
An
initiative
of
11
counties
and
20
municipalities
in
the
Piedmont
Triad
Region
of
North
Carolina
and
The
North
Carolina
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources,
Division
of
Air
Quality
with
guidance
from
USEPA
Region
4.

March
31,
2004
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
TRIAD
EARLY
ACTION
PLAN
Table
of
Contents
Page
Section
1
Introduction.............................................................................   .
1
Note
Section
1.3
Stakeholder
Involvement
.............................................
2
Sample
news
Articles.............................................................................
4
Section
2
Overview
of
Air
Quality
in
Triad
Area
............................................
18
Section
3
Ozone
and
its
Health
Effects
and
Sources
........................................
21
Section
4
Emissions
Inventories........................................................................
24
Section
5
Control
Measures
..............................................................................
33
Note
Section
5.3
Local
Control
Measure
.............................................
35
PART
Policies
for
Regional
Growth
....................................................
38
List
of
Web
Sites
for
local
Comprehensive
and
Other
Plan
..................
39
Section
6
Attainment
Demonstration
..............................................................
42
Section
7
Anticipated
Resource
Constraints
....................................................
71
Appendix
A
Emissions
Sources
by
County
...........................................................
72
Appendix
B
State
Portion
of
June
30,
2003
Progress
Report.............................
B­
1
Appendix
C
Triad
EAC
Control
Strategies
........................................................
C­
1
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
1
March
31,
2004
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
As
a
requirement
of
the
Triad
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
Triad
area,
the
health
effects
and
sources
of
ozone,
Federal
and
State
control
measures,
and
emissions
modeling
and
results.
The
Triad
area
includes
Alamance,
Caswell,
Davidson,
Davie,
Forsyth,
Guilford,
Randolph,
Rockingham
Stokes,
Surry
and
Yadkin
Counties.

1.2
Modeling
Background
The
modeling
analysis
is
a
complex
technical
evaluation
that
begins
by
selection
of
the
modeling
system
and
selection
of
the
meteorological
episodes.
North
Carolina
Division
of
Air
Quality
(
NCDAQ)
decided
to
use
the
following
modeling
system:

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

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

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

The
modeling
system
being
used
for
this
demonstration
and
the
episodes
being
modeled
were
discussed
in
detail
in
the
June
30,
2003
progress
report
(
see
Appendix
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.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
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
nonroad)
source
emissions
are
discussed
in
Section
5.

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

1.3
Stakeholders
Involvement
The
Triad
Stakeholders
Group
was
organized
in
January
and
February
2003,
following
adoption
of
the
EAC
resolution
by
11
counties
and
21
municipalities
in
December
2002.
There
was
no
predecessor
regional
group
to
logically
assume
these
responsibilities.
Therefore,
the
two
councils
of
governments
(
COGs),
Piedmont
Triad
Council
of
Governments
and
Northwest
Piedmont
Council
of
Governments,
assumed
this
role.
On
behalf
of
their
member
governments,
the
COGs
appointed
a
broad
range
of
local
government,
business,
industry,
transportation,
and
environmental
representatives
to
comprise
the
EAC
Stakeholders
Group.

Between
March
2003
and
March
2004,
the
work
of
the
Stakeholders
Group
fell
roughly
into
three
phases:
 
March
 
June
2003
Building
a
cohesive
group
encompassing
diverse
points
of
view;
becoming
educated
on
ozone
issues;
and
considering
hundreds
of
reduction
strategies
 
July
 
December
2003
Conducting
15
public
forums
and
local
government
meetings
to
educate
and
receive
input
from
citizens
and
elected
officials;
and
developing
consensus
on
strategies
for
the
Triad
Early
Action
Plan.
 
January
 
March
2004
Refining
strategies,
eliminating
those
deemed
nonproductive;
developing
a
system
to
measure
and
account
for
local
government
progress;
and
quantifying
emissions
reductions
where
possible.

In
addition
to
the
Piedmont
Triad
COG
and
the
Northwest
COG,
other
organizations
have
played
a
leadership
role
in
the
Triad
EAC:

Forsyth
County
Environmental
Affairs
Department
PART
(
Piedmont
Authority
for
Regional
Transportation,
regional
transportation
planning
and
service
agency)
Greensboro
Chamber
of
Commerce
Winston­
Salem
Chamber
of
Commerce
Guilford
County
Advisory
Board
for
Environmental
Quality
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
3
March
31,
2004
4
MPOs
serving
the
11­
county
region
Representatives
of
these
agencies,
recommended
strategies
and
helped
assess
their
implications.
The
Guilford
County
Advisory
Board
for
Environmental
Quality
(
ABEQ)
was
particularly
helpful
in
devoting
three
meetings
to
potential
strategies
and
developing
criteria
to
measure
those
with
greatest
potential
for
adoption
and
success.
In
addition,
the
ABEQ
hosted
a
large
public
meeting
in
December
2003
with
participation
from
citizens
and
members
of
the
environmental
community.

The
Stakeholders
Group
met
fourteen
times
between
March
2003
and
March
2004.
Meetings
were
and
continue
to
be
highly
interactive
with
excellent
attendance
from
the
35
group
members.
Meetings
are
advertised
on
the
web
pages
of
the
Piedmont
Triad
Council
of
Governments
and
the
Northwest
Piedmont
Council
of
Governments.
Additionally,
meetings
are
publicized
by
the
Winston­
Salem
and
Greensboro
Chambers
of
Commerce,
in
the
Triad
Sierra
Club
newsletter,
and
in
e­
mails
to
local
and
statewide
environmental
groups.
There
is
extensive
coverage
of
each
Stakeholder
meeting
in
the
Greensboro
News
and
Record.
The
combination
of
publicity
and
participation
from
the
environmental
and
business
community
may
account
for
frequent
calls
from
interested
citizens
asking
if
they
can
attend
Stakeholder
meetings.
They
are
always
invited
and
placed
on
the
e­
mail
list.

The
following
pages
contain
a
sample
of
newspaper
articles
illustrating
excellent
coverage
of
the
EAC
process
in
this
Region
and
work
of
the
Stakeholders
Group.
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
4
March
31,
2004
Sample
of
EAC­
Related
News
Articles
March
2003­
March
2004
Demonstrating:
Stakeholder
Activities,
Local
Commitment
and
Public
Education
1.
Regional
Panel
Aims
For
Cleaner
Air
Officials
hope
to
reduce
ozone
pollution
three
years
before
a
federal
deadline
By
Paul
Muschick,
Staff
Writer
News
and
Record,
Tuesday,
March
4,
2003
Business,
government
and
transportation
officials
from
across
the
Triad
began
discussing
Monday
how
to
cut
air
pollution
and
escape
federal
penalties.

Eleven
counties
have
agreed
to
cooperate
on
a
plan
that
would
reduce
ozone,
a
type
of
pollution
caused
by
burning
fuels
...
such
as
from
power
plants,
factories
and
cars
...
that
can
cause
breathing
difficulties.

The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
is
expected
to
rule
next
year
that
the
region
will
violate
new,
tougher
ozone
rules,
potentially
limiting
the
construction
of
new
factories
and
new
roads
that
could
add
even
more
ozone.
The
EPA
will
require
a
cleanup
plan
to
be
written
by
2007.
It
will
require
that
ozone
be
reduced
by
2010.

But
the
Triad,
along
with
three
other
parts
of
the
state,
has
entered
a
program
to
start
cleaning
up
its
air
now,
before
the
new
law
takes
effect.
If
it
succeeds,
the
Triad
will
cut
its
ozone
to
acceptable
levels
by
2007,
three
years
earlier
than
required.

By
June
16,
the
region
needs
to
submit
a
list
of
suggestions
for
how
to
reduce
the
pollution.
Suggestions
could
include
proposals
to
better
enforce
speed
limits
and
encourage
carpooling
and
transit
use,
all
of
which
could
reduce
pollutants
from
cars;
to
limit
open
burning;
to
promote
energy
conservation;
and
to
reduce
urban
sprawl,
which
some
experts
say
increases
traffic.

 
We
need
to
come
up
with
things
that
are
feasible,
or
the
EPA's
not
going
to
buy
it,''
said
Bob
Fulp
of
the
Forsyth
County
Department
of
Environmental
Affairs.

Everything
from
power
plants,
factories
and
airports
to
cars,
farm
machinery,
construction
equipment
and
lawn
mowers
will
come
under
scrutiny.

  
The
challenge
is
to
clean
up
something
we
cannot
see,
smell
or
touch,''
said
Ginger
Booker,
assistant
director
of
the
Piedmont
Triad
Council
of
Governments,
which
is
helping
to
coordinate
the
effort.

Participants
include
businesses
such
as
Duke
Power,
R.
J.
Reynolds
and
Cone
Mills;
chambers
of
commerce
in
Greensboro
and
Winston­
Salem;
governments
in
Greensboro,
High
Point,
Winston­
Salem,
Kernersville,
Eden,
Clemmons
and
Burlington;
Piedmont
Triad
International
Airport;
the
Piedmont
Authority
for
Regional
Transportation;
the
Forsyth
County
Department
of
Environmental
Affairs;
the
N.
C.
Division
of
Air
Quality;
the
American
Lung
Association;
and
the
Blue
Ridge
Environmental
Defense
League.

The
members
decided
Monday
to
also
invite
representatives
of
the
gasoline,
road­
building,
construction,
trucking,
railroad
and
farming
industries.
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
5
March
31,
2004
Pollution
can
be
reduced,
Fulp
said.
New
laws
will
take
effect
in
the
next
few
years
to
reduce
emissions
from
factories
and
power
plants,
and
cleaner
burning
fuels
and
cars
are
on
the
way.
A
tougher
car
inspection
program
also
is
in
the
works.

The
Asheville,
Fayetteville
and
Hickory
areas
are
going
through
the
same
process.
The
Triangle
chose
not
to
start
reducing
air
pollution
earlier
than
required.
The
Charlotte
area
is
not
eligible
because
it
already
is
violating
existing
ozone
laws.

2.
Local
Officials
Working
to
Meet
Pollution
Limits
4­
1­
03
By
PAUL
MUSCHICK,
Staff
Writer,
News
&
Record
KERNERSVILLE
­­
New
technology
and
state
and
federal
laws
will
cut
one
air
pollutant
64
percent
in
the
Triad,
a
good
start
toward
meeting
stricter
air
quality
limits,
a
state
analyst
said
Monday.

If
local
governments
do
their
part,
too,
the
region
should
be
in
compliance
by
2007.

"
We're
seeing
significant
reduction
in
those
emissions,"
said
Sheila
Holman
of
the
N.
C.
Division
of
Air
Quality.
"
We
think
you
have
a
real
chance
at
being
able
to
show
attainment."

Holman
on
Monday
briefed
a
group
of
business
leaders,
politicians,
planners
and
environmentalists
who
represent
11
counties
and
20
towns
that
have
agreed
to
work
together
to
cut
ozone
pollution.

Ozone
is
caused
by
burning
fuels
­­
such
as
from
power
plants,
factories,
airports
and
cars
­­
and
can
cause
breathing
difficulties.

Holman
said
that
by
2007,
nitrogen
oxide,
one
component
of
ozone,
will
drop
64
percent
compared
to
1997
levels
because
of
state
and
federal
laws
taking
effect
in
the
next
few
years
that
limit
emissions
from
power
plants
and
factories;
require
the
use
of
low­
sulfur
gasoline;
require
tougher
car
inspections;
and
produce
cleaner­
burning
engines.

Still,
the
region
needs
to
do
more
at
the
local
level
to
cut
nitrogen
oxide
if
it
wants
to
meet
the
new
federal
limit.

The
planning
group
intends
to
discuss
possible
alternatives
over
the
next
few
months
and
submit
a
preliminary
list
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
by
June
16.

The
work
is
in
anticipation
of
an
EPA
ruling
next
year
that
the
region
will
be
in
violation
of
new,
tougher
ozone
rules.
The
Triad
would
have
until
2010
to
clean
up
the
air
or
face
penalties
that
could
include
limiting
the
construction
of
new
factories
and
roads
that
could
add
even
more
ozone.

But
the
Triad,
along
with
three
other
parts
of
the
state,
has
entered
a
program
that
it
hopes
will
clean
up
the
air
by
2007.
Over
the
next
few
months,
the
local
panel
will
study
a
list
of
pollutioncutting
ideas
used
in
places
such
as
Winston­
Salem;
Charlotte;
Atlanta;
San
Antonio,
Texas;
and
Austin,
Texas.

Among
the
options
are
requiring
contractors
working
on
government
jobs
such
as
road
projects
to
use
equipment
with
clean­
burning
engines;
increasing
public
transportation
options
to
reduce
the
number
of
cars
on
the
road;
and
cracking
down
on
cars
that
clearly
are
blowing
out
too
much
exhaust.

Bob
Fulp
of
the
Forsyth
County
Environmental
Affairs
Department
cautioned
the
panel
not
to
limit
itself
to
the
list
of
ideas
provided
to
members
Monday.
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
6
March
31,
2004
"
Be
creative,"
Fulp
said.
"
There
are
probably
some
things
out
there
that
are
pretty
darn
good
ideas
that
nobody's
even
thought
of
yet."
Fulp
and
other
panel
members
also
said
compiling
a
list
of
ideas
by
June
will
be
difficult
because
the
state
has
not
yet
provided
information
about
how
much
ozone
each
option
may
reduce.

Holman
said
that
information
will
not
be
available
until
late
summer,
still
in
plenty
of
time
for
the
panel
to
put
together
its
final
list
of
ideas
by
March
2004.

The
technology
and
laws
already
on
the
way
will
result
in
a
91
percent
reduction
of
daily
nitrogen
oxide
emissions
from
power
plants,
Holman
said.
Emissions
from
factories
should
drop
by
about
half,
and
emissions
from
traffic
should
drop
by
41
percent.

Holman
suggested
the
group
focus
on
pollution
sources
that
upcoming
technology
and
laws
will
not
have
much
effect
on
by
2007,
such
as
smaller
factories,
airports,
construction
equipment,
trains,
boats
and
smaller
engines
such
as
lawn
mowers.

3.
AREA
LEADERS
TACKLE
AIR
POLLUTION
ELEVEN
TRIAD
COUNTIES
ARE
WORKING
TOGETHER
TO
REDUCE
OZONE
DATE:
Tuesday,
April
8,
2003
PAUL
MUSCHICK
Staff
Writer
Kernersville
­
Using
equipment
with
cleaner­
burning
engines
at
landfills,
sewage
plants
and
roadconstruction
projects
could
help
toward
meeting
tougher
federal
air
pollution
laws,
Triad
leaders
said
Monday.

Making
that
happen
may
not
be
easy,
though,
if
private
companies
don't
want
to
spend
the
money
to
upgrade
their
trucks,
bulldozers
and
other
vehicles.

The
idea
was
one
of
many
discussed
Monday
by
elected
officials,
business
leaders,
planners
and
environmentalists
from
11
counties
in
their
ongoing
work
to
reduce
ozone
pollution.

The
planning
group
will
discuss
ideas
in
the
next
few
months
and
submit
a
preliminary
list
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
by
June
16.

The
work
is
in
anticipation
of
an
EPA
ruling
next
year
that
the
region
will
be
in
violation
of
new,
tougher
ozone
rules.
The
Triad
would
have
until
2010
to
clean
up
the
air
or
face
penalties
that
could
include
limiting
the
construction
of
new
factories
and
roads
that
could
add
even
more
ozone.

But
the
Triad,
along
with
three
other
parts
of
the
state,
has
entered
a
program
that
it
hopes
will
clean
up
the
air
by
2007.

The
first
thing
the
group
did
Monday
was
agree
on
what
likely
would
not
work
here
­
many
of
them
items
that
would
cost
residents
money
by
making
it
more
expensive
to
drive.
Cars
and
trucks
created
about
28
percent
of
the
Triad's
ozone
in
1997,
the
most
recent
year
for
which
data
is
available.

Among
the
ideas
discarded
Monday
were
increasing
fuels
taxes;
charging
vehicle
registration
fees
based
on
how
many
miles
people
drive
and
how
much
pollution
their
type
of
car
creates;
or
limiting
the
number
of
vehicles
that
could
be
registered.
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
7
March
31,
2004
The
group
also
discussed
efforts
already
under
way
that
could
cut
ozone
­
park­
and­
ride
lots,
regional
buses,
van
pools
and
other
services
of
the
Piedmont
Authority
for
Regional
Transportation.

The
dilemma
the
pollution
prevention
planners
face
is
they
do
not
know
exactly
how
much
ozone
they
must
cut
to
meet
the
lower
federal
limit.
The
state
has
not
finished
computing
that
yet.

Bob
Harkrader,
Burlington's
planning
director,
said
he'll
need
to
know
the
benefits
of
any
ideas
before
asking
Burlington
leaders
to
support
them,
especially
those
that
could
be
politically
painful.''

One
idea
under
consideration
is
requiring
road
builders
to
use
cleaner­
burning
equipment
on
future
contracts,
an
idea
that
state
transportation
officials
already
are
discussing,
said
Sheila
Holman
of
the
N.
C.
Division
of
Air
Quality.

Road
builders
likely
would
lobby
against
the
plan,
warned
Bob
Fulp,
director
of
the
Forsyth
County
Environmental
Affairs
Department.
  
Don't
expect
they're
going
to
be
real
thrilled
about
it,''
he
said.

And
if
local
leaders
endorse
such
a
plan,
Fulp
said,
the
Triad's
cities
and
government
should
consider
upgrading
their
equipment
at
landfills
and
sewage
plants,
too,
to
do
their
part.

4.
Panel
sifts
through
pollution
solutions
5­
20­
03
By
PAUL
MUSCHICK,
Staff
Writer
Business,
political,
environmental
and
transportation
officials
on
Monday
whittled
down
options
to
reduce
the
Triad's
ozone
pollution
and
avoid
federal
air
quality
penalties.

The
panel
discussed
nearly
200
options,
agreeing
to
keep
some
for
further
discussion
while
discarding
those
that
were
unrealistic
­­
such
as
"
no
drive
days"
­­
or
could
be
politically
unpopular,
such
as
higher
taxes
and
fees
on
those
who
drive
the
most.

The
panel
has
until
June
16
to
submit
a
broad
list
of
ideas
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
for
how
the
Triad
could
reduce
ozone,
a
colorless
gas
created
when
pollutants
from
cars,
power
plants,
airplanes,
lawn
mowers,
construction
equipment
and
other
sources
of
burning
fuel
are
heated
by
the
sun.

Among
the
ideas
still
being
considered
include
persuading
people
to
conserve
energy
and
reducing
traffic
by
offering
more
public
transit
and
permitting
people
to
work
and
do
things
like
pay
bills
over
the
computer
from
home.

The
panel
suggested
steps
such
as
providing
electrical
connections
at
truck
stops,
so
trucks
would
not
have
to
idle
to
have
power
inside.
Also
recommended
were
steps
toward
the
use
of
cleaner
burning
fuels
and
vehicles.

The
panel
could
approve
the
list
in
two
weeks.
It
then
would
have
about
another
year
to
decide
which
of
the
ideas
to
actually
implement.
Some
could
require
state
or
local
legislation.

Ozone
can
cause
breathing
problems,
according
to
the
EPA.
The
American
Lung
Association
reported
this
month
that
the
Triad
has
the
17th­
worst
ozone
pollution
in
the
United
States,
although
some
have
criticized
the
study
as
flawed.

The
area
is
not
expected
to
meet
new
federal
guidelines
for
ozone
next
year.
The
panel
that
met
Monday
is
working
on
a
plan
to
meet
the
new
limits
by
2007.
If
panelists
fail,
penalties
could
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
8
March
31,
2004
include
limits
on
new
industry
and
the
withholding
of
road
construction
and
other
transportation
money
in
2010.

The
panel
discarded
about
70
ideas
Monday.
Some
were
impractical.
Some
were
sure
to
meet
political,
business
or
public
opposition.
Some
just
couldn't
be
done
in
time.

For
example,
some
governments
are
studying
the
effectiveness
of
building
car­
pool
lanes
on
major
highways,
but
that
is
a
decade­
long
process.
Significant
transit
improvements
also
are
about
that
far
off.

I
deas
for
requiring
auto
emissions
inspections
statewide
were
shot
down
because
panelists
believed
state
lawmakers
would
not
sign
off.

Other
ideas
had
the
potential
to
infringe
on
businesses,
such
as
motivating
car
dealers
to
keep
a
certain
percentage
of
hybrid
or
alterative­
fuel
vehicles
in
stock;
restricting
where
heavy­
duty
diesel
vehicles
could
drive
at
certain
times;
and
mandating
tougher
controls
on
industry.

Some
panelists
suggested
the
EPA
would
be
more
likely
to
approve
the
area's
list
of
options
if
the
list
is
short.

"
That
conveys
to
the
EPA
that
we
have
sat
down
and
done
a
serious
analysis
and
not
just
put
down
things
willy­
nilly,"
said
Bob
Fulp,
director
of
the
Forsyth
County
Environmental
Affairs
Department.

Others,
including
Hoy
Bohanon
of
the
environmental
affairs
department
at
R.
J.
Reynolds
Tobacco
Co.,
said
the
list
should
be
broad
so
no
options
are
prematurely
eliminated.

5.
COUNTY
LOCKS
IN
ENERGY
SAVINGS
June
12.
2003
12:
00AM
BY
ERIC
FRAZIER,
The
Lexington
Dispatch
Some
say
it
takes
money
to
make
money,
but
the
Davidson
County
commissioners
have
found
a
way
to
save
money
without
having
to
spend
any
first.

They
approved
a
guaranteed
energy
savings
contract
with
Johnson
Controls
Tuesday
night.
Under
the
contract,
Johnson
Controls
will
conduct
an
evaluation
of
17
public
buildings
in
the
county
to
identify
conservation
measures.
When
implemented,
the
measures
should
save
enough
on
energy
costs
to
pay
for
both
the
study
and
the
equipment
the
company
will
install.
If
not,
Johnson
Controls
must
pay
for
the
work.

"
It
sounds
too
good
to
be
true,"
said
Dwayne
Childress,
purchasing
director
for
the
county,
"
but
the
companies
that
do
this
are
regulated
by
the
state."

Such
projects
are
enabled
in
North
Carolina
through
legislation
passed
by
the
General
Assembly
in
the
1980s
and
overseen
by
the
N.
C.
Local
Government
Commission.

Typical
work
includes
installation
of
high­
efficiency
heating
and
air
conditioning
equipment,
automated
temperature
controls,
water
conservation
and
also
energy
management
training
for
building
staff.

After
building
inspections
and
a
preliminary
review
of
utility
bills,
Johnson
Controls
estimated
the
county
could
save
from
$
100,000
to
$
139,000
per
year.
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
9
March
31,
2004
A
typical
contract
 
the
company
calls
them
partnerships
­
would
be
set
up
for
12
years.
Over
that
period,
the
firm
estimated
$
1.2
million
to
$
1.67
million
in
savings.
The
package
of
improvements
is
financed
like
any
other
capital
project
and
paid
out
over
the
12
years.

Childress
said
the
savings
to
the
county
begin
in
the
first
year
because
the
annual
contract
amount
is
required
to
be
less
than
what
the
energy
firm
has
projected
in
savings.

Johnson
Controls
is
a
115­
year­
old
energy
services
company
that
has
completed
such
projects
in
schools
across
the
state.
It
began
a
similar
guaranteed
energy
savings
program
at
Davidson
County
Community
College
in
2001.

County
Manager
Robert
Hyatt
reported
to
the
commissioners
that
local
community
college
officials
are
pleased
with
the
contracted
work
that
has
been
performed
so
far.

"
They
´
re
at
the
point
where
the
rubber
meets
the
road
 
the
savings
generated
by
the
Childress
said
one
of
his
concerns
was
whether
the
improvements
would
outlast
the
12
years
needed
to
pay
for
them.
He
said
Scott
Rickard,
assistant
maintenance
director,
had
inspected
the
work
performed
at
the
college
and
was
satisfied
with
the
quality.

After
Johnson
Controls
performed
the
preliminary
study,
the
county
asked
for
competitive
proposals
from
two
other
companies,
Ameresco
Inc.
and
Honeywell
International.
Then,
an
independent
engineer
reviewed
all
three
proposals
and
ranked
Johnson
Controls
best.
Now
the
company
will
prepare
a
final
study
that
will
contain
the
actual
design
specifications
for
all
construction.

The
cost
of
the
final
study
is
$
36,540,
but
that
amount
will
be
rolled
into
the
final
agreement
with
Johnson
Controls.
No
cash
outlay
will
be
needed
unless
the
county
for
some
reason
decides
not
to
continue
with
the
program.

The
final
study
will
produce
the
12­
year
performance
contract
that
governs
the
construction,
financing
and
payment
schedules
for
the
project.

6.
Council
ponders
energy
upgrades
9­
3­
03
By
SUE
SCHULTZ,
Staff
Writer
News
&
Record
HIGH
POINT
­­
City
Council
members
considered
Tuesday
$
1.2
million
in
upgrades
aimed
at
lowering
energy
costs
at
city
hall
while
generating
savings
for
the
city.
Jeff
Moore,
the
director
of
the
city's
finance
department,
told
council
members
that
what
the
city
saves
on
its
energy
bills
during
the
next
12
years
can
be
used
to
pay
the
costs
of
the
upgrades.

The
upgrades,
which
will
take
about
six
months
to
complete,
will
include
replacing
lighting
with
more
energy­
efficient
bulbs
and
switching
from
electric
boilers
to
gas­
operated
boilers.
The
project
will
update
the
building's
30­
year­
old
heating
and
cooling
systems,
venting
system
and
lighting.

"
This
is
a
creative
way
to
replace
an
outdated
mechanical
system
with
a
new,
updated,
energyefficient
system,"
said
city
Manager
Strib
Boynton.
"
Our
current
one
is
held
together
by
chewing
gum,
duct
tape
and
wires."

The
city
will
borrow
the
money
for
the
project
from
Koch
Financial
Corp.
and
pay
off
the
debt
over
12
years
through
a
lease­
purchase
program.
Like
other
government
agencies,
High
Point
has
to
qualify
for
the
program
and
get
state
approval
before
entering
into
the
contract.
Tuesday,
council
members
recommended
the
city
submit
its
application
for
the
program
with
a
state
board,
which
will
meet
in
October.
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
10
March
31,
2004
Under
the
energy
savings
program,
the
city
anticipates
saving
about
$
136,000
a
year
on
its
energy
bills.
Using
that
money,
the
city
would
pay
more
than
$
132,000
in
lease
and
debt
payments
for
the
upgrades
each
year
for
the
next
12
years.

But
Moore
told
council
members
that
after
the
debt
is
paid
off,
the
city
will
be
able
to
keep
the
savings.
The
council
will
discuss
further
action
on
the
energy
savings
program
later
in
the
month.

7.
Ozone
in
Triad
climbs
56
percent
in
past
decade
8­
20­
03By
PAUL
MUSCHICK,
Staff
Writer
News
&
Record
The
Triad
has
one
of
the
fastest­
growing
ozone
pollution
problems
among
the
nation's
largest
and
most­
polluted
regions,
according
to
a
report
released
Tuesday.

The
number
of
days
with
unhealthy
ozone
levels
rose
56
percent
in
the
Triad
during
the
past
decade,
according
to
the
Surface
Transportation
Policy
Project,
a
Washington­
based
organization
lobbying
for
transportation
reform.

The
Triad
averaged
13
days
of
unhealthy
ozone
from
1993
to
1997
and
nearly
20
days
from
1998
to
2002.
The
increase
was
the
fourth­
highest
of
the
49
places
studied.

That
does
not
mean,
however,
that
the
Triad's
ozone
grew
at
the
fourth­
fastest
rate
in
the
nation.
The
report
does
not
include
information
from
other
metro
areas
that
do
not
have
a
history
of
poor
air
quality,
though
they
could
have
had
larger
percentage
increases
in
ozone.

The
Triad
and
other
Southeast
areas
such
as
Charlotte
and
Raleigh
may
stand
out
in
the
study
because
of
weather
patterns
during
the
decade
when
the
comparisons
were
made.

The
first
half
of
the
decade
was
relatively
dry
and
cool,
when
ozone
typically
doesn't
form.
The
second
half
of
the
decade
was
hot,
dry
and
perfect
for
ozone,
leading
to
large
increases.

"
There's
a
big
caveat
because
it's
a
weather­
related
thing,"
said
Lewis
Weinstock
of
the
Forsyth
County
Environmental
Affairs
Department,
the
region's
air­
monitoring
leader.

Still,
he
said,
Tuesday's
report
is
more
evidence
that
the
region
still
has
not
solved
its
ozone
problem,
one
that
is
expected
to
land
the
Triad
in
violation
of
federal
limits
next
year.
That
could
bring
restrictions
on
business
and
road
building.

The
Surface
Transportation
Policy
Project
issued
the
report
because
cars
and
trucks
create
ozone
and
other
pollution.
The
group
is
calling
on
Congress,
as
members
debate
a
new
transportation
spending
law,
to
provide
more
money
for
public
transportation
that
can
reduce
traffic.

Transportation
is
a
major
contributor
to
the
unhealthy
air
that
we
breathe,"
said
Anne
Canby,
the
organization's
president
and
a
former
transportation
director
in
New
Jersey
and
Delaware.

Nationally,
she
said,
it
is
responsible
for
more
than
half
of
all
carbon
monoxide
pollution
and
about
one­
third
of
the
pollutants
that
create
ozone.

Enlarging
road
capacity,
promoting
loops
to
carry
commuters
farther
from
city
centers
and
starving
public
transportation
for
operating
dollars
is
not
going
to
clear
the
air
in
North
Carolina
or

To
read
the
report,
go
to
www.
transact.
org
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
11
March
31,
2004
protect
our
health
and
our
tourism
economy,"
said
Eva
Ritchey,
president
of
Citizens
for
Transportation
Planning
and
a
member
of
the
N.
C.
Alliance
for
Transportation
Reform.

Ozone,
a
main
component
of
smog,
forms
when
pollutants
from
burning
fuel
are
heated
in
the
sun.
It
can
cause
breathing
problems,
according
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
In
a
similar
study
earlier
this
year,
the
American
Lung
Association
said
the
Triad
has
the
17th­
worst
ozone
pollution
in
the
United
States.

Nearly
half
of
all
Americans
are
breathing
unhealthy
air,
according
to
Tuesday's
report,
which
links
air
pollution
to
asthma,
heart
attacks
and
even
early
death.

The
public
health
impact
of
air
pollutants
from
cars
and
trucks
is
enormous,"
said
Dr.
Howard
Frumkin,
an
Emory
University
professor
and
representative
of
the
American
Public
Health
Association.
"
Transportation
policies
that
clean
up
our
air
are
essential
public
health
policy."

Triad
leaders
are
encouraging
increased
use
of
public
transportation,
cleaner­
burning
fuels
and
more­
efficient
engines
as
part
of
a
plan
to
reduce
ozone.

Eleven
Piedmont
Triad
counties
and
20
cities
have
signed
an
agreement
with
the
EPA
to
work
toward
cleaning
up
the
air
by
2007
­­
sooner
than
required
­­
through
an
early
action
compact.

The
Triad,
however,
is
not
expected
to
meet
tougher
ozone
limits
to
be
enacted
next
year.

8.
Rural
counties
may
get
commuter
park­
ride
lots
11­
13­
03
By
PAUL
MUSCHICK,
Staff
Writer
News
&
Record
The
Piedmont
Authority
for
Regional
Transportation
is
considering
whether
to
build
park­
and­
ride
lots
in
suburban
counties,
which
could
put
the
first
pressure
on
those
counties
to
begin
financially
supporting
the
authority.

The
authority,
known
as
PART,
represents
six
Piedmont
Triad
counties,
but
only
Guilford
and
Forsyth
pay
for
its
activities,
which
are
centered
in
those
two
counties.
Guilford
and
Forsyth
levy
a
5
percent
tax
on
rental
cars
to
raise
money
for
regional
buses
and
other
services.

PART
is
planning
its
first
park­
and­
ride
lots,
to
be
largely
paid
for
by
a
$
4.4
million
federal
grant.
The
first
lots
are
proposed
in
Greensboro,
High
Point
and
Winston­
Salem.
But
PART
board
members
said
Wednesday
that
lots
should
also
be
built
in
the
suburbs
so
the
thousands
of
commuters
in
those
counties
could
have
a
place
to
meet
and
form
carpools.
Successful
carpool
locations
could
become
stops
on
PART's
bus
route
if
it
expands
in
the
future.

More
than
20,000
people
drive
from
Randolph
County
to
Guilford
County
for
work,
with
another
15,000
coming
from
Davidson
County,
12,000
from
Rockingham
County
and
6,000
from
Alamance
County,
according
to
the
U.
S.
Census
Bureau.

Providing
opportunities
for
those
people
to
carpool
could
reduce
traffic,
air
pollution
and
the
risk
of
accidents,
PART
Executive
Director
Brent
McKinney
told
the
board.

PART
has
enough
money
to
build
about
20
lots,
he
said.
Local
governments
would
have
to
pay
10
percent
of
the
cost
of
each
lot,
with
the
federal
grant
and
state
covering
the
rest.
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
12
March
31,
2004
"
These
lots
are
not
going
to
cost
us
a
lot
of
money,"
McKinney
said.
"
We
can
put
up
a
lot
of
these
out
in
the
rural
areas."

The
local
payments
for
the
Guilford
and
Forsyth
lots
would
come
from
the
car
rental
taxes
raised
there.
The
suburban
communities
would
have
to
raise
their
own
money
­­
about
$
10,000
per
lot
­­
if
they
wanted
PART
to
build
lots
there,
McKinney
said.
Or
they
could
provide
land
or
other
services,
such
as
fencing,
lights,
maintenance
and
real
estate
transaction
fees.

Bob
Landreth,
a
PART
board
member
and
Guilford
County
commissioner,
said
this
means
it
is
time
for
suburban
counties
to
begin
financially
supporting
PART.

David
Isley,
a
PART
board
member
and
Rockingham
County
commissioner,
said
he
would
like
to
explore
building
a
lot
in
his
county.
He
said
he
doubts
his
commissioners
would
enact
a
rental
car
tax
because
it
could
hurt
car
dealerships,
which
rent
a
lot
of
cars
to
customers
whose
cars
are
being
repaired.

He
said
the
lot's
location
would
be
important
because
Rockingham
commuters
may
not
drive
15
minutes
to
a
park­
and­
ride
lot
to
form
a
carpool
and
head
to
Greensboro
when
the
direct
trip
is
only
30
minutes.

John
Patterson,
a
PART
board
member
and
Alamance
County
commissioner,
said
he
believes
his
county
could
come
up
with
a
one­
time
$
10,000
payment
to
build
a
lot
in
Alamance,
possibly
by
the
county
donating
land.

"
I
feel
like
Alamance
County
will
come
up
with
its
part,"
Patterson
said.

PART
should
build
the
suburban
lots
even
if
those
governments
refuse
to
pay
their
part,
suggested
PART
board
member
and
Greensboro
Mayor
Keith
Holliday.
He
said
Greensboro
and
Guilford
County
would
benefit
by
making
commutes
easier
because
commuters
spend
money
in
the
city
and
county
while
they
are
here.

That
may
not
be
fair
to
the
governments
that
already
are
paying
for
PART,
said
Sandy
Carmany,
a
Greensboro
councilwoman
and
PART
member.

9.
Air
quality
hot
topic
for
county
By
J.
D.
Walker
Staff
Writer,
The
Courier­
Tribune
ASHEBORO
­
Air
quality
will
be
a
hot
topic
for
area
municipal
and
county
government
officials
in
December.

That's
when
a
draft
proposal
from
the
Triad
Air
Quality
Early
Action
Compact
(
EAC)
will
be
submitted
for
their
approval.
The
proposal
will
detail
ways
by
which
governments,
industries
and
local
citizens
can
meet
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
ozone
standards
before
a
December
2007
deadline.

At
stake
could
be
EPA
restrictions
on
new
industries
in
the
area
and
state
mandates
on
enforcement,
among
possible
repercussions.

The
EAC
represents
11
counties
and
their
municipalities,
including
Alamance,
Caswell,
Davidson,
Davie,
For­
syth,
Guilford,
Randolph,
Rockingham,
Stokes,
Surry
and
Yadkin
counties.
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
13
March
31,
2004
At
a
joint
government
meeting
Monday
that
was
open
to
the
public,
officials
were
updated
on
what
EPA
standards
are,
how
the
EAC
operates
and
the
consequences
for
failure
to
comply.
The
meeting
was
attended
by
roughly
30
people,
including
Southwestern
Randolph
High
School
environmental
science
teacher
Brenda
Daniels
and
two
of
her
students,
Katie
Jo
Hinshaw
and
Carla
Smith.

Daniels
plans
to
use
some
of
the
material
and
information
gathered
at
the
meeting
for
upcoming
lesson
plans
on
air
quality
in
her
science
class.

For
local
leaders,
the
meeting
was
more
than
a
lesson
plan.
It
was
a
wake­
up
call
to
take
action
before
state
and
federal
officials
step
in
to
make
decisions
for
them.

The
presentation
was
made
by
Ginger
Booker
from
the
Piedmont
Triad
Council
of
Governments
(
COG).
She
said
if
area
governments
can
present
a
plan
of
action
to
EPA
officials
for
consideration
by
January
2004,
they
might
forestall
a
judgment
on
air
quality
until
December
2007.

If
the
EAC
does
not
come
up
with
a
workable
plan
to
reduce
ozone
emissions
throughout
the
11­
county
area,
local
leaders
can
expect
to
get
a
judgment
of
"
non­
attainment."
That's
because
early
tests
indicate
the
area
already
exceeds
the
government
standard
of
ozone
levels
that
are
less
than
.085
parts
per
million.

A
judge
of
non­
attainment
could
mean:
Stricter
enforcement
mandated
by
state
officials;
a
loss
of
federal
highway
development
and
maintenance
funding,
and
EPA
restrictions
on
new
industries
moving
into
the
area.

Participants
were
given
an
opportunity
to
offer
suggestions
to
be
taken
to
the
EAC
for
review
on
Nov.
3.
John
Ogburn,
Asheboro
city
manager,
said
his
government
has
already
had
city
buildings
evaluated
and
updated
to
make
them
more
energy
efficient.
He
said
city
leaders
will
review
bids
for
a
new
garbage
truck
soon.
"
We
will
have
to
consider
our
options
carefully
there,"
he
said.
"
We
have
to
be
smart
consumers."

Booker
pointed
out
that
Randolph
County
has
been
proactive
in
its
land
use
plan
by
encouraging
developments
with
green
spaces
and
compact
neighborhoods.

The
draft
proposal
that
is
expected
to
be
submitted
to
area
governments
will
ask
for
voluntary
compliance.
It
will
provide
numerous
suggestions
but
will
not
mandate
any
one
plan
of
action
for
individual
towns
or
counties.
It
will
be
up
to
local
leaders
to
determine
the
best
options
for
their
areas
based
on
need
and
budgetary
concerns.

"
But
I
don't
think
we
have
a
choice,"
said
Phil
Kemp,
Randolph
County
commission
chair.

In
the
end,
said
Daniels,
the
final
proof
of
success
or
failure
will
be
in
the
ozone
measures
taken
by
EPA.

10.
Air­
quality
plan
moves
ahead
12­
22­
03
By
Paul
Muschick
Staff
Writer
News
&
Record
The
31
local
governments
that
promised
a
year
ago
to
work
together
to
reduce
ozone
pollution
have
followed
through
and
all
endorsed
a
plan
to
send
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
early
next
year.
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
14
March
31,
2004
Elected
officials
in
the
11
counties
and
20
cities
and
towns
have
voted
over
the
past
month
to
support
the
plan,
which
if
approved
by
the
EPA
could
help
the
region
escape
penalties
for
its
pollution.

"
It's
a
big
step,"
said
Ginger
Booker,
assistant
director
of
the
Piedmont
Triad
Council
of
Governments,
which
coordinated
the
effort.
"
I
have
been
very
pleased
with
the
level
of
commitment."

The
EPA
did
not
require
that
all
of
the
governments
stick
with
the
process,
but
if
a
large
community
such
as
Greensboro
or
Guilford
County
had
dropped
out,
it
could
have
scuttled
the
effort
because
those
areas
are
large
contributors
to
the
ozone
problem.

The
region
is
expected
to
be
among
several
in
the
state
that
could
violate
stricter
ozone
limits
that
will
be
enforced
early
next
year.
Failure
to
clean
up
the
air
could
result
in
penalties
such
as
restrictions
on
new
industry
or
the
expansion
of
industry,
and
the
loss
of
federal
road
money.

Last
December,
the
31
local
governments
signed
an
agreement
with
the
EPA
that
could
spare
them
from
those
potential
penalties.
The
governments
agreed
to
write
a
plan
showing
how
they
would
collectively
reduce
ozone
to
acceptable
levels
by
2007.
If
the
plan
works
and
ozone
pollution
drops,
the
EPA
will
not
punish
the
region.

The
plan
endorsed
by
local
leaders
calls
for
steps
such
as
reducing
traffic,
conserving
energy,
using
cleaner­
burning
engines
and
fuels
and
reducing
emissions
from
factories.
Among
the
actions
that
it
has
triggered
is
an
application
by
Guilford
County
Schools
for
a
state
grant
to
retrofit
bus
engines
to
run
on
cleaner­
burning,
low­
sulfur
diesel
fuel,
Booker
said.

"
It
would
significantly
lower
the
emissions
that
these
buses
have,"
Booker
said.

Preliminary
projections
by
state
scientists
show
that
new
state
and
federal
requirements,
such
as
tougher
car
inspections
in
some
North
Carolina
counties,
would
decrease
ozone
to
acceptable
levels
by
2007
at
all
but
one
of
the
region's
monitors
­­
at
Cooleemee
in
Davie
County.

Solving
pollution
there
is
problematic
because
some
of
the
ozone
measured
at
that
site
is
actually
produced
in
the
Charlotte
area
and
blown
north,
the
state
says.
Local
leaders
have
no
way
to
enforce
pollution
regulations
in
Charlotte.

The
next
step
will
be
for
local
leaders
to
measure
how
much
ozone
pollution
would
be
reduced
by
their
plan,
and
to
factor
that
into
the
future
ozone
estimates.

Ozone
is
caused
when
pollutants
from
sources
of
burning
fuel
such
as
cars,
airplanes
and
factories
are
heated
by
the
sun.

Gases
emitted
naturally
by
trees
also
contribute
to
the
problem.

Ozone
pollution
can
cause
breathing
problems,
according
to
the
EPA.
Earlier
this
year,
the
American
Lung
Association
ranked
the
Piedmont
Triad
as
having
the
17th­
worst
ozone
pollution
in
the
nation.

In
addition
to
the
31
governments
that
signed
the
EPA
agreement,
several
other
local
governments
have
also
endorsed
the
pollution­
reduction
plan
as
a
show
of
support.
Want
to
know
more?
To
read
more
about
the
Piedmont
Triad's
ozone
problem
and
potential
solutions,
go
to
www.
ptcog.
org/
eac.
html
or
www.
nwpcog.
org/
EAC/
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
15
March
31,
2004
"
It's
been
very
well­
received,"
said
Matthew
Dolge,
executive
director
of
the
Northwest
Piedmont
Council
of
Governments,
which
also
is
coordinating
the
ozone
effort.

11.
Coal­
fired
plant
cuts
pollutants
2­
9­
04
By
Tim
Yeadon
Staff
Writer
News
&
Record
BELEWS
LAKE
 
Five
years
ago,
the
Belews
Creek
Steam
Station
ranked
third
nationwide
in
the
amount
of
emissions
causing
smog
and
acid
rain.

Many
people
hope
those
days
have
ended
with
the
completion
of
a
$
450
million
project
at
the
coal­
fired
power
plant
that
Duke
Power
says
will
reduce
such
emissions
by
80
percent.

The
project
is
required
by
federal
legislation
related
to
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Now
complete
after
a
nearly
two­
year
project,
the
"
selective
catalytic
reducers,"
or
SCR,
are
a
pair
of
30­
story
steel
structures
built
next
to
the
plant's
twin
boilers.
In
all,
it
took
more
than
900
workers
and
a
$
55
million
payroll
to
build
the
structures
at
the
plant,
located
northeast
of
Winston­
Salem
on
Belews
Lake
in
Stokes
County.

"
Cleaning
up
those
smoke
stacks
is
critical
for
Greensboro
to
have
cleaner
air,"
said
Michael
Shore,
an
Asheville­
based
air­
quality
manager
for
Environmental
Defense,
the
nationwide
environmental
lobbying
group.
"
It's
been
a
longtime
coming
in
reducing
power
plant
pollution."

During
the
May
to
September
ozone
season,
exhaust
from
the
plant's
two
coal­
burning
boilers
will
be
routed
through
a
pair
of
giant
catalytic
converters,
where
an
ammonia
solution
will
be
added
 
turning
the
nitrogen
oxide
into
harmless
amounts
of
nitrogen
and
water.

Duke
Power
will
not
be
forced
to
use
the
"
selective
catalytic
reducers,"
or
SCR's,
year­
round
until
2007,
when
regulations
from
the
North
Carolina
"
Clean
Smokestacks
Agreement"
take
effect.
The
plan
calls
for
a
sharp
reduction
in
emissions
from
the
state's
14
coal­
fired
plants
without
raising
the
cost
of
electricity.

That
agreement,
signed
by
Gov.
Mike
Easley
in
2002,
will
force
Duke
Power
to
begin
the
installation
at
the
Belews
Creek
plant
of
chemical
filters
and
"
scrubbers"
to
further
reduce
emissions
of
nitrogen
oxide
and
sulfur
dioxide.

Nitrogen
oxide
reacts
with
organic
emissions,
such
as
unburned
fuel
from
car
engines
or
paint
fumes,
to
create
smog
and
dust
that
hangs
in
the
atmosphere
and
torments
those
with
allergies
and
asthma.
Another
byproduct
is
acid
rain.

Kris
Knudsen,
a
senior
technical
air
compliance
technician
for
Duke
Power,
said
that
the
scrubber
project
will
be
complete
at
the
Belews
Creek
plant
before
2009.
"
It's
something
that
a
lot
of
people
have
been
asking
for,"
Knudsen
said.

The
Belews
Creek
plant
and
other
large
polluters
 
coal­
fired
power
plants,
cement
kilns
and
other
large
boiler
operations
 
have
long
been
on
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
list
of
plants
where
emissions
can
be
reduced
at
a
relatively
low
cost.

The
Belews
Creek
plant
was
built
in
1974.
At
peak
capacity
it
burns
19,000
tons
of
coal
a
day
in
its
two
units
to
power
2.5
million
households
in
North
Carolina
and
South
Carolina.
It
was
built
for
$
357
million
 
about
$
100
million
less
than
the
current
project.

But
cheap
power
has
long
had
an
environmental
price.

I
n
2001,
the
plant
released
12.3
million
pounds
of
toxic
chemicals
into
the
environment,
according
to
the
most
recent
figures
reported
in
the
EPA's
Toxics
Release
Inventory
database.
Statewide,
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
16
March
31,
2004
only
one
other
plant,
Carolina
Power
&
Light's
Roxboro
Steam
Electric
Plant
in
Person
County,
emitted
more
toxic
tonnage.

But
Duke
Power
spokesman
Tom
Williams
says
headlines
that
consistently
declared
the
Belews
Creek
Steam
Station
as
the
Triad's
most
prolific
polluter
are
not
fair.
"
We're
are
a
bit
sensitive
to
that,"
Williams
said.
"
We
are
proud
of
that
plant."

Duke
Power
officials
contend
that
in
the
long
run,
greater
levels
of
pollution
have
been
avoided
by
using
large
coal­
fired
power
plants
that
they
say
use
less
coal
to
produce
the
same
amount
of
energy
than
a
group
of
smaller,
similar
plants.

The
project
that
Duke
Power
just
completed
at
Belews
Creek
targeted
nitrogen
oxide,
of
which
the
plant
produced
68,252
pounds
in
1999,
ranking
it
the
then­
third
worst
polluting
plant
in
the
country.

By
2001,
upgrades
to
"
burner
tips"
that
regulate
coal
combustion
within
the
boilers
helped
cut
the
emission
tonnage
in
half,
or
about
34,000
pounds.

Duke
Power
estimates
the
new
equipment
could
reduce
the
plant's
current
nitrogen
oxide
emission
by
an
additional
80
percent,
or
to
an
annual
total
of
about
6,700
pounds,
without
affecting
the
price
of
electricity.

12.
Power
plant
job
done
Tuesday,
February
10,
2004
12:
00AM
EST
The
Associated
Press
BELEWS
LAKE
­­
Duke
Power
has
completed
a
$
450
million
project
at
the
Belews
Creek
Steam
Station
in
Stokes
County
that
the
utility
says
will
reduce
by
80
percent
emissions
that
cause
smog
and
acid
rain.

Federal
legislation
related
to
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
the
project
at
the
coal­
fired
power
plant
that
five
years
ago
ranked
third
nationwide
in
the
amount
of
those
emissions.

Now
complete
after
nearly
two
years
of
work,
the
"
selective
catalytic
reducers"
are
a
pair
of
30­
story
steel
structures
next
to
the
plant's
twin
boilers.
It
took
more
than
900
workers
and
a
$
55
million
payroll
to
build
the
structures
at
the
plant,
northeast
of
Winston­
Salem
on
Belews
Lake.

"
Cleaning
up
those
smokestacks
is
critical
for
Greensboro
to
have
cleaner
air,"
said
Michael
Shore
of
Asheville,
an
air­
quality
manager
for
Environmental
Defense,
the
nationwide
environmental
lobbying
group.
"
It's
been
a
long
time
coming
in
reducing
power­
plant
pollution."

During
the
ozone
season
from
May
to
September,
exhaust
from
the
plant's
two
coal­
burning
boilers
will
be
routed
through
a
pair
of
giant
catalytic
converters,
where
an
ammonia
solution
will
be
added,
turning
the
nitrogen
oxide
into
harmless
amounts
of
nitrogen
and
water.

Duke
Power
will
not
be
forced
to
use
the
new
structures
year­
round
until
2007,
when
state
"
clean
smokestacks"
regulations
take
effect.
The
plan
calls
for
a
sharp
reduction
in
emissions
from
the
state's
14
coal­
fired
plants.

13.
School
buses
to
run
cleaner
3­
30­
04
By
Paul
Muschick
Staff
Writer
News
&
Record
Guilford
County
Schools
is
one
of
five
systems
in
the
state
to
win
a
grant
to
improve
bus
engines
so
they
create
less
air
pollution.
  
News
Articles
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
17
March
31,
2004
The
system
will
receive
$
100,000
from
the
N.
C.
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
to
add
pollution
filters
to
its
buses.
Depending
on
how
much
the
parts
cost,
the
grant
could
cover
between
50
and
100
buses,
up
to
one­
sixth
of
the
county's
fleet.

The
equipment
­­
similar
to
catalytic
converters
that
are
standard
on
cars
­­
superheat
pollutants
and
burn
them
away
before
they
can
escape
into
the
air.

"
Our
job
is
to
safely
move
the
students,"
said
Jim
Moen,
the
schools'
transportation
director.
"
Safely
doing
it,
I
think,
includes
emissions
controls."

Moen
intends
to
pursue
other
grants
to
upgrade
more
of
the
fleet.
The
school
system
already
has
a
policy
to
turn
off
the
engines
of
buses
while
they
are
parked
outside
of
schools,
conserving
fuel
and
reducing
emissions.

The
grant
is
among
the
first
evidence
of
the
region
following
through
on
a
promise
to
reduce
air
pollution.

Eleven
counties
and
20
cities
in
the
Piedmont
Triad
have
signed
an
agreement
with
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
reduce
ozone
by
2007.

Next
month,
the
EPA
expects
to
declare
part
or
all
of
the
region
in
violation
of
a
tougher
ozone
law,
but
it
has
agreed
to
forego
penalties
if
local
authorities
clean
up
the
air.
Penalties
could
include
restrictions
on
new
industry
and
the
loss
of
federal
road
money.

A
committee
of
business,
transportation,
environmental
and
elected
leaders
has
been
working
for
about
a
year
on
an
ozone­
reduction
plan.
It
intends
to
submit
that
final
plan
later
this
week,
using
the
county
schools
grant
as
an
example
of
one
of
its
suggestions
being
carried
out.

"
I
just
think
it's
important
that
we
all
work
together
to
improve
our
air
quality,"
said
Allen
Purser,
a
senior
vice
president
at
the
Greensboro
Chamber
of
Commerce
and
a
member
of
the
pollution
planning
committee.

Improving
bus
engines
could
reduce
ozone­
causing
emissions
up
to
5
percent,
according
to
the
school
system's
grant
application.
The
new
equipment
could
have
a
greater
impact
on
reducing
particle
pollution,
said
Tom
Mather,
a
spokesman
for
the
N.
C.
Division
of
Air
Quality.

To
maximize
the
number
of
buses
that
can
be
improved,
the
school
system
intends
to
install
the
equipment
itself
and
use
the
grant
money
for
parts,
not
labor.
Moen
said
the
parts
could
be
added
this
summer
in
time
for
the
next
school
year.

The
N.
C.
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
distributed
$
350,000
in
grants
statewide.

Other
winners
include
school
systems
in
Wake,
Mecklenburg,
Iredell
and
Cumberland
counties.

The
money
comes
from
state
gasoline
taxes.
Since
1995,
the
state
has
awarded
78
grants
totaling
$
5.7
million.
It
did
not
award
any
grants
in
2002
and
2001
because
of
the
state
budget
crisis.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
18
March
31,
2004
2
Overview
of
Air
Quality
In
The
Triad
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.

The
NCDAQ
monitors
levels
of
all
six
criteria
pollutants
in
the
Triad
area
and
reports
these
levels
to
the
EPA.
According
to
the
most
recent
data,
the
Triad
area
is
meeting
national
ambient
standards
for
four
of
the
pollutants,
but
is
not
meeting
the
Federal
8­
hour
standard
for
groundlevel
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
nonattainment
even
if
only
one
monitor
in
the
MSA
violates
the
NAAQS,.

There
are
nine
ozone
monitors
in
Triad
EAC
area.
These
monitors
are:
Bethany,
located
in
Rockingham
County;
Cherry
Grove,
located
in
Caswell
County;
McLeansville,
located
in
Guilford
County;
Sophia,
located
in
Randolph
County;
Cooleemee,
located
in
Davie
County;
and
Hattie
Ave,
Pollirosa,
Shiloh
Church
and
Union
Cross,
all
located
in
Forsyth
County.
The
location
of
these
monitors
are
shown
in
Figure
2­
1.

Figure
2­
1:
Triad
EAC
Area's
8­
hour
Ozone
Monitor
For
the
3­
year
periods
2000
 
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
19
March
31,
2004
2002
and
2001
 
2003,
all
but
one
monitor,
Pollirosa,
is
violating
the
8­
hour
ground­
level
ozone
NAAQS,
see
Table
2.1.
The
historical
ozone
monitoring
data,
including
the
year
for
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.
Data
gaps
in
early
year
in
Table
2.2
mean
monitors
were
not
installed
during
these
years.

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

Monitor
Name
County
00­
02
01­
03
Bethany
Rockingham
0.090
0.091
Cherry
Grove
Caswell
0.091
0.088
Cooleemee
Davie
0.095
0.093
Hattie
Avenue
Forsyth
0.094
0.093
McLeansville
Guilford
0.093
0.089
Pollirosa
Forsyth
0.084
0.082
Shiloh
Church
Forsyth
0.092
0.088
Sophia
Randolph
0.088
0.085
Union
Cross
Forsyth
0.092
0.089
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
Bethany
0.093
0.073
0.092
0.089
0.087
0.081
0.082
0.094
0.096
0.083
Cherry
Grove
0.083
0.086
0.088
0.095
0.096
0.091
0.092
0.087
0.095
0.083
Cooleemee
0.084
0.092
0.102
0.100
0.094
0.094
0.098
0.089
Hattie
Ave.
0.081
0.090
0.080
0.093
0.100
0.099
0.090
0.094
0.099
0.087
McLeansville
0.086
0.089
0.084
0.084
0.097
0.096
0.089
0.086
0.104
0.079
Pollirosa
0.072
0.080
0.082
0.083
0.087
0.082
0.082
0.082
0.088
0.078
Shiloh
Church
0.088
0.079
0.094
0.086
0.086
0.096
0.094
0.074
Sophia
0.085
0.092
0.078
Union
Cross
0.088
0.086
0.091
0.092
0.095
0.096
0.089
0.094
0.093
0.081
The
Forsyth
County
Environmental
Affairs
Department
(
FCEAD)
forecasts
ozone
levels,
as
well
as
fine
particulate
levels,
on
a
daily
basis
year
round
for
the
Triad
area.
This
forecast
is
issued
to
the
public
using
EPA's
Air
Quality
Index
(
AQI)
color
code
system.
Table
2­
3
lists
the
ozone
regulatory
standard
and
AQI
breakpoints
with
their
corresponding
health
risks.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
20
March
31,
2004
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
Triad
area,
the
forecast
and
previous
day
air
quality
reports
appear
on
the
weather
page
of
local
newspapers
and
FCEAD's
website:
http://
www.
co.
forsyth.
nc.
us/
envAffairs/
DlyAirQualRpt.
htm.
Additionally,
the
ozone
forecast
is
broadcasted
during
the
local
news
on
television
and
radio.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
21
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
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
22
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
Triad
area,
is
considered
"
NOx­
limited"
because
of
the
abundance
of
VOC
emissions
from
biogenic
sources.
Therefore,
current
ozone
strategies
focus
on
reducing
NOx.
However,
VOC
reduction
strategies,
such
as
control
of
evaporative
emissions
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
23
March
31,
2004
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.

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

Point:
"
Smokestack"
sources:
industry
and
utilities.

Area:
Sources
not
falling
into
above
categories.
For
VOCs,
includes
gas
stations,
dry
cleaners,
print
shops,
consumer
products,
etc.
For
NOx,
includes
forest
and
residential
fires,
natural
gas
hot
water
heaters,
etc.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
24
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
2000
and
2007
(
entire
State)
are
in
Appendix
A.

4.2
Current
Year
Inventories
For
the
large
utility
sources,
year
specific
Continuous
Emissions
Monitoring
(
CEM)
data
is
used
for
base
year
episode
specific
modeling.
However,
it
did
not
make
sense
to
use
2000
CEM
data
for
the
current
year
inventory
since
the
meteorology
used
for
the
current
year
modeling
runs
are
the
1995,
1996,
and
1997
episode
specific
meteorology.
The
concern
is
that
the
utility
day
specific
emissions
for
2000
would
not
correspond
to
the
meteorology
used
in
the
modeling.
After
discussing
this
issue
with
EPA,
the
decision
was
made
to
continue
to
use
the
episodic
CEM
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
25
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
nonroad
mobile
sources
that
are
calculated
within
the
NONROAD
mobile
model,
a
2000
current
year
inventory
was
generated
for
the
entire
domain.
The
model
version
used
is
the
Draft
NONROAD2002
distributed
for
a
limited,
confidential,
and
secure
review
in
November
2002.
A
newer
draft
version
of
this
model
(
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
nonroad
mobile
sources
not
calculated
within
the
NONROAD
model
include
aircraft
engines,
railroad
locomotives
and
commercial
marine
vessels.
The
2000
current
year
inventory
used
for
these
sources
is
the
1999
NEI
release
version
2.0
obtained
from
the
EPA's
CHIEF
website.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina
where
a
2000
current
year
inventory
was
generated
by
NCDAQ
following
the
methodologies
outlined
in
the
EPA
guidance
document
EPA­
450/
4­
81­
026d
(
Revised),
Procedures
for
Inventory
Preparation,
Volume
IV:
Mobile
Sources.

In
order
to
accurately
model
the
mobile
source
emissions
in
the
EAC
areas,
the
newest
version
of
the
MOBILE
model,
MOBILE6.2,
was
used.
This
model
was
released
by
EPA
in
2002
and
differs
significantly
from
previous
versions
of
the
model.
Key
inputs
for
MOBILE
include
information
on
the
age
of
vehicles
on
the
roads,
the
speed
of
those
vehicles,
what
types
of
road
those
vehicles
are
traveling
on,
any
control
technologies
in
place
in
an
area
to
reduce
emissions
for
motor
vehicles
(
e.
g.,
emissions
inspection
programs),
and
temperature.
The
development
of
these
inputs
is
discussed
in
detail
in
Appendix
B.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
26
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
detail
in
Appendix
B.

The
emissions
summary
for
the
2000
current
year
modeling
inventories
for
the
Triad
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
25
381
75
Area
75
5
71
Nonroad
Mobile
443
39
34
Highway
Mobile
999
166
94
Biogenic
0
2
446
Total
Emissions
1542
593
720
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
runs
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
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.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
27
March
31,
2004
For
the
nonroad
mobile
sources
that
are
calculated
within
the
NONROAD
mobile
model,
a
2007
and
2012
future
years
inventoriesy
was
were
generated
for
the
entire
domain
using
the
same
model
used
to
generate
the
current
year
inventory.
In
the
final
modeling,
the
NONROAD2002a
model
will
be
used
to
create
the
nonroad
inventory.
The
remaining
nonroad
mobile
source
categories,
the
1999
NEI
release
version
2.0
obtained
from
the
EPA's
CHIEF
website
and
were
grown
to
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
detail
in
Appendix
B.

The
emissions
summary
for
the
2007
and
2012
future
years
modeling
inventories
for
the
Triad
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
34
55
100
26
74
74
Area
80
5
74
85
5
77
Nonroad
Mobile
512
38
28
524
36
22
Highway
Mobile
620
101
60
458
58
41
Biogenic
0
2
446
0
2
446
Total
Emissions
1246
201
708
1093
175
660
Note
that
in
the
maintenance
year
2012
the
emissions
are
expected
to
be
lower
than
the
attainement
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
Triad
area
decreased
by
66%,
from
593
tons
per
day
(
TPD)
in
2000
to
201
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.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
28
March
31,
2004
Point
27%
Biogenic
1%

Area
3%

Nonroad
19%
Mobile
50%
Nonroad
7%

Area
1%
Mobile
28%

Point
64%
Biogenic
0%

Biogenic
62%
Mobile
13%
Nonroad
5%
Area
10%
Point
10%

Biogenic
64%
Mobile
8%
Nonroad
4%
Area
10%
Point
14%
Table
4.4­
1:
Estimated
NOx
and
VOC
emissions,
in
tons
per
day
NOx
Emissions
VOC
Emissions
Source
2000
2007
2000
2007
Point
381
55
75
100
Area
5
5
71
74
Nonroad
39
38
34
28
Mobile
166
101
94
60
Biogenic
2
2
446
446
Total
Emissions
593
201
720
708
Figure
4.41:
2000
Triad
Area
Figure
4.4­
2:
2007
Triad
Area
NOx
Emissions
by
Source
NOx
Emissions
by
Source
The
total
predicted
VOC
emissions
for
the
Triad
area
decreased
by
1.6%,
from
720
TPD
in
2000
to
708
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
Triad
Area
Figure
4.4­
4:
2007
Triad
Area
VOC
Emissions
by
Source
VOC
Emissions
by
Source
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
29
March
31,
2004
HDDV
52%

HDGV
7%
LDGT1
17%
LDGT2
8%
LDGV
15%
Other
1%

HDDV
57%

HDGV
6%
LDGT1
12%
LDGT2
5%
LDGV
19%
Other
1%
There
are
few
VOC
control
measures
expected
for
area
and
point
sources
in
the
Triad
area,
so
the
continue
to
grow.
However,
since
the
Triad
area
contains
the
largest
power
plant
in
North
Carolina,
the
point
source
NOx
emissions
decrease
significantly
due
to
the
NOx
SIP
Call
rule.
Additionally,
there
are
significant
decreases
in
both
highway
and
nonroad
mobile
source
VOC
and
NOx
emissions.
Thus
the
overall
region
has
a
decrease
in
both
NOx
and
VOC
emissions.

For
both,
highway
and
nonroad
mobile
sources,
diesel
vehicles
contribute
the
majority
of
NOx
emissions.
Figures
4.4­
5
and
4.4­
6
show
the
relative
contributions
of
vehicle
types
for
the
highway
mobile
source
category
in
2000
and
2007
for
the
Triad
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
emissions
for
each
vehicle
type
is
tabulated
in
Table
4.4­
2.

Figure
4.4­
5:
2000
Triad
Area
Figure
4.4­
6:
2007
Triad
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
95
53
Light­
duty
gasoline
vehicles
32
15
Light­
duty
gasoline
trucks(
1)
20
17
Light­
duty
gasoline
trucks(
2)
8
8
Heavy­
duty
gasoline
vehicles
10
7
Other
0.8
0.6
Total
166
101
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
30
March
31,
2004
Diesel
Construction
36%
Diesel
Industrial
8%
LPG
Engines
19%
Other
Diesel
3%
Railroad
13%

Diesel
Commercial
3%
CNG
Engines
2%

Diesel
Agricultural
9%
Aircraft
1%
2
&
4­
Stroke
Engines
6%

Diesel
Construction
32%
Diesel
Industrial
7%
LPG
Engines
22%
Other
Diesel
3%
Railroad
16%

Diesel
Commercial
3%
CNG
Engines
2%

Diesel
Agricultural
8%
Aircraft
2%
2
&
4­
Stroke
Engines
5%
Figures
4.4­
7
and
4.4­
8
show
the
relative
contributions
of
equipment
types
for
the
nonroad
mobile
source
category
in
2000
and
2007
for
the
Triad
area.
As
can
be
seen
in
these
figures,
diesel
construction
equipment
contributes
the
majority
of
the
nonroad
mobile
source
NOx
emissions
for
both
years.

Figure
4.4­
3:
2000
Triad
Area
Nonroad
Equipment
NOx
sources
Figure
4.4­
4:
2007
Triad
Area
Nonroad
Equipment
NOx
sources
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
31
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
area
must
show
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.

The
inventory
used
for
the
2010
point
source
inventory
is
EPA's
2010
emission
inventory
used
for
their
heavy
duty
diesel
rule
making.
The
decision
to
use
this
inventory
for
the
2010
future
year
modeling
runs
was
made
since
all
of
the
point
sources
required
to
have
controls
due
to
the
NOx
SIP
call
rule
making
are
reflected
in
this
inventory.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina.
For
the
major
North
Carolina
utility
sources,
NCDAQ
obtained
estimated
future
year
hour
specific
data
for
the
two
largest
utility
companies
within
North
Carolina,
Duke
Energy
and
Progress
Energy.
Additionally,
the
day
specific
forest
fires
and
prescribed
fires
inventory
were
the
episodic
emissions.

The
inventory
used
to
model
the
stationary
area
sources
is
also
the
EPA's
emission
inventory
used
for
the
heavy
duty
diesel
engine
rule
making.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina,
where
the
2000
current
year
inventory
was
grown
using
a
mixture
of
EGAS
growth
factors
and
state­
specific
growth
factors
for
the
furniture
industry.

For
the
nonroad
mobile
sources
that
are
calculated
within
the
NONROAD
mobile
model,
a
2010
future
year
inventory
was
generated
for
the
entire
domain
using
the
same
model
used
to
generate
the
current
year
inventory.
The
remaining
nonroad
mobile
source
categories,
EPA's
2010
emission
inventory
used
for
their
heavy
duty
diesel
engine
rule
making
was
used.

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

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

The
emissions
summary
for
the
2010
future
year
modeling
inventories
for
the
Triad
EAC
area
is
listed
in
Table
4.5­
1.
These
emissions
represent
typical
weekday
emissions
and
are
reported
in
tons
per
day.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
32
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
381
55
45
75
100
59
Area
5
5
5
71
74
71
Nonroad
39
38
37
34
28
27
Mobile
166
101
67
94
60
44
Biogenic
2
2
2
446
446
446
Total
Emissions
593
201
156
720
708
647
The
total
predicted
NOx
emissions
for
the
Triad
area
decreased
by
~
74%,
from
593
tons
per
day
(
TPD)
in
2000
to
156
TPD
in
2010.
The
total
predicted
VOC
emissions
for
the
Triad
area
decreased
by
~
10%,
from
720
TPD
in
2000
to
647
TPD
in
2010.
The
2010
mobile
emissions
show
a
continuing
decrease
even
from
the
2007
emission
levels
for
both
NOx
and
VOC.
Similarly,
with
the
full
implementation
of
the
North
Carolina's
Clean
Smokestacks
Act,
the
utility
emissions
decrease
from
the
2007
levels.

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.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
33
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
nonroad
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,
2002
through
July
1,
2005,
in
the
Triad
area.
Table
5.1.1­
1
lists
the
phase
in
dates
for
the
Triad
area.

Table
5.1.1­
1
Phase­
In
Dates
for
the
Triad
Area
County
Phase­
In
Date
County
Phase­
In
Date
Alamance
January
1,
2004
Randolph
January
1,
2004
Davidson
July
1,
2003
Rockingham
July
1,
2004
Forsyth
July
1,
2002
Stokes
July
1,
2005
Guilford
July
1,
2002
Surry
July
1,
2005
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
for
those
counties
that
receive
ozone
forecasts,
either
from
NCDAQ
or
FCEAD.
NCDAQ
will
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
34
March
31,
2004
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
Nonroad
Diesel
Engines
Proposed
Rule
The
EPA
has
proposed
new
rules
for
large
nonroad
diesel
engines,
such
as
those
used
in
construction,
agricultural,
and
industrial
equipment,
to
be
phased
in
between
2008
and
2014.
The
proposed
rules
would
also
reduce
the
allowable
sulfur
in
nonroad
diesel
fuel
by
over
99%.
Nonroad
diesel
fuel
currently
averages
about
3,400
ppm
sulfur.
The
proposed
rules
limit
nonroad
diesel
sulfur
content
to
500
ppm
in
2007
and
15
ppm
in
2010.
The
combined
engine
and
fuel
rules
would
reduce
NOx
and
particulate
matter
emissions
from
large
nonroad
diesel
engines
by
over
90
%,
compared
to
current
nonroad
engines
using
higher­
content
sulfur
diesel.

5.2.4Nonroad
Spark­
Ignition
Engines
and
Recreational
Engines
Standard
The
new
standard,
effective
in
July
2003,
will
regulate
NOx,
HC
and
CO
for
groups
of
previously
unregulated
nonroad
engines.
The
new
standard
will
apply
to
all
new
engines
sold
in
the
US
and
imported
after
these
standards
begin
and
large
spark­
ignition
engines
(
forklifts
and
airport
ground
service
equipment),
recreational
vehicles
(
off­
highway
motorcycles
and
all­
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
35
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
Triad
EAC
strategies
are
set
forth
in
detail
in
Appendix
C.
Quantifications,
where
feasible,
for
emissions
reductions
produced
by
these
measures
have
been
developed
by
the
Forsyth
Environmental
Affairs
Department
and
are
shown
on
the
Strategies
Chart..
Assumptions,
methods
and
calculations
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
co.
forsyth.
nc.
us/
envaffairs/
msb/
other/
eac.
htm
The
EAC
wishes
to
highlight
the
following
strategies:

A1­
A4
Development
of
on­
line
data
base
and
reporting
system
for
vehicle
replacements.
This
will
be
done
by
EAC
staff
assisted
by
the
Forsyth
County
Environmental
Affairs
Department
and
City
of
Greensboro
MIS.
The
goal
is
to
have
verifiable
information
on
which
to
base
emissions
reductions
calculations.
In
addition,
this
system
of
regularly
providing
information
to
EAC
member
governments
will
encourage
accountability
for
the
vehicle
replacement
policies
they
agreed
to.

A5
Lower
Emissions
Fuel
­
Greensboro's
conversion
to
biodiesel
for
all
on­
and
off­
road
vehicles
is
significant.
The
City
uses
approximately
1.5
million
gallons
annually.
This
conversion
took
place
between
November
2002
and
spring
2003
as
the
EAC
was
developing
its
list
of
control
measures.
Percentage
reductions
are
listed
in
the
Strategies
Chart.

A6
­
A13
Regional
Transportation
Services
and
Planning,
Park
and
Ride,
Regional
Inter­
City
Rail.
These
initiatives
of
PART
are
strategically
linked
with
EAC
goals
and
reduction
in
VMTs.
For
detailed
information
see:
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
36
March
31,
2004
PART
Homepage
(
Piedmont
Authority
for
Regional
Transportation)

Welcome
to
PART!.
url
PART
Annual
Report
http­­
www.
partnc.
org­
images­
PARTnews304.
pdf.
url
See
also
PART
Land
Use
and
Transportation
Policies
adopted
by
27
local
governments
in
the
EAC,
page
38
following.
.

B1­
B8
Business
and
industry
Strategies
­
The
Triad
Ad
Hoc
Air
Quality
Business
and
Industry
group
has
played
a
key
role
in
the
EAC
process.
Representatives
of
this
group
have
assisted
others
in
calculating
emissions
reductions,
provided
crucial
data
on
plant
closings
to
DAQ,
and
urged
their
own
employers
to
adopt
additional
improvement
measures.
Note
emissions
reductions
quantified
in
Appendix
C
Strategies
Chart.

C5
&
C8
Diesel
Retrofits
on
School
Buses
and
Idling
­
The
Guilford
County
School
system,
supported
by
the
Ad
hoc
Business
and
Industry
Air
Quality
Group
and
the
EAC
was
successful
in
obtaining
$
100,000
for
school
bus
retrofits.
This
is
reported
in
a
news
article
cited
in
this
document
#
13,
page
16.
The
Guilford
County
School
system
also
has
a
strict
idling
policy
(
C8)
enacted
specifically
to
reduce
emissions
while
buses
wait
for
students
to
load
after
school.

F5­
F13
These
measures
all
relate
to
smart
growth
policies
adopted
by
local
governments.
Following
this
narrative,
there
is
a
list
of
websites
for
comprehensive
plans,
unified
development
ordinances,
and
intermodal
transportation
plan
updates
for
Greensboro,
Winston­
Salem/
Forsyth
County
and
other
jurisdictions
that
have
incorporated
smart
growth
into
their
future
growth
models.
By
way
of
example,
web
pages
are
also
included
for
Davie
County
and
Randolph
County,
two
urban
fringe
counties
with
particularly
strong
plans
and
ordinances.
Time
and
space
do
not
permit
a
full
explanation
of
the
progress
being
made
in
these
areas
and
the
impetus
provided
by
the
EAC
process.
Hopefully,
an
indication
can
be
seen
by
checking
out
several
of
these
web
sites.

Maintenance
In
addition
to
the
strategies
listed
in
Appendix
C,
the
EAC
will,
as
required
submit
semi­
annual
reports
to
EPA
until
2007.
Modeling
will
be
performed
for
2012,
and
the
EAC
commits
to
continue
modeling
for
the
year2017,
ten
years
after
the
designation
date.
The
EAC,
in
conjunction
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
37
March
31,
2004
with
the
Region's
4
MPOs
will
continue
to
monitor
and
report
on
accomplishments
beyond
2007.
These
reviews
and
updates
will
be
incorporated
into
the
MPOs'
long
range
transportation
plan
updates.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
38
March
31,
2004
2025
Policies
and
Actions
for
Regional
Growth.

Developed
by
PART
and
Adopted
by
27
Local
Governments
in
EAC
Coordinate
long­
range
land
use
/
transportation
planning
on
a
regional
and
local
basis.
 
Designate
targeted
growth
areas
through
a
comprehensive
regional
land
use
plan
and
coordinate
these
areas
with
transportation
investments.

 
Work
towards
implementation
of
Adopted
Thoroughfare
plans.

 
Use
future
transportation
improvements
to
stimulate
desirable
land
use
patterns
and
the
converse.

 
Monitor
land
development
trends
and
match
transportation
facilities
with
land
use
generated
travel
patterns.

 
Conduct
both
an
Inter­
City
and
Regional
Rail
Study.

 
Invest
in
effective
intelligent
transportation
technologies.

 
Reward
and
foster
the
increased
use
of
tele­
commuting
and
flexible
work
hours.

 
Explore
ways
to
make
transit
more
attractive.

Encourage
redevelopment
of
infill
and
"
underdeveloped"
areas.
 
Conduct
studies
of
"
under
invested"
areas
(
such
as
CBD's
and
brownfields)
to
determine
why
they
are
"
under
invested",
and
undertake
ameliorative
actions.
 
Provide
financial
incentives
through
public/
private
funding
pool
for
neighborhood
redevelopment.
 
Revise
zoning
regulations
to
encourage
mixed
land
uses
in
existing
industrial
and
downtown
areas.
Integrate
land
use
planning
with
infrastructure
development.
 
Place
a
higher
emphasis
on
coordinated
regional
land
use
planning
through
better
use
of
resources.

 
Use
water
and
sewer
expansion
policy
to
manage
growth
in
targeted
areas.

 
Coordination
among
local
planning
staffs
to
more
precisely
achieve
the
stated
policy.

 
Develop
public
parking
management
strategies
to
encourage
increased
transit
use.

 
Encourage
joint­
use
easements
(
utility
and
non­
motorized
use)
for
transportation
and
open
space
where
possible.

 
Consistently
participate
in
right­
of­
way
corridor
protection.

Direct
a
significant
portion
of
future
land
use
development
to
existing
and
proposed
targeted
nodes
and
transit
corridors
to
support
transit.

 
Encourage
open
space
preservation
 
Increase
allowable
densities
in
selected
corridors.

 
Implement
a
mixture
of
land
uses
so
that
a
person
may
live
near
where
they
work.

 
Work
towards
the
expansion
and
integration
of
local
transit
services.

 
Implement
"
nodal
development"
which
will
provide
opportunities
for
implementation
of
efficient
transportation
systems.

 
Implement
alternative
transportation
services
such
as
sidewalks,
bikeways,
greenways
and
transit
conveniences
as
part
of
the
land
use
development.

 
Enhance
provisions
for
safe
bicycle
and
pedestrian
improvements.

 
Consistently
participate
in
right­
of­
way
corridor
protection.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
39
March
31,
2004
List
of
Web
Sites
for
Land
Use
Plans,
Development
Ordinances
and
Transportation
Plans
with
Smart
Growth,
Anti­
Sprawl
Provisions
That
Will
Have
the
Effect
of
Reducing
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
1.
PART
Homepage
(
Piedmont
Authority
for
Regional
Transportation)

Welcome
to
PART!.
url
2.
PART
Annual
Report
http­­
www.
partnc.
org­
images­
PARTnews304.
pdf.
url
3.
Greensboro
MPO
2030
Long
Range
Transportation
Plan
Update
2030
Long
Range
Transportation
Plan.
url
Greensboro
MPO.
url
4.
Greensboro
DOT
­
Public
Transportation
Mobility
Plan
Upcoming
Activities.
url
5.
Greensboro
Pedestrian
and
Bicycle
Planning
GDOT
Planning
Division.
url
6.
Greensboro
Comprehensive
Plan
­
Connections
2025
Official
Information
Page
for
CONNECTIONS
2025.
url
7.
Greensboro
Unified
Development
Ordinance
which
includes,
among
other
smart
growth
provisions,
a
TND
district
at
Section
30­
4­
1
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
40
March
31,
2004
City
of
Greensboro
­
Unified
Development
Ordinance.
url
Section
30­
4­
1.
Districts
Established
and
Described.
url
8.
Guilford
County
Comprehensive
Plan
Guilford
County
Comprehensive
Plan
Update.
url
9.
Guilford
County
Uniform
Development
Ordinance,
including
Rural
Preservation
District,
Section
4­
11
Article
IV
­
Zoning.
url
10.
Winston­
Salem/
Forsyth
County
Urban
Area
2025
Multi­
Modal
Long
Range
Transportation
Plan
longrangeplan.
url
11.
Winston­
Salem/
Forsyth
County
Urban
Area
Street
and
Highway
Plan
http­­
www.
cityofws.
org­
DOT­
assets­
pdf­
LRTPstreethighwayplan.
pdf.
url
12.
Legacy
Development
Guide
and
Comprehensive
Plan
for
Forsyth
County
and
Its
Municipalities
Legacy.
url
13.
Winston­
Salem/
Forsyth
County
Unified
Development
Ordinances
and
Traditional
Neighborhood
Development
Design
Guidelines
Udo.
url
http­­
www.
cityofws.
org­
planweb­
Publications­
Dvpt_
Guidelines­
TND_
Guidelines.
pdf.
url
14.
Davie
County
Land
Development
Plan
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
41
March
31,
2004
Land
Development
Plan.
url
http­­
www.
co.
davie.
nc.
us­
public_
notices­
LDP2003_
20031121.
pdf.
url
15.
Randolph
County
Growth
Management
Plan
http­­
www.
co.
randolph.
nc.
us­
planning_
zoning­
downloads­
GrowthManagementPlan.
pdf.
url
16.
Randolph
County
Uniform
Development
Ordinance
Unified
Development
Ordinance.
url
17.
Land
Use
Plan
for
the
High
Point
Planning
Area
http­­
www.
high­
point.
net­
plan­
lup091203.
pdf.
url
18.
High
Point
Development
Ordinance
http­­
www.
high­
point.
net­
plan­
Development_
Ordinance­
c4a.
pdf.
url
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
42
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.
Additionally,
this
modeling
exercise
demonstrates
that
the
Cooleemee
monitoring
site,
which
is
significantly
influenced
by
the
Charlotte/
Gastonia
area,
will
demonstrate
attainment
by
the
time
the
Charlotte/
Gastonia
area
must
demonstrate
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
i.
e.
2010.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
43
March
31,
2004
Modeling
results
for
the
1996
and
1997
episodes
using
the
2010
future
year
inventory
does
continue
to
show
attainment
and
further
reduction
in
ozone
levels
compared
to
the
2007
modeling.
Figure
6.2­
7
and
6.2­
8
display
the
modeling
results
for
the
1996
episode
using
the
2010
emissions
inventory,
showing
the
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
and
the
difference
plot
between
2010
future
year
and
the
2000
current
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum,
respectively.
In
the
2010
difference
plots,
cool
colors
of
blue
and
green
represent
decreases
in
the
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum.
Figures
6.2­
9
and
6.2­
10
display
the
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
and
difference
plot,
respectively,
for
the
1997
episode
as
modeled
for
future
year
2010
(
compared
to
current
year
2000).
These
results
are
consistent
with
the
1996
episode
results.

Figure
6.2­
1
2000
current
year
8­
hour
ozone
episodic
maximum
for
the
1996
episode.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
44
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.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
45
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.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
46
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.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
47
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
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
48
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
nonattainment
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.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
49
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
but
one
in
the
Triad
EAC
area
in
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
in
2007.
These
results
are
displayed
in
Table
6.3­
1
below.
The
one
monitor
still
not
showing
attainment
of
the
standard
is
Cooleemee.
This
monitor
is
located
in
the
southern
portion
of
Davie
County
and
borders
the
Charlotte,
NC
MSA.
In
general,
this
monitor
is
influenced
by
emissions
generated
in
the
Charlotte
area
on
a
significant
number
of
days.
NCDAQ
is
still
investigating
possible
solutions
to
bring
this
monitor
into
attainment,
including
working
with
the
Charlotte
area
to
determine
controls
the
area
is
planning
on
implementing
by
2007.

Table
6.3­
1
2007
Attainment
Test
Results
for
the
Triad
EAC
Area
Monitor
Name
DVC
(
ppm)
RRF
DVF
(
ppm)
Bethany
0.091
0.880
0.080
Cherry
Grove
0.090
0.860
0.077
Cooleemee
0.096
0.910
0.087
Hattie
Avenue
0.094
0.880
0.082
McLeansville
0.090
0.860
0.077
Pollirosa
0.082
0.880
0.072
Shiloh
Church
0.089
0.870
0.077
Sophia
0.085
0.870
0.073
Union
Cross
0.093
0.870
0.080
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
Triad
EAC
area
attaining
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS;
including
the
Cooleemee
monitor
which
was
still
above
the
0.085
ppm
threshold
with
the
2007
modeling.
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.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
50
March
31,
2004
Table
6.3­
2
2010
Attainment
Test
Results
for
the
Triad
EAC
Area
Monitor
Name
DVC
(
ppm)
RRF
DVF
(
ppm)
Bethany
0.091
0.82
0.074
Cherry
Grove
0.090
0.81
0.072
Cooleemee
0.096
0.85
0.081
Hattie
Avenue
0.094
0.83
0.078
McLeansville
0.090
0.83
0.074
Pollirosa
0.082
0.83
0.068
Shiloh
Church
0.089
0.83
0.073
Sophia
0.085
0.82
0.069
Union
Cross
0.093
0.83
0.077
6.4
Additional
Technical
Analyses
to
Support
Demonstration
of
Attainment
NCDAQ
acknowledges
in
Section
6.3
of
this
report
that
in
the
preliminary
modeling
the
Cooleemee
monitor
is
not
in
attainment
by
2007
when
the
current
draft
version
of
EPA's
attainment
test
is
applied
to
the
modeling
results.
In
this
case,
however,
the
modeled
future
design
value
is
close
enough
to
attaining
that
NCDAQ
used
additional
technical
analyses
to
show
attainment.

Some
of
these
additional
technical
analyses
are
described
in
the
U.
S.
EPA's
Draft
Guidance
On
The
Use
Of
Models
And
Other
Analyses
In
Attainment
Demonstrations
For
The
8­
Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
("
Draft
8­
hour
Ozone
Guidance").
The
Draft
8­
hour
Ozone
Guidance
proposes
a
series
of
core
corroborative
analyses
that
further
support
the
suggested
modeled
attainment
and
screening
tests
and
provide
more
evidence
that
the
modeled
control
strategy
is
sufficient
to
meet
the
NAAQS
within
the
required
timeframe.
The
Draft
8­
hour
Ozone
Guidance
also
suggests
using
additional
corroborative
analyses
to
supplement
the
core
set.
NCDAQ
identified
and
implemented
several
of
these
corroborative
analyses,
both
from
the
core
set
and
the
additional
set
to
support
the
hypothesis
that
the
existing
strategy
will
lead
to
attainment
in
the
area
of
concern.
The
methods
and
their
results
are
summarized
in
greater
detail
in
the
following
sections.

6.4.2
EPA's
Core
Corroborative
Analyses
­
Air
Quality
Modeling
Metrics
Introduction
The
Draft
8­
hour
Ozone
Guidance
recommends
the
following
types
of
corroborative
analyses:
application
of
air
quality
models,
observed
air
quality
trends
and
estimated
emission
trends,
and
outcome
of
observational
models.

In
Chapter
4,
Section
4.1.1
Air
Quality
Models,
the
Draft
8­
Hour
Ozone
Guidance
describes
various
aspects
of
air
quality
models,
modeled
performance,
and
uncertainties
associated
with
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
51
March
31,
2004
the
length
of
modeled
episodes
and
limited
observational
datasets.
A
series
of
three
additional
air
quality
modeling
outputs
or
metrics
is
recommended
to
provide
assurance
that
passing
or
nearly
passing
the
suggested
modeled
attainment
and
screening
tests
indicates
attainment.
These
three
additional
metrics
reflect
various
relative
changes
in
predicted
air
quality.

Methodology
The
computation
of
the
recommend
three
additional
air
quality
modeling
metrics
introduced
in
the
previous
section
are
only
applicable
in
portions
of
the
modeled
domain
that
are
passing
or
nearly
passing
the
suggested
modeled
attainment
and
screening
tests.
The
Draft
8­
Hour
Ozone
Guidance
further
proposes
that
these
metrics
should
not
be
applied
in
cases
where
the
future
design
value
for
a
particular
region
is
in
excess
of
0.09
ppm.
For
the
purposes
of
this
particular
corroborative
analysis
report,
the
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
(
Triad
EAC)
region
is
the
only
portion
of
the
air
quality
modeled
domain
that
is
considered,
primarily
based
on
the
calculated
and
nearly
passing
future
design
value
at
the
Cooleemee
monitoring
site
within
the
region.
The
Triad
EAC
region
consists
of
Surry,
Stokes,
Rockingham,
Caswell,
Yadkin,
Forsyth,
Guilford,
Alamance,
Davie,
Davidson,
and
Randolph
Counties
of
North
Carolina
and
includes
the
cities
of
Burlington,
Greensboro,
High
Point,
and
Winston­
Salem.

A
modeling
domain
mask
of
these
eleven
counties
was
created
and
applied
to
the
current
and
future
modeling
outputs
of
three
air
quality
simulations.
The
three
air
quality
simulations
were
selected
based
on
the
modeling
selection
criteria
proposed
in
the
Draft
8­
Hour
Ozone
Guidance,
shaped
and
sized
to
reflect
air
quality
conditions
in
the
major
metropolitan
regions
of
North
Carolina,
and
cover
high
ozone
episodes
during
the
summers
of
1995,
1996,
and
1997.
Projected
air
quality
data
from
within
this
masked
area
were
collected
from
the
preliminary
2000
current
year,
2007
future
attainment
year,
and
2010
future
year
modeling
outputs.
The
future
year
of
2010
was
selected
based
on
prescribed
changes
in
the
emissions
inventories
across
North
Carolina
occurring
just
prior
to
this
future
year.

As
described
in
Section
4.1.1
of
the
Draft
8­
Hour
Ozone
Guidance,
the
collected
modeling
data
from
the
2000,
2007,
and
2010
modeling
output
masks
were
applied
to
the
following
metrics:

1.
Relative
change
in
surface
grid­
hours
>
84ppb.
2.
Relative
change
in
the
number
of
grid
cells
with
predicted
8­
hr
daily
maxima
>
84ppb.
3.
Relative
change
in
the
total
difference
(
ppb­
hr)
of
hourly
predictions
>
84ppb.

The
relative
change
from
both
2000
to
2007
and
2000
to
2010
was
considered
in
the
computation
of
the
three
metrics.

In
addition
to
the
three
recommended
metrics,
two
additional
metrics
were
computed
for
these
periods
to
create
a
comprehensive
corroborative
analysis
for
the
Triad
EAC
region.
The
two
additional
metrics
are:

4.
Relative
change
in
the
total
difference
(
ppb­
hr)
of
the
predicted
8­
hr
daily
maxima
>
84
ppb.
5.
Air
Quality
Index
counts
of
the
Green,
Yellow,
Orange,
and
Red
categories
for
the
2000,
2007,
and
2010
modeling
output
masks.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
52
March
31,
2004
Recommended
and
Additional
Air
Quality
Modeling
Metrics
The
five
air
quality
modeling
metrics
introduced
above
were
given
unique
titles
in
the
North
Carolina
modeling
exercise.
These
unique
titles
are
Persistence­
Hr,
Persistence­
Max,
Severity­
Hr,
Severity­
Max,
and
Air
Quality
Index
Counts,
respective
to
the
order
of
appearance.
These
five
air
quality
modeling
metrics
are
further
described
and
defined
below:

1.
Persistence­
Hr
(#
Grid­
hours)
is
defined
as
the
number
of
grid­
cells
in
a
given
region
with
predicted
hourly
8­
hr
O3
concentrations
>
84
ppb.
The
relative
change
in
Persistence­
Hr
is
presented
as
a
percent
reduction
computed
for
all
episode
days
from
the
future
year
case
to
the
current
year
case.

2.
Persistence­
Max
(#
Grid­
hours)
metric
is
similar
to
Persistence­
Hr,
but
uses
the
modeled
daily
maximum
8­
h
concentrations
>
84
ppb
instead
of
the
hourly
8­
hr
O3
concentrations.
The
relative
change
in
Persistence­
Max
is
also
presented
as
a
percent
reduction
computed
for
all
episode
days
from
the
future
year
case
to
the
current
year
case.

3.
Severity­
Hr
(#
Grid­
hour­
ppb)
is
defined
as
the
sum
of
all
grid­
cells
with
predicted
hourly
8­
hr
O3
concentrations
>
84
ppb.
Given
the
definition
of
Persistence,
this
Severity
could
be
considered
as
a
weighted
form
of
the
Persistence
metric.
The
relative
change
in
Severity
is
also
presented
as
a
percent
reduction
computed
for
all
episode
days
from
the
future
year
case
to
the
current
year
case.

4.
Severity­
Max
(#
Grid­
hour­
ppb)
metric
is
similar
to
Severity­
Hr,
but
uses
the
modeled
daily
maximum
8­
hr
concentrations
>
84
ppb
instead
of
the
hourly
8­
hr
O3
concentrations.
The
relative
change
in
Severity­
Max
is
also
presented
as
a
percent
reduction
computed
for
all
episode
days
from
the
future
year
case
to
the
current
year
case.

5.
Air
Quality
Index
Counts
(
AQI
Counts)
metric
is
a
count
of
the
number
of
grid­
cells
with
predicted
maximum
8­
hr
O3
concentrations
sorted
within
each
of
the
Code
Green,
Yellow,
Orange
and
Red
categories,
as
defined
by
the
U.
S.
EPA's
AQI
Index.
AQI
Counts
are
presented
as
percentages
of
the
total
number
of
grid­
cells
within
the
study
region.

Conclusions
drawn
from
Air
Quality
Modeling
Metrics
The
results
from
each
of
the
five
air
quality
modeling
metric
calculations
demonstrated
significant
or
very
large
relative
reductions
of
greater
than
90%
in
future
(
2007)
air
quality
conditions
above
the
NAAQS.
In
each
metric,
the
very
large
relative
reductions
were
demonstrated
in
each
of
the
three
modeled
episodes
and
also
in
the
combined
data
across
all
modeled
episodes.
Considering
the
future
(
2010)
air
quality
modeling,
the
relative
reductions
nearly
reached
100%
in
all
portions
of
the
Triad
EAC
region.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
relative
reductions
in
all
metrics
well
surpassed
the
Draft
8­
Hour
Ozone
Guidance
recommendation
of
80%
for
these
particular
calculations.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
53
March
31,
2004
Figures
6.4.2­
1,
6.4.2­
2,
6.4.2­
3,
and
6.4.2­
4
present
the
relative
reductions
calculated
in
the
first
four
metrics
described
in
the
previous
section,
respectively.
Each
of
these
four
figures
have
very
similar
relative
reductions
in
each
modeled
episode
and
also
have
almost
identical
relative
reductions
in
the
combined
data
across
all
modeled
episodes.
The
combined
data
demonstrates
reductions
greater
than
95%
across
the
Triad
EAC
region.
Equating
this
95%
relative
reduction
to
real
air
quality
conditions
in
the
modeling,
Figure
6.4.2­
5
demonstrates
a
drop
from
2,406
grid
cells
in
excess
of
the
NAAQS
(
Orange
or
Red
AQI
Counts)
during
the
current
(
2000)
episodes
to
only
100
exceeding
grid
cells
during
the
future
(
2007)
episodes.
This
tremendous
reduction
in
exceeding
grid
cells
is
further
improved
to
only
7
exceeding
grids
cells
during
the
future
(
2010)
episodes.
These
substantial
grid
cell
counts
are
even
more
impressive
when
spatially
plotted.
Figures
6.4.2­
6,
6.4.2­
7,
and
6.4.2­
8
present
the
location
and
count
of
grid
cells
exceeding
the
NAAQS
hourly
and
daily
in
the
future
(
2007)
episodes.
The
Triad
EAC
region
is
lightly
shaded
in
gray
on
each
of
the
spatial
plots.

Throughout
this
air
quality
modeling
metrics
analysis
for
the
Triad
EAC
region,
each
set
of
results
consistently
demonstrate
relative
reductions
well
beyond
the
recommended
80%
mark
that
is
considered
appropriate
for
concluding
that
a
proposed
strategy
would
meet
the
NAAQS.
Given
a
variety
of
additional
emissions
reductions
that
were
not
included
in
this
modeling
exercise
and
that
will
occur
throughout
the
Triad
EAC
and
surrounding
regions
before
2007,
it
is
reasonable
to
conclude
that
the
extremely
small
number
and
short
duration
of
remaining
exceeding
grid
cells
in
the
future
year
modeled
episodes
will
be
below
the
NAAQS
in
both
2007
and
2010.

Figure
6.4.2­
1
Persistence­
Hr
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
54
March
31,
2004
Figure
6.4.1­
2
Persistence­
Max
Figure
6.4.2­
3
Severity­
Hr
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
55
March
31,
2004
Figure
6.4.2­
4
Severity­
Max
Figure
6.4.2­
5
AQI
Counts
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
56
March
31,
2004
Figure
6.4.2­
6
1995
Persistence
(
Hourly
and
Daily
Max)
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
57
March
31,
2004
Figure
6.4.2­
7
Persistence
(
Hourly
and
Daily
Max)
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
58
March
31,
2004
Figure
6.4.2­
8
Persistence
(
Hourly
and
Daily
Max)
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
59
March
31,
2004
6.4.3
Additional
Corroborative
Analyses
­
Alternative
Methods
for
Applying
the
Modeled
Attainment
Test
Introduction
This
analysis
examines
three
different
alternatives
for
applying
the
modeled
attainment
test.
The
first
alternative
is
to
choose
use
a
different
DVC
in
the
modeled
attainment
test.
The
final
two
analyses
involve
using
alternative
criteria
for
selection
of
episode
days
to
apply
the
modeled
attainment
test.
Each
of
these
analyses
are
described
in
greater
detail
in
the
Methodology
section.

Methodology
1)
Choosing
the
3­
year
period
to
designate
an
area
"
nonattainment"
as
the
most
appropriate
for
use
in
the
modeled
attainment
test
This
alternative
is
explored
because
one
of
the
3­
year
periods
suggested
in
the
original
form
of
the
attainment
test
spans
a
period
where
significant
reductions
in
precursor
emissions
took
place
in
North
Carolina.

Recall,
the
original
form
of
the
attainment
test
suggests
using
the
higher
of
(
a)
the
3­
year
period
"
straddling"
the
year
represented
by
the
most
recent
available
emissions
inventory
(
for
NC's
EAC
modeling
this
span
is
99­
01,
for
a
2000
inventory),
and
(
b)
the
3­
year
period
used
to
designate
an
area
"
nonattainment"
(
01­
03).
In
this
alternative
analysis,
NCDAQ
believes
it
is
inappropriate
to
use
any
observed
ozone
data
from
years
prior
to
2000
due
to
a
significant
reduction
in
NOx
emissions
between
1999
and
2000
from
the
utility
sector.
The
total
annual
NOx
emissions
from
utilities
in
1999
was
197,956
tons/
yr,
while
in
2000
they
were
over
42,000
tons
lower
at
155,724
tons/
yr.
These
dramatic
decreases
in
NOx
emissions
are
most
likely
due
to
Title
IV
reductions
that
were
required
by
2000.
The
4th
highest
8­
hour
daily
maximum
ozone
concentration
in
1999
was
the
second
highest
on
record
(
1998
is
the
highest)
at
the
Cooleemee
monitor.
The
4th
highest
8­
hour
daily
maximum
ozone
concentrations
for
2000
through
2003
have
been
between
2
and
12
percent
lower
than
1999,
showing
an
obvious
link
to
the
decrease
in
NOx
emissions
from
the
utility
sector.
Table
6.4.3­
1
below
presents
the
NOx
emissions
and
Cooleemee
ozone
data.
Even
though
meteorological
variability
is
not
considered
in
this
analysis,
NCDAQ
believes
the
drop
in
NOx
emissions
between
1999
and
2000
is
too
large
to
ignore.
Also,
the
significant
reduction
in
utility
NOx
emissions
between
"
current"
levels
and
2007
is
noteworthy.
One
can
reasonably
infer
from
this
emissions
data
that
future
ozone
values
in
this
NOx
limited
environment
will
be
below
the
NAAQS.

Table
6.4.3­
1
NC
Utility
NOx
emissions
and
Cooleemee
4th
highest
ozone
concentrations
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2007*

NOx
Emissions
(
tpy)
197,956
155,724
140,216
142,565
n/
a
58,506
Cooleemee
4th
high
8­
hour
ozone
(
ppb)
0.100
0.094
0.094
0.098
0.089
*
Projected
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
60
March
31,
2004
Given
the
reasoning
stated
above,
and
the
fact
that
NOx
emissions
have
not
changed
substantially
since
2000,
the
1999
ozone
data
was
not
considered
in
the
3
alternative
tests
explained
here.
The
first
test
used
the
higher
of
00­
02
DVC
and
the
01­
03
DVC.
The
spirit
of
the
attainment
test
is
preserved
with
this
methodology.
The
00­
02
DVC
includes
the
year
of
the
"
current"
emissions
year
(
2000)
and
the
01­
03
DVC
was
used
in
the
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
designations.
At
the
Cooleemee
monitor,
the
00­
02
DVC
is
95
ppb
and
the
01­
03
DVC
is
93
ppb.
Taking
the
higher
of
the
2
DVCs
(
95
ppb)
and
the
relative
reduction
factor
of
0.91
results
in
a
calculated
future
design
value
at
the
Cooleemee
monitor
of
86
ppb.
This
is
lower
than
the
87
ppb
acquired
when
applying
the
original
attainment
test.

The
second
test
used
the
01­
03
DVC.
NCDAQ
believes
this
is
an
appropriate
alternative
DVC
to
use
given
its
importance
in
not
only
determining
nonattainment
boundaries,
but
also
the
severity
of
the
nonattainment
classification.
At
the
Cooleemee
monitor,
the
01­
03
DVC
is
93
ppb
and
the
relative
reduction
factor
is
0.91.
The
resulting
future
design
value
at
the
Cooleemee
monitor
is
therefore
84
ppb.

The
third
test
used
a
DVC
calculated
from
4
years
of
4th
highest
8­
hour
daily
maximum
concentrations.
This
DVC
uses
data
from
2000
through
2003.
NCDAQ
believes
this
is
an
appropriate
alternative
given
the
relatively
consistent
precursor
emissions
in
each
of
these
years.
Additionally,
a
longer­
term
average,
given
relatively
consistent
emissions,
may
help
stabilize
the
impact
of
meteorological
variability
on
DVCs.
At
the
Cooleemee
monitor,
the
00­
03
DVC
is
93
ppb
and
the
relative
reduction
factor
is
0.91.
The
resulting
future
design
value
at
the
Cooleemee
monitor
is
therefore
84
ppb.

2)
Exclusion
of
episode
days
with
observed
max
8­
hour
average
concentrations
of
<
70
ppb
This
analysis
uses
the
observed
air
quality
conditions
to
refine
the
basis
for
calculating
relative
reduction
factors
and
their
corresponding
future
design
values.
Recall,
the
original
form
of
the
attainment
test
suggests
that
States
need
not
consider
any
day
for
which
the
modeled
current
maximum
8­
hour
daily
maximum
concentration
at
a
nearby
grid
cell
is
<
70
ppb.
In
this
alternative
analysis,
days
with
observed
8­
hour
daily
maximum
concentrations
<
70
ppb
were
excluded
from
the
relative
reduction
factor
calculations
and
their
corresponding
future
design
values.
This
method
excluded
5
days
that
were
in
the
original
test
and
included
1
day
that
was
excluded
in
the
original
test.
Removing/
adding
these
days
lowered
the
RRF
at
the
Cooleemee
monitor
from
0.91
to
0.90.
Table
6.4.3­
2
shows
the
original
episode
days
and
whether
they
were
selected
or
eliminated
based
on
the
<
70
ppb
criteria.
As
a
result,
the
corresponding
future
design
value
at
the
Cooleemee
monitor
is
reduced
from
87
ppb
in
the
original
test
to
86
ppb
in
this
alternative
test.
Furthermore,
if
one
uses
the
most
recent
DVC
(
01­
03),
summarized
as
the
most
appropriate
DVC
in
the
above
section,
the
resulting
2007
future
design
value
at
Cooleemee
is
83
ppb.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
61
March
31,
2004
Table
6.4.3­
2
Maximum
observed
8­
hour
ozone
concentration
at
Cooleemee
on
episode
days
Episode
Day
Maximum
Observed
8­
hour
Average
(
ppm)
Excluded
7/
12/
1995
*
Yes
7/
13/
1995
*
Yes
7/
14/
1995
*
No
7/
15/
1995
*
No
6/
21/
1996
0.062
Yes
6/
22/
1996
0.079
No
6/
23/
1996
0.069
Yes
6/
24/
1996
0.089
No
6/
27/
1996
0.084
No
6/
28/
1996
0.096
No
6/
29/
1996
0.085
No
6/
30/
1996
0.066
Yes
7/
12/
1997
0.087
No
7/
13/
1997
0.078
No
7/
14/
1997
0.088
No
7/
15/
1997
0.087
No
*
The
Cooleemee
monitor
was
not
in
operation
during
the
1995
episode.
Because
this
exclusion
of
days
depends
on
observed
data,
NCDAQ
operated
on
the
assumption
that
the
7/
14/
95
and
7/
15/
95
days
were
the
only
days
that
would
have
observed
>
70
ppb.
This
assumption
was
based
on
observations
taken
at
nearby
monitors.

3)
Exclusion
of
episode
days
when
observed
max
8­
hour
average
concentration
is
not
within
+/­
10
ppb
of
DVC
used
for
episode
selection.

Episode
days
were
excluded
for
the
modeled
attainment
test
when
their
observed
max
8­
hour
average
concentration
was
not
within
+/­
10
ppb
of
the
design
value
used
for
episode
selection.
For
the
1995
episode
days,
the
design
values
for
episode
selection
were
based
on
observations
made
from
1994
to
1996.
For
the
1996
episode
days,
the
design
values
for
episode
selection
were
based
on
observations
made
from
1995
to
1997.
For
the
1997
episode
days,
the
design
values
for
episode
selection
were
based
on
observations
made
from
1996
to
1998.
Table
6.4.3­
3
shows
the
available
days
to
apply
the
+/­
10
ppb
criteria
to
and
if
they
were
excluded.
Removing
the
days
that
did
not
meet
the
criteria
described
resulted
in
a
lowering
of
the
RRF
from
0.91
to
0.90.
The
corresponding
future
design
value
at
the
Cooleemee
monitor
is
reduced
from
87
ppb
in
the
original
test
to
86
ppb
in
this
alternative
test.
Furthermore,
if
one
uses
the
most
recent
DVC
(
01­
03),
summarized
as
the
most
appropriate
DVC
in
the
above
section,
the
resulting
2007
future
design
value
at
Cooleemee
is
83
ppb.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
62
March
31,
2004
Table
6.4.3­
3
Cooleemee
ozone
concentrations
and
design
values
Epidsode
Day
Maximum
Observed
8­
hour
Average
Design
Value
Used
for
Episode
Selection
Excluded
7/
12/
1995
*
*
Yes
7/
13/
1995
*
*
Yes
7/
14/
1995
*
*
No
7/
15/
1995
*
*
No
6/
21/
1996
0.062
0.088
Yes
6/
22/
1996
0.079
0.088
No
6/
23/
1996
0.069
0.088
Yes
6/
24/
1996
0.089
0.088
No
6/
27/
1996
0.084
0.088
No
6/
28/
1996
0.096
0.088
No
6/
29/
1996
0.085
0.088
No
6/
30/
1996
0.066
0.088
Yes
7/
12/
1997
0.087
0.092
No
7/
13/
1997
0.078
0.092
Yes
7/
14/
1997
0.088
0.092
No
7/
15/
1997
0.087
0.092
No
*
The
Cooleemee
monitor
was
not
in
operation
during
the
1995
episode.
Because
this
exclusion
of
days
depends
on
observed
data,
NCDAQ
operated
on
the
assumption
that
the
7/
14/
95
and
7/
15/
95
days
were
the
only
days
that
would
have
observed
concentrations
within
+/­
10
ppb
of
the
design
value
used
for
episode
selection.
This
assumption
was
based
on
observations
taken
at
nearby
monitors.

Conclusions
drawn
from
Alternative
Methods
for
Applying
the
Modeled
Attainment
Test
Additional
corroborative
analyses
involving
alternative
methods
for
applying
the
modeled
attainment
test
at
the
Cooleemee
monitor
further
supports
the
conclusion
that
the
proposed
strategy
is
adequate.
Seven
alternative
tests
were
applied
and
all
showed
2007
future
design
values
lower
than
what
was
calculated
using
the
original
form
of
the
attainment
test.
The
average
and
median
of
the
alternative
tests
indicate
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
at
Cooleemee.
A
summary
of
the
tests
is
provided
in
Table
6.4.3­
4
below.

Table
6.4.3­
4
Summary
of
Additional
Corroborative
Analyses
Test
Name
2007
Future
Design
Value
(
ppb)
Original
Attainment
Test
87
Higher
DVC
00­
02
&
01­
03
86
DVC
01­
03
84
DVC
00­
03
84
obs
<
70
original
test
86
obs
<
70
w/
DVC
01­
03
83
+/­
10
original
test
86
+/­
10
DVC
01­
03
83
AVERAGE
84
MEDIAN
84
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
63
March
31,
2004
It
is
important
to
note
that
these
analyses
and
their
results
are
based
on
EPA's
Modeling
Guidance.
The
elements
of
the
analyses
that
are
not
explicitly
covered
in
the
Draft
8­
hour
Ozone
Guidance
are
based
on
like
principles
and
should
be
given
similar
credibility.

6.4.4
Additional
Corroborative
Analyses
­
Analysis
of
Other
Source
Regions
Introduction
The
intent
of
analyzing
other
source
regions
is
to
show
how
frequently
and
to
what
degree
particular
areas
impact
Cooleemee
on
days
when
ozone
concentrations
were
high.
It
is
the
experience
of
NCDAQ
meteorologists
that
Cooleemee
is
often
affected
by
pollution
originating
from
either
the
Triad
or
Charlotte
metropolitan
areas.
On
days
when
the
prevailing
wind
flow
is
from
the
south
and
southwest,
the
Charlotte
region
would
be
expected
to
have
the
greatest
impact
on
Cooleemee.
On
days
when
the
wind
flow
is
more
northerly
or
northeasterly,
the
Triad
region
would
be
expected
to
have
a
greater
impact
on
Cooleemee.
There
are
days
when
the
wind
flow
is
such
that
neither
the
Triad
nor
Charlotte
regions
wo
uld
have
the
most
significant
impact
on
Cooleemee,
such
as
moderate
easterly
or
westerly
flow.
NCDAQ
hypothesizes
that
analysis
of
these
other
source
regions
will
show
that
the
Charlotte
region
was
the
predominant
area
of
influence
on
Cooleemee.
As
such,
emissions
reductions
that
will
take
place
in
the
Charlotte
region
would
lead
to
reductions
in
ozone
concentrations
(
future
design
values)
at
Cooleemee.

Methodology
An
examination
of
back
trajectories
for
five
years
(
1999­
2003)
was
made
at
the
Cooleemee
ozone
monitor
site
in
Davie
County,
North
Carolina.
Specifically,
days
when
the
observed
8­
hr
average
ozone
concentrations
was
greater
than
84
ppb
were
analyzed
to
determine
the
probable
source
regions
for
transported
ozone
and
its
precursors.
Back
trajectories
were
created
using
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
Air
Resource
Laboratory
(
NOAA
ARL)
HYbrid
Single­
Particle
Lagrangian
Integrated
Trajectory
(
HYSPLIT;
Draxler
and
Rolph,
2003)
model
version
4.
The
80
km
EDAS
data
was
used
as
the
data
set
for
the
trajectory
analysis.

Using
the
criteria
that
the
observed
8­
hr
average
ozone
concentrations
was
greater
than
84
ppb,
a
total
of
78
days
from
1999
through
2003
met
the
criteria
for
the
Cooleemee
monitor.
Of
those
78
days,
three
days
were
eliminated
from
the
back
trajectory
analysis
due
to
missing
data
in
the
EDAS
data
set.
Individual
back
trajectories
were
run
for
each
of
the
remaining
75
days
using
the
HYSPLIT
model.
The
first
analysis
of
these
trajectories
used
visual
inspection
to
determine
the
most
likely
source
region
for
the
pollution
measured
at
the
Cooleemee
site
for
each
day.
The
possible
source
region(
s)
could
be
Charlotte,
the
Triad,
some
other
region,
or
any
combination
of
the
three.
The
second
analysis
separated
the
trajectories
based
on
observed
ozone
concentration
at
the
Cooleemee
site
in
order
to
relate
the
observed
concentration
of
ozone
to
the
source
region.

Results
From
the
analysis
based
on
source
region,
it
was
determined
that
the
Charlotte
region
was
the
most
likely
source
on
36
of
the
days,
the
Triad
region
on
15
of
the
days,
other
region
on
11
of
the
days,
and
a
combination
of
the
Charlotte
and
Triad
regions
on
10
of
the
days
(
Table
6.4.4­
1).
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
64
March
31,
2004
There
were
also
three
days
when
Charlotte
and
other
or
Triad
and
other
were
determined
to
be
the
source
regions.
Figure
6.4.4­
1
shows
the
composite
of
the
trajectories
at
the
10­
meter
level
of
the
36
days
when
the
Charlotte
region
was
determined
to
be
the
predominant
source
region.
There
is
a
clear
distinction
of
southerly
and
westerly
flow
through
the
Charlotte
region.

Date
Charlotte
Triad
Other
Date
Charlotte
Triad
Other
5/
21/
1999
87
X
X
5/
19/
2001
87
X
5/
29/
1999
86
X
6/
19/
2001
87
X
X
5/
30/
1999
85
X
6/
20/
2001
94
X
X
6/
9/
1999
110
X
6/
21/
2001
102
X
6/
10/
1999
100
X
X
7/
17/
2001
90
X
7/
6/
1999
90
X
X
8/
3/
2001
86
X
7/
16/
1999
86
X
X
8/
9/
2001
98
X
7/
28/
1999
88
X
8/
23/
2001
104
X
7/
31/
1999
87
X
8/
25/
2001
85
X
8/
4/
1999
91
X
5/
24/
2002
86
X
8/
5/
1999
86
X
X
6/
4/
2002
100
X
8/
6/
1999
91
X
6/
5/
2002
96
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
8/
7/
1999
110
X
X
6/
10/
2002
91
X
X
8/
10/
1999
87
X
X
6/
11/
2002
112
X
8/
11/
1999
90
X
6/
13/
2002
93
X
8/
12/
1999
91
X
7/
2/
2002
92
X
X
8/
13/
1999
138
X
7/
8/
2002
88
X
8/
14/
1999
89
X
7/
9/
2002
94
X
8/
17/
1999
87
X
7/
16/
2002
86
X
8/
18/
1999
97
X
7/
17/
2002
95
X
8/
19/
1999
95
X
8/
1/
2002
90
X
8/
28/
1999
94
X
8/
2/
2002
96
X
9/
8/
1999
91
X
8/
9/
2002
90
X
9/
13/
1999
88
X
X
8/
10/
2002
88
X
5/
19/
2000
89
X
8/
11/
2002
98
X
6/
2/
2000
98
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
8/
12/
2002
97
X
X
6/
9/
2000
89
X
8/
13/
2002
99
X
6/
10/
2000
93
X
8/
21/
2002
85
X
6/
11/
2000
93
X
8/
22/
2002
90
X
6/
12/
2000
95
X
8/
23/
2002
98
X
6/
13/
2000
94
X
9/
5/
2002
89
X
6/
24/
2000
88
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
6/
10/
2003
89
X
7/
2/
2000
93
X
6/
24/
2003
89
X
7/
8/
2000
88
X
6/
25/
2003
106
X
7/
10/
2000
96
X
6/
26/
2003
100
X
7/
18/
2000
98
X
Total
Days
23
12
4
7/
19/
2000
92
X
7/
28/
2000
89
X
Charlotte
=
48
8/
7/
2000
88
X
Triad
=
26
8/
17/
2000
86
X
Other
=
14
9/
14/
2000
85
X
CLT&
Triad=
10
5/
4/
2001
87
X
5/
15/
2001
87
X
Charlotte
only
=
36
Total
Days
25
14
10
Triad
only
=
15
Table
6.4.4­
1.
Trajectory
source
regions
for
days
when
the
observed
8­
hr
ozone
concentration
at
Cooleemee
was
85
ppb
or
greater
from
1999
through
2003.
An
"
X"
indicates
that
the
region
was
determined
to
be
potential
source
region
for
ozone
and
precursor
pollutants
on
that
day.
"
N/
A"
indicates
that
the
EDAS
data
needed
to
run
the
trajectory
for
that
day
was
not
available,
and
therefore
no
trajectory
was
available
for
analysis.
Cooleemee
Trajectory
Analysis
Results
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
65
March
31,
2004
Figure
6.4.4­
2
shows
a
similar
composite
for
those
days
when
the
Triad
region
was
determined
to
be
the
predominant
source
region.
On
these
days,
there
is
a
clear
distinction
of
northerly
and
northeasterly
flow
through
the
Triad
region.
Figure
6.4.4­
3
shows
the
composites
for
those
days
when
both
the
Charlotte
and
Triad
regions
were
determined
to
impact
the
Cooleemee
monitor.
There
appears
to
be
a
favored
southwest
flow
at
the
10­
meter
level,
while
at
300
and
1000
meters
(
not
shown),
the
southwest
flow
is
not
as
evident.
The
predominance
of
southwest
flow
at
the
Figure
6.4.4­
1.
Composite
image
of
back
trajectories
at
the
10­
meter
level
for
the
36
days
(
1999­
2003,
85
ppb
or
greater)
when
the
Charlotte
region
was
identified
as
the
predominant
source
region.

Figure
6.4.4­
2.
Composite
image
of
back
trajectories
at
the
10­
meter
level
for
the
15
days
(
1999­
2003,
85
ppb
or
greater)
when
the
Triad
region
was
identified
as
the
predominant
source
region.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
66
March
31,
2004
lowest
level
may
be
an
indicator
of
the
influence
of
low­
level
NOx
sources
originating
from
the
Charlotte
region
and
impacting
the
Cooleemee
site.

For
those
days
when
neither
the
Charlotte
nor
the
Triad
regions
were
determined
to
impact
the
Cooleemee
site,
the
wind
flow
is
generally
westerly
to
northwesterly,
although
on
several
days
there
is
an
obvious
easterly
component
to
the
flow.
In
these
cases,
influence
from
the
Charlotte
and
Triad
regions
on
Cooleemee
would
be
minimal,
but
could
still
play
some
minor
influence
on
local
pollution
concentrations
near
the
monitor.

The
second
analysis
that
was
performed
was
a
separation
of
the
trajectories
based
on
observed
ozone
concentration.
Specifically,
four
separate
bins
were
created:
85­
87
ppb,
88­
90
ppb,
91­
95,
and
above
95
ppb.
There
were
19
days
in
each
of
the
bins
except
for
the
91­
95
ppb
bin,
which
only
contained
18
days.
While
in
none
of
the
bins
is
there
an
absence
of
influence
from
either
the
Charlotte
or
the
Triad
regions,
there
does
appear
to
be
a
predominant
southwest
flow
through
the
Charlotte
region
in
both
the
85­
87
ppb
bin
and
the
above
95
ppb
bin
(
Figures
6.4.4­
4
and
6.4.4­
5,
respectively),
especially
at
the
10­
meter
level
for
the
above
95
ppb
bin.
The
latter
is
significant,
since
it
suggests
that
on
those
days
when
the
ozone
concentration
at
Cooleemee
was
highest
the
main
contributor
of
ozone
and
precursor
pollutants
is
the
Charlotte
region.
For
the
88­
90
ppb
and
91­
95
ppb
bins
(
not
shown)
there
appears
to
be
a
greater
split
in
the
trajectories
between
the
Charlotte
and
Triad
regions
than
the
other
bins,
suggesting
there
is
not
a
favored
wind
flow
direction
for
ozone
concentrations
in
those
ranges.
Figure
6.4.4­
3.
Composite
image
of
back
trajectories
at
the
10­
meter
level
for
the
11
days
(
1999­
2003,
85
ppb
or
greater)
when
both
the
Charlotte
and
Triad
regions
were
identified
as
the
predominant
source
regions.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
67
March
31,
2004
Figure
6.4.4­
4.
Composite
image
of
back
trajectories
at
the
10
meter
level
for
the
19
days
(
1999­
2003)
when
the
observed
8­
hr
ozone
concentration
at
the
Cooleemee
monitor
site
in
Davie
County
was
85
to
87
ppb.

Figure
6.4.4­
5.
Composite
image
of
back
trajectories
at
the
10
meter
level
for
the
19
days
(
1999­
2003)
when
the
observed
8­
hr
ozone
concentration
at
the
Cooleemee
monitor
site
in
Davie
County
was
greater
than
95
ppb.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
68
March
31,
2004
Conclusions
drawn
from
Analysis
of
other
Source
Regions
The
above
analysis
suggests
that
the
Cooleemee
monitor
is
influenced
more
often
by
transported
ozone
and
precursor
pollutants
from
the
Charlotte
region
(
36
of
75
days,
47%)
as
opposed
to
the
Triad
region
(
15
of
75
days,
20%).
Also,
an
analysis
of
back
trajectories
based
on
observed
ozone
concentration
indicates
that
on
those
days
when
the
ozone
concentration
at
Cooleemee
is
greater
than
95
ppb,
the
predominant
region
of
influence
is
also
the
Charlotte
region.
Together
these
analyses
suggest
that
the
majority
of
time
the
Cooleemee
monitor
may
be
more
representative
of
pollution
originating
from
the
Charlotte
region
rather
than
the
Triad
region.

The
result
of
this
conclusion
is
that
DAQ
expects
local
pollution
control
measures
that
will
be
implemented
in
the
Charlotte
region,
which
to
date
have
not
been
included
in
the
current
modeling,
will
lead
to
larger
reductions
of
pollution
in
the
Triad,
and
specifically
at
Cooleemee.
Given
that
well
over
50%
of
the
days
in
the
last
five
years
that
Cooleemee
exceeded
the
ozone
standard
a
region
other
than
the
Triad
was
the
predominant
region
of
influence,
emissions
controls
that
will
take
place
outside
of
the
Triad
will
no
doubt
have
a
significant
impact
on
reducing
pollution
at
Cooleemee.

6.4.5
Final
Modeling
Inventory
Changes
With
the
update
to
the
2007
modeling
inventory
a
number
of
emission
reductions
take
place.
The
Statewide
point
source
emissions
inventory
decreases
from
the
previous
version.
Included
in
these
point
source
decreases
is
2
tons
per
day
of
NOx
from
RJ
Reynolds
fuel
switching
proposed
as
a
local
control
and
over
7
tons
per
day
of
NOx
reduction
from
the
Duke
Energy
Marshall
facility
putting
on
controls
ahead
of
schedule.

The
mobile
source
updates
results
in
approximately
100
tons
per
day
NOx
emissions
decreases
across
the
State.
Additionally,
applying
the
open
burning
ban
will
result
in
some
NOx
decreases,
the
amount
of
which
will
be
dependent
on
the
rule
effectiveness
and
rule
penetration
settled
upon.

NCDAQ
is
also
working
with
the
Charlotte
area
and
Duke
Energy
to
see
if
any
other
emission
reductions
from
downwind
of
the
Triad
area
are
possible.

These
additional
reductions
of
NOx
emissions
in
and
around
the
Triad
area
are
expected
to
bring
the
Cooleemee
monitor
into
attainment
in
the
final
modeling
analysis.

6.4.6
Additional
Technical
Analyses
­
Conclusions
When
looking
at
additional
technical
analyses
for
the
Cooleemee
monitor
in
the
Triad
EAC
area,
NCDAQ
believes
that
there
is
substantial
evidence
that
this
monitor
will
attain
the
standard
in
2007.

The
air
quality
modeling
metrics
suggested
by
EPA
demonstrates
very
large
relative
reductions
(
90%);
a
percentage
much
larger
than
what
EPA
recommends
to
demonstrate
future
attainment.
It
has
been
demonstrated
that
the
current
design
value
used
in
the
attainment
test
has
an
impact
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
69
March
31,
2004
on
if
a
monitor
is
expected
to
attain.
NCDAQ
believes
that
the
model
may
be
less
responsive
to
emission
reductions
than
reality.
If
this
is
the
case,
then
using
the
most
current
design
value
may
be
more
appropriate.

Back
trajectory
analysis
shows
a
large
impact
from
the
Charlotte
region.
As
NCDAQ
and
Charlotte
begin
to
address
this
regions
8­
hour
ozone
problem,
the
Cooleemee
monitor
will
benefit
from
the
resultant
decreases
in
ozone.
To
the
extent
possible,
emission
reductions
expected
in
the
Charlotte
area
will
be
included
in
the
final
modeling
that
the
State
submits
in
December
2004.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
70
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.

4.
Draxler,
R.
R.
and
Rolph,
G.
D.,
2003.
HYSPLIT
(
HYbrid
Single­
Particle
Lagrangian
Integrated
Trajectory)
Model
access
via
NOAA
ARL
READY
Website
(
http://
www.
arl.
noaa.
gov/
ready/
hysplit4.
html).
NOAA
Air
Resources
Laboratory,
Silver
Spring,
MD.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
71
March
31,
2004
7
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.
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
72
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
Greene
0.00
0.07
0.00
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
73
March
31,
2004
Stationary
Point
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Guilford
1.59
1.83
18.13
0.17
0.88
39.44
Halifax
6.22
10.72
1.71
17.11
12.80
0.41
Harnett
0.20
0.33
1.12
0.23
0.63
0.62
Haywood
7.85
12.48
5.00
9.26
16.05
2.44
Henderson
0.25
0.31
3.79
0.03
0.43
4.53
Hertford
1.33
0.47
1.13
0.02
0.17
0.24
Hoke
0.08
0.25
0.40
34.24
1.00
10.35
Hyde
0.00
0.04
0.00
Iredell
3.58
9.98
20.42
3.63
11.15
4.37
Jackson
0.60
0.52
0.38
0.00
0.05
0.00
Johnston
0.80
0.46
1.80
0.02
0.15
2.46
Jones
Lee
1.37
0.42
1.27
1.14
0.28
0.75
Lenoir
0.63
2.27
1.30
0.14
3.10
0.23
Lincoln
0.76
5.82
2.73
8.90
14.26
2.18
McDowell
2.12
1.04
3.87
0.78
0.71
1.33
Macon
0.11
0.08
0.05
Madison
0.02
0.07
0.00
Martin
10.72
10.38
3.24
31.74
9.97
3.18
Mecklenburg
5.49
2.30
11.99
3.32
3.73
23.26
Mitchell
0.41
0.50
2.49
0.13
0.02
2.09
Montgomery
0.24
0.32
1.99
0.05
0.01
0.02
Moore
0.17
0.14
2.29
0.02
0.00
1.74
Nash
9.02
0.97
2.67
0.50
1.06
0.56
NewHanover
35.65
31.96
6.52
46.31
49.30
6.49
Northampton
1.10
0.30
0.86
0.14
0.30
0.10
Onslow
0.34
1.77
0.16
0.09
1.22
0.02
Orange
2.86
1.80
0.37
3.37
0.78
0.01
Pamlico
Pasquotank
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.03
Pender
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.01
Perquimans
Person
5.79
205.34
1.36
13.83
32.70
1.22
Pitt
1.06
0.88
1.95
0.37
0.75
1.11
Polk
0.02
0.03
0.00
Randolph
0.53
0.38
4.01
0.02
0.07
2.33
Richmond
0.33
0.26
0.17
323.38
11.45
10.71
Robeson
0.92
17.43
1.12
1.64
13.56
2.28
Rockingham
5.60
34.09
16.65
17.02
16.47
8.01
Rowan
2.28
37.52
8.27
15.19
19.17
11.65
Rutherford
3.24
49.60
2.56
4.66
13.67
3.45
Sampson
0.24
0.23
0.22
Scotland
0.38
6.14
3.60
0.57
8.50
7.33
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
74
March
31,
2004
Stationary
Point
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
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
Chowan
2.70
0.09
1.61
2.96
0.09
1.65
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
75
March
31,
2004
Stationary
Area
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
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
Nash
9.24
0.42
7.76
10.02
0.44
7.75
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
76
March
31,
2004
Stationary
Area
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
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
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
77
March
31,
2004
Nonroad
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
29.54
2.98
2.37
33.64
2.91
2.04
Alexander
4.00
0.51
0.37
4.36
0.53
0.33
Alleghany
2.49
0.36
0.18
2.78
0.33
0.14
Anson
4.19
1.13
0.50
4.55
0.95
0.39
Ashe
3.91
0.44
0.41
4.54
0.43
0.44
Avery
5.37
0.52
0.59
6.39
0.47
0.65
Beaufort
13.85
2.81
2.74
15.07
2.51
2.30
Bertie
6.43
1.66
1.12
6.78
1.48
0.88
Bladen
8.96
1.81
1.44
10.50
1.59
1.66
Brunswick
27.00
2.10
4.70
30.90
1.88
4.16
Buncombe
48.93
4.51
4.43
57.45
4.28
4.27
Burke
14.79
2.10
1.51
16.50
2.05
1.51
Cabarrus
44.68
4.19
3.28
51.35
3.78
2.38
Caldwell
16.55
2.38
1.77
18.65
2.34
1.89
Camden
2.84
0.41
0.99
2.90
0.39
0.80
Carteret
49.17
1.82
14.18
54.95
1.90
12.43
Caswell
2.26
1.07
0.23
2.51
0.85
0.17
Catawba
47.03
5.15
4.20
53.29
5.17
3.95
Chatham
12.91
1.83
1.40
14.40
1.68
1.09
Cherokee
3.99
0.40
0.56
4.58
0.40
0.57
Chowan
4.05
0.47
1.14
4.45
0.46
1.03
Clay
2.19
0.15
0.43
2.72
0.14
0.54
Cleveland
21.51
2.13
1.75
24.58
2.08
1.52
Columbus
9.85
2.12
1.11
11.13
1.89
1.00
Craven
24.08
2.20
2.66
27.45
1.94
1.98
Cumberland
59.31
6.51
4.85
68.38
5.86
3.84
Currituck
15.63
0.77
4.69
17.55
0.77
4.24
Dare
46.18
1.33
18.14
49.76
1.54
15.68
Davidson
30.96
4.24
2.64
35.03
3.90
2.24
Davie
6.77
0.61
0.88
8.20
0.61
1.12
Duplin
10.19
2.36
0.97
11.18
2.13
0.73
Durham
70.50
9.63
6.04
79.17
9.06
5.09
Edgecombe
11.11
2.57
0.97
12.27
2.28
0.78
Forsyth
91.57
6.94
6.70
105.60
6.76
5.27
Franklin
8.37
1.05
0.78
9.71
0.93
0.70
Gaston
54.10
4.77
3.98
61.82
4.70
3.33
Gates
1.58
0.50
0.21
1.69
0.45
0.16
Graham
1.40
0.13
0.25
1.55
0.12
0.20
Granville
13.73
1.39
1.23
15.64
1.32
1.03
Greene
2.31
0.70
0.21
2.52
0.64
0.16
Guilford
194.02
14.69
14.06
226.39
13.97
10.89
Halifax
8.68
2.13
0.92
9.77
1.86
0.83
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
78
March
31,
2004
Nonroad
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Harnett
22.07
1.84
1.65
25.33
1.72
1.21
Haywood
11.35
1.08
1.15
13.38
1.00
1.19
Henderson
31.53
2.07
3.82
38.22
1.95
4.41
Hertford
4.08
0.54
0.48
4.74
0.50
0.48
Hoke
3.35
0.64
0.28
3.61
0.62
0.24
Hyde
25.38
1.93
11.68
25.59
1.94
9.56
Iredell
21.67
2.88
2.10
24.69
2.78
1.97
Jackson
6.55
0.51
0.75
7.75
0.46
0.76
Johnston
35.04
3.41
2.84
40.55
3.09
2.26
Jones
1.83
0.46
0.15
2.05
0.41
0.12
Lee
16.81
2.46
1.35
18.80
2.29
1.07
Lenoir
16.43
2.14
1.31
18.63
2.00
1.01
Lincoln
14.00
1.49
1.27
16.03
1.38
1.10
McDowell
7.93
1.84
1.14
9.18
1.61
1.36
Macon
10.89
0.53
0.97
12.89
0.50
0.91
Madison
1.73
0.56
0.17
1.96
0.45
0.13
Martin
4.71
1.32
0.51
5.37
1.16
0.51
Mecklenburg
351.64
23.31
24.93
298.78
21.99
18.42
Mitchell
3.61
1.02
0.51
4.27
0.85
0.61
Montgomery
4.89
0.71
0.58
5.34
0.66
0.48
Moore
27.52
1.89
1.95
31.86
1.73
1.41
Nash
21.77
2.69
1.71
24.83
2.47
1.32
NewHanover
58.02
4.59
5.80
67.25
4.20
4.55
Northampton
4.56
0.97
0.71
5.20
0.86
0.65
Onslow
26.34
3.52
3.92
29.60
3.21
3.31
Orange
31.55
3.66
3.18
37.13
3.19
3.09
Pamlico
9.11
0.88
3.58
9.63
0.85
3.09
Pasquotank
9.56
0.93
1.42
10.86
0.88
1.12
Pender
13.17
1.02
1.77
15.00
0.95
1.44
Perquimans
3.95
0.65
1.27
4.10
0.60
1.02
Person
8.34
0.85
0.80
9.41
0.82
0.64
Pitt
25.16
4.26
1.98
28.79
3.78
1.53
Polk
2.69
0.46
0.22
3.03
0.39
0.17
Randolph
27.23
2.82
2.20
30.77
2.85
1.94
Richmond
14.38
4.66
1.43
15.38
4.02
1.05
Robeson
19.63
5.97
1.91
21.45
5.21
1.62
Rockingham
15.35
2.44
1.55
17.39
2.26
1.63
Rowan
28.37
5.47
2.59
31.85
4.75
2.11
Rutherford
13.10
2.19
1.27
14.86
2.00
1.27
Sampson
10.67
2.15
0.92
11.89
1.96
0.70
Scotland
8.59
1.82
0.75
9.46
1.64
0.63
Stanly
16.77
2.09
1.54
19.02
1.96
1.29
Stokes
8.18
0.68
0.72
9.54
0.61
0.64
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
79
March
31,
2004
Nonroad
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Surry
30.76
1.96
2.43
35.44
1.98
2.05
Swain
4.84
0.35
1.35
6.47
0.32
1.88
Transylvania
15.89
0.68
2.79
20.28
0.67
3.77
Tyrrell
6.72
0.61
2.94
6.76
0.61
2.38
Union
47.65
3.89
3.56
55.34
3.56
2.71
Vance
6.24
1.24
0.75
6.84
1.14
0.62
Wake
242.05
18.83
17.61
281.90
17.33
12.59
Warren
3.51
0.70
0.58
3.85
0.56
0.43
Washington
5.43
1.03
1.44
5.68
0.95
1.16
Watauga
9.79
0.50
1.19
12.02
0.48
1.41
Wayne
26.05
3.51
2.10
29.98
3.27
1.71
Wilkes
16.62
1.37
1.38
19.09
1.32
1.17
Wilson
23.57
2.99
1.95
27.15
2.67
1.56
Yadkin
6.59
0.89
0.52
7.45
0.83
0.40
Yancey
7.75
0.37
0.87
9.32
0.34
0.94
Highway
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
93.84
13.48
8.34
54.81
9.52
5.01
Alexander
15.87
1.75
1.41
10.67
1.27
1.02
Alleghany
6.87
0.74
0.61
3.84
0.45
0.37
Anson
22.65
2.93
1.90
14.23
2.00
1.25
Ashe
15.28
1.61
1.36
8.98
1.03
0.86
Avery
13.78
1.66
1.18
7.98
1.05
0.73
Beaufort
31.89
3.55
2.81
19.36
2.35
1.81
Bertie
19.81
2.38
1.70
12.41
1.61
1.14
Bladen
29.89
3.22
2.65
18.60
2.18
1.78
Brunswick
67.90
8.19
5.82
39.68
5.53
3.69
Buncombe
149.98
23.51
13.10
87.96
16.25
7.83
Burke
65.51
12.34
5.64
36.98
7.79
3.38
Cabarrus
69.09
12.04
6.19
50.62
8.59
4.20
Caldwell
44.10
5.01
3.89
25.98
3.41
2.48
Camden
7.47
0.90
0.64
4.68
0.61
0.43
Carteret
43.77
5.41
3.74
22.53
3.19
2.10
Caswell
16.69
2.00
1.44
10.41
1.34
0.95
Catawba
113.03
15.57
10.08
66.68
10.71
6.25
Chatham
45.51
5.79
3.85
27.65
4.01
2.55
Cherokee
17.05
2.25
1.42
12.85
1.73
1.15
Chowan
8.16
0.92
0.72
4.87
0.60
0.45
Clay
6.05
0.68
0.53
3.81
0.46
0.36
Cleveland
68.95
10.19
5.97
37.44
6.17
3.49
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
80
March
31,
2004
Highway
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Columbus
43.72
5.12
3.80
27.16
3.52
2.47
Craven
57.77
6.75
5.06
34.07
4.53
3.19
Cumberland
197.16
28.43
17.85
108.27
18.56
10.31
Currituck
21.48
2.50
1.86
14.09
1.77
1.33
Dare
37.56
4.27
3.27
20.22
2.55
1.89
Davidson
105.57
17.25
9.73
61.60
11.04
6.06
Davie
32.17
7.98
2.67
20.32
5.05
1.78
Duplin
46.97
8.80
4.00
32.00
6.34
2.86
Durham
130.59
24.00
11.93
90.71
14.51
7.74
Edgecombe
41.11
4.72
3.61
23.96
3.17
2.28
Forsyth
188.14
33.73
18.97
125.17
19.34
12.44
Franklin
32.41
3.79
2.81
19.70
2.63
1.89
Gaston
87.61
16.61
8.66
56.34
9.20
5.28
Gates
8.85
1.12
0.75
5.30
0.73
0.47
Graham
4.84
0.50
0.43
3.31
0.39
0.32
Granville
48.49
9.82
5.02
27.96
5.43
3.29
Greene
14.77
1.63
1.30
9.41
1.14
0.89
Guilford
274.08
47.66
27.88
179.81
26.94
18.09
Halifax
48.63
11.44
4.09
31.41
7.19
2.75
Harnett
58.38
9.34
5.01
34.75
6.19
3.25
Haywood
58.30
14.16
4.81
33.85
8.92
2.99
Henderson
59.39
10.05
5.15
34.27
6.56
3.17
Hertford
15.08
1.71
1.32
9.26
1.14
0.87
Hoke
18.56
2.22
1.60
12.36
1.62
1.13
Hyde
4.39
0.48
0.39
2.61
0.32
0.25
Iredell
119.96
29.26
10.08
71.75
18.66
6.42
Jackson
36.42
4.77
3.04
23.49
3.29
2.08
Johnston
123.04
28.31
10.21
81.29
19.92
7.25
Jones
14.67
1.89
1.23
8.62
1.19
0.76
Lee
39.67
4.49
3.51
23.25
3.03
2.21
Lenoir
44.38
4.70
4.04
23.50
2.85
2.31
Lincoln
37.27
4.27
3.28
21.48
2.82
2.08
McDowell
42.05
9.85
3.48
26.32
3.48
2.37
Macon
24.61
3.09
2.08
15.13
2.02
1.37
Madison
13.33
1.64
1.14
8.25
1.10
0.75
Martin
25.08
3.06
2.15
15.47
3.65
1.34
Mecklenburg
341.23
67.76
34.75
222.60
36.34
21.26
Mitchell
9.55
1.09
0.83
5.95
0.75
0.55
Montgomery
26.55
3.60
2.27
18.18
2.61
1.66
Moore
53.39
5.90
4.73
29.76
3.77
2.87
Nash
93.59
17.62
7.97
53.90
10.92
4.94
NewHanover
81.67
9.12
7.49
48.41
6.14
4.72
Northampton
23.32
4.79
1.95
13.92
2.79
1.24
Triad
EAC
Ozone
Action
Plan
Page
81
March
31,
2004
Highway
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
in
tons/
day
2000
2007
County
CO
NOx
VOC
CO
NOx
VOC
Onslow
67.91
7.55
6.03
35.66
4.56
3.41
Orange
62.40
18.80
5.30
44.95
11.91
3.63
Pamlico
9.21
0.93
0.83
5.79
0.64
0.56
Pasquotank
17.53
1.94
1.57
11.15
1.36
1.03
Pender
40.59
8.15
3.41
28.50
5.88
2.53
Perquimans
9.69
1.24
0.82
6.19
0.86
0.54
Person
21.02
2.25
1.89
12.96
1.51
1.23
Pitt
78.82
8.47
7.05
43.54
5.36
4.24
Polk
19.00
4.60
1.56
13.94
3.39
1.19
Randolph
97.79
13.69
8.46
57.60
9.14
5.31
Richmond
40.70
4.98
3.52
24.96
3.35
2.22
Robeson
107.26
20.38
9.20
61.34
12.86
5.62
Rockingham
66.14
7.51
5.82
37.21
4.86
3.57
Rowan
89.79
17.34
7.75
53.43
11.46
4.96
Rutherford
40.07
4.52
3.53
20.79
2.69
2.01
Sampson
51.06
8.35
4.42
32.73
5.69
2.97
Scotland
29.90
3.44
2.64
18.93
2.37
1.73
Stanly
37.66
4.01
3.39
20.69
2.53
2.03
Stokes
24.78
2.82
2.17
13.71
1.79
1.32
Surry
64.94
12.67
5.54
37.68
7.79
3.49
Swain
13.82
1.69
1.18
7.71
1.01
0.70
Transylvania
22.41
2.47
1.99
14.04
1.68
1.33
Tyrrell
3.78
0.49
0.32
2.31
0.33
0.20
Union
56.79
7.70
5.15
39.75
5.00
3.48
Vance
33.57
6.29
2.89
22.07
4.29
1.95
Wake
306.82
59.29
27.61
224.96
39.69
18.67
Warren
15.84
3.56
1.32
10.53
2.39
0.92
Washington
11.19
1.43
0.94
6.82
0.95
0.60
Watauga
25.14
3.08
2.17
15.08
2.02
1.34
Wayne
68.83
7.28
6.20
39.66
4.84
3.87
Wilkes
47.93
5.55
4.18
25.57
3.39
2.45
Wilson
61.49
10.12
5.37
35.49
6.44
3.32
Yadkin
34.98
7.13
2.92
21.93
4.42
1.92
Yancey
11.33
1.45
0.96
6.74
0.93
0.60
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
1
March
31,
2004
APPENDIX
B
State
Portion
of
June
30,
2003
Triad
EAC
Progress
Report
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
2
March
31,
2004
Appendix
B
March
31,
2004
Early
Action
Plan
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
3
March
31,
2004
TRIAD
EARLY
ACTION
COMPACT
STATE
PORTION
­
JUNE
30,
2003
PROGRESS
REPORT
Table
of
Contents
Page
MODELING
Section
1
Introduction.........................................................................................
1
Section
2
Model
Selection
...................................................................................
2
Section
3
Episode
Selection.................................................................................
7
Section
4
Meteorological
Modeling...................................................................
20
Section
5
Emissions
Inventory..........................................................................
33
Section
6
Modeling
Status
and
Resource
Constraints
.....................................
45
Appendix
A
Emission
Sources
by
County.............................................................
47
Appendix
B
Conversion
of
MOBILE5
Registration
Fractions
to
MOBILE6­
Based
Registration
Fractions
.........................................
57
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
4
March
31,
2004
MODELING
Section
1
­
INTRODUCTION
As
a
requirement
of
the
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
(
EAC),
the
progress
report
due
June
30,
2003,
must
include
a
status
report
regarding
the
air
quality
modeling.
This
report
satisfies
this
requirement.
Discussed
in
this
report
are
the
photochemical
model
selection,
episode
selection,
meteorological
model,
emissions
inventory
development,
and
the
modeling
status.

The
modeling
analysis
is
a
complex
technical
evaluation
that
begins
by
selection
of
the
modeling
system
and
selection
of
the
meteorological
episodes.
NCDAQ
decided
to
use
the
following
modeling
system:

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

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

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

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

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

The
precursors
to
ozone,
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
development
of
the
emission
inventories
are
discussed
in
detail
in
Section
5.
The
status
of
modeling
work
and
issues
that
have
been
encountered
are
discussed
in
Section
6.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
5
March
31,
2004
Section
2
­
MODEL
SELECTION
2.1
Introduction
To
be
useful
in
a
regulatory
framework,
photochemical
grid
models
and
their
applications
must
be
defensible.
Not
only
must
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
be
convinced
of
this,
but
members
of
the
regulated
community
(
stakeholders)
as
well.
Failure
to
convince
EPA
can
result
in
rejection
of
an
implementation
or
maintenance
plan.
Failure
to
convince
the
regulated
community
can
lead
to
diminished
rule
effectiveness
and
litigation.
In
none
of
these
cases
is
the
state's
air
quality
goals
advanced.

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

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

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

 
The
model
has
received
a
scientific
peer
review
 
The
model
can
be
demonstrated
applicable
to
the
problem
on
a
theoretical
basis
 
Data
bases
needed
to
perform
the
analysis
are
available
and
adequate
 
Available
past
appropriate
performance
evaluations
have
shown
the
model
is
not
biased
toward
underestimates
 
A
protocol
on
methods
and
procedures
to
be
followed
has
been
established
 
The
developer
of
the
model
must
be
willing
to
make
the
source
code
available
to
users
for
free
or
for
a
reasonable
cost,
and
the
model
cannot
otherwise
be
proprietary
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
6
March
31,
2004
2.2.2
Overview
of
MAQSIP
The
photochemical
model
selected
for
this
study
is
the
Multiscale
Air
Quality
Simulation
Platform
(
MAQSIP).
MAQSIP
is
a
fully
modularized
three­
dimensional
system
with
various
options
for
representing
the
physical
and
chemical
processes
describing
regional­
and
urbanscale
atmospheric
pollution.
The
governing
model
equations
for
tracer
continuity
are
formulated
in
generalized
coordinates,
thereby
providing
the
capability
of
interfacing
the
model
with
a
variety
of
meteorological
drivers.
The
model
employs
flexible
horizontal
grid
resolution
with
multiple
multi­
level
nested
grids
with
options
for
one­
way
and
two­
way
nesting
procedures.
In
the
vertical,
the
capability
to
use
non­
uniform
grids
is
provided.
Current
applications
have
used
horizontal
grid
resolutions
from
18­
80
km
for
regional
applications
and
2­
6
km
for
urban
scale
simulations,
and
up
to
30
layers
to
discretize
the
vertical
domain.

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

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

 
Horizontal
Coordinate
System:
Lambert
Conformal
Projection
 
Vertical
Coordinate
System:
Non­
Hydrostatic
Sigma­
Pressure
Coordinates
 
Gas
Phase
Chemistry:
Carbon
Bond
IV
with
Isoprene
updates
 
Aqueous
Phase
Chemistry:
Included
in
cloud
package
 
Chemistry
Solver:
Modified
QSSA
 
Horizontal
Advection:
Bott
 
Cloud
Physics:
Kain­
Fritsch
parameterization
and
explicit,
as
needed
 
Horizontal
Turbulent
Diffusion:
Fixed
Kh
 
Vertical
Turbulent
Diffusion:
K­
Theory
 
Photolysis
Rates:
Madronich
 
Dry
Deposition:
Resistance
 
Wet
Deposition:
Included
in
cloud
package
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
7
March
31,
2004
2.3
Selection
of
Meteorological
Model
2.3.1
Criteria
Meteorological
models,
either
through
objective,
diagnostic,
or
prognostic
analysis,
extend
available
information
about
the
state
of
the
atmosphere
to
the
grid
upon
which
photochemical
grid
modeling
is
to
be
carried
out.
The
criteria
for
selecting
a
meteorological
model
are
based
on
both
the
models
ability
to
accurately
replicate
important
meteorological
phenomena
in
the
region
of
study,
and
the
model's
ability
to
interface
with
the
rest
of
the
modeling
systems
­­
particularly
the
photochemical
grid
model.
With
these
issues
in
mind,
the
following
criteria
were
established
for
the
meteorological
model
to
be
used
in
this
study:

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

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

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

The
model
contains
two
types
of
planetary
boundary
layer
(
PBL)
parameterizations
suitable
for
air­
quality
applications,
both
of
which
represent
subgrid­
scale
turbulent
fluxes
of
heat,
moisture,
and
momentum.
A
modified
Blackadar
PBL
(
Zhang
and
Anthes
1982)
uses
a
first­
order
eddy
diffusivity
formulation
for
stable
and
neutral
environments
and
a
nonlocal
closure
for
unstable
regimes.
The
Gayno­
Seaman
PBL
(
Gayno,
1994)
uses
a
prognostic
equation
for
the
second­
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
8
March
31,
2004
order
turbulent
kinetic
energy,
while
diagnosing
the
other
key
boundary
layer
terms.
This
is
referred
to
as
a
1.5­
order
PBL,
or
level­
2.5,
scheme
(
Mellor
and
Yamada
1974).

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

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

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

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

 
Ability
to
process
control
strategies
 
No
or
low
cost
for
acquisition
and
maintenance
 
Expandable
to
support
other
species
and
mechanisms
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
9
March
31,
2004
2.4.2
Overview
of
SMOKE
The
emissions
processing
system
selected
for
this
study
is
the
Sparse
Matrix
Operator
Kernel
Emissions
(
SMOKE).
SMOKE
was
developed
to
reduce
the
large
processing
times
required
to
prepare
emissions
data
for
photochemical
grid
models.
SMOKE
processes
both
anthropogenic
and
biogenic
emissions.
Biogenic
emissions
are
processed
using
an
implementation
of
BEIS­
3.

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

SMOKE
has
undergone
an
extensive
process
of
testing
and
validation.
It
has
been
validated
on
a
regional
scale
against
EMS­
95
using
the
OTAG
1990
inventory,
and
on
a
large
urban
scale
against
EPS
2.0
using
North
Carolina's
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
inventory.
SMOKE
can
be
driven
with
inputs
in
EMS­
95,
EPS
2.0
or
IDA
format,
and
it
can
produce
photochemical
grid
model­
ready
emissions
in
forms
suitable
to
drive
UAM­
IV,
UAM­
V,
MAQSIP,
CMAQ
and
SAQM.
SMOKE
has
adopted
the
Models­
3
Input/
Output
Application
Program
Interface
(
I/
O
API)
so
the
emissions
files
created
by
SMOKE
are
directly
readable
by
Models­
3,
MCNC's
MAQSIP,
and
the
supporting
analysis
tools
developed
for
these
systems.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
10
March
31,
2004
Section
3
­
EPISODE
SELECTION
3.1
Introduction
The
episode
selection
process
is
critical
to
the
success
of
the
modeling
study.
Correctly
identifying
representative
ozone
episodes
to
model
for
several
areas
in
North
Carolina
allows
us
to
evaluate
with
confidence
various
control
strategies
for
maintaining
the
NAAQS
for
ozone.
Several
factors
influenced
episode
selection
for
this
modeling
study.
In
the
following
sections
we
outline
the
factors
and
considerations
for
episode
selection,
and
then
outline
in
detail
the
episodes
selected
for
this
modeling
study.

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

The
EPA
issued
a
new
ambient
air
quality
standard
based
on
the
daily
maximum
8­
hour
averaged
concentration
for
ozone
in
July
1997.
In
June
of
1998,
EPA
revoked
the
1­
hour
standard
in
North
Carolina
since
all
areas
of
the
state
had
attained
that
standard.
However,
in
the
1998
ozone
season,
North
Carolina
experienced
its
first
violation
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
since
1990
in
the
Charlotte
area.
Later,
in
May
1999,
a
D.
C.
District
Court
ruling
instructed
EPA
that
an
intelligible
principle
for
the
setting
of
the
new
8­
hour
standard
had
to
be
defined
and
that
enforcement
of
the
8­
hour
standard
was
prohibited
by
the
court
until
EPA
had
done
so.
In
1999,
EPA
reinstated
the
old
1­
hour
standard.
The
result
of
all
of
the
changing
policy
and
litigation
is
that
the
modeling
study
must
shift
its
primary
focus
from
a
traditional
analysis
solely
targeted
at
1­
hour
averaged
ozone
values,
to
an
analysis
of
both
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
averaged
values.
Analysis
of
episodes
with
exceedances
of
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standards
will
also
allow
an
assessment
of
the
differences
that
two
standards
may
have
on
control
strategy
development
and
will
indicate
whether
control
strategies
designed
to
meet
the
8­
hour
standard
will
also
be
effective
at
reducing
ozone
levels
below
the
1­
hour
standard.
The
"
dual"
need
to
model
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
exceedances
was
a
primary
criterion
in
the
episode
selection
process.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
11
March
31,
2004
A
second
factor
affecting
the
selection
process
was
the
form
of
the
new
standard.
The
1
hour
standard
allowed
1
exceedance
per
year
in
a
region
on
average
with
the
design
value
being
the
4th
highest
1
hour
value
in
that
region
over
3
years.
This
means
that,
in
theory,
only
the
3
worst
case
episodes
in
a
3­
year
period
can
be
removed
from
consideration
for
modeling.
The
design
value
under
the
8­
hour
standard
is
calculated
differently.
It
is
the
yearly
4th
highest
8­
hour
value
at
each
monitor,
averaged
over
3
years.
With
the
new
standard
it
is
possible
to
"
throw
out"
the
3
worst
case
episode
days
of
each
year,
or
approximately
9
days
over
3
years
for
each
monitor.
Because
the
4th
high
value
is
determined
for
each
individual
monitor,
discarding
days
with
higher
values
can
result
in
the
removal
of
more
than
9
worst
case
days
if
the
high
readings
for
all
monitors
do
not
occur
on
the
same
days.
For
example,
exceedances
may
be
measured
north
of
a
city
during
days
when
the
wind
blows
predominately
from
the
south,
but
measured
at
monitors
south
of
the
city
on
other
days
when
winds
are
northerly.
Discarding
days
above
the
4th
highest
measurement
in
this
example
could
result
in
removal
of
more
than
9
worst
case
episode
days
in
three
years.
This
makes
the
standard
less
dependent
on
extreme
events.

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

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

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

Finally,
the
temporal
and
spatial
distribution
of
ozone
throughout
NC
was
also
an
important
consideration.
The
new
8­
hour
standard
brings
areas
such
as
Asheville,
Fayetteville,
Greenville/
Rocky
Mount/
Wilson
(
Down
East),
Hickory,
and
other
various
areas
into
nonattainment
Therefore,
it
was
necessary
to
choose
episodes
affecting
those
areas
as
well
as
the
three
major
urban
areas
mentioned
above.
Episodes
containing
widespread
ozone
exceedances
were
given
priority
over
those
containing
isolated
exceedances.
Also,
the
need
to
study
the
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
12
March
31,
2004
cumulative
effects
of
ozone
build­
up
over
a
number
of
days
was
recognized,
so
episodes
of
extended
duration
were
given
preference
over
single
day
exceedances.

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

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

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

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

In
addition
to
the
ambient
data
plots,
several
surface
and
upper
air
meteorological
data
sets
were
used
to
assess
the
atmospheric
conditions
contributing
to
the
build­
up
of
ozone
in
each
episode.
Local
Climatological
Data
sheets
were
used
to
collect
diurnal
data
on
temperatures,
precipitation,
and
wind
speed
and
direction.
Daily
weather
maps
were
used
to
determine
the
location
of
surface
fronts,
troughs,
and
ridges
as
well
as
daily
peak
temperatures,
precipitation,
and
the
location
of
high
and
low
pressure
areas.
Analysis
charts
(
0000
Z
and
1200
Z)
for
the
surface,
850
mb,
700
mb,
and
500
mb
levels
from
the
NOAA­
NCEP
ETA
meteorological
computer
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
13
March
31,
2004
model
were
also
used
to
assess
conditions
such
as
surface
and
upper
air
wind
fields,
temperatures,
moisture,
and
the
location
of
ridges
and
troughs.
The
conditions
contributing
to
high
levels
of
ozone
were
determined
through
chart
analysis,
and
the
type
of
meteorology
was
used
to
group
episodes.

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

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

The
most
frequently
occurring
meteorological
scenario
(
Scenario
2
 
Frontal
Approach)
is
characterized
by
the
movement
of
cold
fronts
toward
NC
and
the
presence
of
high
pressure
to
the
south
or
southwest
of
the
state.
Cold
fronts
often
move
toward
NC
during
the
summer
months
but
are
typically
not
strong
enough
to
move
completely
through
the
state.
They
commonly
become
east­
west
oriented
and
stall
as
far
south
as
southern
Virginia
or
northern
sections
of
NC.
The
front
may
dip
into
northern
portions
of
NC
and
then
retreat
as
a
warm
front
creating
wind
shifts
or
re­
circulation
patterns.
A
southwesterly
surface
flow
predominates
as
the
front
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
14
March
31,
2004
approaches,
but
as
the
front
moves
into
northern
sections
of
NC,
winds
become
more
northerly.
When
the
front
retreats
back
to
the
north
as
a
warm
front,
southwesterly
winds
return
to
the
entire
state.
In
the
meantime,
a
zonal
flow
exists
in
the
mid­
to­
upper
levels.
High
temperatures
range
from
the
low
to
upper
90'
s
and
dew
points
are
in
the
upper
60'
s
to
mid
70'
s.
Scattered
exceedances
of
the
1­
hour
standard
and
widespread
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standards
may
be
realized
in
NC
during
these
conditions.
(
These
conditions
can
be
seen
in
the
June
23,
1996
Daily
Weather
Map
in
[
Figure
3.5­
2].
Note
the
presence
of
a
stationary
front
along
the
NC/
VA
border.)
A
third
meteorological
scenario
(
Scenario
3
 
Canadian
High)
resulting
in
high
buildups
of
ozone
in
NC
is
characterized
by
a
surface
high­
pressure
area
building
in
from
the
north,
and
a
mid­
to­
upper
level
ridge
that
builds
and
sprawls
to
the
west
of
NC
in
the
Mid­
Mississippi
Valley
area.
The
position
of
the
mid­
to­
upper
level
ridge
produces
a
northerly
flow
aloft
throughout
this
scenario.
As
the
Canadian­
born
surface
high­
pressure
builds
into
NC,
it
brings
with
it
milder
and
drier
air
by
means
of
a
north­
northeasterly
breeze.
These
conditions
can
lead
to
scattered
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standard
in
NC.
Temperatures
are
typically
in
the
low
to
mid
80'
s
(
with
dew
points
in
the
low
to
mid
60'
s)
during
the
beginning
of
this
type
of
episode.
However,
as
the
center
of
the
surface
high­
pressure
slides
into
NC,
and
the
winds
become
light
and
variable,
highs
may
reach
the
upper
80'
s
to
low
90'
s
(
with
dew
points
in
the
upper
60'
s
to
low
70'
s).
Scattered
exceedances
of
the
1­
hour
standard
and
widespread
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standards
may
be
realized
in
NC
during
these
conditions.
(
An
example
of
these
conditions
is
shown
in
Figure
3.5­
3
[
June
28,
1996].)

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

Meteorological
scenarios
other
than
the
four
identified
above
can
result
in
ozone
episodes.
These
"
other"
episodes,
however,
commonly
do
not
meet
the
temporal
or
spatial
requirements
of
the
episode
selection
criteria
for
modeling
defined
in
the
U.
S.
EPA
Draft
Modeling
Guidance
for
Ozone
Attainment
Demonstrations.
One­
day
ozone
episodes
can
occur
during
a
progressive
meteorological
pattern
(
Scenario
5
 
Continental
High
in
a
progressive
pattern).
A
surface
highpressure
area
moving
across
the
US
and
into
NC
for
one
day
characterizes
this
scenario.
This
results
in
clear
skies,
light
winds,
and
isolated
8­
hour
ozone
exceedances.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
15
March
31,
2004
An
initial
analysis
of
ambient
data
and
Daily
Weather
Maps
was
used
to
place
each
of
the
ozone
episodes
into
one
of
the
four
meteorological
scenarios
identified
above.
A
list
of
the
number
of
monitors
with
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standard
in
each
of
the
major
urban
areas
was
compiled
and
reviewed.
This
information
was
used
to
exclude
those
episodes
from
each
category
that
did
not
have
sufficient
spatial
or
temporal
distribution
to
justify
further
study.
A
more
detailed
analysis
of
each
of
the
remaining
episodes
was
made
using
all
sources
of
air
quality
and
meteorological
data
to
select
the
episodes
that
would
best
meet
modeling
objectives.

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

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

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

The
first
1996
episode
(
Episode­
E2)
occurred
June
21
 
24
1996.
It
is
primarily
a
NC
episode.
(
See
the
June
23
Daily
Weather
Map
in
Figure
3.5­
2.)
Concentrations
in
most
other
areas
of
the
South
and
East
were
lower
than
those
in
NC.
This
episode
is
dominated
by
the
presence
of
a
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
16
March
31,
2004
front
to
the
north
and
high
pressure
to
the
southwest
of
the
state.
The
movement
of
the
front
and
the
monitored
ozone
readings
indicate
possible
recirculation
during
the
episode.
Light
southwesterly
flow
was
present
on
22
June
and
resulted
in
a
1­
hour/
8­
hour
peak
of
133/
110
ppb
and
113/
99
ppb
northeast
of
Charlotte
and
Durham,
respectively.
As
the
front
moved
into
northern
portions
of
NC
on
the
23rd,
winds
became
more
northerly
and
concentrations
in
the
Triad
and
Raleigh/
Durham
area's
fell.
Ozone
and
precursor
pollutants
were
pushed
back
into
Charlotte
and
resulted
in
exceedances
of
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
standard
at
all
three
Mecklenburg
county
ozone
monitors.
On
the
24th,
the
front
retreated
north
as
a
warm
front
and
southwesterly
winds
returned
to
the
entire
state.
Ozone
levels
increased
throughout
northern
portions
of
NC
and
8­
hour
averaged
concentrations
between
90
and
100
ppb
were
recorded
in
the
major
urban
areas
of
the
Piedmont.
One
exceedance
of
the
1­
hour
standard
(
134
ppb)
was
measured
at
the
Rockwell
site,
northeast
of
Charlotte.

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

The
final
episode
selected
for
analysis
(
Episode­
E4)
occurred
July
11
 
15,
1997.
(
See
the
July
14
Daily
Weather
Map
in
Figure
3.5­
4.)
The
previous
three
episodes
did
not
capture
typical
ozone
behaviors
in
the
center
city
areas
of
the
Triad
and
the
Triangle.
The
selection
of
this
episode
also
was
driven
by
the
need
to
model
an
episode
that
captured
ozone
events
in
areas
such
as
Greenville,
Fayetteville,
and
Hickory.
The
most
distinctive
aspect
of
this
episode,
however,
is
that
a
1­
hour
exceedance
occurred
in
the
Triangle
area
on
the
July
14th.
No
other
episode
captures
a
1­
hour
exceedance
in
this
region.
On
the
first
three
days
of
the
episode,
meteorological
conditions
were
very
similar
to
those
in
episode
E3.
On
the
14th
and
15th,
however,
the
surface
high­
pressure
center
moved
over
NC,
the
mid­
to­
upper
level
flow
relaxed,
and
a
tropical
depression
off
the
NC
coast
strengthens
into
Tropical
Storm
"
Claudette".
It
is
possible
that
the
tropical
system
influenced
conditions
in
NC
(
especially
Eastern
NC)
on
the
14th
and
15th.
Temperatures
soared
into
the
mid
90'
s
with
dew
points
in
the
mid­
to­
upper
60s.
The
backward
air
parcel
trajectories
from
Rocky
Mount,
NC
(
shown
in
Figure
3.5­
5),
illustrates
the
possible
influence
from
the
tropical
system
(
Note
the
subsidence
at
mid­
levels
from
0Z
 
20Z
on
the
14th.)
Exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
standard
were
recorded
in
North
Carolina,
South
Carolina
and
Virginia
as
the
surface
high­
pressure
center
moved
over
NC,
the
mid­
to­
upper
level
flow
aloft
weakened,
and
the
tropical
system
made
it's
nearest
approach.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
17
March
31,
2004
Figure
3.5­
1
Daily
Weather
Maps
for
July
14,
1995
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
18
March
31,
2004
Figure
3.5­
2
Daily
Weather
Maps
for
June
23,
1996
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
19
March
31,
2004
Figure
3.5­
3
Daily
Weather
Maps
for
June
28,
1996
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
20
March
31,
2004
Figure
3.5­
4
Daily
Weather
Maps
for
July
14,
1997
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
21
March
31,
2004
Figure
3.5­
5
Backward
Air
Parcel
Trajectories
for
July
14,
1997
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
22
March
31,
2004
Table
3.5­
1
Features
of
Each
Selected
Episode
E1
E2
E3
E4
Synoptic
Features
Large
blocking
upper
level
High
over
Midwest
slides
eastward
over
the
large
surface
High
over
Eastern
US.
Front
to
the
north.
High
pressure
center
SW
of
NC.
Front
moves
into
NC,
then
retreats
as
a
warm
front.
Canadian
surface
High
moves
south
into
NC.
Upper
level
ridge
over
middle
of
country.
Canadian
surface
High
moves
south
of
NC.
Upper
level
flow
weakens.
Possible
influence
from
tropical
system
of
the
coast.
Scale
Multi­
regional
exceedances
of
1­
hr
&
8­
hr
standard.
Primarily
NC.
Primarily
NC.
Multi­
regional
exceedances
of
1­
hr
and
8­
hr
standard.

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

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

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

Ozone
Conc's
1­
hr
around
130
in
GSO,
CLT.
170'
s
in
Baltimore,
160'
s
in
Atlanta,
150'
s
in
MW.
Multi­
day
exceedances
of
8­
hr
in
3
major
areas
of
NC.
1­
hr
exceedances
on
3
days
in
CLT.
Multi­
day
exceedances
of
8­
hr
in
3
major
areas
of
NC.
1­
hr
exceedances
in
GSO
&
CLT
on
last
day.
Multi­
day
exceedances
of
8­
hr
in
all
major
NC
metro
areas.
1­
hr
exceedances
on
2
days
(
1
RDU
&
1
CLT).
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
23
March
31,
2004
Section
4
­
METEOROLOGICAL
MODELING
4.1
Introduction
Meteorological
data
needed
for
the
MAQSIP
application
were
obtained
from
the
MM5
modeling
system.
Numerical
meteorological
models
solve
the
governing
equations
of
atmospheric
physics
over
time
and
space
in
order
to
provide
cell­
specific
meteorological
inputs
into
the
photochemical
model.

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

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

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

D
01
108
54
42
300
D
02
36
60
60
100
D
03
12
81
63
36
D
04
4
69,
126,
114
69,
75,
75
12
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
24
March
31,
2004
Figure
4.2­
1
The
1995
MM5
Modeling
Domain
and
Grids
Figure
4.2­
2
The
1996
MM5
Modeling
Domain
and
Grids
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
25
March
31,
2004
Figure
4.2­
3
The
1997
MM5
Modeling
Domain
and
Grids
Given
that
the
emphasis
of
the
meteorological
modeling
is
mid­
latitudinal,
a
Lambert
Conformal
map
projection
has
been
chosen.
The
horizontal
grid
uses
an
Arakawa­
Lamb
B­
staggering
of
the
wind
vector
components;
scalar
variables
are
defined
at
cell
centers.
In
the
vertical,
26
layers
are
modeled
using
terrain
following
coordinates
(
sigma
coordinates).
With
the
exception
of
vertical
velocity,
all
state
variables
are
defined
at
half­
sigma
levels
(
i.
e.,
the
midpoint
of
layer
depth).
The
pressure
at
the
top
of
the
model
is
100
millibars.

Table
4.2­
2
shows
an
estimated
vertical
grid
resolution
for
the
meteorological
model
assuming
standard
atmosphere.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
26
March
31,
2004
Table
4.2­
2.
Vertical
Grid
Resolution
for
the
Meteorological
Model
(
MM5)
Level
SIGMA
Pressure
(
mb)
Height
(
m)
Thickness
(
m)
0
1.000
1000.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.995
995.5
38.0
38.0
2
0.987
988.3
99.2
61.1
3
0.974
976.6
199.3
100.1
4
0.956
960.4
339.5
140.2
5
0.936
942.4
497.5
158.1
6
0.913
921.7
682.4
184.8
7
0.887
898.3
895.4
213.0
8
0.857
871.3
1146.8
251.4
9
0.824
841.6
1430.8
284.0
10
0.790
811.0
1732.0
301.2
11
0.750
775.0
2098.3
366.3
12
0.700
730.0
2576.1
477.8
13
0.650
685.0
3078.3
502.2
14
0.600
640.0
3607.9
529.6
15
0.550
595.0
4168.6
560.7
16
0.500
550.0
4764.7
596.1
17
0.450
505.0
5401.6
636.9
18
0.400
460.0
6086.2
684.6
19
0.350
415.0
6827.3
741.0
20
0.300
370.0
7636.3
809.1
21
0.250
325.0
8529.1
892.8
22
0.200
280.0
9528.0
998.8
23
0.150
235.0
10665.7
1137.7
24
0.100
190.0
12021.8
1356.1
25
0.050
145.0
13742.3
1720.5
26
0.000
100.0
16094.8
2352.5
The
meteorological
model
used
for
the
1995
modeling
episode,
MM5
version1,
used
the
postprocessor
Meteorology
Chemistry
Interface
Processor
(
MCIP)
to
prepare
the
MAQSIP
model
inputs.
This
post­
processor
could
collapse
some
of
the
meteorological
layers
so
that
the
MAQSIP
model
could
run
with
fewer
layers
and
reduce
the
processing
time.
North
Carolina
ran
a
number
of
sensitivity
runs,
collapsing
some
of
the
upper
layers,
to
see
if
the
air
quality
predictions
were
adversely
affected.
From
this
analysis,
it
was
determined
that
the
minimum
number
of
layer
that
the
MAQSIP
model
could
run
with
was
16
layers
without
differing
significantly
from
running
the
model
with
all
26
layers.
The
first
12
layers
of
the
meteorological
model
are
mapped
directly
and
the
upper
14
MM5
layers
are
collapsed
into
4
MAQSIP
layers.
The
estimated
vertical
grid
resolution
for
the
MAQSIP
model
for
the
1995
modeling
episode
is
shown
in
Table
4.2­
3.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
27
March
31,
2004
Table
4.2­
3.
Vertical
Grid
Resolution
for
MAQSIP
for
the
1995
Episode
Level
Height
(
m)
Thickness
(
m)
0
0.0
0.0
1
38.0
38.0
2
99.2
61.1
3
199.3
100.1
4
339.5
140.2
5
497.5
158.1
6
682.4
184.8
7
895.4
213.0
8
1146.8
251.4
9
1430.8
284.0
10
1732.0
301.2
11
2098.3
366.3
12
2576.1
477.8
13
4168.6
1592.5
14
6827.3
2658.7
15
10665.7
3838.4
16
16094.8
5429.1
For
the
1996
and
1997
modeling
episodes,
newer
versions
of
the
meteorological
model
were
used.
The
post­
processor
for
the
new
versions
is
Meteorology­
Coupler
(
MCPL)
and
it
cannot
collapse
the
meteorological
data
into
a
format
that
the
MAQSIP
model
can
use.
Therefore,
the
photochemical
model
runs
with
26
layers,
mapping
the
meteorological
data
directly,
for
the
1996
and
1997
episodes.

4.3
MM5
Physics
Options
One­
way
nested
grids
Non­
hydrostatic
dynamics
Four­
dimensional
data
assimilation
(
FDDA):
 
analysis
nudging
of
wind,
temperature,
and
mixing
ratios
every
12
hours
 
nudging
coefficients
range
from
1.0
*
10­
5
s­
1
to
3.0
*
10­
4
s­
1
 
No
initial
FDDA
for
12
km
and
4
km
grids
Explicit
moisture
treatment:
 
3­
D
predictions
of
cloud
and
precipitation
fields
 
simple
ice
microphysics
 
cloud
effects
on
surface
radiation
 
moist
vertical
diffusion
in
clouds
 
normal
evaporative
cooling
Boundary
conditions:
 
relaxation
inflow/
outflow
(
Grid
01)
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
28
March
31,
2004
 
time­
dependent
(
Grids
02,
03,
&
04)
 
rigid
upper
boundary
Cumulus
cloud
parameterization
schemes:
 
Anthes­
Kuo
(
Grid
01)
 
Kain­
Fritsch
(
Grids
02
and
03)
1995
&
1996
episodes,
Grell
(
Grids
02
and
03)
1997
 
no
cumulus
parameterization
(
Grid
04)
Full
3­
dimensional
Coriolis
force
Drag
coefficients
vary
with
stability
Vertical
mixing
of
momentum
in
mixed
layer
Virtual
temperature
effects
Planetary
boundary
layer
process
parameterization:
 
Modified
Blackadar
scheme
(
Grids
02,
03
and
04)
for
1996
and
1997
episodes
and
Grid
02
for
1995
episode;
Gayno­
Seaman
scheme
(
Grids
03
and
04)
for
1995
episode.
Surface
layer
parameterization:
 
fluxes
of
momentum,
sensible
and
latent
heat
 
ground
temperature
prediction
using
energy
balance
equation
 
13
land
use
categories
Atmospheric
radiation
schemes:
 
Simple
cooling
 
Long­
and
short­
wave
radiation
scheme
Several
application
specific
modifications:
 
m5_
dry.
mods
­­
lowers
MM5
soil
moisture
when
appropriate
locally
 
mavail_
adj.
mods
­­
changes
soil
moisture
as
a
function
of
soil
type
as
needed
 
m5_
flyer.
mods
­­
modifications
to
optimize
on
NCSC
CRAY
T­
90
 
kfbm_
edss.
mods
­­
writes
special
Kain­
Fritsch
meteorological
data
 
m5_
height.
mods
­­
calculates
MM5
layer
heights
correctly
for
non
hydrostatic
 
m5_
epafiles.
mods
­­
writes
additional
data
out
to
air
quality
model
 
m5_
blkdr_
hts.
mods
­­
modifies
PBL
height
calculations
to
a
VMM
scheme
4.4
Inputs
Table
4.4­
1
describes
the
terrain
and
land
use
fields
input
into
MM5
for
the
modeling.

Table
4.4­
1
Terrain
and
Land
Use
Inputs
to
MM5
Grid
Terrain
origin
Terrain
resolution
Land
use
origin
Land
use
resolution
G
01
PSU/
NCAR
30
minute
PSU/
NCAR
30
minute
G
02
GDC
10
minute
PSU/
NCAR
10
minute
G
03*
GDC
5
minute
PSU/
NCAR
5
minute
G
04*
GDC
5
minute
PSU/
NCAR
5
minute
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
29
March
31,
2004
*
Land
use
data
were
slightly
modified
in
the
Charlotte
area
to
minimize
the
number
of
cells
characterized
as
urban.
Also,
several
cells
along
the
NC/
SC
coastline
were
modified
to
reflect
mixed
forest
­
wetland
as
opposed
to
water.

The
TOGA
(
2.5
by
2.5
degrees)
data
set
was
used
to
provide
a
first­
guess
interpolation
of
meteorological
data
to
the
horizontal
modeling
grid.
Climatological
averages
of
sea­
surface
temperature
were
used
to
characterize
ocean
temperatures.
Three­
and
six­
hourly
NWS
data
(
first­
order)
were
used
to
develop
the
surface
analysis
fields.
Standard
twice­
daily
rawinsonde
data
from
the
NWS
were
used
in
the
preparation
of
aloft
FDDA
analysis
fields.

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

A
limited
sample
of
the
performance
metrics
for
each
episode
is
provided
in
Figures
4.5­
1
through
4.5­
7
below.
For
an
exhaustive
review
of
the
meteorological
modeling
results,
please
visit:
http://
www.
emc.
mcnc.
org/
projects/
NCDAQ/
PGM/
results/
index.
htm
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
30
March
31,
2004
Figure
4.5­
1
Temperature
performance
metric
 
1995
episode
­
4km
domain
Figure
4.5­
2
Example
Temperature
Metric
­
1995
episode
­
12
km
domain
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
31
March
31,
2004
Figure
4.5­
3
Temperature
performance
metric
 
1996
episode
­
4km
domain
Figure
4.5­
4
Example
Temperature
Metric
­
1996
episode
­
12
km
domain
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
32
March
31,
2004
Figure
4.5­
5
Temperature
performance
metric
 
1996
episode
­
4km
domain
Figure
4.5­
6
Example
Temperature
Metric
­
1997
episode
­
12
km
domain
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
33
March
31,
2004
Figure
4.5­
7
Example
Layer
1
Wind
Vector
Metric
­
1995
episode
­
12
km
domain
Blue
vectors=
observations,
black
vectors=
model
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
34
March
31,
2004
Currently,
there
is
no
accepted
standard
by
which
to
judge
meteorological
model
performance.
Modelers
usually
calculate
the
basic
statistics
such
as
bias,
error,
or
index
of
agreement
and
compare
their
results
with
the
same
quantities
from
prior
and
similar
modeling
exercises.
The
problem
with
such
an
approach
is
that
these
numbers
are
a
function
of
the
domain
size
modeled,
the
length
of
the
simulation,
and
the
meteorology
being
modeled.
In
this
modeling
study,
the
modeling
team,
including
a
number
of
air
quality
meteorologists,
examined
all
of
the
meteorological
modeling
output
both
quantitatively
through
statistical
metrics
and
qualitatively
through
a
series
of
graphical
metrics.

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

A.
Do
the
model
results
fit
our
conceptual
understanding?
The
model
replicates
the
observed
synoptic
pattern,
placing
surface
pressure
systems
in
the
proper
location
and
matches
the
upper
air
pattern.

B.
Are
diurnal
features
adequately
captured?
The
diurnal
cycle
is
adequately
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
35
March
31,
2004
represented
in
the
model.
For
example,
the
mixing
heights
increase
during
the
day
and
collapse
at
night
in
a
reasonable
way.
Similarly
temperatures,
summertime
convection,
and
winds
show
diurnal
variation.

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

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

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

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

H.
Do
the
meteorological
fields
produce
acceptable
air
quality
results?
While
air
quality
models
can
have
problems
of
their
own,
many
times
poor
air
quality
modeling
results
occur
due
to
problems
with
the
input
meteorological
fields.
This
is
often
a
good
test
to
determine
whether
the
meteorological
model
adequately
predicts
the
fields
to
which
the
air
quality
model
is
most
sensitive.
A
number
of
air
quality
runs
were
conducted
to
test
the
sensitivity
to
different
meteorological
inputs.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
36
March
31,
2004
Section
5
­
EMISSIONS
INVENTORY
5.1
Introduction
There
are
five
different
emission
inventory
source
classifications,
stationary
point
and
area
sources,
off­
road
and
on­
road
mobile
sources,
and
biogenic
sources.

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

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

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

Next
is
the
future
year
base
inventory.
For
this
type,
an
inventory
is
developed
for
some
future
year
for
which
attainment
of
the
ozone
standard
is
needed.
For
this
modeling
project
the
future
years
will
be
2007
and
2012.
It
is
the
future
year
base
inventories
that
control
strategies
and
sensitivities
are
applied
to
determine
what
controls,
to
which
source
classifications,
must
be
made
in
order
to
attain
the
ozone
standard.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
37
March
31,
2004
In
the
sections
that
follow,
the
base
year
inventories
used
for
each
source
classifications
are
discussed.
Emission
summaries
by
county
for
the
entire
State
are
in
Appendix
A.

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

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

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

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

Table
5.2­
1
Stationary
Point
Source
Emissions
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
38
March
31,
2004
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
0.061
0.676
0.960
Caswell
0.000
0.000
0.000
Davidson
2.466
12.859
23.927
Davie
0.078
0.039
3.841
Forsyth
1.917
8.835
20.874
Guilford
0.158
1.829
40.535
Randolph
0.021
0.058
2.528
Rockingham
5.954
33.903
7.896
Stokes
7.872
341.620
0.945
Surry
5.356
0.942
5.817
Yadkin
0.000
0.000
0.092
Total
23.883
400.760
107.413
5.3
Stationary
Area
Sources
The
base
year
inventory
for
the
stationary
area
sources
is
the
May
1999
release
of
the
NOx
SIP
call
base
year
modeling
foundation
files
obtained
from
the
USEPA
OAQPS.
This
data
is
based
on
1995
and
is
provided
in
EMS
95
format.
For
the
1996
and
1997
base
years,
the
NOx
SIP
call
foundation
files
will
be
grown
to
the
respective
year
by
use
of
Bureau
of
Economic
Analysis
(
BEA)
growth
factors
or
projected
population
growth
obtained
from
the
US
Census
Bureau.

The
exception
to
this
is
for
North
Carolina
where
a
2000
base
year
inventory
was
generated
by
NCDAQ
following
the
current
methodologies
outlined
in
the
Emissions
Inventory
Improvement
Program
(
EIIP)
Area
Source
Development
Documents,
Volume
III
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
chief/
eiip/
techreport/
volume03/
index.
html).
This
data
was
backcasted
to
the
base
years
via
growth
factors
developed
with
EPA's
Economic
Growth
Analysis
System
(
EGAS)
version
4.0.

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

Table
5.3­
1
Stationary
Area
Source
Emissions
County
NOx
VOC
CO
Alamance
0.74
7.71
3.51
Caswell
0.23
1.65
2.46
Davidson
1.35
10.66
6.02
Davie
0.26
2.57
2.52
Forsyth
1.54
14.36
5.33
Guildford
4.13
26.45
10.27
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
39
March
31,
2004
Randolph
0.78
9.82
5.89
Rockingham
1.03
5.91
6.30
Stokes
0.27
2.65
2.26
Surry
0.25
6.09
3.87
Yadkin
0.16
3.54
2.82
Total
10.75
91.42
51.24
5.4
Off­
Road
Mobile
Sources
The
off­
road
mobile
sources
can
be
broken
down
into
two
types
of
sources;
those
calculated
within
the
USEPA
NONROAD
mobile
model
and
those
that
are
not.
For
the
sources
that
are
calculated
within
the
NONROAD
mobile
model,
a
base
year
inventory
was
generated
for
the
entire
domain
for
each
of
the
base
years.
The
model
version
used
is
the
Draft
NONROAD2002
distributed
for
a
limited,
confidential,
and
secure
review
in
November
2002.
If
the
final
version
or
any
newer
draft
versions
of
this
model
is
released
by
the
USEPA,
an
assessment
of
the
difference
in
the
emission
estimations
will
be
made
to
determine
if
a
new
inventory
must
be
generated
and
processed
through
the
photochemical
model.

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

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

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

Table
5.4­
1
Off­
Road
Mobile
Source
Emissions
County
NOx
VOC
CO
Alamance
2.58
2.59
29.18
Caswell
0.40
0.22
2.26
Davidson
3.43
2.88
30.28
Davie
0.70
0.84
7.20
Forsyth
6.50
7.62
89.05
Guildford
13.51
16.09
182.94
Randolph
2.79
2.43
27.26
Rockingham
1.80
1.54
15.60
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
40
March
31,
2004
Stokes
0.61
0.77
7.77
Surry
1.76
2.63
28.71
Yadkin
0.75
0.58
6.52
Total
34.83
38.19
426.77
5.5
Highway
Mobile
Sources
In
order
to
accurately
model
the
mobile
source
emissions
in
the
EAC
areas,
the
newest
version
of
the
MOBILE
model,
MOBILE6.2,
was
used.
This
model
was
released
by
EPA
in
2002
and
differs
significantly
from
previous
versions
of
the
model.
Key
inputs
for
MOBILE
include
information
on
the
age
of
vehicles
on
the
roads,
the
speed
of
those
vehicles,
what
types
of
road
those
vehicles
are
traveling
on,
any
control
technologies
in
place
in
an
area
to
reduce
emissions
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
41
March
31,
2004
for
motor
vehicles
(
e.
g.,
emissions
inspection
programs),
and
temperature.
Baseline
estimates
were
created
for
the
episode
June
19
 
July
1,
1996.

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

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

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

Road
Type
Morning
Peak
Afternoon
Peak
Offpeak
Urban
Interstate
55
55
55
Urban
Freeway
48
47
54
Urban
Other
P.
Art
38
39
44
Urban
Minor
Art
40
40
43
Urban
Collector
36
36
36
Urban
Local
36
36
37
Rural
Interstate
56
59
64
Rural
Other
P.
Art
53
52
57
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
42
March
31,
2004
Wake,
Durham,
Orange
Counties
(
based
on
1995
speeds)

Rural
Minor
Art
48
47
50
Rural
Major
Coll
46
46
46
Rural
Minor
Coll
43
43
43
Rural
Local
44
44
44
Greensboro
(
based
on
1994
speeds)

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

Road
Type
Speed
Urban
Interstate
55
Urban
Freeway
48
Urban
Other
P.
Art
29
Urban
Minor
Art
22
Urban
Collector
29
Urban
Local
24
Rural
Interstate
55
Rural
Other
P.
Art
55
Rural
Minor
Art
44
Rural
Major
Coll
41
Rural
Minor
Coll
39
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
43
March
31,
2004
Winston­
Salem
(
based
on
1994
speeds)

Road
Type
Speed
Rural
Local
26
Mecklenburg
and
Gaston
Road
Type
Morning
Peak
Afternoon
Peak
Offpeak
Urban
Interstate
55
55
55
Urban
Freeway
48
47
54
Urban
Other
P.
Art
38
39
44
Urban
Minor
Art
40
40
43
Urban
Collector
36
36
36
Urban
Local
36
36
37
Rural
Interstate
56
59
64
Rural
Other
P.
Art
53
52
57
Rural
Minor
Art
48
47
50
Rural
Major
Coll
46
46
46
Rural
Minor
Coll
43
43
43
Rural
Local
44
44
44
Rest
of
State
Road
Type
Morning
Peak
Afternoon
Peak
Offpeak
Urban
Interstate
60
61
63
Urban
Freeway
55
59
61
Urban
Other
P.
Art
34
35
32
Urban
Minor
Art
34
35
34
Urban
Collector
35
34
33
Urban
Local
30
37
37
Rural
Interstate
49
62
67
Rural
Other
P.
Art
38
41
42
Rural
Minor
Art
49
50
53
Rural
Major
Coll
32
46
46
Rural
Minor
Coll
33
41
44
Rural
Local
42
45
42
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
44
March
31,
2004
5.5.2
VEHICLE
AGE
DISTRIBUTION
The
vehicle
age
distribution
comes
from
annual
registration
data
from
the
NCDOT.
NCDOT
has
provided
registration
data
specific
to
the
area.
For
this
analysis,
the
data
was
from
2000.
NCDOT
provides
the
data
by
vehicle
type;
however,
these
types
do
not
match
the
EPA
MOBILE
types.
Therefore,
the
data
is
manipulated
to
match
the
input
requirements
as
follows:

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

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

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

To
calculate
the
vehicle
mix
to
account
for
the
large
percentage
of
sport
utility
vehicles
and
minivans
being
purchased,
NCDAQ
used
the
following
documentation
from
EPA:
Fleet
Characterization
Data
for
MOBILE6:
Development
and
Use
of
Age
Distributions,
Average
Annual
Mileage
Accumulation
Rates,
and
Projected
Vehicle
Counts
for
Use
in
MOBILE6
(
EPA420­
P­
99­
011).
This
document
includes
a
breakdown
by
year
from
1983
to
2050
of
the
number
of
light
duty
vehicles
(
according
to
MOBILE6
five
vehicle
types)
on
the
roads
on
a
national
basis.
NCDAQ
used
this
data
and
combined
vehicle
types
to
reflect
the
three
MOBILE5
light
duty
vehicle
types.
These
calculated
values
for
LDGT1
and
LDGT2
are
used
for
all
road
types.
No
changes
were
made
to
this
file
for
this
modeling
effort
because
of
the
way
in
which
the
SMOKE
model
has
incorporated
MOBILE6.2.
Table
5.5­
2
provides
the
vehicle
mix
for
North
Carolina.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
45
March
31,
2004
Table
5.5­
2:
1996
North
Carolina
Vehicle
Mix
Rural
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
LDDV
LDDT
HDDV
MC
Interstate(­
0.001)
0.458
0.174
0.062
0.031
0.002
0.002
0.266
0.005
Oth
Prin
Art(+
0.001)
0.557
0.211
0.075
0.04
0.002
0.002
0.109
0.004
Minor
Ar(­
0.001)
0.571
0.219
0.078
0.045
0.003
0.003
0.076
0.005
Major
Col
(+
0.001)
0.591
0.225
0.08
0.044
0.002
0.002
0.052
0.004
Minor
Col
0.591
0.225
0.08
0.042
0.002
0.002
0.053
0.005
local
0.589
0.227
0.081
0.049
0.003
0.003
0.042
0.006
Urban
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
LDDV
LDDT
HDDV
MC
Interstate
(­
0.002)
0.534
0.201
0.072
0.033
0.002
0.002
0.152
0.004
Oth
Freeway
0.583
0.218
0.078
0.035
0.002
0.002
0.079
0.003
Oth
Prin
Art(+
0.001)
0.6
0.224
0.08
0.036
0.002
0.002
0.053
0.003
Minor
Art(­
0.001)
0.614
0.229
0.082
0.035
0.002
0.002
0.032
0.004
Collectors(­
0.001)
0.622
0.231
0.082
0.033
0.002
0.002
0.025
0.003
local
(+
0.001)
0.602
0.228
0.081
0.041
0.002
0.002
0.038
0.006
HDGV
 
Heavy
Duty
Gasoline
Vehicles,
LDDT
 
Light
Duty
Diesel
Trucks,
HDDV
 
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
Vehicles,
MC
­
Motorcycles
5.5.4
TEMPERATURE
ASSUMPTIONS
Temperatures
are
extracted
from
the
MM5
meteorological
model
files.

5.5.5
VEHICLE
INSPECTION
AND
MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM
ASSUMPTIONS
In
the
early
1990'
s,
North
Carolina
adopted
emissions
inspection
requirements
for
vehicles
in
9
urban
counties.
This
program
tests
emissions
at
idle
for
1975
and
newer
gasoline
powered
light
duty
vehicles.
The
program
is
a
basic,
decentralized
tailpipe
test
for
Hydrocarbon
(
HC)
and
CO
only.
The
waiver
rates
are
consistent
with
the
SIP.
However,
the
compliance
rates
have
been
changed
to
more
accurately
reflect
what
is
happening
at
the
stations.
Compliance
rates
have
been
changed
from
98
percent
in
the
SIP
to
95
percent.
In
addition,
the
inspection
stations
are
required
to
administer
an
anti­
tampering
check
to
ensure
that
emissions
control
equipment
on
any
vehicle
1968
and
newer
has
not
been
altered.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
46
March
31,
2004
5.5.6
RVP
ASSUMPTIONS
Reid
vapor
pressure
(
RVP)
reflects
a
gasoline's
volatility,
so
as
a
control
measure
North
Carolina
has
adopted
the
Phase
II
RVP
of
7.8
psi
in
the
1­
hour
ozone
maintenance
counties.

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

Table
5.5­
4
Highway
Mobile
Emissions
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
107.43
14.92
9.43
Caswell
18.33
1.95
1.65
Davidson
150.84
27.56
12.92
Davie
37.20
8.36
3.07
Forsyth
207.45
32.63
20.60
Guilford
274.51
44.36
27.54
Randolph
122.08
17.26
10.75
Rockingham
77.73
7.94
7.21
Stokes
28.49
2.87
2.57
Surry
78.33
12.38
6.98
Yadkin
39.27
7.03
3.44
Total
1141.65
177.25
106.14
5.6
Biogenic
Emission
Sources
Biogenic
emissions
will
be
prepared
with
the
SMOKE­
BEIS3
(
Biogenic
Emission
Inventory
System
version3)
preprocessor.
SMOKE­
BEIS3
is
basically
the
Urban
Airshed
Model
(
UAM)­
BEIS3
model
but
also
includes
modifications
to
use
Meteorological
Model
version
5
(
MM5)
data,
gridded
land
use
data,
and
one
important
science
update.
The
emission
factors
that
are
used
in
SMOKE­
BEIS3
are
the
same
as
the
emission
factors
in
UAM­
BEIS3.

The
emission
rates
within
SMOKE­
BEIS3
are
adjusted
for
environmental
conditions
prevailing
during
the
episode
days
with
meteorological
data
supplied
by
the
MM5
model.
The
gridded
data
used
from
MM5
include
the
estimated
temperature
at
10
meters
above
the
surface
and
shortwave
radiation
reaching
the
surface.
Ten
meters
temperatures
will
be
used
instead
of
the
ground
temperatures
because
it
is
believed
that
10
meters
above
the
surface
is
a
good
approximation
of
the
average
canopy
height.
The
use
of
10
meters
temperatures
was
discussed
with
and
approved
by
the
USEPA
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(
ORD).
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
47
March
31,
2004
The
gridded
land
use
data
has
been
obtained
from
Alpine
Geophysics
at
the
4­
km
resolution
for
the
entire
domain.
The
basis
for
the
gridded
data
is
the
county
land
use
data
in
the
Biogenic
Emissions
Landcover
Database
version
3
(
BELD3)
provided
by
the
USEPA.
A
separate
land
classification
scheme,
based
upon
satellite
(
AVHRR,
1
km
spatial
resolution)
and
census
information,
aided
in
defining
the
forest,
agriculture
and
urban
portions
of
each
county.
The
12­
km
and
36­
km
domains
will
be
created
by
aggregating
the
4­
km
resolution
data
up
to
the
respective
grid
sizes.

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

Table
5.6­
1
Biogenic
Emissions
County
NOx
VOC
Alamance
0.4
73.9
Caswell
0.3
57.2
Davidson
0.4
78.6
Davie
0.4
55.4
Forsyth
0.4
59.3
Guildford
0.5
78.7
Randolph
0.5
109.1
Rockingham
0.4
64.3
Stokes
0.4
64.1
Surry
0.5
71.2
Yadkin
0.4
58.1
Total
4.6
769.9
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
48
March
31,
2004
Section
6
­
MODELING
STATUS
6.1
Status
of
Current
Modeling
NCDAQ
realized
that
the
May
31,
2003
date
for
completing
the
base
case
model
evaluation
was
not
realistic
due
to
the
issues
described
in
Section
6.2
below.
Sheila
Holman
sent
a
letter
to
Kay
Prince
requesting
an
adjustment
to
the
modeling
schedule
due
to
these
issues.
Ms.
Holman's
letter
and
Ms.
Prince's
response
are
included
in
Appendix
C.
NCDAQ
continues
to
believe
that
completing
the
four
2007
base
year
modeling
runs
is
achievable
by
August
29,
2003.

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

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

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

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

6.3
Geographic
Area
Needing
Further
Controls
At
this
point
in
the
project,
NCDAQ
is
unable
to
identify
the
geographic
area
that
will
need
controls
beyond
what
is
already
in
North
Carolina's
rules.
The
controls
that
will
be
included
in
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
49
March
31,
2004
the
base
2007
emissions
inventory
are
the
NOx
SIP
Call,
a
NOx
Inspection
and
Maintenance
(
I/
M)
program
that
will
cover
48
counties
in
North
Carolina
and
the
North
Carolina
Clean
Smokestacks
Act
that
requires
year­
round
controls
on
the
major
utilities
in
North
Carolina.

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

6.4
Anticipated
Resource
Constraints
The
resource
constraint
of
most
concern
is
the
funding
needed
to
implement
some
of
the
local
control
measures.
NCDAQ
and
the
local
EAC
areas
are
both
looking
for
grant
opportunities
to
help
fund
EAC
initiatives.
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
50
March
31,
2004
APPENDIX
A
EMISSION
SOURCES
BY
COUNTY
Stationary
Point
Sources
Emissions
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
Co
0.061
0.676
0.960
Alexander
Co
0.014
0.004
2.099
Ashe
Co
0.030
0.006
1.289
Beaufort
Co
1.162
1.969
0.859
Bertie
Co
0.162
0.227
1.101
Bladen
Co
0.181
1.857
0.520
Brunswick
Co
3.758
7.786
3.453
Buncombe
Co
1.336
57.016
3.135
Burke
Co
5.753
0.516
12.838
Cabarrus
Co
0.173
2.867
5.213
Caldwell
Co
0.444
0.139
30.539
Carteret
Co
0.008
0.083
0.000
Catawba
Co
4.192
112.800
22.153
Chatham
Co
7.014
20.487
3.800
Chowan
Co
0.028
0.137
0.010
Cleveland
Co
0.687
3.790
2.486
Columbus
Co
12.211
6.987
3.885
Craven
Co
3.585
4.175
4.196
Cumberland
Co
0.412
2.956
7.072
Dare
Co
0.008
0.271
0.004
Davidson
Co
2.466
12.859
23.927
Davie
Co
0.078
0.039
3.841
Duplin
Co
0.888
1.978
0.017
Durham
Co
0.301
1.046
5.706
Edgecombe
Co
0.347
5.818
0.020
Forsyth
Co
1.917
8.835
20.874
Franklin
Co
0.009
0.101
0.122
Gaston
Co
3.083
70.313
8.958
Graham
Co
0.017
0.020
1.450
Granville
Co
0.294
0.105
2.661
Guilford
Co
0.158
1.829
40.535
Halifax
Co
12.957
11.343
1.002
Harnett
Co
0.204
0.563
0.464
Haywood
Co
6.879
11.915
4.067
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
51
March
31,
2004
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Henderson
Co
0.023
0.400
5.133
Hertford
Co
0.017
0.148
0.828
Hoke
Co
0.004
0.019
3.829
Iredell
Co
2.927
8.949
5.109
Jackson
Co
0.004
0.045
0.000
Johnston
Co
0.018
0.145
2.218
Lee
Co
0.971
0.235
1.403
Lenoir
Co
0.110
2.429
0.592
Lincoln
Co
0.118
2.551
2.368
Mc
Dowell
Co
0.645
0.609
2.221
Martin
Co
23.577
9.479
6.539
Mecklenburg
Co
2.616
2.914
22.978
Mitchell
Co
0.113
0.015
2.193
Montgomery
Co
0.047
0.008
0.017
Moore
Co
0.015
0.003
1.826
Nash
Co
0.442
0.928
0.491
New
Hanover
Co
36.352
76.530
5.676
Northampton
Co
0.123
0.273
0.195
Onslow
Co
0.073
0.955
0.016
Orange
Co
3.223
0.748
0.009
Pasquotank
Co
0.011
0.018
1.122
Pender
Co
0.012
0.022
0.007
Person
Co
5.063
188.510
1.706
Pitt
Co
0.322
0.624
1.549
Randolph
Co
0.021
0.058
2.528
Richmond
Co
0.025
0.101
0.002
Robeson
Co
0.612
18.817
1.994
Rockingham
Co
5.954
33.903
7.896
Rowan
Co
1.290
30.602
10.634
Rutherford
Co
1.890
41.944
3.548
Scotland
Co
0.501
7.276
5.356
Stanly
Co
14.149
1.178
2.002
Stokes
Co
7.872
341.620
0.945
Surry
Co
5.356
0.942
5.817
Transylvania
Co
0.183
5.212
2.858
Union
Co
0.030
0.152
2.483
Vance
Co
0.035
1.242
0.000
Wake
Co
0.237
0.810
10.774
Washington
Co
0.001
0.004
0.000
Watauga
Co
0.015
0.051
0.001
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
52
March
31,
2004
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Wayne
Co
6.873
37.740
3.048
Wilkes
Co
3.232
0.731
7.472
Wilson
Co
0.177
2.020
2.376
Yadkin
Co
0.000
0.000
0.092
State
total
196.096
1172.466
357.102
Stationary
Area
Sources
Emissions
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
Co
3.51
0.74
7.71
Alexander
Co
1.47
0.15
2.95
Alleghany
Co
0.50
0.09
0.89
Anson
Co
2.62
0.53
2.24
Ashe
Co
1.25
0.14
1.50
Avery
Co
0.81
0.11
1.02
Beaufort
Co
17.77
0.61
12.42
Bertie
Co
2.12
0.14
2.90
Bladen
Co
4.26
0.42
4.46
Brunswick
Co
5.08
0.64
4.57
Buncombe
Co
4.71
1.31
14.23
Burke
Co
3.15
0.55
6.27
Cabarrus
Co
3.80
1.07
6.84
Caldwell
Co
2.53
0.31
4.78
Camden
Co
4.87
0.08
2.55
Carteret
Co
10.09
0.61
6.93
Caswell
Co
2.46
0.23
1.65
Catawba
Co
4.60
0.90
12.14
Chatham
Co
2.46
0.50
3.65
Cherokee
Co
1.14
0.13
2.15
Chowan
Co
1.63
0.10
1.42
Clay
Co
0.40
0.08
0.56
Cleveland
Co
5.14
0.84
7.25
Columbus
Co
6.50
0.41
7.36
Craven
Co
5.04
0.77
6.98
Cumberland
Co
15.31
3.34
22.74
Currituck
Co
4.30
0.13
2.46
Dare
Co
1.65
0.13
2.13
Davidson
Co
6.02
1.35
10.66
Davie
Co
2.52
0.26
2.57
Duplin
Co
8.32
0.45
6.68
Durham
Co
2.61
1.88
16.40
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
53
March
31,
2004
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Edgecombe
Co
5.67
1.22
5.88
Forsyth
Co
5.33
1.54
14.36
Franklin
Co
5.19
0.29
3.63
Gaston
Co
4.10
1.76
12.04
Gates
Co
1.18
0.09
1.34
Graham
Co
0.45
0.08
0.45
Granville
Co
3.50
0.38
3.15
Greene
Co
6.06
0.17
3.11
Guilford
Co
10.27
4.13
26.45
Halifax
Co
3.57
0.91
4.17
Harnett
Co
6.80
0.78
6.02
Haywood
Co
2.06
0.32
4.36
Henderson
Co
3.44
0.75
5.20
Hertford
Co
1.17
0.12
1.90
Hoke
Co
3.32
0.20
2.29
Hyde
Co
6.38
0.07
3.63
Iredell
Co
5.28
0.99
8.84
Jackson
Co
1.49
0.23
2.00
Johnston
Co
9.60
1.08
10.43
Jones
Co
1.44
0.11
1.48
Lee
Co
2.19
0.75
4.24
Lenoir
Co
7.82
0.41
6.24
Lincoln
Co
3.17
0.48
4.09
Mc
Dowell
Co
1.81
0.72
3.06
Macon
Co
1.31
0.14
1.95
Madison
Co
1.05
0.30
1.46
Martin
Co
3.28
0.38
2.69
Mecklenburg
Co
13.05
11.58
32.00
Mitchell
Co
0.81
0.40
1.00
Montgomery
Co
1.55
0.14
1.91
Moore
Co
3.76
0.57
5.33
Nash
Co
5.64
0.97
7.73
New
Hanover
Co
2.25
1.00
7.77
Northampton
Co
2.75
0.39
1.91
Onslow
Co
4.81
0.34
8.71
Orange
Co
3.91
0.87
6.69
Pamlico
Co
8.65
1.87
4.18
Pasquotank
Co
9.77
0.13
5.21
Pender
Co
4.66
0.21
3.74
Perquimans
Co
4.64
0.10
3.12
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
54
March
31,
2004
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Person
Co
4.45
0.41
2.74
Pitt
Co
13.70
0.82
10.06
Polk
Co
0.99
0.20
1.09
Randolph
Co
5.89
0.78
9.82
Richmond
Co
3.11
1.75
3.17
Robeson
Co
19.68
1.45
16.70
Rockingham
Co
6.30
1.03
5.91
Rowan
Co
6.17
1.16
7.78
Rutherford
Co
2.60
0.68
4.32
Sampson
Co
10.48
0.36
7.84
Scotland
Co
3.44
0.46
3.01
Stanly
Co
5.11
0.29
4.81
Stokes
Co
2.26
0.27
2.65
Surry
Co
3.87
0.25
6.09
Swain
Co
0.65
0.10
0.86
Transylvania
Co
1.15
0.21
1.70
Tyrrell
Co
7.03
0.07
3.50
Union
Co
12.04
0.83
10.72
Vance
Co
2.70
0.52
3.21
Wake
Co
14.01
6.55
30.98
Warren
Co
2.03
0.21
1.97
Washington
Co
9.82
0.30
4.33
Watauga
Co
1.38
0.15
2.71
Wayne
Co
15.36
2.66
12.00
Wilkes
Co
3.08
0.25
4.23
Wilson
Co
7.26
1.30
6.96
Yadkin
Co
2.82
0.16
3.54
Yancey
Co
0.83
0.14
1.19
State
Total
479.96
79.33
596.72
Nonroad
Sources
Emissions
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
Co
29.18
2.58
2.59
Alexander
Co
4.11
0.51
0.40
Alleghany
Co
2.58
0.39
0.21
Anson
Co
4.38
1.08
0.52
Ashe
Co
3.94
0.45
0.42
Avery
Co
5.29
0.53
0.59
Beaufort
Co
13.65
2.50
2.76
Bertie
Co
6.31
1.67
1.15
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
55
March
31,
2004
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Bladen
Co
8.67
1.55
1.32
Brunswick
Co
26.98
1.99
4.76
Buncombe
Co
47.91
4.18
4.76
Burke
Co
14.94
1.72
1.54
Cabarrus
Co
41.70
3.18
3.69
Caldwell
Co
16.69
2.25
1.78
Camden
Co
2.96
0.43
1.01
Carteret
Co
46.96
1.84
14.15
Caswell
Co
2.26
0.40
0.22
Catawba
Co
46.58
4.65
4.49
Chatham
Co
12.56
1.83
1.51
Cherokee
Co
4.23
0.40
0.57
Chowan
Co
3.97
0.48
1.13
Clay
Co
2.18
0.19
0.39
Cleveland
Co
21.14
2.04
1.92
Columbus
Co
9.81
1.62
1.14
Craven
Co
23.26
2.57
2.93
Cumberland
Co
64.62
7.58
11.71
Currituck
Co
14.97
0.74
4.58
Dare
Co
45.32
1.27
17.81
Davidson
Co
30.28
3.43
2.88
Davie
Co
7.20
0.70
0.84
Duplin
Co
9.94
2.50
1.04
Durham
Co
67.33
8.78
6.52
Edgecombe
Co
10.95
2.23
1.03
Forsyth
Co
89.05
6.50
7.62
Franklin
Co
7.82
0.98
0.81
Gaston
Co
49.26
4.61
4.29
Gates
Co
1.56
0.52
0.23
Graham
Co
1.40
0.18
0.25
Granville
Co
12.71
1.42
1.31
Greene
Co
2.43
0.75
0.25
Guilford
Co
182.94
13.51
16.09
Halifax
Co
8.66
1.97
0.95
Harnett
Co
21.12
1.83
1.88
Haywood
Co
11.23
1.05
1.18
Henderson
Co
29.86
2.02
3.64
Hertford
Co
4.12
0.57
0.49
Hoke
Co
3.44
0.65
0.31
Hyde
Co
24.88
1.87
11.57
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
56
March
31,
2004
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Iredell
Co
23.40
2.81
2.31
Jackson
Co
6.85
0.57
0.78
Johnston
Co
32.64
3.23
3.13
Jones
Co
1.82
0.46
0.17
Lee
Co
16.36
2.29
1.51
Lenoir
Co
15.84
2.08
1.48
Lincoln
Co
13.58
1.27
1.36
Mc
Dowell
Co
7.94
1.27
1.03
Macon
Co
10.84
0.52
1.03
Madison
Co
1.72
0.38
0.18
Martin
Co
4.61
1.07
0.50
Mecklenburg
Co
325.41
21.42
29.31
Mitchell
Co
3.54
0.70
0.45
Montgomery
Co
4.99
0.66
0.60
Moore
Co
27.58
1.63
2.28
Nash
Co
21.08
2.60
1.94
New
Hanover
Co
56.62
4.38
6.90
Northampton
Co
4.28
1.14
0.69
Onslow
Co
25.81
3.32
4.08
Orange
Co
29.41
3.04
3.25
Pamlico
Co
13.05
2.63
5.40
Pasquotank
Co
9.74
0.90
1.51
Pender
Co
12.46
1.01
1.85
Perquimans
Co
3.91
0.64
1.28
Person
Co
8.34
0.87
0.88
Pitt
Co
23.98
3.16
2.19
Polk
Co
2.89
0.44
0.25
Randolph
Co
27.26
2.79
2.43
Richmond
Co
14.22
5.12
1.60
Robeson
Co
19.58
4.99
1.97
Rockingham
Co
15.60
1.80
1.54
Rowan
Co
27.64
4.01
2.72
Rutherford
Co
12.77
1.67
1.25
Sampson
Co
10.29
2.05
1.01
Scotland
Co
8.52
1.21
0.91
Stanly
Co
15.92
1.89
1.62
Stokes
Co
7.77
0.61
0.77
Surry
Co
28.71
1.76
2.63
Swain
Co
4.71
0.32
1.13
Transylvania
Co
14.82
0.69
2.40
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
57
March
31,
2004
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Tyrrell
Co
6.53
0.63
2.92
Union
Co
45.86
3.07
4.03
Vance
Co
6.31
1.16
0.79
Wake
Co
233.68
18.06
23.23
Warren
Co
3.44
0.80
0.59
Washington
Co
5.57
1.21
1.47
Watauga
Co
9.95
0.51
1.16
Wayne
Co
28.10
4.55
2.84
Wilkes
Co
16.07
1.28
1.50
Wilson
Co
22.44
2.68
2.14
Yadkin
Co
6.52
0.75
0.58
Yancey
Co
7.33
0.34
0.84
State
Total
2411.63
235.13
293.64
Highway
Mobile
Sources
Emissions
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Alamance
Co
107.43
14.92
9.43
Alexander
Co
21.16
2.17
1.83
Alleghany
Co
8.95
0.90
0.78
Anson
Co
26.77
3.05
2.46
Ashe
Co
19.45
1.89
1.72
Avery
Co
17.39
1.87
1.56
Beaufort
Co
38.64
3.91
3.54
Bertie
Co
24.72
2.65
2.22
Bladen
Co
37.65
3.75
3.29
Brunswick
Co
74.31
8.08
6.67
Buncombe
Co
178.76
27.37
15.47
Burke
Co
80.26
13.91
6.89
Cabarrus
Co
63.42
11.80
5.86
Caldwell
Co
53.96
5.51
5.05
Camden
Co
9.34
1.00
0.84
Carteret
Co
55.26
6.04
5.06
Caswell
Co
18.33
1.95
1.65
Catawba
Co
122.92
15.90
11.16
Chatham
Co
43.63
4.87
4.01
Cherokee
Co
19.38
2.22
1.78
Chowan
Co
10.51
1.07
0.95
Clay
Co
6.42
0.67
0.55
Cleveland
Co
77.65
10.50
6.91
Columbus
Co
50.24
5.25
4.60
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
58
March
31,
2004
County
CO
NOx
VOC
Craven
Co
64.58
6.80
6.10
Cumberland
Co
223.26
30.32
20.98
Currituck
Co
21.99
2.38
1.85
Dare
Co
49.33
5.11
4.33
Davidson
Co
150.84
27.56
12.92
Davie
Co
37.20
8.36
3.07
Duplin
Co
51.46
8.29
4.53
Durham
Co
142.33
24.90
12.74
Edgecombe
Co
45.16
4.52
4.15
Forsyth
Co
207.45
32.63
20.60
Franklin
Co
34.03
3.57
3.01
Gaston
Co
90.70
17.44
8.71
Gates
Co
10.46
1.17
0.95
Graham
Co
5.44
0.52
0.49
Granville
Co
48.29
9.91
4.14
Greene
Co
16.62
1.68
1.46
Guilford
Co
274.51
44.36
27.54
Halifax
Co
60.25
12.55
5.15
Harnett
Co
70.89
10.13
6.33
Haywood
Co
67.59
14.74
5.71
Henderson
Co
64.43
10.18
5.67
Hertford
Co
19.29
2.00
1.70
Hoke
Co
20.66
2.23
1.85
Hyde
Co
5.58
0.57
0.48
Iredell
Co
135.50
30.72
11.44
Jackson
Co
35.85
4.13
3.18
Johnston
Co
131.26
27.54
11.23
Jones
Co
16.28
1.83
1.50
Lee
Co
44.31
4.53
4.19
Lenoir
Co
52.16
5.06
4.96
Lincoln
Co
40.85
4.19
3.69
Mc
Dowell
Co
47.19
10.22
4.03
Macon
Co
26.13
2.85
2.35
Madison
Co
15.11
1.64
1.35
Martin
Co
26.79
2.83
2.48
Mecklenburg
Co
392.69
73.30
38.40
Mitchell
Co
11.18
1.14
1.02
Montgomery
Co
29.30
3.61
2.59
Moore
Co
61.28
6.19
5.59
Nash
Co
104.62
17.95
9.32
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
59
March
31,
2004
County
CO
NOx
VOC
New
Hanover
Co
87.27
9.11
8.50
Northampton
Co
28.88
5.33
2.48
Onslow
Co
80.37
8.05
7.73
Orange
Co
62.77
18.46
5.55
Pamlico
Co
10.44
0.97
0.94
Pasquotank
Co
20.29
2.00
1.98
Pender
Co
47.14
8.32
4.10
Perquimans
Co
10.17
1.13
0.94
Person
Co
24.33
2.42
2.22
Pitt
Co
91.52
8.97
8.59
Polk
Co
21.35
4.74
1.83
Randolph
Co
122.08
17.26
10.75
Richmond
Co
39.91
4.17
3.80
Robeson
Co
127.44
22.67
11.10
Rockingham
Co
77.73
7.94
7.21
Rowan
Co
102.00
17.76
9.08
Rutherford
Co
49.44
5.02
4.50
Sampson
Co
61.77
8.73
5.44
Scotland
Co
34.46
3.59
3.21
Stanly
Co
42.33
4.14
3.95
Stokes
Co
28.49
2.87
2.57
Surry
Co
78.33
12.38
6.98
Swain
Co
16.94
1.88
1.50
Transylvania
Co
23.80
2.44
2.13
Tyrrell
Co
4.24
0.48
0.39
Union
Co
54.05
7.20
5.23
Vance
Co
38.11
6.67
3.34
Wake
Co
306.80
57.16
27.42
Warren
Co
17.90
3.68
1.54
Washington
Co
13.77
1.55
1.27
Watauga
Co
33.04
3.63
3.10
Wayne
Co
81.79
7.98
7.66
Wilkes
Co
56.78
5.89
5.12
Wilson
Co
71.21
10.72
6.54
Yadkin
Co
39.27
7.03
3.44
Yancey
Co
13.30
1.48
1.22
State
Total
6138.89
924.70
559.38
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
60
March
31,
2004
APPENDIX
B
Conversion
of
MOBILE5
Registration
Fractions
to
MOBILE6­
Based
Registration
Fractions
Mecklenburg
County
*
Convert
MOBILE5
Registration
Fractions
to
MOBILE6­
Based
Registration
Fractions
*
*
Calendar
Year:
1996.000User­
Input
*
*
MOBILE5b
Reg
Fractions
*
0.114
0.097
0.086
0.083
0.077
0.084
0.069
0.062
0.051
0.044
*
0.040
0.039
0.033
0.027
0.022
0.016
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
*
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.018
*
0.090
0.080
0.076
0.075
0.062
0.066
0.066
0.048
0.040
0.037
*
0.034
0.042
0.040
0.035
0.033
0.024
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
*
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.060
*
0.123
0.148
0.096
0.088
0.065
0.071
0.054
0.039
0.023
0.021
*
0.030
0.034
0.031
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.013
0.008
0.007
0.006
*
0.007
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.042
*
0.123
0.104
0.061
0.093
0.060
0.077
0.058
0.046
0.025
0.023
*
0.023
0.030
0.047
0.027
0.025
0.023
0.018
0.008
0.008
0.009
*
0.009
0.014
0.011
0.009
0.069
*
0.114
0.097
0.086
0.083
0.077
0.084
0.069
0.062
0.051
0.044
*
0.040
0.039
0.033
0.027
0.022
0.016
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
*
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.018
*
0.090
0.080
0.076
0.075
0.062
0.066
0.066
0.048
0.040
0.037
*
0.034
0.042
0.040
0.035
0.033
0.024
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
*
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.060
*
0.155
0.141
0.081
0.100
0.066
0.083
0.056
0.041
0.030
0.032
*
0.055
0.048
0.027
0.028
0.016
0.014
0.008
0.004
0.003
0.002
*
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.002
*
0.141
0.111
0.088
0.081
0.074
0.061
0.049
0.035
0.027
0.017
*
0.015
0.301
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
*
*
MOBILE6
Vehicle
Classes:
*
1
LDV
Light­
Duty
Vehicles
(
Passenger
Cars)
*
2
LDT1
Light­
Duty
Trucks
1
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
3
LDT2
Light
Duty
Trucks
2
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
4
LDT3
Light
Duty
Trucks
3
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
5
LDT4
Light
Duty
Trucks
4
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
6
HDV2B
Class
2b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
8501­
10,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
7
HDV3
Class
3
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
10,001­
14,000
lbs.
GVWR)
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
61
March
31,
2004
*
8
HDV4
Class
4
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
14,001­
16,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
9
HDV5
Class
5
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
16,001­
19,500
lbs.
GVWR)
*
10
HDV6
Class
6
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
19,501­
26,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
11
HDV7
Class
7
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
26,001­
33,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
12
HDV8A
Class
8a
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
33,001­
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
13
HDV8B
Class
8b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(>
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
14
HDBS
School
Busses
*
15
HDBT
Transit
and
Urban
Busses
*
16
MC
Motorcycles
(
All)
*
REG
DIST
*
RESULTING
MOBILE6­
BASED
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
*
*
MOBILE6
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
BY
VEHICLE
CLASS
AND
AGE
*
LDV
M5
LDGV
1
0.114
0.097
0.086
0.083
0.077
0.084
0.069
0.062
0.051
0.044
0.040
0.039
0.033
0.027
0.022
0.016
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.018
*
LDT1
M5
LDGT1
2
0.090
0.080
0.076
0.075
0.062
0.066
0.066
0.048
0.040
0.037
0.034
0.042
0.040
0.035
0.033
0.024
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.060
*
LDT2
M5
LDGT1
3
0.090
0.080
0.076
0.075
0.062
0.066
0.066
0.048
0.040
0.037
0.034
0.042
0.040
0.035
0.033
0.024
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.060
*
LDT3
M5
LDGT2
4
0.123
0.148
0.096
0.088
0.065
0.071
0.054
0.039
0.023
0.021
0.030
0.034
0.031
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.013
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.042
*
LDT4
M5
LDGT2
5
0.123
0.148
0.096
0.088
0.065
0.071
0.054
0.039
0.023
0.021
0.030
0.034
0.031
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.013
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.042
*
HDV2B
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
6
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV3
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
7
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV4
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
8
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV5
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
9
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV6
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
62
March
31,
2004
10
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV7
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
11
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV8a
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
12
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDV8b
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
13
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDBS
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
14
0.137
0.120
0.070
0.096
0.063
0.080
0.057
0.044
0.027
0.027
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.027
0.021
0.019
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.040
*
HDBT
M5
HDDVs
15
0.155
0.141
0.081
0.100
0.066
0.083
0.056
0.041
0.030
0.032
0.055
0.048
0.027
0.028
0.016
0.014
0.008
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.002
*
Motorcycles
M5
MC
16
0.141
0.111
0.088
0.081
0.074
0.061
0.049
0.035
0.027
0.017
0.015
0.301
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Triad
*
Convert
MOBILE5
Registration
Fractions
to
MOBILE6­
Based
Registration
Fractions
*
*
Calendar
Year:
1996.000User­
Input
*
*
MOBILE5b
Reg
Fractions
*
0.101
0.080
0.075
0.073
0.070
0.081
0.066
0.063
0.054
0.048
*
0.045
0.046
0.040
0.034
0.028
0.021
0.016
0.009
0.005
0.004
*
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.024
*
0.077
0.066
0.065
0.066
0.054
0.062
0.067
0.047
0.043
0.037
*
0.034
0.045
0.044
0.039
0.039
0.027
0.025
0.016
0.012
0.010
*
0.010
0.014
0.014
0.012
0.075
*
0.081
0.089
0.078
0.078
0.065
0.080
0.064
0.050
0.033
0.032
*
0.037
0.041
0.038
0.030
0.031
0.029
0.018
0.011
0.009
0.009
*
0.006
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.052
*
0.078
0.079
0.049
0.062
0.058
0.080
0.051
0.041
0.033
0.027
*
0.034
0.043
0.040
0.031
0.038
0.029
0.018
0.013
0.011
0.016
*
0.014
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.104
*
0.101
0.080
0.075
0.073
0.070
0.081
0.066
0.063
0.054
0.048
*
0.045
0.046
0.040
0.034
0.028
0.021
0.016
0.009
0.005
0.004
*
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.024
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
63
March
31,
2004
*
0.077
0.066
0.065
0.066
0.054
0.062
0.067
0.047
0.043
0.037
*
0.034
0.045
0.044
0.039
0.039
0.027
0.025
0.016
0.012
0.010
*
0.010
0.014
0.014
0.012
0.075
*
0.170
0.141
0.087
0.100
0.074
0.079
0.067
0.042
0.032
0.027
*
0.033
0.032
0.029
0.024
0.018
0.014
0.010
0.004
0.004
0.003
*
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.003
*
0.134
0.102
0.072
0.070
0.071
0.051
0.049
0.041
0.027
0.021
*
0.018
0.344
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
*
*
MOBILE6
Vehicle
Classes:
*
1
LDV
Light­
Duty
Vehicles
(
Passenger
Cars)
*
2
LDT1
Light­
Duty
Trucks
1
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
3
LDT2
Light
Duty
Trucks
2
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
4
LDT3
Light
Duty
Trucks
3
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
5
LDT4
Light
Duty
Trucks
4
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
6
HDV2B
Class
2b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
8501­
10,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
7
HDV3
Class
3
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
10,001­
14,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
8
HDV4
Class
4
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
14,001­
16,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
9
HDV5
Class
5
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
16,001­
19,500
lbs.
GVWR)
*
10
HDV6
Class
6
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
19,501­
26,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
11
HDV7
Class
7
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
26,001­
33,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
12
HDV8A
Class
8a
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
33,001­
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
13
HDV8B
Class
8b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(>
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
14
HDBS
School
Busses
*
15
HDBT
Transit
and
Urban
Busses
*
16
MC
Motorcycles
(
All)
*
REG
DIST
*
RESULTING
MOBILE6­
BASED
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
*
*
MOBILE6
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
BY
VEHICLE
CLASS
AND
AGE
*
LDV
M5
LDGV
1
0.101
0.080
0.075
0.073
0.070
0.081
0.066
0.063
0.054
0.048
0.045
0.046
0.040
0.034
0.028
0.021
0.016
0.009
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.024
*
LDT1
M5
LDGT1
2
0.077
0.066
0.065
0.066
0.054
0.062
0.067
0.047
0.043
0.037
0.034
0.045
0.044
0.039
0.039
0.027
0.025
0.016
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.014
0.014
0.012
0.075
*
LDT2
M5
LDGT1
3
0.077
0.066
0.065
0.066
0.054
0.062
0.067
0.047
0.043
0.037
0.034
0.045
0.044
0.039
0.039
0.027
0.025
0.016
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.014
0.014
0.012
0.075
*
LDT3
M5
LDGT2
4
0.081
0.089
0.078
0.078
0.065
0.080
0.064
0.050
0.033
0.032
0.037
0.041
0.038
0.030
0.031
0.029
0.018
0.011
0.009
0.009
0.006
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.052
*
LDT4
M5
LDGT2
5
0.081
0.089
0.078
0.078
0.065
0.080
0.064
0.050
0.033
0.032
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
64
March
31,
2004
0.037
0.041
0.038
0.030
0.031
0.029
0.018
0.011
0.009
0.009
0.006
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.052
*
HDV2B
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
6
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV3
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
7
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV4
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
8
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV5
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
9
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV6
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
10
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV7
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
11
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV8a
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
12
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDV8b
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
13
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDBS
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
14
0.118
0.106
0.065
0.079
0.065
0.079
0.058
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.038
0.035
0.028
0.029
0.022
0.015
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.012
0.010
0.009
0.060
*
HDBT
M5
HDDVs
15
0.170
0.141
0.087
0.100
0.074
0.079
0.067
0.042
0.032
0.027
0.033
0.032
0.029
0.024
0.018
0.014
0.010
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.003
*
Motorcycles
M5
MC
16
0.134
0.102
0.072
0.070
0.071
0.051
0.049
0.041
0.027
0.021
0.018
0.344
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Wake
County
*
Convert
MOBILE5
Registration
Fractions
to
MOBILE6­
Based
Registration
Fractions
*
*
Calendar
Year:
1996.000User­
Input
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
65
March
31,
2004
*
*
MOBILE5b
Reg
Fractions
*
0.114
0.091
0.085
0.080
0.075
0.083
0.069
0.063
0.052
0.047
*
0.042
0.040
0.034
0.029
0.023
0.017
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
*
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.019
*
0.090
0.081
0.080
0.083
0.060
0.066
0.069
0.049
0.037
0.037
*
0.034
0.041
0.039
0.034
0.037
0.025
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
*
0.006
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.051
*
0.101
0.117
0.083
0.095
0.057
0.121
0.069
0.048
0.034
0.034
*
0.025
0.037
0.032
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.010
0.007
0.004
0.005
*
0.006
0.010
0.008
0.007
0.036
*
0.109
0.076
0.057
0.088
0.069
0.088
0.049
0.041
0.041
0.030
*
0.036
0.039
0.035
0.027
0.028
0.026
0.016
0.009
0.007
0.009
*
0.010
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.074
*
0.114
0.091
0.085
0.080
0.075
0.083
0.069
0.063
0.052
0.047
*
0.042
0.040
0.034
0.029
0.023
0.017
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
*
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.019
*
0.090
0.081
0.080
0.083
0.060
0.066
0.069
0.049
0.037
0.037
*
0.034
0.041
0.039
0.034
0.037
0.025
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
*
0.006
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.051
*
0.163
0.137
0.087
0.103
0.067
0.074
0.044
0.035
0.032
0.054
*
0.040
0.044
0.029
0.026
0.018
0.016
0.010
0.004
0.004
0.003
*
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.004
*
0.138
0.105
0.080
0.070
0.068
0.053
0.053
0.041
0.029
0.021
*
0.022
0.320
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
*
*
MOBILE6
Vehicle
Classes:
*
1
LDV
Light­
Duty
Vehicles
(
Passenger
Cars)
*
2
LDT1
Light­
Duty
Trucks
1
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
3
LDT2
Light
Duty
Trucks
2
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
4
LDT3
Light
Duty
Trucks
3
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
5
LDT4
Light
Duty
Trucks
4
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
6
HDV2B
Class
2b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
8501­
10,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
7
HDV3
Class
3
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
10,001­
14,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
8
HDV4
Class
4
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
14,001­
16,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
9
HDV5
Class
5
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
16,001­
19,500
lbs.
GVWR)
*
10
HDV6
Class
6
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
19,501­
26,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
11
HDV7
Class
7
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
26,001­
33,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
12
HDV8A
Class
8a
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
33,001­
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
13
HDV8B
Class
8b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(>
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
14
HDBS
School
Busses
*
15
HDBT
Transit
and
Urban
Busses
*
16
MC
Motorcycles
(
All)
*
REG
DIST
*
RESULTING
MOBILE6­
BASED
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
*
*
MOBILE6
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
BY
VEHICLE
CLASS
AND
AGE
*
LDV
M5
LDGV
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
66
March
31,
2004
1
0.114
0.091
0.085
0.080
0.075
0.083
0.069
0.063
0.052
0.047
0.042
0.040
0.034
0.029
0.023
0.017
0.012
0.007
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.019
*
LDT1
M5
LDGT1
2
0.090
0.081
0.080
0.083
0.060
0.066
0.069
0.049
0.037
0.037
0.034
0.041
0.039
0.034
0.037
0.025
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
0.006
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.051
*
LDT2
M5
LDGT1
3
0.090
0.081
0.080
0.083
0.060
0.066
0.069
0.049
0.037
0.037
0.034
0.041
0.039
0.034
0.037
0.025
0.021
0.013
0.009
0.008
0.006
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.051
*
LDT3
M5
LDGT2
4
0.101
0.117
0.083
0.095
0.057
0.121
0.069
0.048
0.034
0.034
0.025
0.037
0.032
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.010
0.007
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.010
0.008
0.007
0.036
*
LDT4
M5
LDGT2
5
0.101
0.117
0.083
0.095
0.057
0.121
0.069
0.048
0.034
0.034
0.025
0.037
0.032
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.010
0.007
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.010
0.008
0.007
0.036
*
HDV2B
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
6
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV3
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
7
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV4
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
8
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV5
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
9
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV6
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
10
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV7
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
11
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV8a
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
12
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDV8b
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
13
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
67
March
31,
2004
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDBS
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
14
0.133
0.102
0.070
0.095
0.068
0.082
0.047
0.039
0.037
0.040
0.038
0.041
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.022
0.014
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.043
*
HDBT
M5
HDDVs
15
0.163
0.137
0.087
0.103
0.067
0.074
0.044
0.035
0.032
0.054
0.040
0.044
0.029
0.026
0.018
0.016
0.010
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.004
*
Motorcycles
M5
MC
16
0.138
0.105
0.080
0.070
0.068
0.053
0.053
0.041
0.029
0.021
0.022
0.320
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
North
Carolina
REG
DIST
*
Convert
MOBILE5
Registration
Fractions
to
MOBILE6­
Based
Registration
Fractions
*
*
Calendar
Year:
1995.000User­
Input
*
*
MOBILE5b
Reg
Fractions
*
0.064
0.057
0.066
0.063
0.067
0.065
0.074
0.064
0.061
0.052
*
0.048
0.046
0.049
0.044
0.037
0.031
0.025
0.019
0.011
0.006
*
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.028
*
0.060
0.052
0.056
0.055
0.060
0.049
0.054
0.059
0.045
0.038
*
0.036
0.035
0.045
0.046
0.042
0.043
0.033
0.031
0.021
0.014
*
0.013
0.011
0.018
0.017
0.067
*
0.245
0.038
0.057
0.040
0.046
0.028
0.059
0.034
0.023
0.016
*
0.017
0.012
0.018
0.016
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.005
0.004
0.002
*
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.300
*
0.118
0.032
0.027
0.020
0.031
0.024
0.031
0.017
0.015
0.015
*
0.011
0.013
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.006
0.003
0.003
*
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.563
*
0.064
0.057
0.066
0.063
0.067
0.065
0.074
0.064
0.061
0.052
*
0.048
0.046
0.049
0.044
0.037
0.031
0.025
0.019
0.011
0.006
*
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.028
*
0.060
0.052
0.056
0.055
0.060
0.049
0.054
0.059
0.045
0.038
*
0.036
0.035
0.045
0.046
0.042
0.043
0.033
0.031
0.021
0.014
*
0.013
0.011
0.018
0.017
0.067
*
0.115
0.095
0.110
0.060
0.083
0.057
0.067
0.052
0.040
0.029
*
0.029
0.041
0.041
0.040
0.034
0.024
0.023
0.018
0.007
0.007
*
0.006
0.005
0.006
0.003
0.008
*
0.223
0.028
0.024
0.018
0.016
0.016
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.007
*
0.005
0.630
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
*
*
*
MOBILE6
Vehicle
Classes:
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
68
March
31,
2004
*
1
LDV
Light­
Duty
Vehicles
(
Passenger
Cars)
*
2
LDT1
Light­
Duty
Trucks
1
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
3
LDT2
Light
Duty
Trucks
2
(
0­
6,000
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
4
LDT3
Light
Duty
Trucks
3
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
0­
3750
lbs.
LVW)
*
5
LDT4
Light
Duty
Trucks
4
(
6,001­
8500
lbs.
GVWR,
3751­
5750
lbs.
LVW)
*
6
HDV2B
Class
2b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
8501­
10,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
7
HDV3
Class
3
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
10,001­
14,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
8
HDV4
Class
4
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
14,001­
16,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
9
HDV5
Class
5
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
16,001­
19,500
lbs.
GVWR)
*
10
HDV6
Class
6
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
19,501­
26,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
11
HDV7
Class
7
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
26,001­
33,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
12
HDV8A
Class
8a
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(
33,001­
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
13
HDV8B
Class
8b
Heavy
Duty
Vehicles
(>
60,000
lbs.
GVWR)
*
14
HDBS
School
Busses
*
15
HDBT
Transit
and
Urban
Busses
*
16
MC
Motorcycles
(
All)
*
*
RESULTING
MOBILE6­
BASED
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
*
*
MOBILE6
REGISTRATION
FRACTIONS
BY
VEHICLE
CLASS
AND
AGE
*
LDV
M5
LDGV
1
0.064
0.057
0.066
0.063
0.067
0.065
0.074
0.064
0.061
0.052
0.048
0.046
0.049
0.044
0.037
0.031
0.025
0.019
0.011
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.028
*
LDT1
M5
LDGT1
2
0.060
0.052
0.056
0.055
0.060
0.049
0.054
0.059
0.045
0.038
0.036
0.035
0.045
0.046
0.042
0.043
0.033
0.031
0.021
0.014
0.013
0.011
0.018
0.017
0.067
*
LDT2
M5
LDGT1
3
0.060
0.052
0.056
0.055
0.060
0.049
0.054
0.059
0.045
0.038
0.036
0.035
0.045
0.046
0.042
0.043
0.033
0.031
0.021
0.014
0.013
0.011
0.018
0.017
0.067
*
LDT3
M5
LDGT2
4
0.245
0.038
0.057
0.040
0.046
0.028
0.059
0.034
0.023
0.016
0.017
0.012
0.018
0.016
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.005
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.300
*
LDT4
M5
LDGT2
5
0.245
0.038
0.057
0.040
0.046
0.028
0.059
0.034
0.023
0.016
0.017
0.012
0.018
0.016
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.005
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.300
*
HDV2B
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
6
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV3
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
7
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV4
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
8
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
B
Page
69
March
31,
2004
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV5
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
9
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV6
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
10
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV7
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
11
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV8a
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
12
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDV8b
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
13
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDBS
M5
HDVs
(
Combined
HDGV
and
HDDV)
14
0.117
0.059
0.062
0.037
0.053
0.038
0.046
0.032
0.025
0.021
0.018
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.020
0.016
0.015
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.327
*
HDBT
M5
HDDVs
15
0.115
0.095
0.110
0.060
0.083
0.057
0.067
0.052
0.040
0.029
0.029
0.041
0.041
0.040
0.034
0.024
0.023
0.018
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.006
0.003
0.008
*
Motorcycles
M5
MC
16
0.223
0.028
0.024
0.018
0.016
0.016
0.012
0.012
0.009
0.007
0.005
0.630
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Triad
Early
Action
Compact
Ozone
Action
Plan
Appendix
C
Page
1
March
31,
2004
APPENDIX
C
TRIAD
EARLY
ACTION
PLAN
STRATEGIES
AND
CONTROL
MEASURES
Assumptions/
Explanation
NOx
Reduction
Tons/
Yr
for
2007
VOC
Reduction
Tons/
Yr
for
2007
Geographic
Area
Implementation
Date
l,
Vehicles
and
Equipment
78.84
State
vehicles
per
county
33.3
VMT/
day
14
vehicles
per
county
per
year
turnover.

Source:
1999
NC
Senate
Bill
953
Calculation
Method:
CACPS
No
estimates
yet
on
local
vehicles
EAC
will
design
an
on­
line
database
and
reporting
system
to
account
for
local
government
vehicle
replacements.
This
will
be
used
to
calculate
emissions
reductions
due
to
retirement
of
old
vehicles
and
replacement
with
lower
emissions
vehicles.
0.9
1.1
11
County
region
Beginning
January
2004.

Purchase
equipment
with
new
engine
technology
being
introduced
in
2001
­

2005
(
Tier
2)
and
2006
­
2008
(
Tier
3).

State
mandated
measure
N/
A
State
mandated
measure
N/
A
State
mandated
measure
Same
as
above
Same
as
above
Purchase
vehicles
with
new
engine
technology
scheduled
for
introduction
in
2004
and
2007.
N/
A
State
mandated
measure
N/
A
State
mandated
measure
Same
as
above
Same
as
above
Purchase
new
equipment
that
meets
California
standards.
N/
A
State
mandated
measure
N/
A
State
mandated
measure
Same
as
above
Same
as
above
Between
November
2002
and
the
Spring
of
2003
Greensboro
converted
all
diesel
vehicles,
on
and
off­
road,
to
biodiesel.
The
city
now
uses
close
to
1.5
million
gallons
annually
of
biodiesel.
Reductions
are:

­
30%
total
unburned
hydrocarbons
­
20%
carbon
monoxide
­
22%
particulate
matter
+
2%
NOx
­
20%
sulfates
­
13%
PAH
­
50%
nPAH
arge
Public
Construction
Projects
Local
implementation
will
depend
on
State
DOT
taking
the
initiative
for
major
highway
projects.
State
DOT
staff
is
developing
a
proposal
for
contract
requirements
and/
or
incentives
for
heavy
equipment
emissions
reductions
to
submit
to
the
State
Board
of
Transportation.
Quantification
not
possible
at
this
time
Quantification
not
possible
at
this
time
11
county
region
Include
only
if
we
think
it
will
be
implemented
by
state
DOT
ransportation
Newly
authorized
funding
provided
about
$
2.5
million
in
2003.
In
addition,

PART
secured
nearly
$
7
million
in
sate
and
federal
funds.
9000
current
VMT
50%
increase
per
year
Source:
PART
Calculation
Method:
CACPS
(
The
regional
bus
service
travels
from
downtown
transit
centers
in
Greensboro,
Winston­
Salem
and
High
Point
to
the
PART
regional
transfer
facility.
There,
shuttles
travel
to
business
and
hotels
in
the
airport
area
and
to
the
airport
itself.
In
2003
PART
Express
averaged
10,000
monthly
one­
way
passenger
trips,
yielding
a
350,000­
mile
monthly
reduction
in
miles
traveled
on
the
region's
road
network.
counties
15
VMT/
trip
10%
increase
/
5
years
Source:
PART
and
NCDOT
Calculation
Method:
DOT
Spreadsheet
PART
has
funds
on
hand
to
build
20
park
and
ride
lots.
Plans
are
underway
for
construction
of
several
lots
in
Greensboro,
Winston­
Salem
and
High
Point.

Others
will
be
built
in
surrounding
counties,
contingent
upon
10%
local
match.
3.2
1.6
Urban
core
area
first
 
Guilford
and
Forsyth
and
Alamance
counties.
Minimum
of
5
built
or
leased
in
core
urban
area
2004.
Additional
lots
to
be
built
or
leased
in
3
outlying
counties
2004.

gle
Occupancy
Vehicles
20
vans
currently
Add
5
vans
per
year
12
persons
/
van
30
VMT
/
person
/
day
Source:
PART
Calculation
Method:
CACPS
Program
has
served
commuters
in
region
for
10
years.
0.7
0.7
Guilford
and
Forsyth
counties
Beginning
January
2004
Conservative
assumption
based
on
5.73%
carpool
population
30
VMT
/
person
/
day
1%
increase
per
year
based
on
current
trend
Source:
2000
Census
Calculation
Method:
CACPS
19
23.2
Same
Beginning
January
2004
PART
is
partnering
with
NC
A&
T
University
and
UNC
Chapel
Hill
on
accessibility
and
engineering
feasibility
of
this
incentive
for
using
multiple
occupancy
vehicles
.
Project
is
funded
by
US
DOT.
N/
A
Alamance,

Guilford,

Forsyth
counties
Feasibility
study
is
ongoing
as
of
3/
31/
04
PART
is
in
Phase
II
of
a
Mobility
Major
Investment
Study.
It
has
produced
feasibility
data
on
2
groups
of
rapid
transit
technologies
for
the
region,
bus
and
rail.
The
PART
Board
will
determine
whether
to
begin
with
bus
or
to
move
directly
into
planning
for
inter­
city
rail.
4
potential
corridors
have
been
studied
and
a
priority
East
West
Corridor
has
been
chosen.
Implementation
will
be
based
on
land
use
policies
of
activity
centers,
village
centers
and
infill
in
designated
centers
along
the
corridor.

ortation
Measures
N/
A
Quantifications
included
in
A6
and
A7
Quantifications
included
in
A6
and
A7
Same
Late
2004.

N/
A
Quantifications
included
Quantifications
Same
Depends
on
due
to
manufacturing
job
losses.

N/
A
Quantifications
included
in
A6
and
A7
Quantifications
included
in
A6
and
A7
Already
implemented
by
Greensboro
for
city
employees
DUSTRIES
&
UTILITIES:
Reduce
Emissions
from
Boilers
Duke
Power
communicated
to
DAQ
its
likely
NOx
emissions
rate
for
Belews
Creek
­­­­­­­­

R.
J.
Reynolds
communicated
to
DAQ
its
likely
ozone
season
NOx
emissions
rate
for
Tobaccoville
site
(
including
boilers)
on
10/
6/
03.
This
recommendation
improves
the
accuracy
of
the
Division
of
Air
Quality
(
DAQ)
model.
While
we
believe
the
likely
emissions
are
less
than
DAQ's
default
projection,

this
recommendation
does
not
include
an
enforceable
emission
reduction.
11
county
region
Immediate
No
one
anticipates
that
any
of
the
closed
businesses
will
re­
open.

List
of
closed
facilities
transmitted
to
DAQ
on
11/
5/
03
Of
closed
facilities
in
the
Triad,
RJRT
Bailey
Plant,
downtown
Winston­
Salem,
had
the
highest
emissions..
The
boilers
were
retired
in
1997.
Since
the
modeling
is
based
on
the
1995
inventory,
these
boilers
should
be
removed.
Projected
2007
NOx
emissions
are
1.33
tons
per
day.
­­­­­­­

Several
other
Triad
facilities
have
closed.

Their
closures
should
be
accounted
for
in
the
model
by
updating
growth
factors
for
the
respective
industry
sectors.
Forsyth
County
More
information
available
by
March
2004.

Ozone
Season
NOx
Emissions
 
RJRT
Tobaccoville
NOx
SIP
seasonal
tons
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Boiler
1
194
243
64
64
64
Boiler
2
218
273
64
64
64
Boiler
3
178
223
64
64
64
Boiler
4
190
238
64
64
64
Total
780
977
256
256
256
Days
per
season
122
153
153
153
153
Forsyth
County
Emission
reduction
will
take
place
before
the
2004
ozone
season.
Max.
emissions
gas
boilers
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Reductions
tons
per
day
5.44
5.44
0.72
0.72
0.72
DUSTRIES
&
UTILITIES:
Reduce
Emissions
at
Specific
Business
and
Industry
Sites
(
Boiler
and
non­
boiler)

Not
available
at
this
time.

Reductions
will
not
be
significant
but
do
support
the
overall
direction
of
EAC
strategies.
Guilford
County
Completed
between
2001
and
2003
Not
available
at
this
time.

Reductions
will
not
be
significant
but
do
support
the
overall
direction
of
EAC
strategies.
Randolph
County
#
1,2,4
complete
#
3
To
be
implemented
June
2004
1308
pounds
of
NOx
per
ozone
season.
(
56
routes
eliminated@
90
miles
per
day)
NOx
emissions
per
vehicle:
1.1grams
per
mile
(
per
DAQ
estimate
for
Forsyth
County
for
2003
based
on
MOBILE6
2)
Ozone
Season
May
1­

September
30
=
153
days.
Week
days=
153
x
5/
7
=
109
days.
NOx
reduced
=
12
pounds
per
day
x
109
days
=
1308
pounds
11
counties
Completed
Estimate
133
diesel
truck
engines
and
483
gasoline
truck
engines
reduce
30
minutes
per
day
of
idling.

Reduced
idling
is
assumed
to
produce
an
overall
benefit
in
the
form
11
counties
Summer
2004
quantified
based
on
available
information
at
this
time.
DAQ
does
not
have
any
reliable
emissions
factor
but
does
recommend
idling
reduction
as
directionally
correct
with
ozone
attainment
planning.
Guilford
and
Forsyth
counties
To
be
determined
lations
Statewide
rule
to
prohibit
open
burning
on
code
red
and
code
orange
days
will
go
into
effect
for
2004
ozone
season.
NC
Division
of
Air
Quality
is
developing
data
on
estimated
NOx
and
PM2.5
emissions
from
open
burning.
11
counties
EACs
and
DAQ
begin
cooperating
on
open
burning
outreach
Feb.

2004
Nonquantifiable
11
counties
Ongoing
Fist
joint
venture
is
an
AFV
road
show
to
be
conducted
in
Greensboro
and
Winston­
Salem
on
April
21,
2004.
Programming
and
outreach
provided
by
Triangle
Clean
Cities
program,
City
of
Greensboro
and
City
of
Winston­

Salem.
Nonquantifiable
11
counties
2004,
depending
upon
level
of
local
government
interest.

Initiated
Pilot
Projects
0.128%
buses
/
person
51250
VMT
/
day
160
school
days
/
year
30%
buses
eligible
Source:
Guilford
County
Schools
Annual
Report
2003
Calculation
Method:
EPA
Retrofit
Calculator
Quantifications
for
regional
use
only
 
not
for
inclusion
in
SIP
Guilford
County
School
System
has
just
been
awarded
$
100,000
for
retrofits
of
50­
100
busses.
23
Quantifications
for
regional
use
only
 
not
for
inclusion
in
SIP
17
Quantifications
for
regional
use
only
 
not
for
inclusion
in
SIP
11
counties,

especially
Guilford
County
2004
if
funds
received
0.073
vehicles
/
person
30.8
VMT
/
day
38.2%
fleet
diesel
30%
vehicles
eligible
Source:
Forsyth
County
Fleet
Winston­
Salem
Fleet
2003
Mobile
Maintenance
Plan
Calculation
Method:
EPA
Retrofit
Calculator
Quantifications
for
regional
use
only
 
not
for
inclusion
in
SIP
10
Quantifications
for
regional
use
only
 
not
for
inclusion
in
SIP
7.0
Quantifications
for
regional
use
only
 
not
for
inclusion
in
SIP
11
counties
To
be
determined
reduction
equipment
installed,
emissions
reductions
in
the
Triad
can
be
quantified.

However,
this
would
be
a
pilot
program
and
emissions
reductions
would
be
small.
grant
funds.

Guilford
County
School
system
has
instituted
a
no
idling
policy
for
all
school
buses.
"
When
the
temperature
is
50
degrees
or
higher,
upon
arrival
at
school
sites
while
awaiting
afternoon
boarding,
school
bus
engines
will
be
turned
off
and
not
restarted
until
loading
is
completed
and
buses
are
ready
to
begin
the
routes."

ion
in
the
Region
Education
and
outreach
programs
under
leadership
of
Triad
Air
Awareness
Program
located
in
the
offices
of
the
Forsyth
County
Department
of
Environmental
Affairs
Nonquantifiable
11
counties
Ozone
season
2004
Nonquantifiable
Same
Same
as
above
Nonquantifiable
Same
Same
as
above
Nonquantifiable
Same
Same
as
above
Nonquantifiable
Same
Same
as
above.

Nonquantifiable
Same
Same
as
above.

ms
See
news
articles
#
5
and
#
6
in
Section
1.5
of
Text
re:
energy
savings
programs
in
High
Point
municipal
buildings
and
Davidson
County
buildings.
A
pilot
program
in
the
Guilford
County
schools
is
being
expanded,
and
the
City
of
Asheboro
(
Randolph
County)
has
already
completed
an
energy
saving
audit
with
measurable
results.
Include
in
3%
reduction
allowed
for
voluntary
measures
Include
in
3%

reduction
allowed
for
voluntary
measures
2
counties
currently;

others
later
Completed,
as
noted
above,
in
public
buildings
in
several
counties
and
school
systems.
To
be
implemented
in
other
locations
throughout
2004
and
2005.
Strategies
Implemented
in
2003
in
City
of
Thomasville
in
Davidson
County.

Others
with
telephone
and
electronic
e­
billpay
are
being
identified.

Assumed
to
be
nonquantifiable
Ongoing
in
several
counties
Strategies
implemented
at
various
levels
throughout
the
region.

Already
implemented
in
Greensboro,
Winston­
Salem
and
High
Point;

incorporated
into
their
long­
range
transportation
updates.

Assumed
to
be
nonquantifiable
On­
going
in
Winston­

Salem
and
Greensboro
Implemented
at
various
levels
throughout
the
region
Strategies
E4
 
E7
mandated
in
1999
NC
Senate
Bill
953
40
MPH
average
commute
20%
state
government
employees
in
Triad
eligible
to
participate
Source:
2000
US
Census;
NC
commuting
trends
Calculation
Method:
CACPS
E4,5,6,7
154.6
E4,5,6,7
188.9
11
counties
Implemented
at
various
levels
throughout
the
region
N/
A
Nonquantifiable
Nonquantifiable
11
counties
Ongoing
inue
to
Promote
Automobile
Alternatives
Mobility
Major
Investment
Study
studied
2
groups
of
rapid
transit
technologies
bus
and
rail.
PART
Board
of
Directors
has
not
determined
whether
to
begin
with
bus
or
rail.
4
corridors
were
studied
and
the
East
West
Corridor
has
been
chosen
as
the
priority
corridor.

This
Study
incorporates
land
use
policies
of
activity
centers,
village
centers
and
infill
in
designated
centers
along
the
corridor.
Significant
future
impact
11
counties
Ongoing
0.89%
population
participation
30
VMT
/
day
/
person
(
vehicle
mileage
removed
from
circulation)

Source:
US
Census
Calculation
Method:
CACPS
228.5
279.4
11
counties
Ongoing
..
11
counties
Future
plans
rdinated
and
Pedestrian
Friendly
Land
Use
Quantification
included
in
A6,
A7,
A8,
A9,
A10
11
counties
Ongoing
Quantification
included
in
A6
11
counties
Ongoing
Quantification
included
in
A6
11
counties
Ongoing
Quantification
included
in
A6
11
counties
Ongoing
Quantification
included
in
A6
11
counties
Ongoing
Quantification
included
in
A6
11
counties
Ongoing
Quantification
included
in
A6
Ongoing
Quantification
included
in
A6,
A7,
A8,
A9,
A10
Guilford
&

Forsyth
counties
Ongoing
Quantification
included
in
E1
11
counties
Ongoing
Throughout
the
Region
Triad
local
governments
have
adopted
and
are
formulating
new
comprehensive
development
plans
and
unified
development
ordinances
that
incorporate
smart
growth
principles.
Comprehensive
plans,

and
ordinances
that
reflect
these
plans
have
been
adopted
in:

Greensboro
igh
Point
Winston­
Salem/
Forsyth
County
Randolph
County
Davie
County
Lexington
Elon
Asheboro
Franklinville
Burlington
All
of
these
plans
and
ordinances
provide
for
street
connectivity,
more
sidewalks,
TND,
mixed
use
and
infill
development,
and
landscaping
Land
Use
and
transportation
planning
are
linked
in
land
use
plans
and
in
the
4
MPO
multi
modal
transportation
plan
updates.

27
local
governments
have
also
adopted
PART's
Land
Use
and
Transportation
Principles
as
a
local
and
regional
guide
to
link
land
use
and
transportation
planning.

These
measures
are
discussed
more
fully
in
the
narrative
and,
by
way
of
example,
web
site
links
are
provided
to
17
ordinances
and
plans.
