1 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Modeling for 8-hour Ozone Preliminary 2009 Results For Triangle and Rocky Mount Stakeholders Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ

1

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Modeling for 8-hour Ozone

Preliminary 2009 ResultsFor Triangle and Rocky Mount Stakeholders

Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ

Laura Boothe, NCDAQ

George Bridgers, NCDAQ

Bebhinn Do, NCDAQ

July 13, 2005

2

Preface

• 2008 emissions inventories are being developed by NCDAQ for the Triangle and Rocky Mount nonattainment areas

• Preliminary 2008 emissions and air quality modeling to be performed by NCDAQ

!!! 2009 emissions and air quality modeling results are being presented here today as a surrogate for 2008 !!!

3

Outline• Review / Background• Typical 2002 and Future 2009 emissions• Attainment test – How does it work?• Attainment test – Preliminary Results• Next steps

– Emissions changes anticipated in next set of modeling (2002 & 2008)

4

Background

• 8-hour ozone standard– If a monitored design value is > 0.08 ppm (84 ppb),

that monitor is violating the standard– The design value is defined as:

• 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average

5

NC 8-hr Ozone Nonattainment Areas

6

Ozone Nonattainment TimelineDefinitions for Triangle and RMT Areas

Effective date =

Transportation conformity date =

SIP submittal date =

Attainment date =

Data used to determine attainment =

(Modeling) Attainment year =

Redesignation base years =

Maintenance years =

June 15, 2004June 15, 2005June 15, 2007June 15, 2009*2006-200820082005 or 2006TBD

* Or as early as possible

7

What if area attains prior to SIP submittal date?

Redesignation/Maintenance SIP

8

Redesignation/Maintenance SIPProcess Overview

• Area attains standard (2005 or 2006)– Develop emissions inventory for the year area attains standard– Develop maintenance emissions inventories for at least 10

years beyond redesignation approval• Determined through Inter-Agency Consultation Process

– Develop interim/maintenance emissions inventories • 3 to 5 year increments

– Compare maintenance emissions to attaining year’s emissions• Maintenance emissions must be lower than attaining year’s

emissions… If not, control strategies must be developed

9

Redesignation/Maintenance SIPProcess Overview

• Develop draft SIP package– Emissions comparisons– Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets– Contingency measures

• Take draft SIP to public hearing– 30 day comment period

• Submit to EPA anytime prior to June 2007• Update plan 8 years after redesignation

– Must examine additional 10 years beyond final maintenance year in redesignation package

10

Modeling Application Process

• Select areas or domains of interest• Select representative ozone season/episodes• Prepare and refine meteorological simulations• Prepare and refine emission model inputs• Apply air quality modeling system• Performance evaluation of air quality modeling system• Prepare current and future year emissions• Re-apply air quality modeling system• Apply the attainment test

May 31st

Today

11

Modeling Domains

36 km

12 km

12

Modeling Season / Episode

• Full Year of 2002 selected for VISTAS modeling– Regional Haze / Fine Particulate: Full Year– Ozone: Late May – End Of August

• This is the portion of the 2002 ozone season when the majority of ozone exceendances took place.

13

Air Quality Modeling System

Meteorological Model Emissions Processor

Air Quality Model

MM5 SMOKE

CMAQ

SparseMatrixOperatorKernelEmissions

Community

Multiscale

Air

Quality

System

Temporally and Spatially Gridded Air Quality Output

predictions

14

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

• Need a “SIP submittal” to EPA within three years– Attainment Demonstration that details

the State’s plan to bring the area into attainment of the Federal standard

– Triangle and RMT areas…must include: • Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) • Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

15

Requirements• RACM Requirements

– Applies to all source sectors (point, area, highway mobile & off-road mobile sources)

• Point Sources referred to as RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology)

– Only what is necessary to attain NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable

– NC has already adopted some RACM type rules• Open burning ban during ozone events• Expanded I/M program• Pre-adopted VOC and NOx RACT rules for the 1-

hour ozone nonattainment areas

16

2002 Typical and 2009 Emissions Overview

Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ Environmental Engineer II

Note !!!• 2008 emissions inventories are being developed by NCDAQ for the

Triangle and Rocky Mount nonattainment areas• Preliminary 2008 emissions and air quality modeling to be

performed by NCDAQ

!!! 2009 emissions and air quality modeling results are being presented here today as a surrogate for 2008 !!!

17

Emissions Inventory Definitions

• ActualActual = the emissions inventory developed to simulate what happened in 2002

• TypicalTypical = the emissions inventory developed to characterize the “current” (2002) emissions… It doesn’t include specific events, but rather averages or typical conditions (e.g. EGUs and fires)

• FutureFuture = the emissions inventory developed to simulate the future (e.g. 2008 for Triangle and Rocky Mount modeling)

***Remember… Actual is used for model performance evaluation only! Typical and Future are used to determine future attainment status.

18

Preliminary 2002 Typical & 2009Emissions Comparison

North Carolina NOx em issions

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Point On-roadMobile

Nonroad Area

ton

s/d

ay 2002

2009

North Carolina Statewide NOx Emissions

19



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Point On-roadMobile

Nonroad Area

ton

s/d

ay 2002

2009


Triangle Area Includes: Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Orange, Person, Wake

Triangle NOx emissions

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Point Mobile Nonroad Area

ton

s/d

ay 2002

2009

20



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Point On-roadMobile

Nonroad Area

ton

s/d

ay 2002

2009


Rocky Mount Area Includes: Edgecombe and Nash

Rocky Mount NOx emissions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Point Mobile Nonroad Area

ton

s/d

ay 2002

2009

21

2002 Typical and 2009 Emission Summaries

• Point• Area & Nonroad• Mobile

Triangle and Rocky Mount nonattainment areas– NOx bar charts

22

23

24

25

Area Souce NOx and Population

02468

101214

ton

s/d

ay

0

100,000

200,000300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000700,000

800,000

900,000

po

pu

lati

on

2002 2009 2002 2009

26

Edgecomb-Nash Area NOX

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Edgecombe Co Nash Co

To

n /

Day 2002

2009

27

28

29

Triangle On-road Mobile NOx Emissions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

ton

s/d

ay

2002

2009

30

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

Chatham CountyChatham County2002 VMT2002 VMT

2002 NOx emissions = 7.1 tpd2002 NOx emissions = 7.1 tpd

2009 VMT2009 VMT

2009 NOx emissions = 5.0 tpd2009 NOx emissions = 5.0 tpd

31

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

Durham CountyCounty2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT

2002 NOx emissions = 24.2 tpd2002 NOx emissions = 24.2 tpd 2009 NOx emissions = 14.3 tpd2009 NOx emissions = 14.3 tpd

32

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

Franklin CountyFranklin County2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT


33

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

Granville CountyGranville County2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT


34

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

Johnston CountyJohnston County2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT


35

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

Orange CountyOrange County2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT


36

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

Person CountyPerson County2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT


37

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

Wake CountyWake County2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT


38

Rocky Mount On-road NOx Emissions

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Edgecombe Nash

ton

s/d

ay

2002

2009

39

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

Edgdcombe CountyEdgdcombe County2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT


40

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

LDGV

LDGT1

LDGT2

HDGV

OTHER

HDDV

Nash CountyNash County2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT


41

ONROAD Mobile NOx 2009 minus 2002

(max difference)

• Reductions only

• Scale 0 to –0.5 moles/s

42

Triangle* NOx emissions

* Triangle Area Includes: Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Orange, Person, Wake

2002 NOx Emissions 361 tons/day

Point

Mobile

Nonroad

Area

2009 NOx Emissions193 tons/day

Point

Mobile

Nonroad

Area

43

Rocky Mount* NOx emissions

* Rocky Mount Area Includes: Edgecombe and Nash Counties

2002 NOx Emissions 41 tons/day

Point

Mobile

Nonroad

Area

2009 NOx Emissions31 tons/day

Point

Mobile

Nonroad

Area

44

Air Quality Modeling Results

• Bebhinn Do, NCDAQ Meteorologist

45

What is a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?

• Analyses which estimate whether selected emissions reductions will result in ambient concentrations will meet NAAQS

• An identified set of control measures which will result in the required emissions reductions

• Use the Modeled Attainment Test to estimate emissions reduction needed to demonstrate attainment

46

What is the Attainment Test ?• An exercise in which an air quality model is used to

simulate current and future air quality near each monitoring site.

• Model estimates are used in a “relative” rather than “absolute” sense.

• Future ozone design values are estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying a modeled relative reduction factor at locations “near” each monitor times the observed monitor-specific ozone design value.

• The resulting projected site-specific “future design value” is compared to NAAQS.

• If all such future site-specific design values are 84 ppb, the test is passed.

47

Attainment Test

DVF = RRF * DVC

DVF = Future Design Value RRF = Relative Reduction Factor DVC = Current Design Value

48

Attainment Test

DVF = RRF * DVCRRF is basedon modeleddata

Future modeled valuesCurrent modeled values

DVC is basedon observeddata

If DVF is 84 ppb, the test is passed.

49

Attainment Test Step 1: Compute a current site-specific design value (DVC) from

monitored data

Step 2: Use air quality modeling results to estimate a site-specific relative reduction factor (RRF)

Step 3: Multiply the relative reduction factor obtained in step 2 times the site-specific design value in step 1… The result is a predicted site-specific future design value (DVF)…


DVF = RRF * DVC

50

Attainment Test

Step 1: Compute the current design value (DVC)

• The DVC is calculated for each monitoring

site within a nonattainment area. • EPA Draft Final Guidance for the 8-hour

Ozone standard suggests a few possible methods for calculating the DVC.

51

Method 1

• Use the design value corresponds to the period used in the attainment designation.

• Same steps as determining a design value for designation:

– Step 1: Sort all daily 8-hour average maximums in order from highest to lowest into a list for 2001

– Step 2: Repeat Step 1 for the next two consecutive years (2002 & 2003) creating a total of three lists

– Step 3: Average the 4th highest from each list or across the 3-year span

52

Method 2

• Use the design value period that straddles the baseline inventory year.

• Our baseline year is 2002; the corresponding DVC would be the average of the 4th highest 8-hour ozone concentrations from 2001, 2002, 2003.

• Results in the same value for Method 1 for our modeling.

53

54

55

Method 3• Average of the three design value period which

include the baseline inventory year. • Average of the 2000-2002, 2001-2003, 2002-2004

design value.• This method represents the baseline concentrations

while taking into account the variability in meteorology and emissions.

• EPA recommended method.

56

57

58

Method 4• Average of the design values for the 5 year

period that straddles the baseline inventory year.

• Average of the 4th highest values from 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, & 2004.

• This method takes into account the variability in meteorology and emissions without giving one year a higher weight than another.

59

60

61

DVC Summary

Method 1/2 (DVC(01-03))

Method 3 (Weighted Ave)

Method 4 (5yr Average)

Triangle Millbrook 37-183-0014 0.092 0.090 0.088

St. Augustine 37-183-0015 0.091 0.092 0.090

Butner 37-077-0001 0.094 0.092 0.090

Duke St. 37-063-0013 0.089 0.088 0.086

Franklinton 37-069-0001 0.090 0.089 0.087

Bushy Fork 37-145-0003 0.091 0.089 0.086

Tow er 37-183-0017 0.085 0.085 0.083

W. Johnston 37-101-0002 0.085 0.084 0.082

Fuquay-Varina 37-183-0016 0.088 0.087 0.085

Pittsboro 37-037-0004 0.082 0.081 0.078

Rocky Mount Leggett 37-065-0099 0.089 0.087 0.085

DVCRegion Monitoring Sites AIRS ID

62

Attainment Test Step 1: Compute a current site-specific design value

(DVC) from monitored data




DVF = RRF * DVC

63

Relative vs. Absolute• Why use model estimates in a “relative” rather than “absolute”

sense?

– The form of the 8-hr standard (4th highest averaged over 3 years) makes it difficult to tell whether or not a modeled exceedance obtained on one or more days selected from a limited sample of days is consistent with meeting the NAAQS

– Problems with model performance are reduced (although good model performance remains a prerequisite for use of a model in an attainment demonstration)

64

Attainment TestAttainment Test

Step 2: Compute the relative reduction factor (RRF)

RRF = the ratio of the model’s future to current projections “near” monitor “x”

(mean projected 8-hr daily max “near” monitor “x”)future

= (mean projected 8-hr daily max “near” monitor “x”)present

DVF = RRF * DVC

65

Attainment Test Step 2 (con’t)... Definition of “near a monitor”

– EPA guidance recommends considering an array of values “near” each monitor

– Assume a monitor is at the center of the grid cell in which it is located and that cell is the center of an array of “nearby” cells

– Using a grid with 12 km grid cells, “nearby” is defined by a

3 x 3 array of cells, with the monitor located in the center cell

66

Attainment Test

Step 2 (con’t)... Days used in RRF calculation• EPA has established cutoff value for model

values to be used in the calculation of the RRF• The predicted baseline (2002 typical) maximum 8-

hour concentrations < 70 ppb are excluded.• It is expected that future guidance will use 85 ppb

as a cutoff value with the stipulation that 10 days are needed to calculate a RRF. If the monitoring site does not have 10 days above 85 ppb, the cutoff is lowered until 10 days are obtained for the calculation.

67

Attainment Test

Step 2 (con’t)... Computing the RRF

• Once the days in the baseline year that meet the cutoff value are identified, the peak value for each grid cell is determined for the day.

• The maximum of the peak daily values from the 3x3 grid array are then identified.

• The maximum from the array are averaged for all days identified to determine the Current Mean Peak 8-hour Daily Maximum.

68

Attainment Test

Step 2 (con’t)... Computing the RRF

• This is then repeated for the same set of days from the Future year modeling.

• The maximum averaged value from the array is referred to as the Future Mean Peak 8-hour Daily Maximum.

• To obtain the RRF the Future Mean Peak 8-hour Daily Maximum is divided by the Current Mean Peak 8-hour Daily Maximum.

69

Example Calculation

http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/draft-final-o3.pdf

70

Attainment Test

Step 1: Compute a current site-specific design value (DVC) from monitored data




DVF = RRF * DVC

71

Attainment Test

Step 3: Compute the future design value (DVF)

DVF = RRF * DVC

Example:

DVFx(09) =Mean projected peak 8-hr daily max "near" monitor "x"

Mean projected peak 8-hr daily max "near" monitor "x"

DVC xX

Based on observed O3 data

2002 Meteorology2002 Emissions, processed with 2002 Meteorology

2002 Meteorology 2008 Emissions, processed with 2002 Meteorology

72

Preliminary Results

73

Attainment TestDVF = RRF * DVC

How sure are we that we’re going to attain?

Test the following:1. Use the various DVC calculation methods

2001-2003 DVC, Weighted Average, Average

2. Use both minimum thresholds (>70 ppb, >85ppb ) for excluding certain modeled days

74

Just a reminder . . .

• This is based on preliminary 2009 modeling• DVC Used:

– 01-03: The 2001 – 2003 design value. – Weighted Average:

(DV(00–02) + DV(01-03) + DV(02-04))/3

OR(4h(00)+ 2*4h(01)+ 3*4h(02)+ 2*4h(03)+ 4h(04))/9

– Average

(4h(00)+ 4h(01)+ 4h(02)+ 4h(03)+ 4h(04))/5

75

Preliminary Results – Triangle & Rocky Mount

Cutpoint # Days RRF 01-03 Weighted AverageTriangle Millbrook 37-183-0014 70 40 0.868 0.079 0.078 0.076

St. Augustine 37-183-0015 70 40 0.868 0.078 0.079 0.078Butner 37-077-0001 70 38 0.856 0.08 0.078 0.077Duke St. 37-063-0013 70 45 0.858 0.076 0.075 0.073Franklinton 37-069-0001 70 33 0.859 0.077 0.076 0.074Bushy Fork 37-145-0003 70 40 0.836 0.076 0.074 0.071Tower 37-183-0017 70 36 0.866 0.073 0.073 0.071W. Johnston 37-101-0002 70 28 0.851 0.072 0.071 0.069Fuquay-Varina 37-183-0016 70 32 0.865 0.076 0.075 0.073Pittsboro 37-037-0004 70 31 0.86 0.07 0.069 0.067

Rocky Mount Leggett 37-065-0099 70 20 0.857 0.076 0.074 0.072

Region Monitoring Sites AIRS ID"Original" RRF Method "Original" RRF Method

76

Preliminary Results – Triangle & Rocky Mount

Cutpoint # Days RRF 01-03 Weighted AverageTriangle Millbrook 37-183-0014 82 10 0.858 0.078 0.077 0.075

St. Augustine 37-183-0015 82 10 0.858 0.078 0.078 0.077Butner 37-077-0001 78 11 0.85 0.079 0.078 0.076Duke St. 37-063-0013 83 10 0.854 0.076 0.075 0.073Franklinton 37-069-0001 78 12 0.851 0.076 0.075 0.074Bushy Fork 37-145-0003 82 11 0.806 0.073 0.071 0.069Tower 37-183-0017 82 10 0.861 0.073 0.073 0.071W. Johnston 37-101-0002 79 11 0.853 0.072 0.071 0.069Fuquay-Varina 37-183-0016 80 10 0.858 0.075 0.074 0.072Pittsboro 37-037-0004 82 10 0.851 0.069 0.068 0.066

Rocky Mount Leggett 37-065-0099 76 10 0.851 0.075 0.074 0.072

DVF With New RRF MethodRegion Monitoring Sites AIRS ID

Newly Proposed RRF Method

77

The different methods can be used in conjunction with “the test”…

OR

Some could be used as supplemental analyses in a Weight Of Evidence determination…

Attainment Test

78

Emission Inventory Improvements

Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ Environmental Engineer II

79

2008 vs. Preliminary 2009 Point Source Inventory Improvements

• Initial 2009 Electric Generating Unit (EGU) emissions were developed using assumptions in the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). – Those assumptions at facilities subject to the NC

Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA) were not consistent with the CSA compliance plan.

• Changes upcoming– Final 2008 run will include unit specific emissions as

specified in the June 1, 2005 NC CSA Compliance Plan submitted by Progress Energy and Duke Energy

– Correction of Congentrix facility emissions in Edgecombe County

80

2002 Typical and 2008 Area & Nonroad

Inventory Improvements

• Area & Nonroad sources– New data acquired from Raleigh-Durham

International Airport• Growth assumptions changes

– Residential wood combustion emissions over-estimated

81

2002 Typical and 2008 Onroad Mobile Source

Inventory Improvements

• 2002 VMT updated to reflect latest NCDOT data used in recent transportation conformity analysis

• 2008 VMT is generally lower than 2009

82

Next Steps

• Laura Boothe, NCDAQ Attainment Planning Chief

83

Next Steps• Based on EPA’s expected final modeling guidance:

– The preliminary 2009 results show that the Triangle and Rocky Mount areas will pass the attainment test

• Given the 2009 results are well below the standard, the 2008 results will likely show attainment

Caveats:– 2008 vs. 2009

– Several emissions improvements

– Cannot predict exactly how the DVFs will change

84

Schedule

Emission Inventory improvements ~June/July 2005

New/refined 2002 emissions and air quality modeling ~Aug/Sept 2005Preliminary 2008 emissions and air quality modeling ~ Aug/Sept 2005

Until then… Discussion will continue on:– RACT, RACM – Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs)– Follow latest updates to EPA Modeling Guidance

After 2002 & 2008 emissions & air quality modeling is complete…– Hold another Stakeholder Meeting ~Oct 2005

• Summarize emissions changes• Present latest attainment test results• Have more detailed discussions on RACT, RACM, MVEBs

85

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs)

• Estimates of the 2008 mobile source emissions from attainment modeling exercise

– Can be estimated using MOBILE6 outside of SMOKE modeling framework• Will have opportunity to use “new/improved”

input data – As long as it’s not significantly different than input data in

attainment modeling

86

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs)

• We have options on how to set MVEBs

Area-wide

vs.

Sub-Area

87

Area-Wide MVEBs

• Advantages– Budgets can be shared (if the SIP language

allows this)

• Disadvantages– MPOs/RPOs must collectively make a

conformity determination – One MPO/RPO in the non-attainment area

(NA) lapses, everyone lapses (assuming more than one MPO/RPO in the NA area)

88

Sub-Area MVEBs

• Advantages– Once conformity is established for entire NA

area…..• Conformity determinations can be made

for specific MPOs/RPOs (without impacting the entire NA area)

• If one MPO/RPO within the NA lapses it does not impact remaining areas until their next conformity determination

89

Sub-Area (continued)

Disadvantages– Budgets cannot be shared

90

MVEBs

• Need from transportation partners:– “New/improved” data, if available ~Fall 2005– Discussion on how to set MVEBs ~NOW – Feb 2006

• If Area-wide budgets…– Need unanimous agreement with strong justification as to why by

February 2006

• Otherwise, county by county (sub-area budgets)

91

Contributors• Pat Brewer, VISTAS• Greg Stella, Alpine Geophysics• Cyndi Loomis, Alpine Geophysics• Don Olerud, Baron Advanced Meteorological Systems• Bill Barnard, MACTEC• Ed Sabo, MACTEC• Kristen Theising, PECHAN• Ralph Morris, ENVIRON• Gail Tonneson, University of California-Riverside• Dennis McNally, Alpine Geophysics• Jim Boylan, Georgia Environmental Protection Department• Sheila Holman, NCDAQ• Bebhinn Do, NCDAQ• Nick Witcraft, NCDAQ• Phyllis Jones, NCDAQ• Vicki Chandler, NCDAQ• Pat Bello, NCDAQ• Bob Wooten, NCDAQ• Matt Mahler, NCDAQ• Janice Godfrey, NCDAQ• Ming Xie, NCDAQ• Mildred Mitchell, NCDAQ• VISTAS Stakeholders

92

Questions/Commentshttp://daq.state.nc.us/

Laura Boothe, Chief of Attainment [email protected]

Mike Abraczinskas, Environmental Engineer [email protected]

Bebhinn Do, [email protected]

http://daq.state.nc.us/

mailto:[email protected]



93

Thank You!

Documents

1 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Modeling for 8-hour Ozone Preliminary 2009 Results For Triangle and Rocky Mount Stakeholders Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ