Post on 27-Mar-2015
1
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Modeling for 8-hour Ozone
Preliminary 2009 ResultsFor Metrolina and
Great Smoky Mountain National Park Stakeholders
Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ
Laura Boothe, NCDAQ
Bebhinn Do, NCDAQ
June 28, 2005
2
Outline
• Review / Background• 15% VOC Requirements• 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 & 2009)
– Menu of possible control options
3
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
4
NC 8-hr Ozone Nonattainment Areas
5
Ozone Nonattainment TimelineDefinitions for Metrolina Area
Effective date = June 15, 2004
Transportation conformity date = June 15, 2005
SIP submittal date = June 15, 2007
Attainment date = June 15, 2010*
Data used to determine attainment = 2007-2009
(Modeling) Attainment year = 2009
* Or as early as possible
6
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 26th
Today
7
Modeling Domains
36 km
12 km
8
Modeling Season / Episode
• Full Year of 2002 selected for VISTAS modeling– Regional Haze / Fine Particulate: Full Year– Ozone: Late May – End Of August
• The “higher” portion of the 2002 ozone season selected for the Ozone SIP and Attainment Demonstration modeling.
9
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
9
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
10
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
– For Metrolina area…must include: • 15% VOC Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Plan• VOC & NOX Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)• Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) • Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
programs (I/M)
11
15% VOC Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Plan
• Calculated from the 2002 base year• Cannot substitute other emissions for the first plan• Phase 2 implementation guidance should say what
can and cannot be counted towards the 15% plan• Includes reductions from all man-made emissions,
i.e. point, area, highway mobile and off-road mobile
12
15% VOC RFP for NC Portion of Metrolina Nonattainment Area*
Source 2002 (tons/day) 2009 (tons/day) % Reduction
Point 19.68 20.17 2.5
Area 20.82 22.55 8.3
Nonroad Mobile
28.42 17.67 -37.8
Highway Mobile
137.47 71.43 -48.0
Total 206.38 131.82 -36.1
* Does not include Iredell County
13
15% VOC RFP for SC Portion of Metrolina Nonattainment Area*
Source 2002 (tons/day) 2009 (tons/day) % Reduction
Point 7.71 3.22 -58.2
Area 1.86 1.97 6.3
Nonroad Mobile
3.98 2.43 -38.9
Highway Mobile
11.56 6.93 -40.1
Total 25.11 14.56 -42.0
Total w/o Point
17.40 11.34 -34.9
* All of York County, not just the partial area
14
VOC & NOX RACT
• All existing point sources with potential to emit ≥ 100 tons/year (TPY)
• NC has pre-adopted VOC RACT rules (2D .0900) and NOx RACT rule (2D .1413)– Will have to update to include entire Metrolina 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area– Will have to activate these rules
• SC has a statewide VOC rule for new sources with actual emissions ≥ 100 TPY and statewide NOx rule for large boilers (>10 MBTU/hour)
• Starting to identify potential sources subject to RACT requirements
15
Other Requirements
• RACM Requirements – Applies to all source sectors (point, area, highway mobile & off-road
mobile sources)
– 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
– SC has adopted some RACM type rules
• Open burning • Degreasers
• Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance programs (I/M)– NC has already met this requirement in Metrolina area
– SC working on a program for the nonattainment area in York Co.
16
2002 Typical and 2009 Emissions Overview
Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ Environmental Engineer II
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. 2009 for Metrolina 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
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 Metrolina NOx emissions
0
50
100
150
200
250
Point Mobile Nonroad Area
ton
s/d
ay 2002
2009
Metrolina Area Includes: Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union, York SC
20
2002 Typical and 2009 Emission Summaries
• Point• Area & Nonroad• Mobile
Metrolina nonattainment area– NOx bar charts
21
22
Area Souce NOx and Population
02468
10121416
ton
s/d
ay
0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000900,0001,000,000
po
pu
lati
on
2002 2009 2002 2009
23
24
25
Cabarrus CountyCabarrus County
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
2002 VMT2002 VMT
2002 NOx emissions = 19.9 tpd2002 NOx emissions = 19.9 tpd
2009 VMT2009 VMT
2009 NOx emissions = 10.5 tpd2009 NOx emissions = 10.5 tpd
26
Gaston CountyCounty
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT
2002 NOx emissions = 23.2 tpd2002 NOx emissions = 23.2 tpd 2009 NOx emissions = 10.8 tpd2009 NOx emissions = 10.8 tpd
27
Iredell CountyIredell County
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT
2002 NOx emissions = 39.6 tpd2002 NOx emissions = 39.6 tpd 2009 NOx emissions = 18.8 tpd2009 NOx emissions = 18.8 tpd
28
Lincoln CountyLincoln County
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT
2002 NOx emissions = 6.9 tpd2002 NOx emissions = 6.9 tpd 2009 NOx emissions = 4.3 tpd2009 NOx emissions = 4.3 tpd
29
Mecklenburg CountyMecklenburg County
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT
2002 NOx emissions = 71.1 tpd2002 NOx emissions = 71.1 tpd 2009 NOx emissions = 39.0 tpd2009 NOx emissions = 39.0 tpd
30
Rowan CountyRowan County
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT
2002 NOx emissions = 22.2 tpd2002 NOx emissions = 22.2 tpd 2009 NOx emissions = 10.9 tpd2009 NOx emissions = 10.9 tpd
31
Union CountyUnion County
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
LDGV
LDGT1
LDGT2
HDGV
OTHER
HDDV
2002 VMT2002 VMT 2009 VMT2009 VMT
2002 NOx emissions = 14.9 tpd2002 NOx emissions = 14.9 tpd 2009 NOx emissions = 6.9 tpd2009 NOx emissions = 6.9 tpd
32
ONROAD Mobile NOx 2009 minus 2002
(max difference)
• Reductions only
• Scale 0 to –0.5 moles/s
33
Air Quality Modeling Results
• Bebhinn Do, NCDAQ Meteorologist
34
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
35
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.
36
Attainment Test
DVF = RRF * DVC
DVF = Future Design Value RRF = Relative Reduction Factor DVC = Current Design Value
37
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.
38
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)…
If DVF is 84 ppb, the test is passed.
DVF = RRF * DVC
39
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.
40
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
41
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.
42
43
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.
44
45
Method 4
• Average of the design values for the 5 year period that straddles the baseline inventory year.
• Average of the 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 design value.
• This method takes into account the variability in meteorology and emissions without giving one year a higher weight than another.
46
47
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)…
If DVF is 84 ppb, the test is passed.
DVF = RRF * DVC
48
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)
49
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
50
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
51
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.
52
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.
53
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.
54
Example Calculation
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/draft-final-o3.pdf
55
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)…
If DVF is 84 ppb, the test is passed.
DVF = RRF * DVC
56
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 2009 Emissions, processed with 2002 Meteorology
57
Preliminary Results
58
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
59
DVCs used
Just as a reminder:
• 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
60
Preliminary Results -- Metrolina
Cutpoint # Days RRF 01-03 Weighted Average
Charlotte County Line 37-119-1009 70 52 0.863 0.084 0.083 0.081
Enochville 37-159-0022 70 57 0.861 0.085 0.083 0.080
Rockw ell 37-159-0021 70 52 0.860 0.086 0.083 0.080
Garinger (Plaza) 37-119-0041 70 56 0.868 0.083 0.082 0.080
Crouse 37-109-0004 70 49 0.860 0.079 0.077 0.076
Arrow ood 37-119-1005 70 53 0.877 0.073 0.073 0.072
Monroe 37-179-0003 70 39 0.862 0.075 0.074 0.072
York, SC 45-091-0006 70 40 0.858 0.072 0.071 0.067
Region Monitoring Sites AIRS IDOriginal RRF Method DVF With Original RRF Method
61
Preliminary Results -- Metrolina
Cutpoint # Days RRF 01-03 Weighted Average
Charlotte County Line 37-119-1009 85 19 0.854 0.083 0.082 0.081
Enochville 37-159-0022 85 18 0.851 0.084 0.082 0.079
Rockw ell 37-159-0021 84 10 0.849 0.084 0.082 0.079
Garinger (Plaza) 37-119-0041 85 20 0.859 0.082 0.081 0.079
Crouse 37-109-0004 83 13 0.853 0.078 0.076 0.075
Arrow ood 37-119-1005 85 17 0.873 0.073 0.073 0.072
Monroe 37-179-0003 82 10 0.865 0.076 0.075 0.072
York, SC 45-091-0006 83 10 0.847 0.071 0.070 0.066
Newly Proposed RRF Method DVF With New RRF MethodRegion Monitoring Sites AIRS ID
62
Preliminary Results -- GRSM
Cutpoint # Days RRF 01-03 Weighted Average
GRSM Purchase Knob 37-087-0036 74 11 0.849 0.072 0.071 0.070
Bryson 37-173-0002 72 10 0.827 0.061 0.060 0.058
Look Rock 47-009-0101 76 11 0.833 0.075 0.075 0.074
Cades Cove 47-009-0102 74 11 0.825 0.061 0.061 0.061
Cove Mnt 47-155-0101 74 10 0.822 0.074 0.073 0.072
Clingmans Dome 47-155-0102 73 11 0.829 0.076 0.075 0.074
Newly Proposed RRF Method DVF With New RRF MethodRegion Monitoring Sites AIRS ID
Cutpoint # Days RRF 01-03 Weighted Average
GRSM Purchase Knob 37-087-0036 70 19 0.853 0.072 0.071 0.070
Bryson 37-173-0002 70 12 0.837 0.061 0.061 0.059
Look Rock 47-009-0101 70 32 0.848 0.077 0.077 0.076
Cades Cove 47-009-0102 70 22 0.842 0.063 0.063 0.062
Cove Mnt 47-155-0101 70 23 0.840 0.076 0.075 0.073
Clingmans Dome 47-155-0102 70 17 0.845 0.077 0.076 0.076
Region Monitoring Sites AIRS IDOriginal RRF Method DVF With Original RRF Method
63
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
64
Inventory Improvements
• Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ Environmental Engineer II
65
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 2009 run will include unit specific emissions as
specified in the June 1, 2005 NC CSA Compliance Plan submitted by Progress Energy and Duke Energy
– Kannapolis Energy shut down reflected appropriately
66
2002 Typical and 2009 Area & Nonroad
Inventory Improvements
• Area & Nonroad sources– No significant changes
67
2002 Typical and 2009 Onroad Mobile Source
Inventory Improvements
• 2002 VMT updated to reflect latest CDOT and NCDOT data used in recent transportation conformity analysis
• 2009 VMT will not change
68
Control Strategy Discussion
• Laura Boothe, NCDAQ Attainment Planning Chief
69
Additional Controls Discussion
• Based on EPA’s expected final modeling guidance:– The preliminary results show that the Metrolina area will pass
the attainment test– Several monitors are predicted to be close to the standard in
2009
• Do not know what the final modeling results will show– Several emission improvements– Cannot predict how the DVFs will change
• Therefore, need to be thinking about what additional controls may be needed
70
What Has Already Been Done?
• Clean Smokestacks Act– Results in reductions of NOx & SO2 year round
• Vehicle emissions testing– Expanded from 9 to 48 Counties; all of the NC
Metrolina counties have I/M program
• Ultra-Low sulfur fuels• Cleaner engines
71
What else can be controlled?
• Requirements still to address– Potential NOx reductions due to RACM – Potential NOx reductions due to RACT– NCDAQ still assessing these potential reductions
• What’s Left?
72
Metrolina* NOx emissions
* Includes: Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union, York SC
2002 NOx Emissions 388 tons/day
Point
Mobile
Nonroad
Area
2009 NOx Emissions227 tons/day
Point
Mobile
Nonroad
Area
73
Need Stakeholders Input
• Point Sources– Already controlling utilities with CSA– Large industrial NOx sources with NOx RACT– What else can be controlled?
• Area Sources– Not a significant source of NOx– Already have rule prohibiting open burning for
forecasted code orange days and above
74
Need Stakeholders Input
• Nonroad Mobile Sources– Voluntary/Mandatory diesel retrofits– Idle reduction policies– Need innovative local measures
• Highway Mobile Sources– Idle reduction policies– VMT reduction programs– Need innovative local measures
75
Next Steps/Schedule
Emission Inventory improvements… ~June 2005
New/refined 2002 and 2009 emissions and air quality modeling… ~Aug/Sept 2005
Until then… Discussion will continue on:– RFP, RACT, RACM – Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs)– Follow latest updates to EPA Modeling Guidance
After new/refined 2002 & 2009 emissions & air quality modeling is complete…– Summarize emissions changes– Present latest attainment test results– Have more detailed discussions on RFP, RACT, RACM, MVEBs
76
Contributors• South Carolina Department of Health and Environment Control• 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
77
Questions/Commentshttp://ncair.org
Laura Boothe, Chief of Attainment Planning919-733-1488Laura.Boothe@ncmail.net
Mike Abraczinskas, Environmental Engineer II919-715-3743Michael.Abraczinskas@ncmail.net
Bebhinn Do, Meteorologist919-715-0921Bebhinn.Do@ncmail.net
78
Thank You!