr).
In
addition
the
model
contains
a
short­
and
long­
wave
radiation
parameterization
(
Dudhia
1989).

2.4
Selection
of
Emissions
Processing
System
2.4.1
Criteria
The
principal
criterion
for
an
emissions
processing
system
is
that
it
accurately
prepares
emissions
files
in
a
format
suitable
for
the
photochemical
grid
model
being
used.
The
following
list
includes
clarification
of
this
criterion
and
additional
desirable
criteria
for
effective
use
of
the
system.

 
File
System
Compatibility
with
the
I/
O
API
 
File
Portability
 
Ability
to
grid
emissions
on
a
Lambert
Conformal
projection
 
Report
Capability
 
Graphical
Analysis
Capability
 
MOBILE6
Mobile
Source
Emissions
 
BEIS­
2
Biogenic
Emissions
 
Ability
to
process
emissions
for
the
proposed
domain
in
a
day
or
less.

 
Ability
to
process
control
strategies
 
No
or
low
cost
for
acquisition
and
maintenance
 
Expandable
to
support
other
species
and
mechanisms
76
2.4.2
Overview
of
SMOKE
The
emissions
processing
system
selected
for
this
study
is
the
Sparse
Matrix
Operator
Kernel
Emissions
(
SMOKE).
SMOKE
was
developed
to
reduce
the
large
processing
times
required
to
prepare
emissions
data
for
photochemical
grid
models.
SMOKE
processes
both
anthropogenic
and
biogenic
emissions.
Biogenic
emissions
are
processed
using
an
implementation
of
BEIS­
3.

The
modular
structure
of
SMOKE
(
see
Appendix
A)
removes
much
of
the
redundant
processing
found
in
other
systems.
This
will
provide
even
greater
savings
of
CPU
time
and
disk
space
when
SMOKE
is
used
to
process
control
strategies.
Unlike
other
emission
processing
systems,
SMOKE's
structure
makes
each
process
(
i.
e.,
gridding,
speciation,
temporal
allocation,
and
control
application)
independent
from
the
others.
For
example,
to
run
a
new
control
strategy,
only
the
control
model
must
be
rerun,
and
the
time­
stepped
emissions
multiplied
by
the
matrices.
This
whole
process
takes
only
a
few
minutes
to
process
a
new
point
source
strategy
and
a
few
additional
minutes
if
area
and
mobile
sources
are
also
changed.

SMOKE
has
undergone
an
extensive
process
of
testing
and
validation.
It
has
been
validated
on
a
regional
scale
against
EMS­
95
using
the
OTAG
1990
inventory,
and
on
a
large
urban
scale
against
EPS
2.0
using
North
Carolina's
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
inventory.
SMOKE
can
be
driven
with
inputs
in
either
EMS­
95,
EPS
2.0
or
IDA
format,
and
it
can
produce
photochemical
grid
model­
ready
emissions
in
forms
suitable
to
drive
UAM­
IV,
UAM­
V,
MAQSIP,
CMAQ
and
SAQM.
SMOKE
has
adopted
the
Models­
3
Input/
Output
Application
Program
Interface
(
I/
O
API)
so
the
emissions
files
created
by
SMOKE
are
directly
readable
by
Models­
3,
MCNC's
MAQSIP,
and
the
supporting
analysis
tools
developed
for
these
systems.
77
3
EPISODE
SELECTION
3.1
Introduction
The
episode
selection
process
is
critical
to
the
success
of
the
modeling
study.
Correctly
identifying
representative
ozone
episodes
to
model
for
several
areas
in
North
Carolina
allows
us
to
evaluate
with
confidence
various
control
strategies
for
maintaining
the
NAAQS
for
ozone.
Several
factors
influenced
episode
selection
for
this
modeling
study.
In
the
following
sections
we
outline
the
factors
and
considerations
for
episode
selection,
and
then
outline
in
detail
the
episodes
selected
for
this
modeling
study.

3.2
Factors
Influencing
Episode
Selection
Several
factors
influenced
episode
selection
for
this
modeling
study.
The
primary
factor
influencing
episode
selection
was
the
promulgation
of
an
8­
hour
standard
for
ozone
and
the
litigation
that
followed.
This
led
to
uncertainties
surrounding
the
implementation
of
the
standard.
Also,
the
form
of
the
new
8­
hour
standard
makes
it
less
dependent
on
extreme
events
than
the
1­
hour
standard.
Therefore,
meteorological
scenarios
associated
with
8­
hour
exceedances
were
reviewed
and
considered
for
modeling.
A
combination
of
these
factors
led
to
choosing
episodes
where
both
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standards
were
exceeded.

The
EPA
issued
a
new
ambient
air
quality
standard
based
on
the
daily
maximum
8­
hour
averaged
concentration
for
ozone
in
July
1997.
In
June
of
1998,
EPA
revoked
the
1­
hour
standard
in
North
Carolina
since
all
areas
of
the
state
had
attained
that
standard.
However,
in
the
1998
ozone
season,
North
Carolina
experienced
its
first
violation
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
since
1990
in
the
Charlotte
area.
Later,
in
May
1999,
a
D.
C.
District
Court
ruling
instructed
EPA
that
an
intelligible
principle
for
the
setting
of
the
new
8­
hour
standard
had
to
be
defined
and
that
enforcement
of
the
8­
hour
standard
was
prohibited
by
the
court
until
EPA
had
done
so.
In
1999,
EPA
reinstated
the
old
1­
hour
standard.
The
result
of
all
of
the
changing
policy
and
litigation
is
that
the
modeling
study
must
shift
its
primary
focus
from
a
traditional
analysis
solely
targeted
at
1­
hour
averaged
ozone
values,
to
an
analysis
of
both
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
averaged
values.
Analysis
of
episodes
with
exceedances
of
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standards
will
also
allow
an
assessment
of
the
differences
that
two
standards
may
have
on
control
strategy
development
and
will
indicate
whether
control
strategies
designed
to
meet
the
8­
hour
standard
will
also
be
effective
at
reducing
ozone
levels
below
the
1­
hour
standard.
The
"
dual"
need
to
model
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
exceedances
was
a
primary
criterion
in
the
episode
selection
process.

A
second
factor
affecting
the
selection
process
was
the
form
of
the
new
standard.
The
1
hour
standard
allowed
1
exceedance
per
year
in
a
region
on
average
with
the
design
value
being
the
4th
highest
1
hour
value
in
that
region
over
3
years.
This
means
that,
in
theory,
only
the
3
worst
case
episodes
in
a
3­
year
period
can
be
removed
from
consideration
for
78
modeling.
The
design
value
under
the
8­
hour
standard
is
calculated
differently.
It
is
the
yearly
4th
highest
8­
hour
value
at
each
monitor,
averaged
over
3
years.
With
the
new
standard
it
is
possible
to
"
throw
out"
the
3
worst
case
episode
days
of
each
year,
or
approximately
9
days
over
3
years
for
each
monitor.
Because
the
4th
high
value
is
determined
for
each
individual
monitor,
discarding
days
with
higher
values
can
result
in
the
removal
of
more
than
9
worst
case
days
if
the
high
readings
for
all
monitors
do
not
occur
on
the
same
days.
For
example,
exceedances
may
be
measured
north
of
a
city
during
days
when
the
wind
blows
predominately
from
the
south,
but
measured
at
monitors
south
of
the
city
on
other
days
when
winds
are
northerly.
Discarding
days
above
the
4th
highest
measurement
in
this
example
could
result
in
removal
of
more
than
9
worst
case
episode
days
in
three
years.
This
makes
the
standard
less
dependent
on
extreme
events.

3.3
Episode
Selection
Considerations
The
methodologies
suggested
in
EPA's
draft
guidance
for
episode
selection
is
the
same
for
both
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standards.
These
methodologies
were
applied
to
the
extent
possible
when
attempting
to
choose
episodes.
The
episode
selection
criterion
was
compromised
to
some
extent
by
the
need
to
simultaneously
model
multiple
areas
in
North
Carolina.

First,
we
considered
a
mix
of
episodes
reflecting
a
variety
of
meteorological
scenarios
which
frequently
correspond
with
observed
8­
hour
daily
maxima
>
84
ppb
at
different
monitoring
sites.
An
analysis
of
each
ozone
episode
was
made
using
several
sources
of
air
quality
and
meteorological
data
to
determine
the
episodes
that
would
contribute
the
most
to
the
modeling
effort.

Secondly,
we
considered
periods
in
which
observed
8­
hour
daily
maximum
concentrations
were
within
±
10
ppb
of
each
area's
design
value.
Because
modeling
for
the
new
8­
hour
standard
may
capture
some
1­
hour
exceedances,
8­
hour
averaged
ozone
concentrations
were
given
primary
consideration.
The
8­
hour
design
values
were
calculated
statewide,
with
a
focus
on
the
three
major
urban
areas
of
NC;
Charlotte/
Gastionia,
Greensboro/
Winston­
Salem
(
the
Triad),
and
Raleigh/
Durham
(
RDU),
using
monitored
values
from
1994­
2002.
The
average
of
each
year's
fourth
highest
daily
8­
hour
averaged
maximum
concentration
for
each
monitor
statewide
was
calculated
and
used
as
a
guide
for
determining
the
episodes
with
concentrations
within
±
10
ppb
of
the
area's
design
value.

Finally,
the
temporal
and
spatial
distribution
of
ozone
throughout
NC
was
also
an
important
consideration.
The
new
8­
hour
standard
brings
areas
such
as
Asheville,
Fayetteville,
Greenville/
Rocky
Mount/
Wilson
(
Down
East),
Hickory,
and
other
various
areas
into
non­
attainment.
Therefore,
it
was
necessary
to
choose
episodes
affecting
those
areas
as
well
as
the
three
major
urban
areas
mentioned
above.
Episodes
containing
widespread
ozone
exceedances
were
given
priority
over
those
containing
isolated
exceedances.
Also,
the
need
to
study
the
cumulative
effects
of
ozone
build­
up
over
a
79
number
of
days
was
recognized,
so
episodes
of
extended
duration
were
given
preference
over
single
day
exceedances.

Meeting
all
of
the
criteria
in
all
areas
is
sometimes
difficult.
The
episode
selection
criterion
was
compromised
to
some
extent
by
the
need
to
simultaneously
model
multiple
areas.
For
example,
during
many
"
moderate"
ozone
events,
ozone
exceedances
are
not
widespread
throughout
NC.
Selection
of
these
episodes
can
dramatically
increase
the
number
of
modeled
episodes
needed
to
complete
a
thorough
analysis
of
all
nonattainment
areas
across
the
state.
On
the
other
hand,
episodes
with
exceedances
in
all
non­
attainment
areas
often
contain
scattered
extreme
values.

To
reduce
the
number
of
episodes
to
a
manageable
number,
while
also
performing
a
complete
analysis
on
each
major
urban
area
of
NC,
we
made
some
compromise
in
the
selection
criteria.
Ideally,
no
days
with
concentrations
well
above
an
area's
design
value
would
have
been
included
in
the
selected
episodes.
However,
on
some
days
concentrations
in
one
or
two
areas
were
found
to
be
ideal
for
modeling
while
another
area
had
observed
concentrations
well
above
its'
ozone
design
value.
Days
such
as
these
were
included
in
the
selected
episodes
due
to
the
days'
overall
positive
attributes.

3.4
Episode
Selection
Procedures
Ambient
data
was
used
to
determine
the
days
that
exceedances
of
the
1­
hour
and/
or
8­
hour
standard
occurred
in
any
of
the
major
urban
areas
of
NC
from
1995
through
1997.
These
days
were
grouped
into
episodes
and
evaluated
using
the
selection
criteria
discussed
in
the
preceding
section.
An
analysis
of
each
ozone
episode
was
made
using
several
sources
of
air
quality
and
meteorological
data
to
determine
the
episodes
that
would
contribute
the
most
to
the
modeling
effort.

Sets
of
ambient
ozone
data
from
1995­
1997
for
the
eastern
US
were
plotted
using
Voyager
Viewer
software.
The
data
were
plotted
for
the
eastern
US
using
both
hourly
and
8­
hour
peak
ozone
concentrations.
This
permitted
easy
assessment
of
the
spatial
and
temporal
distribution
of
ozone
throughout
North
Carolina
as
well
as
other
areas
of
the
eastern
US
and
made
it
possible
to
easily
determine
whether
the
event
was
regional,
subregional
or
local
in
nature.
These
plots
combined
with
meteorological
plots
also
indicated
the
potential
for
recirculation.
In
one
episode,
shifts
in
wind
direction
corresponded
to
shifts
in
the
location
of
ozone
peaks
in
the
Charlotte
area,
suggesting
that
recirculation
may
have
contributed
to
exceedances
of
both
ozone
standards.

In
addition
to
the
ambient
data
plots,
several
surface
and
upper
air
meteorological
data
sets
were
used
to
assess
the
atmospheric
conditions
contributing
to
the
build­
up
of
ozone
in
each
episode.
Local
Climatological
Data
sheets
were
used
to
collect
diurnal
data
on
temperatures,
precipitation,
and
wind
speed
and
direction.
Daily
weather
maps
were
used
to
determine
the
location
of
surface
fronts,
troughs,
and
ridges
as
well
as
daily
peak
temperatures,
precipitation,
and
the
location
of
high
and
low
pressure
areas.
Analysis
charts
(
0000
Z
and
1200
Z)
for
the
surface,
850
mb,
700
mb,
and
500
mb
levels
from
the
80
NOAA­
NCEP
ETA
meteorological
computer
model
were
also
used
to
assess
conditions
such
as
surface
and
upper
air
wind
fields,
temperatures,
moisture,
and
the
location
of
ridges
and
troughs.
The
conditions
contributing
to
high
levels
of
ozone
were
determined
through
chart
analysis,
and
the
type
of
meteorology
was
used
to
group
episodes.

3.5
Episode
Selection
All
days
with
ozone
exceedances
in
any
of
the
major
urban
areas
of
NC
were
considered
in
the
episode
selection
process.
These
days
were
divided
into
episodes
based
on
the
distribution
of
measured
ozone
and
the
meteorological
conditions
that
occurred
throughout
the
period
of
exceedance.
The
meteorological
characteristics
of
each
episode
were
studied
using
the
tools
outlined
in
the
previous
section.
All
episodes
will
have
some
common
characteristics.
Warm
temperatures,
little
or
no
precipitation,
and
relatively
light
winds
are
needed
to
produce
ozone
episodes.
Typically,
those
conditions
are
characteristic
of
a
surface
high­
pressure
area.
The
differences
in
the
position,
strength,
and
movement
of
the
surface
high­
pressure
areas,
along
with
differences
in
the
mid­
toupper
level
wind
patterns,
allow
us
to
discern
several
meteorological
scenarios
in
which
ozone
episodes
are
likely.
These
meteorological
scenarios
are
discussed
in
the
following
paragraphs.

Conditions
that
traditionally
lead
to
large­
scale
exceedances
of
the
1­
hr
standard
result
from
the
development
of
a
broad
surface
high
pressure
area
sprawled
over
the
eastern
third
of
the
US
and
a
large
mid­
to­
upper
level
high
pressure
area
near
the
Midwest
(
Scenario
1
 
Eastern
Stacked
High).
The
mid­
to­
upper
level
ridge
blocks
the
movement
of
fronts
into
the
Eastern
US
and
often
results
in
very
hot
temperatures,
little
precipitation,
and
the
buildup
of
high
1­
hr
and
8­
hr
ozone
concentrations
over
much
of
the
Midwest,
Northeast,
and
South.
As
the
mid­
to­
upper
level
ridge
slowly
slides
eastward,
it
situates
itself
over
the
surface
high­
pressure
creating
a
"
stacked
high"
over
the
Eastern
US.
The
resulting
large­
scale
subsidence
leads
to
very
low
vertical
mixing
heights
prohibiting
dispersion
of
precursor
pollutants.
The
stagnant
air
mass
from
the
"
stacked
high"
scenario
is
prime
for
ozone
episodes
in
the
Eastern
US.
A
trough
can
develop
in
east/
central
NC
during
this
scenario
producing
south­
southwesterly
flow
east
of
the
trough
and
causing
a
large
ozone
concentration
gradient.
The
presence
of
the
trough
can
limit
ozone
readings
east
of
the
trough
axis
below
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standards
throughout
the
episode.
(
An
example
of
these
conditions
is
recorded
in
the
July
14,
1995
Daily
Weather
Map
[
Figure
3.5­
1].
The
500­
mb
chart
clearly
shows
the
presence
of
a
large
high
pressure
area
over
the
Midwest.)

The
most
frequently
occurring
meteorological
scenario
(
Scenario
2
 
Frontal
Approach)
is
characterized
by
the
movement
of
cold
fronts
toward
NC
and
the
presence
of
high
pressure
to
the
south
or
southwest
of
the
state.
Cold
fronts
often
move
toward
NC
during
the
summer
months
but
are
typically
not
strong
enough
to
move
completely
through
the
state.
They
commonly
become
east­
west
oriented
and
stall
as
far
south
as
southern
Virginia
or
northern
sections
of
NC.
The
front
may
dip
into
northern
portions
of
NC
and
then
retreat
as
a
warm
front
creating
wind
shifts
or
re­
circulation
patterns.
A
81
southwesterly
surface
flow
predominates
as
the
front
approaches,
but
as
the
front
moves
into
northern
sections
of
NC,
winds
become
more
northerly.
When
the
front
retreats
back
to
the
north
as
a
warm
front,
southwesterly
winds
return
to
the
entire
state.
In
the
meantime,
a
zonal
flow
exists
in
the
mid­
to­
upper
levels.
High
temperatures
range
from
the
low
to
upper
90'
s
and
dew
points
are
in
the
upper
60'
s
to
mid
70'
s.
Scattered
exceedances
of
the
1­
hour
standard
and
widespread
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standards
may
be
realized
in
NC
during
these
conditions.
(
These
conditions
can
be
seen
in
the
June
23,
1996
Daily
Weather
Map
in
[
Figure
3.5­
2].
Note
the
presence
of
a
stationary
front
along
the
NC/
VA
border.)

A
third
meteorological
scenario
(
Scenario
3
 
Canadian
High)
resulting
in
high
buildups
of
ozone
in
NC
is
characterized
by
a
surface
high­
pressure
area
building
in
from
the
north,
and
a
mid­
to­
upper
level
ridge
that
builds
and
sprawls
to
the
west
of
NC
in
the
Mid­
Mississippi
Valley
area.
The
position
of
the
mid­
to­
upper
level
ridge
produces
a
northerly
flow
aloft
throughout
this
scenario.
As
the
Canadian­
born
surface
highpressure
builds
into
NC,
it
brings
with
it
milder
and
drier
air
by
means
of
a
northnortheasterly
breeze.
These
conditions
can
lead
to
scattered
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standard
in
NC.
Temperatures
are
typically
in
the
low
to
mid
80'
s
(
with
dew
points
in
the
low
to
mid
60'
s)
during
the
beginning
of
this
type
of
episode.
However,
as
the
center
of
the
surface
high­
pressure
slides
into
NC,
and
the
winds
become
light
and
variable,
highs
may
reach
the
upper
80'
s
to
low
90'
s
(
with
dew
points
in
the
upper
60'
s
to
low
70'
s).
Scattered
exceedances
of
the
1­
hour
standard
and
widespread
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standards
may
be
realized
in
NC
during
these
conditions.
(
An
example
of
these
conditions
is
shown
in
Figure
3.5­
3
[
June
28,
1996].)

The
fourth
meteorological
scenario
(
Scenario
4
 
Modified
Canadian
High
with
slight
Tropical
Influence),
initially,
is
very
similar
to
Scenario
3
above.
Canadian
born
surface
high­
pressure
builds
into
NC
delivering
lower
dew
points
and
milder
temperatures
with
a
light
north­
northeasterly
wind.
This
cool
down
is
short­
lived
however.
As
the
highpressure
center
moves
south
of
NC,
a
light
southwesterly
flow
dominates,
temperatures
soar,
and
dew
points
increase.
A
mid­
to­
upper
level
ridge
slowly
sprawls
eastward
across
the
country,
resulting
in
a
very
weak
flow
aloft.
Occasionally,
when
the
mid­
toupper
level
flow
is
very
weak
along
the
East
Coast
during
the
mid­
to­
late
summer,
tropical
systems
that
work
their
way
across
the
Atlantic
Ocean
can
approach
the
Southeast
US.
Although
it
does
not
occur
frequently,
a
tropical
system
lurking
off
the
Carolina
coast
may
influence
conditions
over
NC
in
the
form
of
subsidence
in
the
mid­
toupper
levels.
Subsidence
is
usually
distributed
over
a
wide
area
away
from
tropical
systems,
and
leads
to
cloudless
skies
and
hot
dry
weather.
The
strength
and
proximity
of
the
tropical
system
will
influence
the
magnitude
and
extent
of
the
subsidence
and
its'
role
in
ozone
formation
in
NC.
(
An
example
of
these
conditions
is
shown
in
Figure
3.5­
4
[
July
14,
1997].)

Meteorological
scenarios
other
than
the
four
identified
above
can
result
in
ozone
episodes.
These
"
other"
episodes,
however,
commonly
do
not
meet
the
temporal
or
spatial
requirements
of
the
episode
selection
criteria
for
modeling
defined
in
the
U.
S.
EPA
Draft
Modeling
Guidance
for
Ozone
Attainment
Demonstrations.
One­
day
ozone
82
episodes
can
occur
during
a
progressive
meteorological
pattern
(
Scenario
5
 
Continental
High
in
a
progressive
pattern).
A
surface
high­
pressure
area
moving
across
the
US
and
into
NC
for
one
day
characterizes
this
scenario.
This
results
in
clear
skies,
light
winds,
and
isolated
8­
hour
ozone
exceedances.

An
initial
analysis
of
ambient
data
and
Daily
Weather
Maps
was
used
to
place
each
of
the
ozone
episodes
into
one
of
the
four
meteorological
scenarios
identified
above.
A
list
of
the
number
of
monitors
with
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standard
in
each
of
the
major
urban
areas
was
compiled
and
reviewed.
This
information
was
used
to
exclude
those
episodes
from
each
category
that
did
not
have
sufficient
spatial
or
temporal
distribution
to
justify
further
study.
A
more
detailed
analysis
of
each
of
the
remaining
episodes
was
made
using
all
sources
of
air
quality
and
meteorological
data
to
select
the
episodes
that
would
best
meet
modeling
objectives.

To
better
understand
the
impact
of
emission
controls
under
the
full
range
of
meteorological
conditions,
one
episode
from
each
meteorological
scenario
was
selected
for
modeling.
The
four
episodes
were
selected
because
they
represented
a
good
crosssection
of
events
from
both
an
air
quality
and
meteorological
perspective.
They
were
also
selected
because
observed
ozone
concentrations
were
close
to
the
areas
design
value,
and
high
ozone
values
were
widespread
throughout
NC.
One
episode
was
selected
from
1995
(
Scenario­
1),
two
from
1996
(
Scenario­
2
&
Scenario­
3),
and
one
from
1997
(
Scenario­
4).
The
two
episodes
selected
from
1996
were
separated
by
only
two
days
during
which
time
a
strong
cold
front
cleaned
out
the
atmosphere
as
it
passed
through
the
state.
The
two
episodes
will
be
modeled
simultaneously.
This
presents
a
good
opportunity
to
test
the
ability
of
the
air
quality
model
to
produce
clean
conditions
in
the
middle
of
an
episode.

These
episodes
provide
a
wide
range
of
conditions
that
will
provide
the
basis
for
a
thorough
analysis
of
the
variety
of
factors
that
lead
to
ozone
exceedances
in
NC.
Control
strategies
can
be
tested
under
conditions
that
range
from
short
duration
ozone
peaks
above
the
1­
hour
standard
to
extended
periods
of
moderate
levels
of
ozone
producing
widespread
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standard.
These
episodes
also
range
from
multiregional
to
exceedances
confined
primarily
to
the
state
of
NC.

The
first
episode
(
Episode­
E1)
is
a
3­
day
episode
that
occurred
from
June
13
 
15,
1995.
(
See
the
July
14
Daily
Weather
Map
in
Figure
3.5­
1.)
This
episode
was
modeled
by
the
Northeast
Modeling
Center
as
part
of
the
OTAG
study
of
ozone
transport.
This
episode
is
a
traditional
ozone
episode
with
high
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
averages
throughout
almost
all
areas
of
the
South,
East,
and
Midwest.
A
very
strong
upper
level
ridge
developed
to
the
west
of
NC
and
moved
slowly
to
the
east
throughout
the
episode.
On
July
15th,
the
1­
hour
peak
reached
166
ppb
in
Atlanta,
179
ppb
in
Baltimore,
and
154
ppb
near
Chicago.
The
highest
readings
were
recorded
in
NC
on
July
14th;
129
ppb
in
Charlotte
(
99
ppb
8­
hour)
and
130
ppb
in
the
Triad
area
(
112
ppb
8­
hour).
A
trough
developed
in
eastern
NC
on
July
14th
producing
south­
southwesterly
flow
east
of
the
trough
and
causing
a
large
ozone
concentration
gradient.
Although
a
1­
hour
peak
of
129
ppb
was
measured
in
Charlotte,
the
peak
ozone
was
only
39
ppb
100
miles
to
the
east.
The
presence
of
the
83
trough
kept
ozone
readings
in
the
Raleigh/
Durham
area
below
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standards
throughout
the
episode.
The
trough
moved
to
the
west
on
July
15th
and
dropped
1­
hour
averages
in
Charlotte
and
the
Triad
below
the
standard;
however,
8­
hour
concentrations
remained
above
0.085
ppm.

The
first
1996
episode
(
Episode­
E2)
occurred
June
21
 
24
1996.
It
is
primarily
a
NC
episode.
(
See
the
June
23
Daily
Weather
Map
in
Figure
3.5­
2.)
Concentrations
in
most
other
areas
of
the
South
and
East
were
lower
than
those
in
NC.
This
episode
is
dominated
by
the
presence
of
a
front
to
the
north
and
high
pressure
to
the
southwest
of
the
state.
The
movement
of
the
front
and
the
monitored
ozone
readings
indicate
possible
recirculation
during
the
episode.
Light
southwesterly
flow
was
present
on
22
June
and
resulted
in
a
1­
hour/
8­
hour
peak
of
133/
110
ppb
and
113/
99
ppb
northeast
of
Charlotte
and
Durham,
respectively.
As
the
front
moved
into
northern
portions
of
NC
on
the
23rd,
winds
became
more
northerly
and
concentrations
in
the
Triad
and
Raleigh/
Durham
area's
fell.
Ozone
and
precursor
pollutants
were
pushed
back
into
Charlotte
and
resulted
in
exceedances
of
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standard
at
all
three
Mecklenburg
county
ozone
monitors.
On
the
24th,
the
front
retreated
north
as
a
warm
front
and
southwesterly
winds
returned
to
the
entire
state.
Ozone
levels
increased
throughout
northern
portions
of
NC
and
8­
hour
averaged
concentrations
between
90
and
100
ppb
were
recorded
in
the
major
urban
areas
of
the
Piedmont.
One
exceedance
of
the
1­
hour
standard
(
134
ppb)
was
measured
at
the
Rockwell
site,
northeast
of
Charlotte.

A
stronger
front
moved
toward
NC
on
the
25th
touching
off
storms
and
dropping
ozone
readings.
The
front
passed
through
the
state
by
the
26th
and
concentrations
remained
low.
An
upper
level
ridge
began
to
build
to
the
west
of
NC
and
surface
high
pressure
over
Canada
moved
southward
throughout
episode
(
Episode­
E3)
(
June
27
 
29,
1996)
and
settled
into
western
NC
by
the
29th.
(
See
the
June
28
Daily
Weather
Map
in
Figure
3.5­
3.)
Northerly
winds
were
predominant
at
the
surface
and
upper
levels.
High
temperatures
remained
90
and
below
in
NC
and
much
of
the
eastern
half
of
the
US
during
this
period.
Dew
point
temperatures
were
relatively
low
and
winds
were
light
enough
to
produce
8­
hour
exceedances
in
many
areas
of
NC
on
the
28th
and
29th.
As
high
pressure
remained
over
western
NC,
ozone
concentrations
continued
to
rise
throughout
the
episode.
Exceedances
of
the
1­
hour
standard
were
measured
at
two
monitors
in
Charlotte
on
the
29th.

The
final
episode
selected
for
analysis
(
Episode­
E4)
occurred
July
11
 
15,
1997.
(
See
the
July
14
Daily
Weather
Map
in
Figure
3.5­
4.)
The
previous
three
episodes
did
not
capture
typical
ozone
behaviors
in
the
center
city
areas
of
the
Triad
and
the
Triangle.
The
selection
of
this
episode
also
was
driven
by
the
need
to
model
an
episode
that
captured
ozone
events
in
areas
such
as
Greenville,
Fayetteville,
and
Hickory.
The
most
distinctive
aspect
of
this
episode,
however,
is
that
a
1­
hour
exceedance
occurred
in
the
Triangle
area
on
the
July
14th.
No
other
episode
captures
a
1­
hour
exceedance
in
this
region.
On
the
first
three
days
of
the
episode,
meteorological
conditions
were
very
similar
to
those
in
episode
E3.
On
the
14th
and
15th,
however,
the
surface
high­
pressure
center
moved
over
NC,
the
mid­
to­
upper
level
flow
relaxed,
and
a
tropical
depression
off
the
NC
coast
strengthens
into
Tropical
Storm
"
Claudette".
It
is
possible
that
the
tropical
84
system
influenced
conditions
in
NC
(
especially
Eastern
NC)
on
the
14th
and
15th.
Temperatures
soared
into
the
mid
90'
s
with
dew
points
in
the
mid­
to­
upper
60s.
The
backward
air
parcel
trajectories
from
Rocky
Mount,
NC
(
shown
in
Figure
3.5­
5),
illustrates
the
possible
influence
from
the
tropical
system
(
Note
the
subsidence
at
midlevels
from
0Z
 
20Z
on
the
14th.)
Exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standard
were
recorded
in
North
Carolina,
South
Carolina
and
Virginia
as
the
surface
high­
pressure
center
moved
over
NC,
the
mid­
to­
upper
level
flow
aloft
weakened,
and
the
tropical
system
made
it's
nearest
approach.
85
Figure
3.5­
1
Daily
Weather
Maps
for
July
14,
1995
86
Figure
3.5­
2
Daily
Weather
Maps
for
June
23,
1996
87
Figure
3.5­
3
Daily
Weather
Maps
for
June
28,
1996
88
Figure
3.5­
4
Daily
Weather
Maps
for
July
14,
1997
89
Figure
3.5­
5
Backward
Air
Parcel
Trajectories
for
July
14,
1997
90
Table
3.5­
1
Features
of
Each
Selected
Episode
E1
E2
E3
E4
Synoptic
Features
Large
blocking
upper
level
High
over
Midwest
slides
eastward
over
the
large
surface
High
over
Eastern
US.
Front
to
the
north.
High
pressure
center
SW
of
NC.
Front
moves
into
NC,
then
retreats
as
a
warm
front.
Canadian
surface
High
moves
south
into
NC.
Upper
level
ridge
over
middle
of
country.
Canadian
surface
High
moves
south
of
NC.
Upper
level
flow
weakens.
Possible
influence
from
tropical
system
of
the
coast.
Scale
Multi­
regional
exceedances
of
1­
hr
&
8­
hr
standard.
Primarily
NC.
Primarily
NC.
Multi­
regional
exceedances
of
1­
hr
and
8­
hr
standard.

Temperatures
Mid
­
upper
90'
s
in
NC.
90'
s
to
100'
s
throughout
MW,
NE,
&
South.
Low
­
mid
90'
s
in
NC
and
South.
mid
80'
s
­
low
90'
s
MW
&
NE.
Upper
80'
s
in
NC.
Mid
­
upper
80'
s
NE
&
MW.
Low
90'
s
in
South.
Initially
upper
80'
s,
then
mid­
to­
upper
90'
s
for
NC
and
Mid­
Atlantic.

Dew
Pt
Temps
Upper
60'
s
­
low
70'
s
in
NC.
As
high
as
low
80'
s
NE
&
MW.
Low
70'
s.
Low­
to­
mid
60'
s.
Upper
60'
s
 
low
70'
s
in
NC
and
Mid­
Atlantic.

Local
Features
North
to
South
trough
over
east/
central
NC.
Clean
air
east
of
trough
effects
O3
in
CLT
&
RDU.
Front
dips
into
northern
NC
&
retreats
as
warm
front
creating
wind
shifts
and
re­
circulation
patterns.
Influence
of
Canadian
High.
Dry
air
&
northerly
winds
at
surface
&
upper
levels.
Stagnating
winds
throughout
atmosphere.
Possible
influence
from
tropical
system
in
eastern
NC.

Ozone
Conc's
1­
hr
around
130
in
GSO,
CLT.
170'
s
in
Baltimore,
160'
s
in
Atlanta,
150'
s
in
MW.
Multi­
day
exceedances
of
8­
hr
in
3
major
areas
of
NC.
1­
hr
exceedances
on
3
days
in
CLT.
Multi­
day
exceedances
of
8­
hr
in
3
major
areas
of
NC.
1­
hr
exceedances
in
GSO
&
CLT
on
last
day.
Multi­
day
exceedances
of
8­
hr
in
all
major
NC
metro
areas.
1­
hr
exceedances
on
2
days
(
1
RDU
&
1
CLT).
91
4
METEOROLOGICAL
MODELING
4.1
Introduction
Meteorological
data
needed
for
the
MAQSIP
application
were
obtained
from
the
MM5
modeling
system.
Numerical
meteorological
models
solve
the
governing
equations
of
atmospheric
physics
over
time
and
space
in
order
to
provide
cell­
specific
meteorological
inputs
into
the
photochemical
model.

Prognostic
models
such
as
MM5
are
particularly
advantageous
(
as
opposed
to
objective/
diagnostic
techniques
for
meteorological
input
development)
over
domains
in
which
atmospheric
circulation
not
adequately
characterized
by
existing
data
networks
play
an
important
role
in
pollutant
transport.
Within
the
modeling
domain
topographical
flow,
sea
breeze
circulation,
and
the
effects
of
differential
UV
attenuation
due
to
clouds
will
need
to
be
accurately
simulated
in
order
to
successfully
model
ozone
formation,
transport,
and
destruction
within
the
airshed.

4.2
Grid
Definition
Table
4.2­
1
lists
the
specifications
of
each
of
the
four
MM5
nested
grids.
Figure
4­
1
through
4­
3
illustrates
the
MM5
domains
utilized
for
the
modeling.
Grids
01
(
108
km)
and
02
(
36
km)
are
more
expansive
than
the
outermost
MAQSIP
grid
and
are
intended
to
capture
the
broad,
synoptic
scale
meteorological
features
of
the
episodes.
Grids
03
(
12
km)
and
04
(
4km)
encompass
the
corresponding
fine­
mesh
domains
within
MAQSIP
and
are
required
to
capture
the
mesoscale
elements
of
pollutant
transport
within
the
airshed.
Since
the
4km­
domain
configuration
varies
with
each
episode,
the
numbers
in
Table
4.2­
1
for
D
04
represent
the
differing
specifications,
starting
with
the
1995
case.

Table
4.2­
1.
MM5
Grid
Specifications
Grid
Resolution
(
km)
East­
West
Cells
(#)
North­
South
Cells
(#)
Time
Step
(
s)

D
01
108
54
42
300
D
02
36
60
60
100
D
03
12
81
63
36
D
04
4
69,
126,
114
69,
75,
75
12
92
Figure
4.2­
1
The
1995
MM5
Modeling
Domain
and
Grids
Figure
4.2­
2
The
1996
MM5
Modeling
Domain
and
Grids
93
Figure
4.2­
3
The
1997
MM5
Modeling
Domain
and
Grids
Given
that
the
emphasis
of
the
meteorological
modeling
is
mid­
latitudinal,
a
Lambert
Conformal
map
projection
has
been
chosen.
The
horizontal
grid
uses
an
Arakawa­
Lamb
B­
staggering
of
the
wind
vector
components;
scalar
variables
are
defined
at
cell
centers.
In
the
vertical,
26
layers
are
modeled
using
terrain
following
coordinates
(
sigma
coordinates).
With
the
exception
of
vertical
velocity,
all
state
variables
are
defined
at
half­
sigma
levels
(
i.
e.,
the
midpoint
of
layer
depth).
The
pressure
at
the
top
of
the
model
is
100
millibars.

Table
4.2­
2
shows
an
estimated
vertical
grid
resolution
for
the
meteorological
model
assuming
standard
atmosphere.
94
Table
4.2­
2.
Vertical
Grid
Resolution
for
the
Meteorological
Model
(
MM5)
Level
SIGMA
Pressure
(
mb)
Height
(
m)
Thickness
(
m)
0
1.000
1000.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.995
995.5
38.0
38.0
2
0.987
988.3
99.2
61.1
3
0.974
976.6
199.3
100.1
4
0.956
960.4
339.5
140.2
5
0.936
942.4
497.5
158.1
6
0.913
921.7
682.4
184.8
7
0.887
898.3
895.4
213.0
8
0.857
871.3
1146.8
251.4
9
0.824
841.6
1430.8
284.0
10
0.790
811.0
1732.0
301.2
11
0.750
775.0
2098.3
366.3
12
0.700
730.0
2576.1
477.8
13
0.650
685.0
3078.3
502.2
14
0.600
640.0
3607.9
529.6
15
0.550
595.0
4168.6
560.7
16
0.500
550.0
4764.7
596.1
17
0.450
505.0
5401.6
636.9
18
0.400
460.0
6086.2
684.6
19
0.350
415.0
6827.3
741.0
20
0.300
370.0
7636.3
809.1
21
0.250
325.0
8529.1
892.8
22
0.200
280.0
9528.0
998.8
23
0.150
235.0
10665.7
1137.7
24
0.100
190.0
12021.8
1356.1
25
0.050
145.0
13742.3
1720.5
26
0.000
100.0
16094.8
2352.5
The
meteorological
model
used
for
the
1995
modeling
episode,
MM5
version1,
used
the
postprocessor
Meteorology
Chemistry
Interface
Processor
(
MCIP)
to
prepare
the
MAQSIP
model
inputs.
This
post­
processor
could
collapse
some
of
the
meteorological
layers
so
that
the
MAQSIP
model
could
run
with
fewer
layers
and
reduce
the
processing
time.
North
Carolina
ran
a
number
of
sensitivity
runs,
collapsing
some
of
the
upper
layers,
to
see
if
the
air
quality
predictions
were
adversely
affected.
From
this
analysis,
it
was
determined
that
the
minimum
number
of
layer
that
the
MAQSIP
model
could
run
with
was
16
layers
without
differing
significantly
from
running
the
model
with
all
26
layers.
The
first
12
layers
of
the
meteorological
model
are
mapped
directly
and
the
upper
14
MM5
layers
are
collapsed
into
4
MAQSIP
layers.
The
estimated
vertical
grid
resolution
for
the
MAQSIP
model
for
the
1995
modeling
episode
is
shown
in
Table
4.2­
3.
95
Table
4.2­
3.
Vertical
Grid
Resolution
for
MAQSIP
for
the
1995
Episode
Level
Height
(
m)
Thickness
(
m)
0
0.0
0.0
1
38.0
38.0
2
99.2
61.1
3
199.3
100.1
4
339.5
140.2
5
497.5
158.1
6
682.4
184.8
7
895.4
213.0
8
1146.8
251.4
9
1430.8
284.0
10
1732.0
301.2
11
2098.3
366.3
12
2576.1
477.8
13
4168.6
1592.5
14
6827.3
2658.7
15
10665.7
3838.4
16
16094.8
5429.1
For
the
1996
and
1997
modeling
episodes,
newer
versions
of
the
meteorological
model
were
used.
The
post­
processor
for
the
new
versions
is
Meteorology­
Coupler
(
MCPL)
and
it
cannot
collapse
the
meteorological
data
into
a
format
that
the
MAQSIP
model
can
use.
Therefore,
the
photochemical
model
runs
with
26
layers,
mapping
the
meteorological
data
directly,
for
the
1996
and
1997
episodes.

4.3
MM5
Physics
Options
One­
way
nested
grids
Non­
hydrostatic
dynamics
Four­
dimensional
data
assimilation
(
FDDA):
 
analysis
nudging
of
wind,
temperature,
and
mixing
ratios
every
12
hours
 
nudging
coefficients
range
from
1.0
*
10­
5
s­
1
to
3.0
*
10­
4
s­
1
 
No
initial
FDDA
for
12
km
and
4
km
grids
Explicit
moisture
treatment:
 
3­
D
predictions
of
cloud
and
precipitation
fields
 
simple
ice
microphysics
 
cloud
effects
on
surface
radiation
 
moist
vertical
diffusion
in
clouds
 
normal
evaporative
cooling
Boundary
conditions:
 
relaxation
inflow/
outflow
(
Grid
01)
 
time­
dependent
(
Grids
02,
03,
&
04)
96
 
rigid
upper
boundary
Cumulus
cloud
parameterization
schemes:
 
Anthes­
Kuo
(
Grid
01)
 
Kain­
Fritsch
(
Grids
02
and
03)
1995
&
1996
episodes,
Grell
(
Grids
02
and
03)
1997
 
no
cumulus
parameterization
(
Grid
04)
Full
3­
dimensional
Coriolis
force
Drag
coefficients
vary
with
stability
Vertical
mixing
of
momentum
in
mixed
layer
Virtual
temperature
effects
Planetary
boundary
layer
process
parameterization:
 
Modified
Blackadar
scheme
(
Grids
02,
03
and
04)
for
1996
and
1997
episodes
and
Grid
02
for
1995
episode;
Gayno­
Seaman
scheme
(
Grids
03
and
04)
for
1995
episode.
Surface
layer
parameterization:
 
fluxes
of
momentum,
sensible
and
latent
heat
 
ground
temperature
prediction
using
energy
balance
equation
 
13
land
use
categories
Atmospheric
radiation
schemes:
 
Simple
cooling
 
Long­
and
short­
wave
radiation
scheme
Several
application
specific
modifications:
 
m5_
dry.
mods
­­
lowers
MM5
soil
moisture
when
appropriate
locally
 
mavail_
adj.
mods
­­
changes
soil
moisture
as
a
function
of
soil
type
as
needed
 
m5_
flyer.
mods
­­
modifications
to
optimize
on
NCSC
CRAY
T­
90
 
kfbm_
edss.
mods
­­
writes
special
Kain­
Fritsch
meteorological
data
 
m5_
height.
mods
­­
calculates
MM5
layer
heights
correctly
for
non
hydrostatic
 
m5_
epafiles.
mods
­­
writes
additional
data
out
to
air
quality
model
 
m5_
blkdr_
hts.
mods
­­
modifies
PBL
height
calculations
to
a
VMM
scheme
4.4
Inputs
Table
4.4­
1
describes
the
terrain
and
land
use
fields
input
into
MM5
for
the
modeling.

Table
4.4­
1
Terrain
and
Land
Use
Inputs
to
MM5
Grid
Terrain
origin
Terrain
resolution
Land
use
origin
Land
use
resolution
G
01
PSU/
NCAR
30
minute
PSU/
NCAR
30
minute
G
02
GDC
10
minute
PSU/
NCAR
10
minute
G
03*
GDC
5
minute
PSU/
NCAR
5
minute
G
04*
GDC
5
minute
PSU/
NCAR
5
minute
*
Land
use
data
were
slightly
modified
in
the
Charlotte
area
to
minimize
the
number
of
cells
characterized
as
urban.
Also,
several
cells
along
the
NC/
SC
coastline
were
modified
to
reflect
mixed
forest
­
wetland
as
opposed
to
water.
97
The
TOGA
(
2.5
by
2.5
degrees)
data
set
was
used
to
provide
a
first­
guess
interpolation
of
meteorological
data
to
the
horizontal
modeling
grid.
Climatological
averages
of
sea­
surface
temperature
were
used
to
characterize
ocean
temperatures.
Three­
and
six­
hourly
NWS
data
(
first­
order)
were
used
to
develop
the
surface
analysis
fields.
Standard
twice­
daily
rawinsonde
data
from
the
NWS
were
used
in
the
preparation
of
aloft
FDDA
analysis
fields.

4.5
Performance
Evaluation
The
standard
set
of
objective
metrics
to
evaluate
model
performance
for
various
meteorological
parameters
were
generated
for
this
project.
The
basic
methodology
employed
used
the
base
variables
that
were
available
for
observational
nudging.
These
variables
include
temperature,
water
vapor
mixing
ratio,
east­
west
wind
and
south­
north
wind.
Note
that
only
the
wind
components
are
actually
used
for
observational
nudging.
The
observed
winds
have
been
rotated
to
the
model
projection
(
Lambert
Conformal).
The
model/
obs
pairs
are
matched
on
a
grid
cell
basis;
no
bilinear
interpolation
is
performed.
If
more
than
one
observation
lies
within
a
cell,
the
observations
are
averaged
and
the
value
is
treated
as
if
it
were
a
single
observation.
For
the
wind
components
and
mixing
ratio,
layer
1
(~
38m)
values
are
used.
Temperatures
are
adjusted
to
1.5
meters
by
logarithmically
interpolating
between
the
layer
1
temperature
and
the
"
skin"
temperature.
The
results
of
this
interpolation
were
compared
with
a
more
sophisticated
methodology
in
which
the
interpolation
varies
with
stability
class,
and
we
found
little
significant
differences
between
the
two.
Since
observational
nudging
was
employed
only
at
12­
km
and
4­
km
resolutions,
performance
statistics
were
produced
only
for
those
grids.

A
limited
sample
of
the
performance
metrics
for
each
episode
is
provided
in
Figures
4.5­
1
through
4.5­
7
below.
For
an
exhaustive
review
of
the
meteorological
modeling
results,
please
visit:
http://
www.
emc.
mcnc.
org/
projects/
NCDAQ/
PGM/
results/
index.
htm
98
Figure
4.5­
1
Temperature
performance
metric
 
1995
episode
­
4km
domain
Figure
4.5­
2
Example
Temperature
Metric
­
1995
episode
­
12
km
domain
99
Figure
4.5­
3
Temperature
performance
metric
 
1996
episode
­
4km
domain
Figure
4.5­
4
Example
Temperature
Metric
­
1996
episode
­
12
km
domain
100
Figure
4.5­
5
Temperature
performance
metric
 
1996
episode
­
4km
domain
Figure
4.5­
6
Example
Temperature
Metric
­
1997
episode
­
12
km
domain
101
Figure
4.5­
7
Example
Layer
1
Wind
Vector
Metric
­
1995
episode
­
12
km
domain
Blue
vectors=
observations,
black
vectors=
model
Currently,
there
is
no
accepted
standard
by
which
to
judge
meteorological
model
performance.
Modelers
usually
calculate
the
basic
statistics
such
as
bias,
error,
or
index
of
agreement
and
compare
their
results
with
the
same
quantities
from
prior
and
similar
modeling
exercises.
The
problem
with
such
an
approach
is
that
these
numbers
are
a
function
of
the
domain
size
modeled,
the
length
of
the
simulation,
and
the
meteorology
being
modeled.
In
this
modeling
study,
the
modeling
team,
including
a
number
of
air
quality
meteorologists,
examined
all
of
the
meteorological
modeling
output
both
quantitatively
through
statistical
metrics
and
qualitatively
through
a
series
of
graphical
metrics.

When
passing
final
judgment
regarding
the
accuracy
of
a
meteorological
simulation,
the
modeling
team
concluded
that
the
results
satisfactorily
address
the
following
questions:

A.
Do
the
model
results
fit
our
conceptual
understanding?
The
model
replicates
the
observed
synoptic
pattern,
placing
surface
pressure
systems
in
the
proper
location
and
matches
the
upper
air
pattern.
102
B.
Are
diurnal
features
adequately
captured?
The
diurnal
cycle
is
adequately
represented
in
the
model.
For
example,
the
mixing
heights
increase
during
the
day
and
collapse
at
night
in
a
reasonable
way.
Similarly
temperatures,
summertime
convection,
and
winds
show
diurnal
variation.

C.
Is
the
vertical
mixing
appropriate?
The
PBL
depth
and
evolution
is
well
modeled.

D.
Are
clouds
reasonably
well
modeled?
Secondary
quantities
such
as
clouds
are
particularly
useful
to
analyze
since
they
are
not
"
nudged"
to
the
observations.
We
see
that
on
a
synoptic
scale
the
model
clouds
will
generally
match
the
observations.
Convective
clouds
are
unlikely
to
occur
precisely
in
the
right
place
and
at
the
right
time,
but
the
general
region/
time
of
convective
development
is
adequate.

E.
Do
the
wind
fields
agree
with
the
observations?
The
model
adequately
captures
the
observed
wind
fields
so
that
transport
in
the
subsequent
air
quality
runs
is
done
correctly.

G.
Do
the
temperature
and
moisture
fields
generally
match
the
observations?
These
first
order
scalar
quantities
are
well
captured
by
the
model.

H.
Do
the
meteorological
fields
produce
acceptable
air
quality
results?
While
air
quality
models
can
have
problems
of
their
own,
many
times
poor
air
quality
modeling
results
occur
due
to
problems
with
the
input
meteorological
fields.
This
is
often
a
good
test
to
determine
whether
the
meteorological
model
adequately
predicts
the
fields
to
which
the
air
quality
model
is
most
sensitive.
A
number
of
air
quality
runs
were
conducted
to
test
the
sensitivity
to
different
meteorological
inputs.
103
5
EMISSIONS
INVENTORY
5.1
Introduction
There
are
five
different
emission
inventory
source
classifications,
stationary
point
and
area
sources,
off­
road
and
on­
road
mobile
sources,
and
biogenic
sources.

Stationary
point
sources
are
those
sources
that
emit
greater
than
a
specified
tonage
per
year
and
the
data
is
provided
at
the
facility
level.
Stationary
area
sources
are
those
sources
whose
emissions
are
relatively
small
but
due
to
the
large
number
of
these
sources,
the
collective
emissions
could
be
significant
(
i.
e.,
dry
cleaners,
service
stations,
etc.)
These
type
of
emissions
are
estimated
on
the
county
level.
Off­
road
mobile
sources
are
equipment
that
can
move
but
do
not
use
the
roadways,
i.
e.,
lawn
mowers,
construction
equipment,
railroad
locomotives,
aircraft,
etc.
The
emissions
from
these
sources,
like
stationary
area
sources,
are
estimated
on
the
county
level.
On­
road
mobile
sources
are
automobiles,
trucks,
and
motorcycles
that
use
the
roadway
system.
The
emissions
from
these
sources
are
estimated
by
vehicle
type
and
road
type
and
are
summed
to
the
county
level.
Biogenic
sources
are
the
natural
sources
like
trees,
crops,
grasses
and
natural
decay
of
plants.
The
emissions
from
these
sources
are
estimated
on
a
county
level.

In
addition
to
the
various
source
classifications,
there
are
also
various
types
of
emission
inventories.
The
first
is
the
base
year
or
episodic
inventory.
This
inventory
is
based
on
the
year
of
the
episode
being
modeled
and
is
used
for
validating
the
photochemical
model
performance.

The
second
inventory
used
in
this
project
is
the
"
current"
year
inventory.
For
this
modeling
project
it
will
be
the
2000
emission
inventory,
which
is
the
most
current.
This
inventory
is
processed
using
all
of
the
different
meteorological
episodes
being
studied.
The
photochemical
modeling
is
processed
using
the
current
year
inventory
and
those
results
are
used
as
a
representation
of
current
air
quality
conditions.

Next
is
the
future
year
base
inventory.
For
this
type,
an
inventory
is
developed
for
some
future
year
for
which
attainment
of
the
ozone
standard
is
needed.
For
this
modeling
project
the
future
years
will
be
2007
and
2012.
It
is
the
future
year
base
inventories
that
control
strategies
and
sensitivities
are
applied
to
determine
what
controls,
to
which
source
classifications,
must
be
made
in
order
to
attain
the
ozone
standard.

In
the
sections
that
follow,
the
base
year
inventories
used
for
each
source
classifications
are
discussed.
Emission
summaries
by
county
for
the
entire
State
are
in
Appendix
A.

5.2
Stationary
Point
Sources
Point
source
emissions
are
emissions
from
individual
sources
having
a
fixed
location.
Generally,
these
sources
must
have
permits
to
operate
and
their
emissions
are
inventoried
on
a
regular
schedule.
Large
sources
having
emissions
of
100
tons
per
year
(
tpy)
of
a
criteria
104
pollutant,
10
tpy
of
a
single
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP),
or
25
tpy
total
HAP
are
inventoried
annually.
Smaller
sources
have
been
inventoried
less
frequently.
The
point
source
emissions
data
can
be
grouped
into
the
large
electric
utility
sources
and
the
other
point
sources.

5.2.1
Large
Utility
Sources
The
inventory
used
for
the
large
utility
sources
is
the
May
1999
release
of
the
NOx
SIP
call
base
year
modeling
foundation
files
obtained
from
the
USEPA
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
(
OAQPS).
The
base
year
for
this
utility
data
is
1996.
This
data
is
provided
in
EMS
95
format.
The
emissions
data
for
the
utilities
is
episode
specific
CEM
data
and
is
specific
for
each
source
for
each
hour
of
the
modeling
episode.
This
data
comes
from
the
USEPA
Acid
Rain
Division
(
ARD).
Since
only
NOx
emissions
are
measured,
the
CO
and
VOC
emissions
are
calculated
from
the
NOx
emissions
using
emission
factor
ratios
(
CO/
NOx
and
VOC/
NOx)
for
the
particular
combustion
processes
at
the
utilities.

5.2.2
Other
Point
Sources
The
inventory
used
to
model
the
other
point
sources
is
the
May
1999
release
of
the
NOx
SIP
call
base
year
modeling
foundation
files
obtained
from
the
USEPA
OAQPS.
This
data
is
based
on
1995
emissions
and
is
provided
in
EMS
95
format.
For
the
1996
and
1997
modeling
episode,
emissions
were
grown
using
Bureau
of
Economic
Analysis
(
BEA)
growth
factors.
The
North
Carolina
sources
were
an
exception.
These
emissions
are
true
1996
emissions
for
the
larger
VOC
and
NOx
sources.
In
addition,
emissions
for
forest
fires
and
prescribed
burns
are
treated
as
point
sources
and
are
episode
specific
similar
to
CEM
data.

The
emissions
summary
for
the
1996
episodes
for
the
Fayetteville
EAC
area
is
listed
in
Table
5.2­
1.
These
emissions
represent
a
typical
weekday,
Thursday's
(
June
20th),
emissions
and
are
in
tons
per
day.
In
some
instances
a
county
may
not
have
had
emissions
for
the
20th
but
did
have
emissions
during
the
modeling
episode
due
to
forest
fires
or
prescribed
burns
that
were
treated
as
point
sources.

Table
5.2­
1
Stationary
Point
Source
Emissions
County
CO
NOX
VOC
Cumberland
0.412
2.956
7.072
5.3
Stationary
Area
Sources
The
base
year
inventory
for
the
stationary
area
sources
is
the
May
1999
release
of
the
NOx
SIP
call
base
year
modeling
foundation
files
obtained
from
the
USEPA
OAQPS.
This
data
is
based
on
1995
and
is
provided
in
EMS
95
format.
For
the
1996
and
1997
base
years,
the
NOx
SIP
call
foundation
files
will
be
grown
to
the
respective
year
by
use
of
Bureau
of
Economic
Analysis
(
BEA)
growth
factors
or
projected
population
growth
obtained
from
the
US
Census
Bureau.
105
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina
where
a
2000
base
year
inventory
was
generated
by
NCDAQ
following
the
current
methodologies
outlined
in
the
Emissions
Inventory
Improvement
Program
(
EIIP)
Area
Source
Development
Documents,
Volume
III
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
chief/
eiip/
techreport/
volume03/
index.
html).
This
data
was
backcasted
to
the
base
years
via
growth
factors
developed
with
EPA's
Economic
Growth
Analysis
System
(
EGAS)
version
4.0.

The
emissions
summary
for
the
1996
episodes
for
the
Fayetteville
EAC
area
is
listed
in
Table
5.3­
1.
These
emissions
represent
a
typical
weekday,
Thursday's
(
June
20th),
emissions
and
are
in
tons
per
day.

Table
5.3­
1
Stationary
Area
Source
Emissions
County
NOx
VOC
CO
Cumberland
3.34
22.74
15.31
5.4
Off­
Road
Mobile
Sources
The
off­
road
mobile
sources
can
be
broken
down
into
two
types
of
sources;
those
calculated
within
the
USEPA
NONROAD
mobile
model
and
those
that
are
not.
For
the
sources
that
are
calculated
within
the
NONROAD
mobile
model,
a
base
year
inventory
was
generated
for
the
entire
domain
for
each
of
the
base
years.
The
model
version
used
is
the
Draft
NONROAD2002
distributed
for
a
limited,
confidential,
and
secure
review
in
November
2002.
If
the
final
version
or
any
newer
draft
versions
of
this
model
is
released
by
the
USEPA,
an
assessment
of
the
difference
in
the
emission
estimations
will
be
made
to
determine
if
a
new
inventory
must
be
generated
and
processed
through
the
photochemical
model.

The
sources
not
calculated
within
the
NONROAD
model
include
aircraft
engines,
railroad
locomotives
and
commercial
marine
vessels.
The
base
year
inventory
for
these
sources
was
the
May
1999
release
of
the
NOx
SIP
call
base
year
modeling
foundation
files
obtained
from
the
USEPA
OAQPS.
This
data
is
based
on
1995
and
is
provided
in
EMS
95
format.
For
the
1996
and
1997
base
years,
the
NOx
SIP
call
foundation
files
were
grown
to
the
respective
year
by
use
of
Bureau
of
Economic
Analysis
(
BEA)
growth
factors.

The
exception
to
this
was
for
North
Carolina
where
a
1995
base
year
inventory
was
generated
by
NCDAQ
for
aircraft
engines
and
railroad
locomotives.
This
data
was
then
grown
to
the
other
base
years
via
BEA
growth
factors
or
other
State
specific
data.

The
emissions
summary
for
the
1996
episodes
for
the
Fayetteville
EAC
area
is
listed
in
Table
5.4­
1.
These
emissions
represent
a
typical
weekday,
Thursday's
(
June
20th),
emissions
and
are
in
tons
per
day.

Table
5.4­
1
Off­
Road
Mobile
Source
Emissions
County
NOx
VOC
CO
Cumberland
2.73
11.73
64.64
106
5.5
Highway
Mobile
Sources
In
order
to
accurately
model
the
mobile
source
emissions
in
the
EAC
areas,
the
newest
version
of
the
MOBILE
model,
MOBILE6.2,
was
used.
This
model
was
released
by
EPA
in
2002
and
differs
significantly
from
previous
versions
of
the
model.
Key
inputs
for
MOBILE
include
information
on
the
age
of
vehicles
on
the
roads,
the
speed
of
those
vehicles,
what
types
of
road
those
vehicles
are
traveling
on,
any
control
technologies
in
place
in
an
area
to
reduce
emissions
for
motor
vehicles
(
e.
g.,
emissions
inspection
programs),
and
temperature.
Baseline
estimates
were
created
for
the
episode
June
19
 
July
1,
1996.

5.5.1
Speed
Assumptions
Emissions
from
motor
vehicles
vary
with
the
manner
in
which
the
vehicle
is
operated.
Vehicles
traveling
at
65
mph
emit
a
very
different
mix
of
pollutants
than
the
car
that
is
idling
at
a
stoplight.
In
order
to
estimate
emissions
from
vehicles
for
a
typical
day,
North
Carolina
Department
of
Transportation
(
NCDOT)
provided
speeds
for
each
of
the
urban
areas
across
the
state
and
in
some
cases
for
different
times
of
the
day.
To
reflect
the
most
current
assumptions
on
the
speed
of
vehicles
in
different
areas
across
the
state,
the
latest
conformity
report
was
used
which
reflected
speeds
developed
through
travel
demand
modeling
for
the
urban
areas.
Separate
speed
profiles
were
created
for
Wake
County
(
covering
Durham
and
Orange
Counties)
Greensboro,
Winston­
Salem,
Mecklenburg
County
(
covering
Gaston
County),
and
"
rest
of
state".
In
Wake,
Durham,
Orange,
Mecklenburg
and
Gaston
Counties,
a
profile
was
created
based
on
a
morning
traffic
peak,
an
afternoon
traffic
peak,
and
an
offpeak
for
the
remainder
of
the
day.
In
Wake,
Durham,
and
Orange
Counties
the
morning
peak
covered
the
period
from
6
am
 
10
am,
and
the
afternoon
peak
from
4
pm
 
8
pm.
In
Mecklenburg
and
Gaston
Counties
the
morning
peak
covered
the
period
from
6
am
 
9
am,
and
the
afternoon
peak
covered
the
period
from
4
pm
 
7
pm.
These
assumptions
were
provided
by
the
Metropolitan
Planning
Organizations
(
MPOs)
in
each
of
the
areas.
For
the
rest
of
the
state,
NCDAQ
chose
to
use
the
Wake
County
speed
profile
developed
in
1998.
This
was
assumed
to
be
a
conservative
estimate
of
speeds
in
areas
that
do
not
have
a
travel
demand
model.

Table
5.5­
1
provides
a
summary
of
the
speeds
used
in
this
episode
run.

Table
5.5­
1:
1996
Speed
Assumptions
for
Mobil
Model
Wake,
Durham,
Orange
Counties
(
based
on
1995
speeds)

Road
Type
Morning
Peak
Afternoon
Peak
Offpeak
Urban
Interstate
55
55
55
Urban
Freeway
48
47
54
Urban
Other
P.
Art
38
39
44
Urban
Minor
Art
40
40
43
107
Wake,
Durham,
Orange
Counties
(
based
on
1995
speeds)

Road
Type
Morning
Peak
Afternoon
Peak
Offpeak
Urban
Collector
36
36
36
Urban
Local
36
36
37
Rural
Interstate
56
59
64
Rural
Other
P.
Art
53
52
57
Rural
Minor
Art
48
47
50
Rural
Major
Coll
46
46
46
Rural
Minor
Coll
43
43
43
Rural
Local
44
44
44
Greenboro
(
based
on
1994
speeds)

Road
Type
Speed
Urban
Interstate
41
Urban
Freeway
46
Urban
Other
P.
Art
27
Urban
Minor
Art
30
Urban
Collector
31
Urban
Local
33
Rural
Interstate
56
Rural
Other
P.
Art
53
Rural
Minor
Art
41
Rural
Major
Coll
44
Rural
Minor
Coll
44
Rural
Local
44
Winston­
Salem
(
based
on
1994
speeds)

Road
Type
Speed
Urban
Interstate
55
Urban
Freeway
48
Urban
Other
P.
Art
29
Urban
Minor
Art
22
Urban
Collector
29
108
Winston­
Salem
(
based
on
1994
speeds)
Urban
Local
24
Rural
Interstate
55
Rural
Other
P.
Art
55
Rural
Minor
Art
44
Rural
Major
Coll
41
Rural
Minor
Coll
39
Rural
Local
26
Mecklenburg
and
Gaston
Road
Type
Morning
Peak
Afternoon
Peak
Offpeak
Urban
Interstate
55
55
55
Urban
Freeway
48
47
54
Urban
Other
P.
Art
38
39
44
Urban
Minor
Art
40
40
43
Urban
Collector
36
36
36
Urban
Local
36
36
37
Rural
Interstate
56
59
64
Rural
Other
P.
Art
53
52
57
Rural
Minor
Art
48
47
50
Rural
Major
Coll
46
46
46
Rural
Minor
Coll
43
43
43
Rural
Local
44
44
44
Rest
of
State
Road
Type
Morning
Peak
Afternoon
Peak
Offpeak
Urban
Interstate
60
61
63
Urban
Freeway
55
59
61
Urban
Other
P.
Art
34
35
32
Urban
Minor
Art
34
35
34
Urban
Collector
35
34
33
Urban
Local
30
37
37
Rural
Interstate
49
62
67
Rural
Other
P.
Art
38
41
42
109
Rest
of
State
Road
Type
Morning
Peak
Afternoon
Peak
Offpeak
Rural
Minor
Art
49
50
53
Rural
Major
Coll
32
46
46
Rural
Minor
Coll
33
41
44
Rural
Local
42
45
42
5.5.2
Vehicle
Age
Distribution
The
vehicle
age
distribution
comes
from
annual
registration
data
from
the
NCDOT.
NCDOT
has
provided
registration
data
specific
to
the
area.
For
this
analysis,
the
data
was
from
2000.
NCDOT
provides
the
data
by
vehicle
type;
however,
these
types
do
not
match
the
EPA
MOBILE
types.
Therefore,
the
data
is
manipulated
to
match
the
input
requirements
as
follows:

 
NCDOT
provides
at
least
25
years
for
all
vehicle
types,
however
MOBILE5
only
recognizes
12
years
for
motorcycles.
Therefore,
the
first
13
years
are
combined
into
one
number.
 
If
more
than
25
years
are
provided,
the
early
years
are
combined
and
included
in
the
25th
model
year.
 
NCDOT
does
record
model
years
beyond
the
year
of
the
report,
for
this
set
of
data,
2001
model
year
was
added
to
the
2000
model
year
information.
 
The
same
registration
distribution
by
age
must
be
entered
for
Light
Duty
Gasoline
Vehicles
(
LDGV),
Light
Duty
Diesel
Vehicles
(
LDDV),
and
for
Light
Duty
Gasoline
Trucks
1
and
2
(
LDGT1
and
LDGT2)
according
to
the
MOBILE5
User's
Guide.

Then
using
the
MOBILE6.2
utility
provided
by
EPA
the
vehicle
types
were
distributed
across
the
16
types
in
MOBILE6.2.
A
separate
age
distribution
was
created
for
each
of
the
urban
areas
and
for
the
rest
of
the
state
(
see
Appendix
B).

5.5.3
Vehicle
Mix
Assumptions
For
all
of
North
Carolina,
vehicle
mix
has
incorporated
the
increase
in
sales
of
sport
utility
vehicles
and
minivans
for
all
years
of
evaluation.

To
calculate
the
vehicle
mix
to
account
for
the
large
percentage
of
sport
utility
vehicles
and
minivans
being
purchased,
NCDAQ
used
the
following
documentation
from
EPA:
Fleet
Characterization
Data
for
MOBILE6:
Development
and
Use
of
Age
Distributions,
Average
Annual
Mileage
Accumulation
Rates,
and
Projected
Vehicle
Counts
for
Use
in
MOBILE6
(
EPA420­
P­
99­
011).
This
document
includes
a
breakdown
by
year
from
1983
to
2050
of
the
number
of
light
duty
vehicles
(
according
to
MOBILE6
five
vehicle
types)
on
the
roads
on
a
national
basis.
NCDAQ
used
this
data
and
combined
vehicle
types
to
reflect
the
three
110
MOBILE5
light
duty
vehicle
types.
These
calculated
values
for
LDGT1
and
LDGT2
are
used
for
all
road
types.
No
changes
were
made
to
this
file
for
this
modeling
effort
because
of
the
way
in
which
the
SMOKE
model
has
incorporated
MOBILE6.2.
Table
5.5­
2
provides
the
vehicle
mix
for
North
Carolina.

Table
5.5­
2:
1996
North
Carolina
Vehicle
Mix
Rural
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
LDDV
LDDT
HDDV
MC
Interstate(­
0.001)
0.458
0.174
0.062
0.031
0.002
0.002
0.266
0.005
Oth
Prin
Art(+
0.001)
0.557
0.211
0.075
0.04
0.002
0.002
0.109
0.004
Minor
Ar(­
0.001)
0.571
0.219
0.078
0.045
0.003
0.003
0.076
0.005
Major
Col
(+
0.001)
0.591
0.225
0.08
0.044
0.002
0.002
0.052
0.004
Minor
Col
0.591
0.225
0.08
0.042
0.002
0.002
0.053
0.005
local
0.589
0.227
0.081
0.049
0.003
0.003
0.042
0.006
Urban
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
LDDV
LDDT
HDDV
MC
Interstate
(­
0.002)
0.534
0.201
0.072
0.033
0.002
0.002
0.152
0.004
Oth
Freeway
0.583
0.218
0.078
0.035
0.002
0.002
0.079
0.003
Oth
Prin
Art(+
0.001)
0.6
0.224
0.08
0.036
0.002
0.002
0.053
0.003
Minor
Art(­
0.001)
0.614
0.229
0.082
0.035
0.002
0.002
0.032
0.004
Collectors(­
0.001)
0.622
0.231
0.082
0.033
0.002
0.002
0.025
0.003
local
(+
0.001)
0.602
0.228
0.081
0.041
0.002
0.002
0.038
0.006
HDGV
 
Heavy
Duty
Gasoline
Vehicles,
LDDT
 
Light
Duty
Diesel
Trucks,
HDDV
 
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
Vehicles,
MC
­
Motorcycles
5.5.4
Temperature
Assumptions
Temperatures
are
extracted
from
the
MM5
meteorological
model
files.

5.5.5
Vehicle
Inspection
and
Maintenance
Program
Assumptions
In
the
early
1990'
s,
North
Carolina
adopted
emissions
inspection
requirements
for
vehicles
in
9
urban
counties.
This
program
tests
emissions
at
idle
for
1975
and
newer
gasoline
powered
light
duty
vehicles.
The
program
is
a
basic,
decentralized
tailpipe
test
for
Hydrocarbon
(
HC)
and
CO
only.
The
waiver
rates
are
consistent
with
the
SIP.
However,
the
compliance
rates
have
been
changed
to
more
accurately
reflect
what
is
happening
at
the
stations.
Compliance
rates
have
been
changed
from
98
percent
in
the
SIP
to
95
percent.
In
addition,
the
inspection
stations
are
required
to
administer
an
anti­
tampering
check
to
ensure
that
emissions
control
equipment
on
any
vehicle
1968
and
newer
has
not
been
altered.
111
5.5.6
RVP
Assumptions
Reid
vapor
pressure
(
RVP)
reflects
a
gasoline's
volatility,
so
as
a
control
measure
North
Carolina
has
adopted
the
Phase
II
RVP
of
7.8
psi
in
the
1­
hour
ozone
maintenance
counties.

The
emissions
summary
for
the
1996
episodes
for
the
Fayetteville
EAC
area
is
listed
in
Table
5.5­
4.
These
emissions
represent
a
typical
weekday,
Thursday's
(
June
20th),
are
in
tons
per
day.

Table
5.5­
4
Highway
Mobile
Emissions
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Cumberland
223.26
30.32
20.98
5.6
Biogenic
Emission
Sources
Biogenic
emissions
will
be
prepared
with
the
SMOKE­
BEIS3
(
Biogenic
Emission
Inventory
System
version3)
preprocessor.
SMOKE­
BEIS3
is
basically
the
Urban
Airshed
Model
(
UAM)­
BEIS3
model
but
also
includes
modifications
to
use
Meteorological
Model
version
5
(
MM5)
data,
gridded
land
use
data,
and
one
important
science
update.
The
emission
factors
that
are
used
in
SMOKE­
BEIS3
are
the
same
as
the
emission
factors
in
UAM­
BEIS3.

The
emission
rates
within
SMOKE­
BEIS3
are
adjusted
for
environmental
conditions
prevailing
during
the
episode
days
with
meteorological
data
supplied
by
the
MM5
model.
The
gridded
data
used
from
MM5
include
the
estimated
temperature
at
10
meters
above
the
surface
and
short­
wave
radiation
reaching
the
surface.
Ten
meters
temperatures
will
be
used
instead
of
the
ground
temperatures
because
it
is
believed
that
10
meters
above
the
surface
is
a
good
approximation
of
the
average
canopy
height.
The
use
of
10
meters
temperatures
was
discussed
with
and
approved
by
the
USEPA
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(
ORD).

The
gridded
land
use
data
has
been
obtained
from
Alpine
Geophysics
at
the
4­
km
resolution
for
the
entire
domain.
The
basis
for
the
gridded
data
is
the
county
land
use
data
in
the
Biogenic
Emissions
Landcover
Database
version
3
(
BELD3)
provided
by
the
USEPA.
A
separate
land
classification
scheme,
based
upon
satellite
(
AVHRR,
1
km
spatial
resolution)
and
census
information,
aided
in
defining
the
forest,
agriculture
and
urban
portions
of
each
county.
The
12­
km
and
36­
km
domains
will
be
created
by
aggregating
the
4­
km
resolution
data
up
to
the
respective
grid
sizes.

The
emissions
summary
for
the
1996
episodes
for
the
Fayetteville
EAC
area
is
listed
in
Table
5.6­
1.
These
emissions
represent
a
normalized
emission
and
are
in
tons
per
day.

Table
5.6­
1
Biogenic
Emissions
County
NOx
VOC
Cumberland
1.0
134.7
112
6
MODELING
STATUS
6.1
Status
of
Current
Modeling
NCDAQ
realized
that
the
May
31,
2003
date
for
completing
the
base
case
model
evaluation
was
not
realistic
due
to
the
issues
described
in
Section
6.2
below.
Sheila
Holman
sent
a
letter
to
Kay
Prince
requesting
an
adjustment
to
the
modeling
schedule
due
to
these
issues.
Ms.
Holman's
letter
and
Ms.
Prince's
response
are
included
in
Appendix
C.
NCDAQ
continues
to
believe
that
completing
the
four
2007
base
year
modeling
runs
is
achievable
by
August
29,
2003.

6.2
Issues
Being
Encountered
There
have
been
a
number
of
issues
encountered
during
this
modeling
effort.
The
first
was
the
integration
of
MOBILE6.2
into
SMOKE.
It
is
a
requirement
of
the
EAC
that
MOBILE6.2
be
used
to
estimate
the
mobile
emissions
and
if
transportation
conformity
is
ever
needed
in
the
EAC
areas,
it
will
be
based
on
the
emission
estimates
from
this
modeling
effort.
It
took
much
longer
than
anticipated
to
get
the
integration
completed.

Another
issue
was
porting
SMOKEv1.5
to
the
NCDAQ
HP
UNIX
workstation.
Compiling
on
the
HP
was
not
very
straight
forward
and
actually
turned
up
some
errors
in
the
SMOKEv1.5
code.
It
took
several
weeks
before
the
code
was
completely
compiled
and
tested
on
the
HP
workstation
and
was
ready
for
the
NCDAQ
emissions
staff
to
use.

The
next
issue
encountered
dealt
with
the
installation
and
use
of
MIMS.
MIMS
is
a
gui
interface
that
aids
the
user
in
choosing
the
files
that
will
be
used
in
SMOKE
to
process
the
emissions.
Since
most
of
the
NCDAQ
emissions
staff
is
not
very
familiar
with
the
UNIX
environment,
it
was
believed
that
the
MIMS
interface
would
aid
in
processing
the
emissions.
NCDAQ
was
never
able
to
get
MIMS
to
work
on
their
system
and
therefore
had
to
use
scripts
to
process
the
emissions.

Another
issue
was
the
discovery
of
errors
in
the
mobile
and
point
source
emissions
during
the
quality
assurance
(
QA)
of
the
emissions
data.
For
the
mobile
inventory,
VMT
was
inadvertently
left
off
for
two
of
the
urban
counties,
Guilford
and
Forsyth
Counties.
For
the
point
source
inventory,
it
was
discovered
that
stack
data
for
some
of
the
utilities
did
not
read
in
correctly
and
default
stack
parameters
were
used.
This
would
result
in
the
emissions
being
dumped
into
the
lower
layer
of
the
model.
These
errors
resulted
in
the
emissions
having
to
be
reprocessed
through
SMOKE
and
re­
merged
with
the
other
data.

6.3
Geographic
Area
Needing
Further
Controls
At
this
point
in
the
project,
NCDAQ
is
unable
to
identify
the
geographic
area
that
will
need
controls
beyond
what
is
already
in
North
Carolina's
rules.
The
controls
that
will
be
included
113
in
the
base
2007
emissions
inventory
are
the
NOx
SIP
Call,
a
NOx
Inspection
and
Maintenance
(
I/
M)
program
that
will
cover
48
counties
in
North
Carolina
and
the
North
Carolina
Clean
Smokestacks
Act
that
requires
year­
round
controls
on
the
major
utilities
in
North
Carolina.

By
the
December
2003
Progress
Report,
NCDAQ
should
be
able
to
provide
modeling
results
that
show
where
additional
controls
are
needed
over
what
geographic
area.

6.4
Anticipated
Resource
Constraints
The
resource
constraint
of
most
concern
is
the
funding
needed
to
implement
some
of
the
local
control
measures.
NCDAQ
and
the
local
EAC
areas
are
both
looking
for
grant
opportunities
to
help
fund
EAC
initiatives.
114
7
APPENDIX
A
Stationary
Point
Sources
Emissions
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
Co
0.061
0.676
0.960
Alexander
Co
0.014
0.004
2.099
Ashe
Co
0.030
0.006
1.289
Beaufort
Co
1.162
1.969
0.859
Bertie
Co
0.162
0.227
1.101
Bladen
Co
0.181
1.857
0.520
Brunswick
Co
3.758
7.786
3.453
Buncombe
Co
1.336
57.016
3.135
Burke
Co
5.753
0.516
12.838
Cabarrus
Co
0.173
2.867
5.213
Caldwell
Co
0.444
0.139
30.539
Carteret
Co
0.008
0.083
0.000
Catawba
Co
4.192
112.800
22.153
Chatham
Co
7.014
20.487
3.800
Chowan
Co
0.028
0.137
0.010
Cleveland
Co
0.687
3.790
2.486
Columbus
Co
12.211
6.987
3.885
Craven
Co
3.585
4.175
4.196
Cumberland
Co
0.412
2.956
7.072
Dare
Co
0.008
0.271
0.004
Davidson
Co
2.466
12.859
23.927
Davie
Co
0.078
0.039
3.841
Duplin
Co
0.888
1.978
0.017
Durham
Co
0.301
1.046
5.706
Edgecombe
Co
0.347
5.818
0.020
Forsyth
Co
1.917
8.835
20.874
Franklin
Co
0.009
0.101
0.122
Gaston
Co
3.083
70.313
8.958
Graham
Co
0.017
0.020
1.450
Granville
Co
0.294
0.105
2.661
Guilford
Co
0.158
1.829
40.535
Halifax
Co
12.957
11.343
1.002
Harnett
Co
0.204
0.563
0.464
Haywood
Co
6.879
11.915
4.067
115
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Henderson
Co
0.023
0.400
5.133
Hertford
Co
0.017
0.148
0.828
Hoke
Co
0.004
0.019
3.829
Iredell
Co
2.927
8.949
5.109
Jackson
Co
0.004
0.045
0.000
Johnston
Co
0.018
0.145
2.218
Lee
Co
0.971
0.235
1.403
Lenoir
Co
0.110
2.429
0.592
Lincoln
Co
0.118
2.551
2.368
Mc
Dowell
Co
0.645
0.609
2.221
Martin
Co
23.577
9.479
6.539
Mecklenburg
Co
2.616
2.914
22.978
Mitchell
Co
0.113
0.015
2.193
Montgomery
Co
0.047
0.008
0.017
Moore
Co
0.015
0.003
1.826
Nash
Co
0.442
0.928
0.491
New
Hanover
Co
36.352
76.530
5.676
Northampton
Co
0.123
0.273
0.195
Onslow
Co
0.073
0.955
0.016
Orange
Co
3.223
0.748
0.009
Pasquotank
Co
0.011
0.018
1.122
Pender
Co
0.012
0.022
0.007
Person
Co
5.063
188.510
1.706
Pitt
Co
0.322
0.624
1.549
Randolph
Co
0.021
0.058
2.528
Richmond
Co
0.025
0.101
0.002
Robeson
Co
0.612
18.817
1.994
Rockingham
Co
5.954
33.903
7.896
Rowan
Co
1.290
30.602
10.634
Rutherford
Co
1.890
41.944
3.548
Scotland
Co
0.501
7.276
5.356
Stanly
Co
14.149
1.178
2.002
Stokes
Co
7.872
341.620
0.945
Surry
Co
5.356
0.942
5.817
Transylvania
Co
0.183
5.212
2.858
Union
Co
0.030
0.152
2.483
Vance
Co
0.035
1.242
0.000
Wake
Co
0.237
0.810
10.774
Washington
Co
0.001
0.004
0.000
Watauga
Co
0.015
0.051
0.001
116
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Wayne
Co
6.873
37.740
3.048
Wilkes
Co
3.232
0.731
7.472
Wilson
Co
0.177
2.020
2.376
Yadkin
Co
0.000
0.000
0.092
State
total
196.096
1172.466
357.102
Stationary
Area
Sources
Emissions
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
Co
3.51
0.74
7.71
Alexander
Co
1.47
0.15
2.95
Alleghany
Co
0.50
0.09
0.89
Anson
Co
2.62
0.53
2.24
Ashe
Co
1.25
0.14
1.50
Avery
Co
0.81
0.11
1.02
Beaufort
Co
17.77
0.61
12.42
Bertie
Co
2.12
0.14
2.90
Bladen
Co
4.26
0.42
4.46
Brunswick
Co
5.08
0.64
4.57
Buncombe
Co
4.71
1.31
14.23
Burke
Co
3.15
0.55
6.27
Cabarrus
Co
3.80
1.07
6.84
Caldwell
Co
2.53
0.31
4.78
Camden
Co
4.87
0.08
2.55
Carteret
Co
10.09
0.61
6.93
Caswell
Co
2.46
0.23
1.65
Catawba
Co
4.60
0.90
12.14
Chatham
Co
2.46
0.50
3.65
Cherokee
Co
1.14
0.13
2.15
Chowan
Co
1.63
0.10
1.42
Clay
Co
0.40
0.08
0.56
Cleveland
Co
5.14
0.84
7.25
Columbus
Co
6.50
0.41
7.36
Craven
Co
5.04
0.77
6.98
Cumberland
Co
15.31
3.34
22.74
Currituck
Co
4.30
0.13
2.46
Dare
Co
1.65
0.13
2.13
Davidson
Co
6.02
1.35
10.66
Davie
Co
2.52
0.26
2.57
Duplin
Co
8.32
0.45
6.68
Durham
Co
2.61
1.88
16.40
117
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Edgecombe
Co
5.67
1.22
5.88
Forsyth
Co
5.33
1.54
14.36
Franklin
Co
5.19
0.29
3.63
Gaston
Co
4.10
1.76
12.04
Gates
Co
1.18
0.09
1.34
Graham
Co
0.45
0.08
0.45
Granville
Co
3.50
0.38
3.15
Greene
Co
6.06
0.17
3.11
Guilford
Co
10.27
4.13
26.45
Halifax
Co
3.57
0.91
4.17
Harnett
Co
6.80
0.78
6.02
Haywood
Co
2.06
0.32
4.36
Henderson
Co
3.44
0.75
5.20
Hertford
Co
1.17
0.12
1.90
Hoke
Co
3.32
0.20
2.29
Hyde
Co
6.38
0.07
3.63
Iredell
Co
5.28
0.99
8.84
Jackson
Co
1.49
0.23
2.00
Johnston
Co
9.60
1.08
10.43
Jones
Co
1.44
0.11
1.48
Lee
Co
2.19
0.75
4.24
Lenoir
Co
7.82
0.41
6.24
Lincoln
Co
3.17
0.48
4.09
Mc
Dowell
Co
1.81
0.72
3.06
Macon
Co
1.31
0.14
1.95
Madison
Co
1.05
0.30
1.46
Martin
Co
3.28
0.38
2.69
Mecklenburg
Co
13.05
11.58
32.00
Mitchell
Co
0.81
0.40
1.00
Montgomery
Co
1.55
0.14
1.91
Moore
Co
3.76
0.57
5.33
Nash
Co
5.64
0.97
7.73
New
Hanover
Co
2.25
1.00
7.77
Northampton
Co
2.75
0.39
1.91
Onslow
Co
4.81
0.34
8.71
Orange
Co
3.91
0.87
6.69
Pamlico
Co
8.65
1.87
4.18
Pasquotank
Co
9.77
0.13
5.21
Pender
Co
4.66
0.21
3.74
Perquimans
Co
4.64
0.10
3.12
118
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Person
Co
4.45
0.41
2.74
Pitt
Co
13.70
0.82
10.06
Polk
Co
0.99
0.20
1.09
Randolph
Co
5.89
0.78
9.82
Richmond
Co
3.11
1.75
3.17
Robeson
Co
19.68
1.45
16.70
Rockingham
Co
6.30
1.03
5.91
Rowan
Co
6.17
1.16
7.78
Rutherford
Co
2.60
0.68
4.32
Sampson
Co
10.48
0.36
7.84
Scotland
Co
3.44
0.46
3.01
Stanly
Co
5.11
0.29
4.81
Stokes
Co
2.26
0.27
2.65
Surry
Co
3.87
0.25
6.09
Swain
Co
0.65
0.10
0.86
Transylvania
Co
1.15
0.21
1.70
Tyrrell
Co
7.03
0.07
3.50
Union
Co
12.04
0.83
10.72
Vance
Co
2.70
0.52
3.21
Wake
Co
14.01
6.55
30.98
Warren
Co
2.03
0.21
1.97
Washington
Co
9.82
0.30
4.33
Watauga
Co
1.38
0.15
2.71
Wayne
Co
15.36
2.66
12.00
Wilkes
Co
3.08
0.25
4.23
Wilson
Co
7.26
1.30
6.96
Yadkin
Co
2.82
0.16
3.54
Yancey
Co
0.83
0.14
1.19
State
Total
479.96
79.33
596.72
Nonroad
Sources
Emissions
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
Co
29.18
0.20
2.59
Alexander
Co
4.11
0.05
0.40
Alleghany
Co
2.58
0.05
0.21
Anson
Co
4.38
0.38
0.52
Ashe
Co
3.94
0.05
0.42
Avery
Co
5.29
0.05
0.59
Beaufort
Co
13.65
0.39
2.76
Bertie
Co
6.31
0.05
1.15
119
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Bladen
Co
8.67
0.27
1.32
Brunswick
Co
26.98
0.36
4.76
Buncombe
Co
47.91
0.49
4.76
Burke
Co
14.94
0.22
1.54
Cabarrus
Co
41.70
0.34
3.69
Caldwell
Co
16.69
0.06
1.78
Camden
Co
2.96
0.05
1.01
Carteret
Co
46.97
0.28
14.15
Caswell
Co
2.26
0.13
0.22
Catawba
Co
46.58
0.41
4.49
Chatham
Co
12.56
0.32
1.51
Cherokee
Co
4.23
0.05
0.57
Chowan
Co
3.97
0.05
1.13
Clay
Co
2.18
0.05
0.39
Cleveland
Co
21.14
0.37
1.92
Columbus
Co
9.81
0.20
1.14
Craven
Co
23.26
0.46
2.93
Cumberland
Co
64.64
2.73
11.73
Currituck
Co
14.97
0.06
4.58
Dare
Co
45.32
0.05
17.81
Davidson
Co
30.28
0.69
2.88
Davie
Co
7.20
0.14
0.84
Duplin
Co
9.94
0.27
1.04
Durham
Co
67.33
0.49
6.52
Edgecombe
Co
10.95
0.73
1.03
Forsyth
Co
89.05
0.47
7.62
Franklin
Co
7.82
0.14
0.81
Gaston
Co
49.26
0.64
4.29
Gates
Co
1.56
0.05
0.23
Graham
Co
1.40
0.05
0.25
Granville
Co
12.71
0.19
1.31
Greene
Co
2.43
0.09
0.25
Guilford
Co
182.94
1.51
16.10
Halifax
Co
8.66
0.55
0.95
Harnett
Co
21.12
0.34
1.88
Haywood
Co
11.23
0.16
1.18
Henderson
Co
29.86
0.25
3.64
Hertford
Co
4.12
0.05
0.49
Hoke
Co
3.44
0.08
0.31
Hyde
Co
24.88
0.05
11.57
120
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Iredell
Co
23.40
0.30
2.31
Jackson
Co
6.85
0.12
0.78
Johnston
Co
32.64
0.69
3.13
Jones
Co
1.82
0.07
0.17
Lee
Co
16.36
0.43
1.51
Lenoir
Co
15.85
0.23
1.48
Lincoln
Co
13.58
0.24
1.36
Mc
Dowell
Co
7.94
0.54
1.03
Macon
Co
10.84
0.05
1.03
Madison
Co
1.72
0.21
0.18
Martin
Co
4.61
0.27
0.50
Mecklenburg
Co
325.43
3.57
29.32
Mitchell
Co
3.54
0.31
0.45
Montgomery
Co
4.99
0.05
0.60
Moore
Co
27.58
0.27
2.28
Nash
Co
21.08
0.54
1.94
New
Hanover
Co
56.63
0.81
6.90
Northampton
Co
4.28
0.27
0.69
Onslow
Co
25.81
0.12
4.08
Orange
Co
29.41
0.23
3.25
Pamlico
Co
13.06
1.81
5.40
Pasquotank
Co
9.74
0.06
1.51
Pender
Co
12.46
0.05
1.85
Perquimans
Co
3.91
0.06
1.28
Person
Co
8.34
0.20
0.88
Pitt
Co
23.99
0.46
2.19
Polk
Co
2.89
0.11
0.25
Randolph
Co
27.26
0.25
2.43
Richmond
Co
14.22
1.40
1.60
Robeson
Co
19.58
0.82
1.97
Rockingham
Co
15.60
0.37
1.54
Rowan
Co
27.64
0.70
2.72
Rutherford
Co
12.77
0.38
1.25
Sampson
Co
10.29
0.11
1.01
Scotland
Co
8.53
0.25
0.91
Stanly
Co
15.92
0.12
1.63
Stokes
Co
7.77
0.12
0.77
Surry
Co
28.72
0.05
2.63
Swain
Co
4.71
0.05
1.13
Transylvania
Co
14.82
0.10
2.40
121
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Tyrrell
Co
6.53
0.05
2.92
Union
Co
45.86
0.42
4.03
Vance
Co
6.31
0.28
0.79
Wake
Co
233.69
2.82
23.24
Warren
Co
3.44
0.12
0.59
Washington
Co
5.57
0.24
1.47
Watauga
Co
9.95
0.05
1.16
Wayne
Co
28.11
2.27
2.84
Wilkes
Co
16.07
0.05
1.50
Wilson
Co
22.44
0.75
2.14
Yadkin
Co
6.52
0.05
0.58
Yancey
Co
7.33
0.08
0.84
State
Total
2411.70
39.09
293.67
Highway
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
Co
107.43
14.92
9.43
Alexander
Co
21.16
2.17
1.83
Alleghany
Co
8.95
0.90
0.78
Anson
Co
26.77
3.05
2.46
Ashe
Co
19.45
1.89
1.72
Avery
Co
17.39
1.87
1.56
Beaufort
Co
38.64
3.91
3.54
Bertie
Co
24.72
2.65
2.22
Bladen
Co
37.65
3.75
3.29
Brunswick
Co
74.31
8.08
6.67
Buncombe
Co
178.76
27.37
15.47
Burke
Co
80.26
13.91
6.89
Cabarrus
Co
63.42
11.80
5.86
Caldwell
Co
53.96
5.51
5.05
Camden
Co
9.34
1.00
0.84
Carteret
Co
55.26
6.04
5.06
Caswell
Co
18.33
1.95
1.65
Catawba
Co
122.92
15.90
11.16
Chatham
Co
43.63
4.87
4.01
Cherokee
Co
19.38
2.22
1.78
Chowan
Co
10.51
1.07
0.95
Clay
Co
6.42
0.67
0.55
Cleveland
Co
77.65
10.50
6.91
Columbus
Co
50.24
5.25
4.60
122
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Craven
Co
64.58
6.80
6.10
Cumberland
Co
223.26
30.32
20.98
Currituck
Co
21.99
2.38
1.85
Dare
Co
49.33
5.11
4.33
Davidson
Co
150.84
27.56
12.92
Davie
Co
37.20
8.36
3.07
Duplin
Co
51.46
8.29
4.53
Durham
Co
142.33
24.90
12.74
Edgecombe
Co
45.16
4.52
4.15
Forsyth
Co
207.45
32.63
20.60
Franklin
Co
34.03
3.57
3.01
Gaston
Co
90.70
17.44
8.71
Gates
Co
10.46
1.17
0.95
Graham
Co
5.44
0.52
0.49
Granville
Co
48.29
9.91
4.14
Greene
Co
16.62
1.68
1.46
Guilford
Co
274.51
44.36
27.54
Halifax
Co
60.25
12.55
5.15
Harnett
Co
70.89
10.13
6.33
Haywood
Co
67.59
14.74
5.71
Henderson
Co
64.43
10.18
5.67
Hertford
Co
19.29
2.00
1.70
Hoke
Co
20.66
2.23
1.85
Hyde
Co
5.58
0.57
0.48
Iredell
Co
135.50
30.72
11.44
Jackson
Co
35.85
4.13
3.18
Johnston
Co
131.26
27.54
11.23
Jones
Co
16.28
1.83
1.50
Lee
Co
44.31
4.53
4.19
Lenoir
Co
52.16
5.06
4.96
Lincoln
Co
40.85
4.19
3.69
Mc
Dowell
Co
47.19
10.22
4.03
Macon
Co
26.13
2.85
2.35
Madison
Co
15.11
1.64
1.35
Martin
Co
26.79
2.83
2.48
Mecklenburg
Co
392.69
73.30
38.40
Mitchell
Co
11.18
1.14
1.02
Montgomery
Co
29.30
3.61
2.59
Moore
Co
61.28
6.19
5.59
Nash
Co
104.62
17.95
9.32
123
County
CO
NOx
VOC
New
Hanover
Co
87.27
9.11
8.50
Northampton
Co
28.88
5.33
2.48
Onslow
Co
80.37
8.05
7.73
Orange
Co
62.77
18.46
5.55
Pamlico
Co
10.44
0.97
0.94
Pasquotank
Co
20.29
2.00
1.98
Pender
Co
47.14
8.32
4.10
Perquimans
Co
10.17
1.13
0.94
Person
Co
24.33
2.42
2.22
Pitt
Co
91.52
8.97
8.59
Polk
Co
21.35
4.74
1.83
Randolph
Co
122.08
17.26
10.75
Richmond
Co
39.91
4.17
3.80
Robeson
Co
127.44
22.67
11.10
Rockingham
Co
77.73
7.94
7.21
Rowan
Co
102.00
17.76
9.08
Rutherford
Co
49.44
5.02
4.50
Sampson
Co
61.77
8.73
5.44
Scotland
Co
34.46
3.59
3.21
Stanly
Co
42.33
4.14
3.95
Stokes
Co
28.49
2.87
2.57
Surry
Co
78.33
12.38
6.98
Swain
Co
16.94
1.88
1.50
Transylvania
Co
23.80
2.44
2.13
Tyrrell
Co
4.24
0.48
0.39
Union
Co
54.05
7.20
5.23
Vance
Co
38.11
6.67
3.34
Wake
Co
306.80
57.16
27.42
Warren
Co
17.90
3.68
1.54
Washington
Co
13.77
1.55
1.27
Watauga
Co
33.04
3.63
3.10
Wayne
Co
81.79
7.98
7.66
Wilkes
Co
56.78
5.89
5.12
Wilson
Co
71.21
10.72
6.54
Yadkin
Co
39.27
7.03
3.44
Yancey
Co
13.30
1.48
1.22
State
Total
6138.89
924.70
559.38
124
8
APPENDIX
B
Mecklenburg
County
*
Convert
MOBILE5
Registration
Fractions
to
MOBILE6­
Based
Registration
Fractions
*
*
Calendar
Year:
1996.000User­
Input
*
*
MOBILE5b
Reg
Fractions
*
0.114
0.097
0.086
0.083
0.077
0.084
0.069
0.062
0.051
0.044
*
0.040
0.039
0.033
0.027
0.022
0.016
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
*
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.018
*
0.090
0.080
0.076
0.075
0.062
0.066
0.066
0.048
0.040
0.037
*
0.034
0.042
0.040
0.035
0.033
0.024
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
*
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.060
*
0.123
0.148
0.096
0.088
0.065
0.071
0.054
0.039
0.023
0.021
*
0.030
0.034
0.031
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.013
0.008
0.007
0.006
*
0.007
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.042
*
0.123
0.104
0.061
0.093
0.060
0.077
0.058
0.046
0.025
0.023
*
0.023
0.030
0.047
0.027
0.025
0.023
0.018
0.008
0.008
0.009
*
0.009
0.014
0.011
0.009
0.069
*
0.114
0.097
0.086
0.083
0.077
0.084
0.069
0.062
0.051
0.044
*
0.040
0.039
0.033
0.027
0.022
0.016
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
*
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.018
*
0.090
0.080
0.076
0.075
0.062
0.066
0.066
0.048
0.040
0.037
*
0.034
0.042
0.040
0.035
0.033
0.024
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
*
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.060
*
0.155
0.141
0.081
0.100
0.066
0.083
0.056
0.041
0.030
0.032
*
0.055
0.048
0.027
0.028
0.016
0.014
0.008
0.004
0.003
0.002
*
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.002
*
0.141
0.111
0.088
0.081
0.074
0.061
0.049
0.035
0.027
0.017
*
0.015
0.301
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
*
*
MOBILE6
Vehicle
Classes:
*
1
LDV
Light­
Duty
Vehicles
(
Passenger
Cars)
*
2
LDT1
Light­
Duty
Trucks
1
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
3
LDT2
Light
Duty
Trucks
2
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
4
LDT3
Light
Duty
Trucks
3
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
5
LDT4
Light
Duty
Trucks
4
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
6
HDV2B
Class
2b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
8501­
10,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
7
HDV3
Class
3
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
10,001­
14,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
8
HDV4
Class
4
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
14,001­
16,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
9
HDV5
Class
5
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
16,001­
19,500
lbs.
GVWR)
*
10
HDV6
Class
6
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
19,501­
26,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
11
HDV7
Class
7
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
26,001­
33,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
12
HDV8A
Class
8a
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
33,001­
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
125
*
13
HDV8B
Class
8b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(>
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
14
HDBS
School
Busses
*
15
HDBT
Transit
and
Urban
Busses
*
16
MC
Motorcycles
(
All)
*
REG
DIST
*
RESULTING
MOBILE6­
BASED
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
*
*
MOBILE6
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
BY
VEHICLE
CLASS
AND
AGE
*
LDV
M5
LDGV
1
0.114
0.097
0.086
0.083
0.077
0.084
0.069
0.062
0.051
0.044
0.040
0.039
0.033
0.027
0.022
0.016
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.018
*
LDT1
M5
LDGT1
2
0.090
0.080
0.076
0.075
0.062
0.066
0.066
0.048
0.040
0.037
0.034
0.042
0.040
0.035
0.033
0.024
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.060
*
LDT2
M5
LDGT1
3
0.090
0.080
0.076
0.075
0.062
0.066
0.066
0.048
0.040
0.037
0.034
0.042
0.040
0.035
0.033
0.024
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.060
*
LDT3
M5
LDGT2
4
0.123
0.148
0.096
0.088
0.065
0.071
0.054
0.039
0.023
0.021
0.030
0.034
0.031
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.013
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.042
*
LDT4
M5
LDGT2
5
0.123
0.148
0.096
0.088
0.065
0.071
0.054
0.039
0.023
0.021
0.030
0.034
0.031
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.013
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.042
*
HDV2B
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
6
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV3
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
7
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV4
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
8
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV5
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
9
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV6
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
10
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV7
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
11
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
126
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV8a
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
12
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV8b
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
13
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDBS
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
14
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDBT
M5
HDDVs
15
0.155
0.141
0.081
0.100
0.066
0.083
0.056
0.041
0.030
0.032
0.055
0.048
0.027
0.028
0.016
0.014
0.008
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.002
*
Motorcycles
M5
MC
16
0.141
0.111
0.088
0.081
0.074
0.061
0.049
0.035
0.027
0.017
0.015
0.301
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Triad
*
Convert
MOBILE5
Registration
Fractions
to
MOBILE6­
Based
Registration
Fractions
*
*
Calendar
Year:
1996.000User­
Input
*
*
MOBILE5b
Reg
Fractions
*
0.101
0.080
0.075
0.073
0.070
0.081
0.066
0.063
0.054
0.048
*
0.045
0.046
0.040
0.034
0.028
0.021
0.016
0.009
0.005
0.004
*
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.024
*
0.077
0.066
0.065
0.066
0.054
0.062
0.067
0.047
0.043
0.037
*
0.034
0.045
0.044
0.039
0.039
0.027
0.025
0.016
0.012
0.010
*
0.010
0.014
0.014
0.012
0.075
*
0.081
0.089
0.078
0.078
0.065
0.080
0.064
0.050
0.033
0.032
*
0.037
0.041
0.038
0.030
0.031
0.029
0.018
0.011
0.009
0.009
*
0.006
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.052
*
0.078
0.079
0.049
0.062
0.058
0.080
0.051
0.041
0.033
0.027
*
0.034
0.043
0.040
0.031
0.038
0.029
0.018
0.013
0.011
0.016
*
0.014
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.104
*
0.101
0.080
0.075
0.073
0.070
0.081
0.066
0.063
0.054
0.048
*
0.045
0.046
0.040
0.034
0.028
0.021
0.016
0.009
0.005
0.004
*
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.024
*
0.077
0.066
0.065
0.066
0.054
0.062
0.067
0.047
0.043
0.037
*
0.034
0.045
0.044
0.039
0.039
0.027
0.025
0.016
0.012
0.010
*
0.010
0.014
0.014
0.012
0.075
*
0.170
0.141
0.087
0.100
0.074
0.079
0.067
0.042
0.032
0.027
*
0.033
0.032
0.029
0.024
0.018
0.014
0.010
0.004
0.004
0.003
127
*
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.003
*
0.134
0.102
0.072
0.070
0.071
0.051
0.049
0.041
0.027
0.021
*
0.018
0.344
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
*
*
MOBILE6
Vehicle
Classes:
*
1
LDV
Light­
Duty
Vehicles
(
Passenger
Cars)
*
2
LDT1
Light­
Duty
Trucks
1
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
3
LDT2
Light
Duty
Trucks
2
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
4
LDT3
Light
Duty
Trucks
3
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
5
LDT4
Light
Duty
Trucks
4
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
6
HDV2B
Class
2b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
8501­
10,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
7
HDV3
Class
3
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
10,001­
14,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
8
HDV4
Class
4
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
14,001­
16,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
9
HDV5
Class
5
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
16,001­
19,500
lbs.
GVWR)
*
10
HDV6
Class
6
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
19,501­
26,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
11
HDV7
Class
7
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
26,001­
33,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
12
HDV8A
Class
8a
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
33,001­
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
13
HDV8B
Class
8b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(>
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
14
HDBS
School
Busses
*
15
HDBT
Transit
and
Urban
Busses
*
16
MC
Motorcycles
(
All)
*
REG
DIST
*
RESULTING
MOBILE6­
BASED
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
*
*
MOBILE6
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
BY
VEHICLE
CLASS
AND
AGE
*
LDV
M5
LDGV
1
0.101
0.080
0.075
0.073
0.070
0.081
0.066
0.063
0.054
0.048
0.045
0.046
0.040
0.034
0.028
0.021
0.016
0.009
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.024
*
LDT1
M5
LDGT1
2
0.077
0.066
0.065
0.066
0.054
0.062
0.067
0.047
0.043
0.037
0.034
0.045
0.044
0.039
0.039
0.027
0.025
0.016
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.014
0.014
0.012
0.075
*
LDT2
M5
LDGT1
3
0.077
0.066
0.065
0.066
0.054
0.062
0.067
0.047
0.043
0.037
0.034
0.045
0.044
0.039
0.039
0.027
0.025
0.016
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.014
0.014
0.012
0.075
*
LDT3
M5
LDGT2
4
0.081
0.089
0.078
0.078
0.065
0.080
0.064
0.050
0.033
0.032
0.037
0.041
0.038
0.030
0.031
0.029
0.018
0.011
0.009
0.009
0.006
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.052
*
LDT4
M5
LDGT2
5
0.081
0.089
0.078
0.078
0.065
0.080
0.064
0.050
0.033
0.032
0.037
0.041
0.038
0.030
0.031
0.029
0.018
0.011
0.009
0.009
0.006
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.052
*
HDV2B
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
6
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
128
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV3
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
7
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV4
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
8
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV5
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
9
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV6
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
10
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV7
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
11
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV8a
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
12
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV8b
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
13
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDBS
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
14
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDBT
M5
HDDVs
15
0.170
0.141
0.087
0.100
0.074
0.079
0.067
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.032
0.029
0.024
0.018
0.014
0.010
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.003
*
Motorcycles
M5
MC
16
0.134
0.102
0.072
0.070
0.071
0.051
0.049
0.041
0.027
0.021
0.018
0.344
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Wake
County
*
Convert
MOBILE5
Registration
Fractions
to
MOBILE6­
Based
Registration
Fractions
*
*
Calendar
Year:
1996.000User­
Input
*
*
MOBILE5b
Reg
Fractions
*
0.114
0.091
0.085
0.080
0.075
0.083
0.069
0.063
0.052
0.047
*
0.042
0.040
0.034
0.029
0.023
0.017
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
*
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.019
129
*
0.090
0.081
0.080
0.083
0.060
0.066
0.069
0.049
0.037
0.037
*
0.034
0.041
0.039
0.034
0.037
0.025
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
*
0.006
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.051
*
0.101
0.117
0.083
0.095
0.057
0.121
0.069
0.048
0.034
0.034
*
0.025
0.037
0.032
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.010
0.007
0.004
0.005
*
0.006
0.010
0.008
0.007
0.036
*
0.109
0.076
0.057
0.088
0.069
0.088
0.049
0.041
0.041
0.030
*
0.036
0.039
0.035
0.027
0.028
0.026
0.016
0.009
0.007
0.009
*
0.010
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.074
*
0.114
0.091
0.085
0.080
0.075
0.083
0.069
0.063
0.052
0.047
*
0.042
0.040
0.034
0.029
0.023
0.017
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
*
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.019
*
0.090
0.081
0.080
0.083
0.060
0.066
0.069
0.049
0.037
0.037
*
0.034
0.041
0.039
0.034
0.037
0.025
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
*
0.006
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.051
*
0.163
0.137
0.087
0.103
0.067
0.074
0.044
0.035
0.032
0.054
*
0.040
0.044
0.029
0.026
0.018
0.016
0.010
0.004
0.004
0.003
*
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.004
*
0.138
0.105
0.080
0.070
0.068
0.053
0.053
0.041
0.029
0.021
*
0.022
0.320
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
*
*
MOBILE6
Vehicle
Classes:
*
1
LDV
Light­
Duty
Vehicles
(
Passenger
Cars)
*
2
LDT1
Light­
Duty
Trucks
1
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
3
LDT2
Light
Duty
Trucks
2
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
4
LDT3
Light
Duty
Trucks
3
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
5
LDT4
Light
Duty
Trucks
4
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
6
HDV2B
Class
2b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
8501­
10,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
7
HDV3
Class
3
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
10,001­
14,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
8
HDV4
Class
4
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
14,001­
16,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
9
HDV5
Class
5
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
16,001­
19,500
lbs.
GVWR)
*
10
HDV6
Class
6
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
19,501­
26,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
11
HDV7
Class
7
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
26,001­
33,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
12
HDV8A
Class
8a
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
33,001­
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
13
HDV8B
Class
8b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(>
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
14
HDBS
School
Busses
*
15
HDBT
Transit
and
Urban
Busses
*
16
MC
Motorcycles
(
All)
*
REG
DIST
*
RESULTING
MOBILE6­
BASED
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
*
*
MOBILE6
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
BY
VEHICLE
CLASS
AND
AGE
*
LDV
M5
LDGV
1
0.114
0.091
0.085
0.080
0.075
0.083
0.069
0.063
0.052
0.047
0.042
0.040
0.034
0.029
0.023
0.017
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.019
*
LDT1
M5
LDGT1
2
0.090
0.081
0.080
0.083
0.060
0.066
0.069
0.049
0.037
0.037
130
0.034
0.041
0.039
0.034
0.037
0.025
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
0.006
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.051
*
LDT2
M5
LDGT1
3
0.090
0.081
0.080
0.083
0.060
0.066
0.069
0.049
0.037
0.037
0.034
0.041
0.039
0.034
0.037
0.025
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
0.006
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.051
*
LDT3
M5
LDGT2
4
0.101
0.117
0.083
0.095
0.057
0.121
0.069
0.048
0.034
0.034
0.025
0.037
0.032
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.010
0.007
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.010
0.008
0.007
0.036
*
LDT4
M5
LDGT2
5
0.101
0.117
0.083
0.095
0.057
0.121
0.069
0.048
0.034
0.034
0.025
0.037
0.032
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.010
0.007
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.010
0.008
0.007
0.036
*
HDV2B
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
6
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV3
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
7
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV4
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
8
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV5
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
9
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV6
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
10
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV7
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
11
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV8a
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
12
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV8b
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
13
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDBS
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
14
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDBT
M5
HDDVs
131
15
0.163
0.137
0.087
0.103
0.067
0.074
0.044
0.035
0.032
0.054
0.040
0.044
0.029
0.026
0.018
0.016
0.010
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.004
*
Motorcycles
M5
MC
16
0.138
0.105
0.080
0.070
0.068
0.053
0.053
0.041
0.029
0.021
0.022
0.320
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
North
Carolina
REG
DIST
*
Convert
MOBILE5
Registration
Fractions
to
MOBILE6­
Based
Registration
Fractions
*
*
Calendar
Year:
1995.000User­
Input
*
*
MOBILE5b
Reg
Fractions
*
0.064
0.057
0.066
0.063
0.067
0.065
0.074
0.064
0.061
0.052
*
0.048
0.046
0.049
0.044
0.037
0.031
0.025
0.019
0.011
0.006
*
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.028
*
0.060
0.052
0.056
0.055
0.060
0.049
0.054
0.059
0.045
0.038
*
0.036
0.035
0.045
0.046
0.042
0.043
0.033
0.031
0.021
0.014
*
0.013
0.011
0.018
0.017
0.067
*
0.245
0.038
0.057
0.040
0.046
0.028
0.059
0.034
0.023
0.016
*
0.017
0.012
0.018
0.016
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.005
0.004
0.002
*
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.300
*
0.118
0.032
0.027
0.020
0.031
0.024
0.031
0.017
0.015
0.015
*
0.011
0.013
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.006
0.003
0.003
*
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.563
*
0.064
0.057
0.066
0.063
0.067
0.065
0.074
0.064
0.061
0.052
*
0.048
0.046
0.049
0.044
0.037
0.031
0.025
0.019
0.011
0.006
*
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.028
*
0.060
0.052
0.056
0.055
0.060
0.049
0.054
0.059
0.045
0.038
*
0.036
0.035
0.045
0.046
0.042
0.043
0.033
0.031
0.021
0.014
*
0.013
0.011
0.018
0.017
0.067
*
0.115
0.095
0.110
0.060
0.083
0.057
0.067
0.052
0.040
0.029
*
0.029
0.041
0.041
0.040
0.034
0.024
0.023
0.018
0.007
0.007
*
0.006
0.005
0.006
0.003
0.008
*
0.223
0.028
0.024
0.018
0.016
0.016
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.007
*
0.005
0.630
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
*
*
MOBILE6
Vehicle
Classes:
*
1
LDV
Light­
Duty
Vehicles
(
Passenger
Cars)
*
2
LDT1
Light­
Duty
Trucks
1
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
3
LDT2
Light
Duty
Trucks
2
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
4
LDT3
Light
Duty
Trucks
3
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
5
LDT4
Light
Duty
Trucks
4
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
6
HDV2B
Class
2b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
8501­
10,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
7
HDV3
Class
3
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
10,001­
14,000
lbs.
GVWR)
132
*
8
HDV4
Class
4
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
14,001­
16,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
9
HDV5
Class
5
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
16,001­
19,500
lbs.
GVWR)
*
10
HDV6
Class
6
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
19,501­
26,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
11
HDV7
Class
7
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
26,001­
33,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
12
HDV8A
Class
8a
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
33,001­
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
13
HDV8B
Class
8b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(>
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
14
HDBS
School
Busses
*
15
HDBT
Transit
and
Urban
Busses
*
16
MC
Motorcycles
(
All)
*
*
RESULTING
MOBILE6­
BASED
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
*
*
MOBILE6
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
BY
VEHICLE
CLASS
AND
AGE
*
LDV
M5
LDGV
1
0.064
0.057
0.066
0.063
0.067
0.065
0.074
0.064
0.061
0.052
0.048
0.046
0.049
0.044
0.037
0.031
0.025
0.019
0.011
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.028
*
LDT1
M5
LDGT1
2
0.060
0.052
0.056
0.055
0.060
0.049
0.054
0.059
0.045
0.038
0.036
0.035
0.045
0.046
0.042
0.043
0.033
0.031
0.021
0.014
0.013
0.011
0.018
0.017
0.067
*
LDT2
M5
LDGT1
3
0.060
0.052
0.056
0.055
0.060
0.049
0.054
0.059
0.045
0.038
0.036
0.035
0.045
0.046
0.042
0.043
0.033
0.031
0.021
0.014
0.013
0.011
0.018
0.017
0.067
*
LDT3
M5
LDGT2
4
0.245
0.038
0.057
0.040
0.046
0.028
0.059
0.034
0.023
0.016
0.017
0.012
0.018
0.016
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.005
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.300
*
LDT4
M5
LDGT2
5
0.245
0.038
0.057
0.040
0.046
0.028
0.059
0.034
0.023
0.016
0.017
0.012
0.018
0.016
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.005
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.300
*
HDV2B
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
6
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV3
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
7
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV4
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
8
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV5
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
9
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV6
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
10
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
133
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV7
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
11
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV8a
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
12
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV8b
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
13
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDBS
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
14
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDBT
M5
HDDVs
15
0.115
0.095
0.110
0.060
0.083
0.057
0.067
0.052
0.040
0.029
0.029
0.041
0.041
0.040
0.034
0.024
0.023
0.018
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.006
0.003
0.008
*
Motorcycles
M5
MC
16
0.223
0.028
0.024
0.018
0.016
0.016
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.007
0.005
0.630
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Prepared
by
the
Fayetteville
Area
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
Staff
in
cooperation
with
the
Cumberland
County
Air
Quality
Stakeholders
Mr.
George
Breece,
Chair
and
Cumberland
County
Air
Quality
Technical
Committee
Ms.
Nancy
Roy,
AICP,
Chair
and
the
North
Carolina
Department
of
the
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
Division
of
Air
Quality
Maurizia
Chapman,
AICP,
Principal
Planner
mchapman@
co.
cumberland.
nc.
us
Timothy
J.
Strickland,
Planning
Assistant
tstrickland@
co.
cumberland.
nc.
us
