Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
1
March
31,
2004
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
As
a
requirement
of
the
Unifour
Early
Action
Compact
(
EAC),
the
Local
Early
Action
Plan
(
Local
EAP)
due
March
31,
2004,
must
include
measures
that
are
specific,
quantified,
permanent
and
enforceable
as
part
of
the
SIP
or
TIP
once
approved
by
EPA.
The
Local
EAP
also
details
specific
implementation
dates
for
adopted
local
controls.
This
report
includes
updated
air
quality
emission
inventories
and
modeling
results
for
future
year
2010
in
Sections
4
and
6.
Also
included
in
this
report
is
an
overview
of
the
air
quality
in
the
Unifour
area,
the
health
effects
and
sources
of
ozone,
Federal
and
state
control
measures,
and
emissions
modeling
and
results.
The
Unifour
area
includes
Alexander,
Burke,
Caldwell,
and
Catawba
Counties.

1.2
Modeling
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
B).

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
Appendix
B.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
2
March
31,
2004
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
non­
road)
source
emissions
are
discussed
in
Section
5.

The
status
of
the
modeling
work
is
discussed
in
Section
6.

1.3
Stakeholder
Involvement
The
Unifour
Area
has
been
concentrating
on
several
avenues
of
protecting
the
quality
of
air
that
we
breathe.
Early
on
in
studying
air
quality
and
ways
to
reduce
the
higher
levels
of
pollution
in
the
area
we
found
out
very
quickly
that
the
success
of
our
efforts
will
lie
in
the
hands
of
our
stakeholders.
Everyone
knows
that
the
more
people
involved
in
solving
a
problem
the
more
solutions
we
can
come
up
with.
It
is
our
intent
to
recruit
as
much
assistance
from
as
many
people
as
possible
to
help
us
solve
our
air
quality
problems.
Following
are
events
and
efforts
that
have
been
performed
by
our
Unifour
Air
Quality
Committee
Members
(
the
stakeholders
for
the
Unifour
Area):

 
The
UAQC
meets
monthly
often
with
press
coverage,
and
the
public
is
always
welcome
to
attend
and
participate.

 
Notice
of
meetings
and
Air
Quality
Coverage
in
the
Regional
and
Local
Papers
(
Hickory
Daily
Record,
The
Taylorsville
Times,
Lenoir
News
Topic,
Observer
News
Enterprise,
Charlotte
Observer,
The
Morganton
News
Herald,
and
the
Catawba
Valley
Neighbors)

 
EAC
Members
gave
Air
Quality
Presentations
at
their
regularly
scheduled
board
meetings
(
City
Council
and
County
Board
Meetings).

 
The
chairman
(
John
Tippett)
for
the
UAQC
has
been
asked
to
speak
to
numerous
groups
and
participate
in
several
activities
that
promote
air
quality
education.

 
The
members
are
actively
participating
in
presentations
and
making
themselves
available
to
help
educate
the
communities.

 
Working
with
the
local
Radio
and
TV
Stations
to
help
with
Alerts
and
Ozone
Awareness
during
Weather
Forecasts.

 
Assist
people
daily
with
Ozone
education
(
brochures,
color
guides,
and
other
educational
materials
provided
to
us
by
the
NC
Division
of
Air
Quality).

 
We
offer
presentations
at
all
opportunities.

 
Met
with
Unifour
School
Bus
Fleet
Managers
to
discuss
the
use
of
Ultra
Low
Sulfur
Diesel
Fuel
(
ULSD)
earlier
than
2006
and
applied
for
a
grant.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
3
March
31,
2004
 
Signed
up
with
"
It
All
Adds
up
to
Clean
Air"
Program
 
Caldwell
County
High
Ozone
Day
Flag
Program
 
Caldwell
County
presentation
to
EDC
 
Presentations
on
High
Ozone
to
Caldwell
County
Fire
Departments
 
Private
Construction
Company,
(
Stakeholder­
Neill
Grading),
on
Code
Orange
or
higher
days,
does
not
allow
company
vehicles
to
be
driven
to
lunch.
Employees
are
requested
to
bring
their
lunch
and
eat
onsite
if
possible.
The
employees
call
a
voicemail
each
night
that
gives
them
the
Code
Alert
for
the
next
day
so
they
can
be
prepared.
The
employer
cannot
require
but
does
encourage
the
employees
to
drive
the
minimum
amounts
on
high
ozone
alert
days.

 
Ed
Neill
also
leads
up
a
Volunteer
Program
for
other
construction
companies
to
voluntarily
not
burn
on
High
Ozone
Days
(
Pledge
Program).

Catawba
County
Public
Health
Ozone
Activities
July­
Nov
2003
Provided
ozone
presentations
and/
or
information
at:
 
County
Dept
Heads
meeting
on
7/
7/
03.
 
County
Employee
Committee
meeting
on
7/
8/
03.
 
Valley
Hills
Mall
on
7/
16/
03
for
their
mall
walkers
group.
 
DSS
on
7/
23/
03
for
their
staff.
 
Goody's
Back
to
School
Information
Fair
on
8/
2/
03.
 
Valley
Hills
Mall
on
8/
9/
03
for
their
Kids
Club.
 
St.
Joseph's
Catholic
Church
Health
Fair
on
9/
6/
03
 
County
employee's
asthma
group
on
9/
19/
03.
 
Wal­
Mart
Health
Fair
on
9/
19/
03.
 
Alltel
Safety
Day
on
10/
3/
03.
 
Asthma
Walk
during
Hickory's
October
fest
on
10/
11/
03.
 
Community
Toolbox
at
Catawba
Valley
Community
College
on
11/
1/
03.
 
Catawba
County
continues
to
provide
education
to
the
schools
and
county
employees.

 
Several
presentations
to
children
at
the
Valley
Hills
Mall
in
Hickory
for
the
Kid's
Club.
 
Local
Crawdad's
Game
with
Ozone
Awareness
combined
with
Tobacco
Free
Night.

 
The
League
of
Women
Voters
and
the
CVHA
held
a
joint
forum
for
questions
and
answers
on
air
quality
issues.
Two
UAQC
members
participated
on
the
panel.

 
WHKY
a
local
radio
station
had
an
hour
long
"
Call
In
Radio
Talk
Show"
for
Question
&
Answers.
Two
UAQC
members
were
featured.

The
Catawba
County
Employee
Ozone
Committee
developed
an
ozone
action
plan
for
all
orange
or
red
ozone
alert
days
for
Catawba
County
employees
and/
or
citizens
including:
 
All
3
Catawba
County
school
systems
adopted
as
procedure
a
School
Ozone
Policy
for
ozone
alert
days
similar
to
the
daycare
policy
which
means
all
children
in
congregate
care
from
birth
to
age
18
are
protected
during
the
day
during
ozone
season
while
in
child
care
centers
or
public
schools
in
Catawba
County
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
4
March
31,
2004
 
The
Catawba
County
Chamber
of
Commerce
had
a
"
Meet
Your
Government
Series"
event
in
August
that
featured
John
Tippett
(
Air
Quality
Chairman)
on
the
EAC
and
ozone
non­
attainment,
attended
by
60
business
and
community
leaders,
and
followed
up
with
an
article
on
Tippett's
talk
in
our
monthly
newsletter,
the
Government
Affairs
Sentinel.
 
Buttons
 
all
county
employees
would
be
asked
to
wear
orange,
red
or
purple
buttons
on
ozone
alert
days
 
Banners
 
orange,
red
or
purple
banners
could
be
placed
on
Fairgrove
Church
Road
and
Hwy
321
at
the
Government
Center
on
ozone
alert
days
 
Flags
 
orange,
red
or
purple
flags
could
be
flown
at
all
county
and
municipal
building
on
ozone
alert
days,
municipalities
could
be
asked
to
pay
for
their
own
 
Completed
and
updated
3
more
Air
Quality
Plans.
Other
plans
are
still
in
the
process
and
plan
to
be
complete
by
2004
Ozone
Season.
 
Continue
to
read
&
gather
information
on
ways
to
help
reduce
OZONE
 
Scheduled
to
e­
mail
out
the
ozone
alerts
on
Alert
Days.
 
Color
Guides
that
explain
the
alert
system
available
at
the
Catawba
County
Chamber's
Visitor
Information
Center
counter
during
the
ozone
season.
We
also
distributed
them
to
our
Government
Affairs
Council
members
Caldwell
County
Activities
Included:
 
Met
with
the
County
Health
Department
to
plan
for
the
overall
operation
of
the
notification
process.
 
Compiled
alert
E­
Mail
distribution
list
of
all
county
employees,
municipalities,
schools,
corporate
partners
and
the
chamber.
 
Distributed
all
ozone
flags
to
all
participating
parties
 
Letter
to
editor
about
the
meaning
of
ozone
alert
flags
published
in
News
Topic
 
Putting
together
systems
to
notify
the
public
by
flying
high
ozone
flags
 
Local
Television
Broadcast
to
explain
flying
the
alert
flags
 
Compiled
list
of
county
vehicle
information
for
submittal
to
the
state.
 
Posted
ozone
alert
information
at
the
Health
Department
and
the
Planning
Department.
 
Met
with
the
Supervisor
of
Public
Health
Education,
to
plan
for
the
process
of
educating
the
5th
grade
classes
 
Hired
a
PE
in
August
2003
to
oversee
an
environmental
program,
that
includes
the
Ozone
Action
Plan
 
Caldwell
County
Today
Cable
TV
had
an
hour
long
TV
Show
for
Questions
&
Answers
regarding
air
quality
issues
and
the
EAC.

City
of
Hickory­
noted
a
period
of
unprecedented
growth
in
the
1990s
was
accompanied
by
an
increased
reliance
on
non­
public
transportation.
The
increase
in
Vehicle
Miles
Travel
(
VMT)
that
resulted,
contributed
to
such
challenges
as
congestion
and
air
pollution.
In
addition,
nonmobile
source
emissions
are
contributing
factors
in
the
region's
violation
of
the
Federal
air
quality
standards.
Thus,
beginning
in
the
summer
of
1998,
the
City
of
Hickory
has
been
in
the
forefront
in
the
fight
against
air
pollution
in
the
Unifour
Area.
Some
of
Hickory's
activities
include
the
following:
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
5
March
31,
2004
 
City
of
Hickory
has
adopted
an
Air
Quality
Action
Plan.
Employees
are
notified
via
email
of
impending
forecasts
of
high
ozone
and
initiate
steps
necessary
to
implement
the
plan.
 
The
City
of
Hickory
has
7
alternative
fuel
vehicles
(
CNG)
and
a
compressed
natural
gas
fueling
station.
Plans
are
to
continue
to
expand
the
fleet
of
CNG
vehicles
as
vehicles
are
replaced
and
CNG
is
a
suitable
alternative
fuel.
 
The
City
of
Hickory
continues
to
educate
its
citizens
through
public
information
pieces
contained
in
utility
bills
and
other
direct
mailings
to
our
citizens
about
the
effects
of
ozone
and
the
steps
they
can
take
to
reduce
the
generation
of
ozone.
 
The
City
of
Hickory
continues
to
provide
public
transit
services
within
the
Newton,
Conover
and
Hickory
urban
area
thereby
offering
an
alternative
to
the
single
occupancy
vehicle.
 
The
City
of
Hickory
has
adopted
new
Land
Development
Regulations
that
require
connectivity
between
developments
and
encourage
mixed
use
developments
thereby
reducing
the
length
and
number
of
vehicle
trips
necessary
to
meet
daily
needs.
 
The
City
of
Hickory
is
using
fiber­
optic
cable
telephone
lines,
close
circuit
television
cameras
installed
along
miles
of
freeways
and
roads,
to
relay
information
about
traffic
congestion
(
and
incidents)
to
a
control
center
at
the
Public
Services
Department
in
Hickory.
 
Staff
members
from
the
City
of
Hickory
Planning
Department
have
periodically
participated
in
workshops
and
meetings
that
were
sponsored
by
the
Department
of
Transportation
in
Raleigh
and
Asheville
on
alternate
transportation
issues.
 
City
of
Hickory
Planning
Department
staff
has
met
with
some
area
Human
Resources
Directors,
as
a
group
and
individually,
to
alert
them
to
the
importance
of
recognizing
air
quality
issues
and
encouraging
them
to
adopt
policies
and
support
actions
that
reduce
ozone
such
as
encouraging
their
employees
to
use
alternative
modes
of
transportation
and
discouraging
the
use
of
single
occupancy
vehicles.
 
The
City
fully
supports
Transportation
Demand
Management
(
TDM)
strategies
as
an
important
tool
in
reducing
VMT.
City
staff
continues
to
participate
in
seminars
and
forums
on
TDM
sponsored
by
the
NC
Department
of
Transportation­
Public
Transportation
Division.
 
City
of
Hickory
Planning
Department
staff
continues
to
make
themselves
available
to
area
private
businesses
and
industries
that
are
seeking
information
on
how
they
can
contribute
to
air
quality
improvements.
 
The
City
of
Hickory
has
also
sought
to
form
partnerships
with
other
local
municipalities
and
the
county,
through
the
Piedmont
Wagon
Managers'
Consortium,
in
providing
public
transit
as
an
alternative
means
of
transportation
and
as
one
of
our
key
strategy
for
improving
air
quality.
 
Through
its
participation
in
Federal
and
State
grant
programs,
the
City
has
also
sought
to
form
partnerships
with
local
organizations,
such
as
the
Boys'
and
Girls'
Clubs
and
neighborhood
associations
to
promote
clean
air
and
alternate
modes
of
transportation
by
implementing
greenway
trails
and
extending
bicycle
routes.
The
City
expects
to
begin
the
process
of
developing
a
comprehensive
Greenways
and
Trails
Master
Plan
in
FY2004­
2005.
 
The
activities
continue
to
increase
and
awareness
is
becoming
more
prevalent
within
the
Unifour
Area.
We
all
continue
to
work
towards
cleaning
our
air.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
6
March
31,
2004
 
EAC
Members
gave
Air
Quality
Presentations
at
their
regularly
scheduled
board
meetings
(
City
Council
and
County
Board
Meetings).

 
The
chairman
for
the
UAQC
has
been
asked
to
speak
to
numerous
groups
and
participate
in
several
activities
that
promote
air
quality
education.

 
The
members
are
actively
participating
in
presentations
and
making
themselves
available
to
help
educate
our
communities.

 
Assist
people
daily
with
Ozone
education.

 
We
offer
presentations
upon
request.

2003
Stakeholders­
UAQC
Meeting
Times
and
dates:

January
28th
@
3:
00PM
February
25th
@
3:
00PM
March
25th
@
1:
00PM­
Sub­
committee
and
2:
00PM
regular
meeting
April
22nd
@
2:
00PM
May
20th
@
4:
00PM
and
Special
Public
Meeting
5:
00PM
June
24th
@
2:
00PM
July
22nd
@
2:
00PM
August
26th
@
2:
00
PM
September
meeting
canceled
October
28th
@
3:
30PM
November
@
9:
00AM
December
9th
@
1:
00PM
During
the
2004
year
the
UAQC
will
meet
on
the
fourth
Tuesday
of
each
month
at
3:
30
PM.

All
meetings
are
open
to
the
public
and
the
facility
is
handicap
accessible.

Minutes
to
the
meetings
are
kept
at
the
WPCOG
offices
and
are
available
for
public
review.

2
Overview
of
Air
Quality
In
The
Unifour
Area
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
(
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
7
March
31,
2004
The
NCDAQ
monitors
levels
of
all
six
criteria
pollutants
in
the
Unifour
area
and
reports
these
levels
to
the
EPA.
According
to
the
most
recent
data,
the
Unifour
area
is
meeting
national
ambient
standards
for
four
of
the
pollutants,
but
is
not
meeting
the
Federal
8­
hour
standard
for
ground­
level
ozone
and
fine
particulate
matter.
This
report
focuses
on
the
8­
hour
ground
level
ozone
only.

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
non­
attainment
even
if
only
one
monitor
in
the
MSA
violates
the
NAAQS.

There
are
two
ozone
monitors
in
Unifour
EAC
area.
These
monitors
are:
Lenoir,
located
in
Caldwell
County;
and
Taylorsville,
Alexander
County.
The
locations
of
these
monitors
are
shown
in
Figure
2­
1.

Figure
2­
1:
Unifour
Area's
Ozone
Monitor
For
the
3­
year
period
2000
 
2002,
both
monitors
were
violating
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
However,
the
most
recent
3­
year
period
2001
 
2003
shows
the
Lenoir
monitor
attaining
the
standard
and
the
Taylorsville
violating
the
8­
hour
ground­
level
ozone
NAAQS,
see
Table
2­
1.
The
historical
ozone
monitoring
data,
including
the
years,
which
the
design
values
are
based
on,
is
listed
in
Table
2.2.
Monitor
design
values
are
dependant
on
which
three­
year
period
the
4th
highest
8­
Hour
ozone
concentrations
are
averaged.

Table
2­
1:
Ozone
Monitor
Design
Values
in
parts
per
million
(
ppm)

Monitor
Name
County
00­
02
01­
03
Lenoir
Caldwell
0.086
0.084
Taylorsville
Alexander
0.091
0.088
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
8
March
31,
2004
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
Taylorsville
0.075
0.078
0.080
0.096
0.082
0.091
0.088
0.095
0.081
Lenoir
0.079
0.079
0.098
0.094
0.085
0.082
0.092
0.079
Light
Shading
=
No
Data
Available
NCDAQ
forecasts
ozone
levels
on
a
daily
basis
from
May
1
 
September
30
for
Unifour
EAC
area.
This
forecast
is
issued
to
the
public
using
EPA's
Air
Quality
Index
(
AQI)
color
code
system.
Table
2­
2
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
Unifour
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
9
March
31,
2004
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
10
March
31,
2004
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
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
Unifour
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
11
March
31,
2004
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,
what
contribute
to
NOx
and
VOC
emissions.

Biogenic:
Trees
and
other
natural
sources.

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

Non­
road:
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
12
March
31,
2004
4
Emissions
Inventories
4.1
Introduction
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
B.
In
the
sections
that
follow,
the
inventories
used
for
the
current
and
the
future
years
are
discussed.
Emission
summaries
by
county
for
the
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
13
March
31,
2004
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.

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
non­
road
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
(
NONROAD2002a)
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
non­
road
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
Appendix
B.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
14
March
31,
2004
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
B
The
emissions
summary
for
the
2000
current
year
modeling
inventories
for
the
Unifour
EAC
area
is
listed
in
Table
4.2­
1.
These
emissions
represent
typical
weekday
emissions
and
are
reported
in
tons
per
day.

Table
4.2­
1
2000
Current
Year
Modeling
Emissions
Source
CO
NOx
VOC
Point
8
98
47
Area
18
1
22
Non­
road
Mobile
82
10
8
Highway
Mobile
239
35
21
Biogenic
0
0.4
214
Total
Emissions
347
144
312
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
15
March
31,
2004
For
the
non­
road
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
non­
road
inventory.
The
remaining
non­
road
mobile
source
categories,
the
1999
NEI
release
version
2.0
obtained
from
the
EPA's
CHIEF
website
and
were
grown
to
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
B.

The
emissions
summary
for
the
2007
and
2012
future
years
modeling
inventories
for
the
Unifour
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
22
53
64
18
48
47
Area
18
1
22
19
1
22
Non­
road
Mobile
93
10
8
99
10
6
Highway
Mobile
140
23
13
89
12
8
Biogenic
0
0.4
214
0
0.4
214
Total
Emissions
273
87
321
225
71
297
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
the
Unifour
area
decreased
by
40%,
from
144
tons
per
day
(
TPD)
in
2000
to
87
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
16
March
31,
2004
Nonroad
7%

Area
1%
Point
68%
Biogenic
0%
Mobile
24%

Nonroad
12%

Area
1%
Point
61%
Biogenic
0%
Mobile
26%

Biogenic
68%
Mobile
7%
Nonroad
3%
Area
7%
Point
15%

Nonroad
2%
Area
7%
Point
20%

Biogenic
67%
Mobile
4%
Table
4.4­
1:
Estimated
NOx
and
VOC
emissions,
in
tons
per
day
NOx
Emissions
VOC
Emissions
Source
2000
2007
2000
2007
Point
98
53
47
64
Area
1
1
22
22
Non­
road
10
10
8
8
Mobile
35
23
21
13
Biogenic
0.4
0.4
214
214
Total
Emissions
144
87
312
321
Figure
4.4­
1:
2000
Unifour
Area
Figure
4.4­
2:
2007
Unifour
Area
NOx
Emissions
by
Source
NOx
Emissions
by
Source
The
total
predicted
VOC
emissions
for
the
Unifour
area
increased
by
3%,
from
312
TPD
in
2000
to
321
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.

Figure
4.4­
3:
2000
Unifour
Area
Figure
4.4­
4:
2007
Unifour
Area
VOC
Emissions
by
Source
VOC
Emissions
by
Source
There
are
few
VOC
control
measures
expected
for
area
and
point
sources
in
the
Unifour
area,
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
17
March
31,
2004
HDDV
55%

HDGV
7%
LDGT1
13%
LDGT2
5%
LDGV
20%
Other
0%

HDDV
55%

HDGV
7%
LDGT1
16%
LDGT2
7%
LDGV
14%
Other
1%
resulting
in
an
increase
of
emissions
between
the
two
years.
However,
the
Unifour
area
contains
a
power
plant,
resulting
in
the
point
source
NOx
emissions
decrease
significantly
due
to
the
NOx
SIP
Call
rule.
Additionally,
there
are
significant
decreases
in
highway
mobile
source
VOC
and
NOx
emissions,
however
the
decrease
in
highway
mobile
VOC
was
not
enough
to
offset
the
point
source
increase.
Thus
the
overall
region
has
a
decrease
in
NOx
and
a
slight
increase
in
VOC
emissions.

For
both,
highway
and
non­
road
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
the
Unifour
area.
As
shown
in
these
figures,
the
relative
contributions
from
vehicle
types
change
slightly
between
2000
and
2007,
with
heavy­
duty
diesel
vehicles
still
contributing
more
than
50%
of
the
overall
emissions.
The
estimated
emission
for
each
vehicle
type
is
tabulated
in
Table
4.4­
2.

Figure
4.4­
5:
2000
Unifour
Area
Figure
4.4­
6:
2007
Unifour
Area
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
19.2
12.5
Light­
duty
gasoline
vehicles
6.9
3.4
Light­
duty
gasoline
trucks
(
1)
4.4
3.8
Light­
duty
gasoline
trucks
(
2)
1.8
1.7
Heavy­
duty
gasoline
vehicles
2.4
1.8
Other
0.2
0.1
Total
34.9
23.3
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
18
March
31,
2004
2
&
4­
Stroke
Engines
4%

Aircraft
0%

CNG
Engines
3%

Diesel
Agricultural
4%

Diesel
Commercial
2%

Diesel
Construction
31%

Diesel
Industrial
13%
LPG
Engines
33%
Railroad
9%
Other
Diesel
1%

2
&
4­
Stroke
Engines
4%

Aircraft
0%

CNG
Engines
3%

Diesel
Agricultural
3%

Diesel
Commercial
3%

Diesel
Construction
28%

Diesel
Industrial
11%
LPG
Engines
41%
Railroad
6%
Other
Diesel
1%
Figures
4.4­
7
and
4.4­
8
show
the
relative
contributions
of
equipment
types
for
the
non­
road
mobile
source
category
in
2000
and
2007
for
the
Unifour
area.
As
can
be
seen
in
these
figures,
diesel
construction
equipment
and
liquid
propane
gas
(
LPG)
equipment
contributes
the
majority
of
the
non­
road
mobile
source
NOx
emissions
for
both
years.

Figure
4.4­
3:
2000
Unifour
Area
Non­
road
Equipment
NOx
sources
Figure
4.4­
4:
2007
Unifour
Area
Non­
road
Equipment
NOx
sources
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
19
March
31,
2004
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
non­
road
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
non­
road
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
Unifour
EAC
area
is
listed
in
Table
4.5­
1.
These
emissions
represent
typical
weekday
emissions
and
are
reported
in
tons
per
day.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
20
March
31,
2004
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
98
53
43
47
64
49
Area
1
1
1
22
22
22
Non­
road
10
10
10
8
8
8
Mobile
35
23
16
21
13
10
Biogenic
0.4
0.4
0.4
214
214
214
Total
Emissions
144
87
70
312
321
303
The
total
predicted
NOx
emissions
for
the
Unifour
area
decreased
by
~
51%,
from
144
tons
per
day
(
TPD)
in
2000
to
70
TPD
in
2010.
The
total
predicted
VOC
emissions
for
the
Unifour
area
decreased
by
~
3%,
from
312
TPD
in
2000
to
303
TPD
in
2010.
The
2010
mobile
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.

4.5
2017
Future
Year
Inventory
The
State
is
in
the
process
of
developing
the
2017
future
year
emission
inventories
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
21
March
31,
2004
5
Control
Measures
Several
control
measures
already
in
place
or
being
implemented
over
the
next
few
years,
will
reduce
point,
highway
mobile,
and
non­
road
mobile
sources
emissions.
These
control
measures
were
modeled
for
2007
and
are
discussed
in
the
Sections
below.

5.1
State
Control
Measures
5.1.1
Clean
Air
Bill
The
1999
Clean
Air
Bill
expanded
the
vehicle
emissions
inspection
and
maintenance
program
from
9
counties
to
48,
phased
in
between
July
1,
2002
through
January
1,
2006.
Vehicles
will
be
tested
using
the
onboard
diagnostic
system,
an
improved
method
of
testing,
which
will
indicate
NOx
emissions,
among
other
pollutants.
The
previously
used
tailpipe
test
did
not
measure
NOx.
The
inspection
and
maintenance
program
will
be
phased
in
from
July
1,
2003
through
July
1,
2005,
in
the
Unifour
area.
Table
5.1.1­
1
lists
the
phase
in
dates
for
the
Unifour
area.

Table
5.1.1­
1
Phase­
In
Dates
for
the
Unifour
Area
County
Phase­
In
Date
Burke
July
1,
2005
Caldwell
July
1,
2005
Catawba
July
1,
2003
5.1.2
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.

5.1.3
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.

5.1.4
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
22
March
31,
2004
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.

5.2
Federal
Control
Measures
5.2.1
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
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.

5.2.2
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.

5.2.3
Large
Non­
road
Diesel
Engines
Proposed
Rule
The
EPA
has
proposed
new
rules
for
large
non­
road
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
non­
road
diesel
fuel
by
over
99%.
Non­
road
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
non­
road
diesel
engines
by
over
90
%,
compared
to
current
non­
road
engines
using
higher­
content
sulfur
diesel.

5.2.4
Non­
road
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
non­
road
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
all­
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
23
March
31,
2004
terrain­
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.

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.

5.3
Local
EAC
Control
Measures
The
Unifour
Air
Quality
Committee
adopted
fourteen
Emission
Reduction
Strategies
as
outlined
in
APPENDIX
C
of
this
Document.
The
following
are
the
strategies
and
examples
of
what
the
Local
Governments
have
already
adopted
or
will
be
adopting
to
address
the
ozone
pollution
in
the
Unifour
area:

1.
Local
Governments
join
and
participate
with
the
private
sector
in
the
NC
Air
Awareness
Program.
Currently,
all
stakeholders
are
using
this
strategy
and
the
database
of
notified
individuals
increases
every
year.
The
Economic
Directors
in
two
of
the
four
counties
are
notifying
all
businesses
on
Ozone
Alert
Days
that
are
in
their
database.
As
awareness
increases
we
anticipate
this
program
being
very
beneficial.

2.
Enhanced
Ozone
awareness
(
Outreach­
Communication):
assign
local
agency
to
develop
and
implement
an
aggressive
program
to
educate
and
motivate
individual
and
businesses/
organizations,
to
take
action
to
minimize
ozone
pollution.
Currently,
the
WPCOG
and
the
NC
DAQ
work
with
the
stakeholders
in
providing
speakers,
and
informational
booths
whenever
possible
to
achieve
this
goal.
Numerous
local
TV
interviews,
newspaper
write­
ups,
and
power
point
presentations
are
utilized
on
a
regular
bases.
This
strategy
is
working
very
well
and
we
anticipate
increased
outreach
every
year.

3.
Evaluate
the
benefits
of
participation
in
the
Clean
Cities
Program.
The
WPCOG
has
been
involved
in
meetings
with
Centralina
COG
and
partnering
with
them
in
efforts
to
establish
Clean
Fuel
Corridors
that
we
share.
Ongoing
efforts
are
expected.

4.
City
and
County
Energy
Plan.
The
cities
and
counties
are
reviewing
the
feasibility
of
this
effort.
Ongoing
efforts
are
expected.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
24
March
31,
2004
5.
Assign
staff
to
become
Air
Quality
Contact.
Currently,
the
UAQC
members
are
the
air
quality
contacts.
The
WPCOG
also
provides
two
people
that
can
be
contacted
for
Air
Quality
assistance.
The
NC
DAQ
serves
as
our
Air
Quality
Experts.

6.
Adopt
a
local
clean
air
policy
and
appoint
stakeholder
group
to
identify
and
recommend
locally
feasible
air
improvement
actions.
The
Unifour
Air
Quality
Group
serves
this
function
and
represents
stakeholders
for
air
quality
in
the
region.

7.
Landscaping
Standards.
Many
of
the
local
governments
have
adopted
Landscaping
Standards
or
are
reviewing
the
benefits
of
adoption.
Some
examples
are:

City
of
Conover:
a.
Landscape
Parking
Ordinance
b.
Adopted
on
Dec.
4,
1995
by
Ordinance
22­
95
c.
Section
23.5
of
the
Zoning
Ordinance
d.
Requires
trees
and
shrubbery
within
the
parking
lots
and
in
a
10'
minimumplanting
strip
between
any
road
and
parking
lot.
This
reduces
the
impact
of
a
heat
envelope
created
by
large
expanses
of
unbroken
asphalt.
e.
Zoning
Permit
not
approved
unless
part
of
plans.
Any
vegetation
that
dies
is
required
to
be
replanted
within
the
planting
season.
f.
Zoning
Ordinance
Violations
are
enforceable.
www.
ci.
conover.
nc.
us
or
www.
municode.
com
Caldwell
County
adopted
on
March
15,
2004
a
rewritten
Zoning
Ordinance,
which
includes
buffer
requirements
that
require
planting
of
vegetation
or
utilize
existing
vegetation.
Also
includes
landscaping
requirement,
which
requires
the
breaking
of
parking
lot
expanse
with
vegetation.
The
rewrite
of
the
Ordinance
created
new
district
that
encourages
/
allows
mixed­
use
development.

County
allows
flex
hours
in
department
where
it
would
benefit
both
the
department
and
the
employee.
For
example
the
Finance
Department
has
utilized
flex
hours.

The
Caldwell
County
Ordinances
can
be
reviewed
at
the
Counties
website:
http://
www.
co.
caldwell.
nc.
us/
depart/
planning/
proposedord.
html
Catawba
County
has
adopted
Small
Area
Plans
that
cover
the
majority
of
the
county.
Small
area
plans
are
designed
to
assess
specific
neighborhood
area's
current
quality
of
life
and
sustainability
on
issues
such
as
traffic
congestion,
residential
development
patterns,
water
quality,
library
service
levels,
utility
capacities
and
school
facilities.
Upon
reviewing
these
issues,
committees
will
then
recommend
measures
for
improvement.
Specifically,
Small
Area
Planning
Committees
will
discuss
and
develop
goals
and
action
statements
for
the
following
issues:
1)
economic
development;
2)
natural
resources;
3)
cultural
resources;
4)
public
services
and
community
facilities;
5)
housing;
6)
land
use
and
development;
and
7)
transportation.
Plans
will
also
include
how
the
goals
and
action
statements
will
be
implemented,
whether
it
is
through
ordinance
or
policy
amendments,
modified
capital
improvement
plans,
or
coordination
with
other
agencies
to
complete
specific
tasks.
Small
Area
plans
are
Smart
Growth
that
address
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
25
March
31,
2004
current
land
uses
&
residential
density
recommendations,
future
transportation
recommendations,
proposed
Zoning
Map
amendments
and
natural
and
cultural
resources.

Catawba
County
has
adopted
Landscaping
Standards
that
can
be
reviewed
in
the
Zoning
Ordinance
ARTICLE
IX.
Section
44­
298.

The
Small
Area
Plans
and
Ordinances
can
be
reviewed
at
Catawba
County's
website:

http://
www.
catawbacountync.
gov/
depts/
planning/
index.
html
8.
Implement
Smart
Growth.
The
City
of
Hickory
has
adopted
a
Comprehensive
Land
Use
and
Transportation
Plan
(
Hickory
By
Choice)
which
is
a
Smart
Growth
Plan.
Catawba
County
has
approved
several
Small
Area
Plans
that
are
also
Smart
Growth
activities
in
the
area.
Other
counties
and
cities
are
reviewing
the
possibilities
of
these
types
of
plans.
Some
examples
are:

City
of
Hickory:
In
an
effort
to
cope
with
issues
associated
with
air
quality
standards
the
City
of
Hickory
has
implemented
a
number
of
strategies/
policies
designed
to
improve
and/
or
mitigate
such
issues.
The
following
bulleted
list
describes
each
of
these
strategies/
policies
and
offers
an
explanation
of
the
mechanics
of
each.

 
Hickory
By
Choice,
Comprehensive
Land
Use
and
Transportation
Plan,
Adopted
August
1999.
The
document
is
available
at
the
City
of
Hickory's
website
at
http://
www.
hickorygov.
com.

Hickory
By
Choice
(
HBC)
is
the
City
of
Hickory's
Comprehensive
Land
Use
and
Transportation
Plan
and
is
designed
to
guide
development
activities
within
the
City
for
the
next
twenty­
five
(
25)
years.
HBC
outlines
specific
goals
involving
the
development
of
its
transportation
network,
the
preservation
of
natural
resources,
the
expansion
of
transit
opportunities,
and
development
of
land­
uses.

HBC
identifies
an
"
Overriding
Planning
Principal"
as
being
the
foundation
to
which
the
bulk
of
the
document
revolves
around.
This
principal
indicates
the
importance
of
pedestrian
oriented
interconnectivity
and
the
realization
of
traditional
patterns
of
development.
This
verbatim
text
of
this
strategy
is
located
below.
The
overriding
planning
principle
is
simply
to
create
a
network
of
neighborhoods
of
housing,
parks,
and
schools
placed
within
walking
distance
of
shops,
civic
services,
and
employment.
Hickory
has
grown
as
a
regional
provider
of
medical
services,
retail
shopping,
cultural
activities,
and
employment.
And
this
planning
principle
builds
upon
the
traditional
development
patterns
in
Hickory
with
the
intent
of
Reestablishing
a
community
less
reliant
on
automobiles
and
promotes
a
sustainable
economy.
New
development
patterns
in
the
city
should
reinforce
the
connection
between
new
mixed
use/
multiple
use
and
traditional
residential
neighborhoods
and
the
elements
of
a
sustainable
community
such
as
neighborhood
shopping,
open
space
and
parks,
employment,
and
services.
These
connections
should
be
more
pedestrian
scale
and
safe
while
providing
more
options
to
reach
one's
desired
destination.
The
new
network
of
neighborhoods
would
be
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
26
March
31,
2004
centered
on
commercial
core
districts
that
provide
shopping,
offices,
civic
spaces,
and
services
located
along
major
thoroughfares
to
further
enhance
economic
sustainability
and
provide
opportunities
for
use
of
transit
to
travel
from
one
neighborhood
to
another.
Transit
opportunities
would
also
improve
access
to
larger
industrial,
office,
and
commercial
employment
centers.
Beyond
the
establishment
of
neighborhood
focused
commercial
districts
and
mixed­
use
neighborhoods
will
be
a
more
traditional
pattern
of
single­
family
residential
development.

Each
of
these
established
standards
are
outlined
below.

o
Provisions
for
Transit
Accessibility,
Article
3
The
City
of
Hickory's
Land
Development
Code
places
specific
requirements
for
development
activities
within
its
non­
residential
zones
that
stipulate
requirements
associated
with
the
provision
of
adequate
facilities
designed
to
accommodate
public
transit
vehicles.

o
Mixed­
Use
Development,
Section
5.1
The
LDC
provides
for
the
implementation
of
a
Neighborhood
Mixed­
Use
Overlay
District,
which
allows
for
the
establishment
of
retail
and
office
type
uses
intermingled
within
residential
areas.
The
overlay's
primary
intent
is
to
implement
the
neighborhood­
based
planning
polices
outlined
within
Hickory
By
Choice.

o
City
Center
Pedestrian
Overlay
District,
Section
5.4
This
overlay
district
promotes
easy
pedestrian
access
to
buildings
by
prohibiting
parking
in
front
of
buildings
and
allowing
zero­
lot
line
setbacks
to
further
facilitate
a
pedestrian
friendly
atmosphere.

o
Traditional
Development
Patterns,
Section
6.1
The
promotion
of
traditional
development
patterns
are
highlighted
within
the
LDC's
Traditional
Neighborhood
Development
(
TND)
section.
This
concept
employs
the
rational
of
master
planned
communities.
The
provisions
allow
for
the
development
of
higher
density
mixed­
use
development
that
relies
on
the
fundamentals
of
pre­
suburban
development
patterns.

o
Higher
Density
Residential
Development,
Section
8.1
The
LDC
establishes
minimum
required
lot
sizes
for
each
of
its
zoning
districts.
Within
residential
zoning
districts
provisions
have
been
made
for
the
creation
of
smaller
lots,
which
in
turn
provide
opportunity
for
higher
density
residential
development
patterns.

o
Conservation
Subdivisions,
Section
8.5
Conservation
subdivisions
provide
for
the
development
of
property
into
smaller
more
dense
lots
while
preserving
open
space.
Typically,
the
normal
density
of
the
tract
being
developed
is
still
permitted,
however
the
lots
are
compacted
and
the
remainder
of
the
tract
is
preserved
as
open
space.

o
Provision
for
Pedestrian
Facilities,
Section
9.8
The
City
of
Hickory's
LDC
requires
that
sidewalks
in
relation
to
all
development
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
27
March
31,
2004
activities
be
installed
in
conjunctions
with
the
City's
Sidewalk,
Bikeway,
Greenway,
and
Trail
Master
Plan.
The
LDC
also
stipulates
the
installation
of
sidewalks
along
all
proposed
roadways
servicing
residential
properties.

o
Landscaping
and
Screening,
Section
10.11
The
Landscaping
and
Screening
section
of
the
LDC
places
specific
requirements
upon
new
development
activities
and
any
alterations
and/
or
expansions
of
existing
land­
uses.
Specifically
the
section
promotes
the
preservation
of
existing
vegetation,
and
in
instances
where
such
preservation
is
not
possible
the
LDC
stipulates
that
required
activities
provide
substantial
plantings
to
provide
aesthetically
pleasing
features
that
also
work
along
with
natural
biological
systems
to
promote
a
beautified
and
cleaner
community.

o
Enforcement
of
Violations,
Article
16
Article
16
of
the
LDC
outlines
the
steps
and
procedures
for
the
resolution
of
any
and
all
violations
of
the
provisions
contained
within
the
LDC.
Such
measures
include
mechanisms
to
stop
work
of
constructions
projects,
the
revocation
of
permits,
injunction
procedures,
court
ordered
abatements,
and
civil
penalties.

City
of
Conover:
a.
2003
Land
Development
Plan
b.
Traditional
Neighborhood
Development
Ordinance
c.
October
2003
d.
May
3,
1999
by
Ordinance
16­
99
e.
A
10
year
growth
and
development
strategy
policy
document
f.
Division
12,
Section
312.1
g.
Guides
growth
and
development
encouraging
smart
growth
practices,
infill
development,
mixed
use
and
cluster
developments,
bikeways
and
pedestrian
linkages,
set
policy
for
a
growth
area
limited
to
public
infrastructure
placement.
h.
Development
plans
are
not
approved
unless
they
follow
the
LDP.
i.
Development
plans
are
not
approved
unless
in
compliance
with
development
regulations.
9.
Develop
plans
to
encourage
bicycle
and
pedestrian
usage.
Hickory
has
adopted
a
Sidewalk,
Bikeway,
Greenway,
and
Trail
Master
Plan.

Sidewalk,
Bikeway,
Greenway,
and
Trail
Master
Plan,
Adopted
September
2000.

This
Master
Plan
establishes
a
specific
set
of
strategies
the
City
of
Hickory
is
currently
under
Taking
in
an
effort
to
expand
and/
or
develop
non­
vehicular
transportation
corridors
within
the
City
of
Hickory.
The
Master
Plan
identifies
all
existing
pedestrian
oriented
facilities,
and
establishes
goals
and
implementation
strategies
associated
with
the
expansion
of
the
network.
In
total
the
Master
Plan
identifies
a
network
consisting
of
two
hundred
seventy
eight
(
278)
miles
of
pedestrian
specific
transportation
corridors.
Development
proposals
are
reviewed
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
28
March
31,
2004
and
compared
to
the
Master
Plan.
If
the
Master
Plan
depicts
a
planned
pedestrian
facility,
the
development
is
required
to
install
the
facility
during
construction.

10.
Discourage
Open
Burning
on
Ozone
Action
Days.
This
is
a
voluntary
program
that
Local
Contractors
sign
to
"
Not
Burn
on
Ozone
Action
Days".
This
program
has
been
in
effect
for
two
years
and
was
considered
a
success.

11.
Support
Coordination
of
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
and
Rural
Planning
Organization
efforts.
Support
is
ongoing.

12.
Encourage
the
use
of
compressed
work
weeks
or
flexible
hours.
Currently,
several
of
the
stakeholders
use
this
technique.
As
awareness
increases
we
believe
this
will
be
used
more.

13.
Expand
transit
and
ridesharing
programs.
Currently,
the
stakeholders
are
encouraging
this
type
of
activity.
As
awareness
increases
we
believe
this
type
of
activity
will
be
used
more.

14.
Improve
traffic
operational
planning,
engineering
and
maintenance.
The
City
of
Hickory
currently
uses
signaling
efforts
to
avoid
idling
problems
and
surrounding
areas
are
investigating
the
possibilities
of
tying
in
with
the
Hickory
system
to
have
more
efficient
trafficking
systems.
This
is
believed
to
be
an
ongoing
project.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
29
March
31,
2004
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.

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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
30
March
31,
2004
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
31
March
31,
2004
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
32
March
31,
2004
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
33
March
31,
2004
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
34
March
31,
2004
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
35
March
31,
2004
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).

DVF
=
DVC
x
RRF
Equation
6.3­
1
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
non­
attainment
will
be
2001­
2003
and
the
DVC
straddling
the
year
represented
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
36
March
31,
2004
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
all
monitors
in
the
Unifour
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
the
Unifour
EAC
Area
Monitor
Name
DVC
(
ppm)
RRF
DVF
(
ppm)
Lenoir
0.088
0.88
0.077
Taylorsville
0.087
0.89
0.077
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
Unifour
EAC
area
attaining
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
the
Unifour
EAC
Area
Monitor
Name
DVC
(
ppm)
RRF
DVF
(
ppm)
Lenoir
0.088
0.82
0.071
Taylorsville
0.087
0.82
0.072
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
37
March
31,
2004
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.
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
38
March
31,
2004
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
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
39
March
31,
2004
Stationary
Point
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
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
New
Hanover
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
Rutherford
3.24
49.60
2.56
4.66
13.67
3.45
Sampson
0.24
0.23
0.22
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
40
March
31,
2004
Stationary
Point
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
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
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
41
March
31,
2004
Stationary
Area
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
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
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
42
March
31,
2004
Stationary
Area
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
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
Non­
road
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
County
2000
2007
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
43
March
31,
2004
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
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
44
March
31,
2004
Non­
road
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
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
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
45
March
31,
2004
Non­
road
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
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
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
46
March
31,
2004
Highway
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
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
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
47
March
31,
2004
Highway
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
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
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
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
48
March
31,
2004
June
30,
2003
Progress
Report
APPENDIX
B
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
49
March
31,
2004
Tool
Box
for
Local
Control
Strategies
APPENDIX
C
Local
EAC
Plan
Report
Page
50
March
31,
2004
Resolutions
Adopted
by
EAC
Local
Governments
Adopting
Local
Control
Measures
APPENDIX
D
