# ATTACHMENT A: Emission Inventory

# Table of Contents for Attachment A

Appendix A

– Point Source Summary

Appendix B

– Area Source Summary

Appendix C

– Area Source Calculation Notes

Appendix D

– Onroad Emission Projections

Appendix E

– Onroad Mobile Source Summary

Appendix F

– Nonroad M obile Source Summary and Documentation

Appendix G

– Cocke County Analysis

Appendix H

– MOBILE6 Input and Output Files

# Appendix A

– Point Source SummaryNOx Point Emissions

County Company

Number Company Name Emission Unit Emission Release

Point SCC Summer Seasonal

Operation Days per

Season Pollutant Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission

TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission

TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission

TPY Emission

Ton/Day

Anderson 01-0009 TVA Bull Run 001 S-001 10100212 25% 91.25 NOX 11,917.3 32.65 11,917.3 32.65 11,917.3 32.65 11,917.3 32.65 11,917.3 32.65 11,917.3 32.65

Anderson 01-0009 TVA Bull Run 001 S-001 10100501 25% 91.25 NOX 13.0 0.04 6.6 0.02 7.5 0.02 27.8 0.08 7.0 0.02 6.9 0.02

Anderson 01-0009 TVA Bull Run 002 S-002 10200501 25% 91.25 NOX 1.8 0.00 1.8 0.00 1.9 0.01 2.0 0.01 2.1 0.01 2.2 0.01

Anderson 01-0009 TVA Bull Run 002 S-003 10200501 0% 91.25 NOX 1.8 0.00 1.8 0.00 1.9 0.00 2.0 0.00 2.1 0.00 2.2 0.00

Anderson 01-0009 TVA Bull Run Facility Totals 11,933.8 32.7 11,927.5 32.7 11,928.6 32.7 11,949.0 32.7 11,928.5 32.7 11,928.6 32.7

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 002 013170 10200202 12% 91.25 NOX 280.8 0.37 281.3 0.37 284.4 0.37 286.3 0.38 290.0 0.38 290.0 0.38

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 002 013171 10200202 12% 91.25 NOX 280.8 0.37 281.3 0.37 284.4 0.37 286.3 0.38 290.0 0.38 290.0 0.38

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 002 013170 10200202 27% 91.25 NOX 4.6 0.01 4.6 0.01 4.6 0.01 4.6 0.01 4.7 0.01 4.7 0.01

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 002 013171 10200202 27% 91.25 NOX 4.6 0.01 4.6 0.01 4.6 0.01 4.6 0.01 4.7 0.01 4.7 0.01

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 003 032435 50300101 25% 91.25 NOX 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 008 015413 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.1 0.00 1.2 0.00 1.4 0.00

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 010 015239 30901097 25% 91.25 NOX 3.8 0.01 3.9 0.01 4.0 0.01 4.3 0.01 4.8 0.01 5.3 0.01

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 010 015240 30901097 25% 91.25 NOX 3.8 0.01 3.9 0.01 4.0 0.01 4.3 0.01 4.8 0.01 5.3 0.01

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 010 015454 30901097 25% 91.25 NOX 3.8 0.01 3.9 0.01 4.0 0.01 4.3 0.01 4.8 0.01 5.3 0.01

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 010 015241 30901097 25% 91.25 NOX 3.8 0.01 3.9 0.01 4.0 0.01 4.3 0.01 4.8 0.01 5.3 0.01

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 212134 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 17.5 0.05 18.1 0.05 18.7 0.05 20.2 0.06 22.4 0.06 24.7 0.07

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 21227 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 17.5 0.05 18.1 0.05 18.7 0.05 20.2 0.06 22.4 0.06 24.7 0.07

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 21228 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 17.5 0.05 18.1 0.05 18.7 0.05 20.2 0.06 22.4 0.06 24.7 0.07

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 21233 30990013 25% 91.25 NOX 17.5 0.05 18.9 0.05 18.7 0.05 20.2 0.06 22.4 0.06 24.7 0.07

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 21240 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 17.5 0.05 18.1 0.05 18.7 0.05 20.2 0.06 22.4 0.06 24.7 0.07

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 212134 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 17.5 0.05 18.1 0.05 18.7 0.05 20.2 0.06 22.4 0.06 24.7 0.07

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 212432 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 17.5 0.05 18.1 0.05 18.7 0.05 20.2 0.06 22.4 0.06 24.7 0.07

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 014 212113 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 12.4 0.03 12.8 0.04 13.3 0.04 14.3 0.04 15.9 0.04 17.5 0.05

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 014 21244 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 12.4 0.03 12.8 0.04 13.3 0.04 14.3 0.04 15.9 0.04 17.5 0.05

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 014 21245 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 12.4 0.03 12.8 0.04 13.3 0.04 14.3 0.04 15.9 0.04 17.5 0.05

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 014 21246 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 12.4 0.03 12.8 0.04 13.3 0.04 14.3 0.04 15.9 0.04 17.5 0.05

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 014 21247 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 12.4 0.03 12.8 0.04 13.3 0.04 14.3 0.04 15.9 0.04 17.5 0.05

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 014 212290 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 12.4 0.03 12.8 0.04 13.3 0.04 14.3 0.04 15.9 0.04 17.5 0.05

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 014 21226 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 12.4 0.03 12.8 0.04 13.3 0.04 14.3 0.04 15.9 0.04 17.5 0.05

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 014 212113 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 12.4 0.03 12.8 0.04 13.3 0.04 14.3 0.04 15.9 0.04 17.5 0.05

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 014 212128 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 12.4 0.03 12.8 0.04 13.3 0.04 14.3 0.04 15.9 0.04 17.5 0.05

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 016 21238 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 0.3 0.00 0.3 0.00 0.3 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.4 0.00

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 016 21248 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 0.3 0.00 0.3 0.00 0.3 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.4 0.00

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 027 99864 30999999 25% 91.25 NOX 6.1 0.02 6.3 0.02 6.6 0.02 7.1 0.02 7.8 0.02 8.7 0.02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 Facility Totals 827.4 1.5 838.5 1.5 852.9 1.5 878.8 1.6 917.7 1.7 952.4 1.8

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation 005 S-005 10200602 25% 91.25 NOX 11.8 0.03 12.4 0.03 12.9 0.04 13.2 0.04 14.0 0.04 14.8 0.04

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation 005 S-005 10200501 25% 91.25 NOX 0.7 0.00 0.7 0.00 0.8 0.00 0.8 0.00 0.9 0.00 0.9 0.00

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 001 OF1S 50200601 25% 91.25 NOX 8.6 0.02 8.6 0.02 8.6 0.02 8.6 0.02 8.6 0.02 8.6 0.02

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 001 EF1S 50200601 25% 91.25 NOX 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 002 E1S 20100802 25% 91.25 NOX 22.4 0.06 23.0 0.06 23.0 0.06 23.0 0.06 23.6 0.06 23.6 0.06

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 002 E2S 20100802 25% 91.25 NOX 22.0 0.06 22.6 0.06 22.6 0.06 22.6 0.06 23.2 0.06 23.2 0.06

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 002 E3S 20100802 25% 91.25 NOX 21.9 0.06 22.5 0.06 22.5 0.06 22.5 0.06 23.1 0.06 23.1 0.06

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 002 E4S 20100802 25% 91.25 NOX 22.2 0.06 22.8 0.06 22.8 0.06 22.8 0.06 23.4 0.06 23.4 0.06

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill Facility Totals 110.5 0.3 113.6 0.3 114.1 0.3 114.5 0.3 117.7 0.3 118.5 0.3

Anderson County Totals 12,871.80 34.46 12,879.50 34.48 12,895.57 34.52 12,942.25 34.64 12,963.80 34.69 12,999.44 34.78

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 009 ANOD08 30300105 25% 91.25 NOX 60.7 0.17 58.2 0.16 56.2 0.15 60.7 0.17 67.7 0.19 76.0 0.21

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 016 POT45 30300104 25% 91.25 NOX 10.9 0.03 10.5 0.03 10.1 0.03 10.9 0.03 12.2 0.03 13.7 0.04

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 023 HFRN05 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 2.8 0.01 2.7 0.01 2.6 0.01 2.8 0.01 3.1 0.01 3.5 0.01

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 023 HFNR07 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 1.9 0.01 1.8 0.00 1.7 0.00 1.9 0.01 2.1 0.01 2.4 0.01

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 023 HFNR06 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 2.6 0.01 2.5 0.01 2.4 0.01 2.6 0.01 2.9 0.01 3.3 0.01

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 024 MFRN09 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 14.4 0.04 13.8 0.04 13.3 0.04 14.4 0.04 16.0 0.04 18.0 0.05

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 024 HFRN10 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 2.8 0.01 2.7 0.01 2.6 0.01 2.8 0.01 3.1 0.01 3.5 0.01

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 024 MFRN11 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 16.7 0.05 16.0 0.04 15.4 0.04 16.7 0.05 18.6 0.05 20.9 0.06

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 024 HFRN12 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 1.1 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.1 0.00 1.2 0.00 1.3 0.00

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 029 DF201 30490033 25% 91.25 NOX 39.2 0.11 41.1 0.11 42.6 0.12 44.7 0.12 49.0 0.13 53.1 0.15

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 030 DF202 30490033 25% 91.25 NOX 19.6 0.05 20.6 0.06 21.3 0.06 22.4 0.06 24.5 0.07 26.6 0.07

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 031 MF203 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 7.4 0.02 7.1 0.02 6.8 0.02 7.4 0.02 8.2 0.02 9.2 0.03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 032 MF204 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 7.5 0.02 7.2 0.02 6.9 0.02 7.5 0.02 8.3 0.02 9.3 0.03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 033 MF205 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 6.5 0.02 6.3 0.02 6.1 0.02 6.5 0.02 7.3 0.02 8.2 0.02

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 034 MF206 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 9.2 0.03 8.8 0.02 8.5 0.02 9.2 0.03 10.2 0.03 11.5 0.03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 034 MF207 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 7.5 0.02 7.2 0.02 6.9 0.02 7.5 0.02 8.4 0.02 9.4 0.03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 036 TRFN22 30490033 25% 91.25 NOX 0.9 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.1 0.00 1.2 0.00 1.3 0.00

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant Facility Totals 211.7 0.6 208.2 0.6 205.6 0.6 219.9 0.6 244.2 0.7 271.0 0.7

Blount 05-0030 TN Farmers Co-Op 012 S-007 10200603 25% 91.25 NOX 1.0 0.00 1.1 0.00 1.1 0.00 1.1 0.00 1.2 0.00 1.3 0.00

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 001 MF308 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 4.1 0.01 3.9 0.01 3.8 0.01 4.1 0.01 4.6 0.01 5.1 0.01

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 002 MF307 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.2 0.00 1.3 0.00

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 003 MF304 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 4.1 0.01 3.9 0.01 3.8 0.01 4.1 0.01 4.6 0.01 5.2 0.01

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 005 MF309 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 4.6 0.01 4.4 0.01 4.2 0.01 4.6 0.01 5.1 0.01 5.7 0.02

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 006 MF303 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 6.7 0.02 6.4 0.02 6.2 0.02 6.7 0.02 7.5 0.02 8.4 0.02

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 011 PF430 30390003 25% 91.25 NOX 63.1 0.17 63.0 0.17 61.7 0.17 61.1 0.17 62.3 0.17 64.3 0.18

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 020 MF305 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 0.6 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.6 0.00 0.6 0.00 0.7 0.00

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 021 BOI424 10100602 25% 91.25 NOX 2.1 0.01 2.2 0.01 3.1 0.01 4.9 0.01 5.2 0.01 4.7 0.01

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 022 BOI425 10100602 25% 91.25 NOX 2.1 0.01 2.2 0.01 3.1 0.01 4.9 0.01 5.2 0.01 4.7 0.01

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 023 BOI426 10100602 25% 91.25 NOX 2.1 0.01 2.2 0.01 3.1 0.01 4.9 0.01 5.2 0.01 4.7 0.01 2007 2010 2013 2016 2020 2024

Page 1 of 2NOx Point Emissions

County Company

Number Company Name Emission Unit Emission Release

Point SCC Summer Seasonal

Operation Days per

Season Pollutant Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission

TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission

TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission

TPY Emission

Ton/Day 2007 2010 2013 2016 2020 2024

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 024 BOI428 10100602 25% 91.25 NOX 2.8 0.01 3.0 0.01 4.3 0.01 6.8 0.02 7.1 0.02 6.6 0.02

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 025 BOI429 30400103 25% 91.25 NOX 2.6 0.01 2.5 0.01 2.4 0.01 2.6 0.01 2.9 0.01 3.3 0.01

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant Facility Totals 95.8 0.3 95.2 0.3 97.2 0.3 106.4 0.3 111.4 0.3 114.7 0.3

Blount 05-0199 Skier's Choice 005 FUG-04 31401612 0% 91.25 NOX 0.1 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Blount County Totals 308.61 0.85 304.49 0.83 303.86 0.83 327.46 0.90 356.72 0.98 386.98 1.06

Loudon 53-0003 Viskase 002 S-001 10200204 25% 91.25 NOX 119.0 0.33 119.2 0.33 120.6 0.33 121.3 0.33 122.9 0.34 124.6 0.34

Loudon 53-0003 Viskase 002 S-002 10200602 25% 91.25 NOX 1.3 0.00 1.4 0.00 1.4 0.00 1.5 0.00 1.5 0.00 1.6 0.00

Loudon 53-0003 Viskase 004 PG-1 20200107 25% 91.25 NOX 0.4 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.5 0.00

Loudon 53-0003 Viskase Facility Totals 120.7 0.3 121.0 0.3 122.4 0.3 123.2 0.3 124.9 0.3 126.7 0.3

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 002 FHS#1 30200768 25% 91.25 NOX 252.7 0.69 265.5 0.73 278.4 0.76 291.1 0.80 306.1 0.84 321.5 0.88

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 003 PES#23 30201525 25% 91.25 NOX 2.9 0.01 3.0 0.01 3.1 0.01 3.3 0.01 3.5 0.01 3.6 0.01

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 003 SDS 30201411 25% 91.25 NOX 3.9 0.01 4.1 0.01 4.3 0.01 4.5 0.01 4.7 0.01 5.0 0.01

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 005 BHS 10200204 25% 91.25 NOX 310.8 0.85 311.4 0.85 314.9 0.86 316.9 0.87 321.0 0.88 325.4 0.89

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 006 PES#71 20100202 25% 91.25 NOX 0.7 0.00 0.7 0.00 0.7 0.00 0.7 0.00 0.7 0.00 0.7 0.00

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 004 PES28B 30125010 25% 91.25 NOX 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.00

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle Facility Totals 571.0 1.6 584.8 1.6 601.5 1.6 616.8 1.7 636.2 1.7 656.4 1.8

Loudon County Totals 691.7 1.9 705.8 1.9 723.9 2.0 740.0 2.0 761.1 2.1 783.1 2.1

Sevier 78-0086 East TN Natl Gas Co 3302 001 S-001A 20200201 20% 91.25 NOX 9.8 0.02 10.3 0.02 10.8 0.02 11.0 0.02 11.7 0.03 12.3 0.03

Sevier 78-0086 East TN Natl Gas Co 3302 002 S-002A 20200201 9% 91.25 NOX 4.3 0.00 4.5 0.00 4.7 0.00 4.8 0.00 5.1 0.00 5.3 0.01

Sevier 78-0086 East TN Natl Gas Co 3302 003 S-003A 20200201 8% 91.25 NOX 4.2 0.00 4.4 0.00 4.6 0.00 4.7 0.00 5.0 0.00 5.2 0.00

78-0086 East TN Natl Gas Co 3302 Facility Totals 0.03 19.21 0.03 19.98 0.03 20.47 0.03 21.67 0.03 22.82 0.04

Sevier County Totals 18.2 0.0 19.2 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 21.7 0.0 22.8 0.0

Page 2 of 2VOC Point Emissions

County Company

Number Company Name Emission Unit Emission Release

Point SCC Summer

Seasonal

Operation Days per

Season Pollutant Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day

Anderson 01-0009 TVA Bull Run 001 S-001 10100212 25% 91.25 VOC 72.1 0.197409041 74.3 2.04E-01 75.0 2.06E-01 74.4 2.04E-01 93.2 2.55E-01 120.8 3.31E-01

Anderson 01-0009 TVA Bull Run 001 S-001 10100501 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000296748 0.1 1.51E-04 0.1 1.71E-04 0.2 6.35E-04 0.1 1.61E-04 0.1 1.58E-04

Anderson 01-0009 TVA Bull Run 002 S-002 10200501 25% 91.25 VOC 0.0 4.84932E-05 0.0 2.46E-05 0.0 2.80E-05 0.0 1.04E-04 0.0 2.62E-05 0.0 2.58E-05

Anderson 01-0009 TVA Bull Run 002 S-003 10200501 0% 91.25 VOC 0.0 0 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00

Anderson 01-0009 TVA Bull Run Facility Totals 72.2 0.2 74.4 0.2 75.1 0.2 74.7 0.2 93.3 0.3 120.8 0.3

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 001 011272 40200101 25% 91.25 VOC 0.0 0 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 002 013171 10200202 12% 91.25 VOC 1.0 0.001315068 1.0 1.32E-03 1.0 1.33E-03 1.0 1.34E-03 1.0 1.36E-03 1.0 1.38E-03

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 002 013170 10200202 12% 91.25 VOC 1.0 0.001315068 1.0 1.32E-03 1.0 1.33E-03 1.0 1.34E-03 1.0 1.36E-03 1.0 1.38E-03

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 002 013170 10200202 27% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000473425 0.2 4.74E-04 0.2 4.80E-04 0.2 4.83E-04 0.2 4.89E-04 0.2 4.96E-04

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 002 013171 10200202 27% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000473425 0.2 4.74E-04 0.2 4.80E-04 0.2 4.83E-04 0.2 4.89E-04 0.2 4.96E-04

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 010 015239 30901097 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000342466 0.1 3.55E-04 0.1 3.66E-04 0.1 3.96E-04 0.2 4.38E-04 0.2 4.84E-04

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 010 015454 30901097 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000342466 0.1 3.55E-04 0.1 3.66E-04 0.1 3.96E-04 0.2 4.38E-04 0.2 4.84E-04

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 010 015240 30901097 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000342466 0.1 3.55E-04 0.1 3.66E-04 0.1 3.96E-04 0.2 4.38E-04 0.2 4.84E-04

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 010 015241 30901097 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000342466 0.1 3.55E-04 0.1 3.66E-04 0.1 3.96E-04 0.2 4.38E-04 0.2 4.84E-04

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 21227 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 2.6 0.007205479 2.7 7.46E-03 2.8 7.71E-03 3.0 8.33E-03 3.4 9.21E-03 3.7 1.02E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 21228 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 2.6 0.007205479 2.7 7.46E-03 2.8 7.71E-03 3.0 8.33E-03 3.4 9.21E-03 3.7 1.02E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 21233 30990013 25% 91.25 VOC 2.6 0.007205479 2.8 7.79E-03 3.0 8.35E-03 3.3 9.06E-03 3.7 1.03E-02 4.2 1.16E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 21240 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 2.6 0.007205479 2.7 7.46E-03 2.8 7.71E-03 3.0 8.33E-03 3.4 9.21E-03 3.7 1.02E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 212134 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 2.6 0.007205479 2.7 7.46E-03 2.8 7.71E-03 3.0 8.33E-03 3.4 9.21E-03 3.7 1.02E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 012 212432 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 2.6 0.007205479 2.7 7.46E-03 2.8 7.71E-03 3.0 8.33E-03 3.4 9.21E-03 3.7 1.02E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 015 212108 30900198 25% 91.25 VOC 24.0 0.065753425 24.9 6.81E-02 25.7 7.04E-02 27.7 7.60E-02 30.7 8.41E-02 33.9 9.29E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 016 21248 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 4.4 0.012 4.5 1.24E-02 4.7 1.28E-02 5.1 1.39E-02 5.6 1.53E-02 6.2 1.70E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 019 2153 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 4.4 0.012 4.5 1.24E-02 4.7 1.28E-02 5.1 1.39E-02 5.6 1.53E-02 6.2 1.70E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 026 04485 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 3.7 0.010054795 3.8 1.04E-02 3.9 1.08E-02 4.2 1.16E-02 4.7 1.29E-02 5.2 1.42E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 026 04486 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 3.7 0.010054795 3.8 1.04E-02 3.9 1.08E-02 4.2 1.16E-02 4.7 1.29E-02 5.2 1.42E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 026 04487 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 3.7 0.010054795 3.8 1.04E-02 3.9 1.08E-02 4.2 1.16E-02 4.7 1.29E-02 5.2 1.42E-02

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 032 049324 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 1.1 0.002958904 1.1 3.06E-03 1.2 3.17E-03 1.2 3.42E-03 1.4 3.78E-03 1.5 4.18E-03

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 032 049325 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 1.1 0.002958904 1.1 3.06E-03 1.2 3.17E-03 1.2 3.42E-03 1.4 3.78E-03 1.5 4.18E-03

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 032 049326 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 1.1 0.002958904 1.1 3.06E-03 1.2 3.17E-03 1.2 3.42E-03 1.4 3.78E-03 1.5 4.18E-03

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 032 049327 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 1.1 0.002958904 1.1 3.06E-03 1.2 3.17E-03 1.2 3.42E-03 1.4 3.78E-03 1.5 4.18E-03

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 041 531144 30999999 25% 91.25 VOC 0.7 0.001780822 0.7 1.84E-03 0.7 1.91E-03 0.8 2.06E-03 0.8 2.28E-03 0.9 2.52E-03

Anderson 01-0020 DOE Y-12 Facility Totals 67.3 0.2 69.8 0.2 72.2 0.2 77.8 0.2 85.9 0.2 94.8 0.3

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation 001 S-001A 30800105 25% 91.25 VOC 47.8 0.130876712 51.4 1.41E-01 54.6 1.49E-01 59.1 1.62E-01 65.5 1.79E-01 72.6 1.99E-01

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation 001 S-001A 30800105 25% 91.25 VOC 10.9 0.029780822 11.7 3.20E-02 12.4 3.40E-02 13.4 3.68E-02 14.9 4.08E-02 16.5 4.52E-02

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation 004 S-004A 30800107 25% 91.25 VOC 1.9 0.005205479 2.0 5.60E-03 2.2 5.95E-03 2.4 6.44E-03 2.6 7.14E-03 2.9 7.91E-03

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation 004 S-004B 30800107 25% 91.25 VOC 4.6 0.012465753 4.9 1.34E-02 5.2 1.42E-02 5.6 1.54E-02 6.2 1.71E-02 6.9 1.89E-02

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation 004 S-004C 30800107 25% 91.25 VOC 1.1 0.003123288 1.2 3.36E-03 1.3 3.57E-03 1.4 3.86E-03 1.6 4.28E-03 1.7 4.74E-03

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation 005 S-005 10200602 25% 91.25 VOC 0.6 0.001778082 0.7 1.87E-03 0.7 1.95E-03 0.7 2.00E-03 0.8 2.11E-03 0.8 2.22E-03

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation 005 S-005 10200501 25% 91.25 VOC 0.0 3.42466E-05 0.0 3.46E-05 0.0 3.66E-05 0.0 3.80E-05 0.0 4.00E-05 0.0 4.23E-05

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation 008 S-008A 30800111 25% 91.25 VOC 2.9 0.008 3.1 8.60E-03 3.3 9.14E-03 3.6 9.90E-03 4.0 1.10E-02 4.4 1.22E-02

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation 008 S-008B 30800111 25% 91.25 VOC 0.9 0.002421918 1.0 2.60E-03 1.0 2.77E-03 1.1 3.00E-03 1.2 3.32E-03 1.3 3.68E-03

Anderson 01-0114 Carlisle Tire Corporation Facility Totals 70.7 0.2 76.0 0.2 80.7 0.2 87.4 0.2 96.8 0.3 107.2 0.3

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 001 OF1S 50200601 25% 91.25 VOC 0.4 0.001032877 0.4 1.03E-03 0.4 1.03E-03 0.4 1.03E-03 0.4 1.03E-03 0.4 1.03E-03

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 001 EF1S 50200601 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000150411 0.1 1.50E-04 0.1 1.50E-04 0.1 1.50E-04 0.1 1.50E-04 0.1 1.50E-04

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 001 FUG-01 50200602 25% 91.25 VOC 17.6 0.048219178 19.3 5.29E-02 20.9 5.73E-02 22.6 6.18E-02 24.7 6.77E-02 27.0 7.39E-02

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 002 E1S 20100802 25% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000673973 0.3 6.92E-04 0.3 6.92E-04 0.3 6.92E-04 0.3 7.10E-04 0.3 7.10E-04

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 002 E2S 20100802 25% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000663014 0.2 6.81E-04 0.2 6.81E-04 0.2 6.81E-04 0.3 6.99E-04 0.3 6.99E-04

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 002 E3S 20100802 25% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000660274 0.2 6.78E-04 0.2 6.78E-04 0.2 6.78E-04 0.3 6.96E-04 0.3 6.96E-04

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill 002 E4S 20100802 25% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000668493 0.3 6.87E-04 0.3 6.87E-04 0.3 6.87E-04 0.3 7.05E-04 0.3 7.05E-04

Anderson 01-0170 Chestnut Ridge Landfill Facility Totals 19.0 0.1 20.7 0.1 22.3 0.1 24.0 0.1 26.2 0.1 28.4 0.1

Anderson County Totals 229.24 0.63 240.90 0.66 250.33 0.68 263.94 0.72 302.16 0.82 351.35 0.96

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 003 FUG-03 30399999 25% 91.25 VOC 2.0 0.005438356 1.9 5.21E-03 1.8 5.03E-03 2.0 5.43E-03 2.2 6.07E-03 2.5 6.80E-03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 007 ANOD82 30399999 25% 91.25 VOC 0.3 0.000707274 0.2 6.78E-04 0.2 6.55E-04 0.3 7.07E-04 0.3 7.89E-04 0.3 8.84E-04

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 009 ANOD08 30300105 25% 91.25 VOC 9.6 0.026327151 9.2 2.52E-02 8.9 2.44E-02 9.6 2.63E-02 10.7 2.94E-02 12.0 3.29E-02

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 011 FUG-11 30399999 25% 91.25 VOC 7.8 0.021323808 7.5 2.04E-02 7.2 1.97E-02 7.8 2.13E-02 8.7 2.38E-02 9.7 2.67E-02

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 016 POT45 30300104 25% 91.25 VOC 2.1 0.005726027 2.0 5.49E-03 1.9 5.30E-03 2.1 5.72E-03 2.3 6.39E-03 2.6 7.16E-03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 016 FUG-16 30300104 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.00030137 0.1 2.89E-04 0.1 2.79E-04 0.1 3.01E-04 0.1 3.36E-04 0.1 3.77E-04

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 017 POT48 30300104 25% 91.25 VOC 2.2 0.005917808 2.1 5.67E-03 2.0 5.48E-03 2.2 5.91E-03 2.4 6.60E-03 2.7 7.40E-03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 017 FUG-17 30300104 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000312329 0.1 2.99E-04 0.1 2.89E-04 0.1 3.12E-04 0.1 3.48E-04 0.1 3.91E-04

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 023 HFRN05 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 3.5 0.009582384 3.4 9.18E-03 3.2 8.87E-03 3.5 9.57E-03 3.9 1.07E-02 4.4 1.20E-02

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 023 HFNR07 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000515493 0.2 4.94E-04 0.2 4.77E-04 0.2 5.15E-04 0.2 5.75E-04 0.2 6.45E-04

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 023 HFNR06 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 3.4 0.009338479 3.3 8.95E-03 3.2 8.64E-03 3.4 9.33E-03 3.8 1.04E-02 4.3 1.17E-02

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 024 MFRN09 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 1.9 0.00515674 1.8 4.94E-03 1.7 4.77E-03 1.9 5.15E-03 2.1 5.75E-03 2.4 6.45E-03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 024 HFRN10 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 3.5 0.009582384 3.4 9.18E-03 3.2 8.87E-03 3.5 9.57E-03 3.9 1.07E-02 4.4 1.20E-02

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 024 MFRN11 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 1.8 0.004838123 1.7 4.64E-03 1.6 4.48E-03 1.8 4.83E-03 2.0 5.40E-03 2.2 6.05E-03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 024 HFRN12 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 2.5 0.006849315 2.4 6.56E-03 2.3 6.34E-03 2.5 6.84E-03 2.8 7.64E-03 3.1 8.56E-03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 029 DF201 30490033 25% 91.25 VOC 0.3 0.000957 0.4 1.00E-03 0.4 1.04E-03 0.4 1.09E-03 0.4 1.20E-03 0.5 1.30E-03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 030 DF202 30490033 25% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000544932 0.2 5.71E-04 0.2 5.92E-04 0.2 6.21E-04 0.2 6.81E-04 0.3 7.38E-04

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 031 MF203 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 1.3 0.003690027 1.3 3.54E-03 1.2 3.42E-03 1.3 3.69E-03 1.5 4.12E-03 1.7 4.61E-03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 032 MF204 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 1.4 0.003736384 1.3 3.58E-03 1.3 3.46E-03 1.4 3.73E-03 1.5 4.17E-03 1.7 4.67E-03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 033 MF205 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 1.2 0.003276164 1.1 3.14E-03 1.1 3.03E-03 1.2 3.27E-03 1.3 3.65E-03 1.5 4.10E-03

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 034 MF206 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000299384 0.1 2.87E-04 0.1 2.77E-04 0.1 2.99E-04 0.1 3.34E-04 0.1 3.74E-04

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 034 MF207 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 0.0 7.47945E-05 0.0 7.17E-05 0.0 6.92E-05 0.0 7.47E-05 0.0 8.34E-05 0.0 9.35E-05

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant 036 TRFN22 30490033 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000240178 0.1 2.52E-04 0.1 2.61E-04 0.1 2.74E-04 0.1 3.00E-04 0.1 3.25E-04

Blount 05-0008 ALCOA - South Plant Facility Totals 45.5 0.1 43.7 0.1 42.2 0.1 45.6 0.1 50.9 0.1 57.0 0.2

Blount 05-0011 AlCOA-Blount-Maryville Landfill 001 FUG-01 50100402 25% 91.25 VOC 19.6 0.05369863 20.6 5.65E-02 21.6 5.92E-02 22.9 6.27E-02 24.4 6.68E-02 25.9 7.09E-02

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 001 MF308 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 1.2 0.003279082 1.1 3.14E-03 1.1 3.04E-03 1.2 3.28E-03 1.3 3.66E-03 1.5 4.10E-03

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 002 MF307 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000287356 0.1 2.75E-04 0.1 2.66E-04 0.1 2.87E-04 0.1 3.20E-04 0.1 3.59E-04

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 003 MF304 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 1.2 0.00322674 1.1 3.09E-03 1.1 2.99E-03 1.2 3.22E-03 1.3 3.60E-03 1.5 4.03E-03

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 005 MF309 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 1.3 0.003568301 1.2 3.42E-03 1.2 3.30E-03 1.3 3.57E-03 1.5 3.98E-03 1.6 4.46E-03

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 006 MF303 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 0.4 0.00101037 0.4 9.68E-04 0.3 9.35E-04 0.4 1.01E-03 0.4 1.13E-03 0.5 1.26E-03

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 009 FUG-09 50400151 25% 91.25 VOC 3.1 0.008364384 3.2 8.80E-03 3.4 9.23E-03 3.6 9.76E-03 3.8 1.04E-02 4.0 1.10E-02

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 011 PF430 30390003 25% 91.25 VOC 3.5 0.009504164 3.5 9.50E-03 3.4 9.30E-03 3.4 9.21E-03 3.4 9.38E-03 3.5 9.69E-03 2007 2010 2013 2016 2020 2024

Page 1 of 3VOC Point Emissions

County Company

Number Company Name Emission Unit Emission Release

Point SCC Summer

Seasonal

Operation Days per

Season Pollutant Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day 2007 2010 2013 2016 2020 2024

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 012 MIL422 30400150 25% 91.25 VOC 400.9 1.098352685 384.1 1.05E+00 371.1 1.02E+00 400.6 1.10E+00 447.1 1.22E+00 501.3 1.37E+00

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 014 MIL417 30400150 25% 91.25 VOC 52.5 0.143929425 50.3 1.38E-01 48.6 1.33E-01 52.5 1.44E-01 58.6 1.61E-01 65.7 1.80E-01

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 014 MIL420 30400150 25% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000586301 0.2 5.62E-04 0.2 5.43E-04 0.2 5.86E-04 0.2 6.54E-04 0.3 7.33E-04

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 015 FUG15A 30400150 25% 91.25 VOC 1.0 0.002721808 1.0 2.61E-03 0.9 2.52E-03 1.0 2.72E-03 1.1 3.04E-03 1.2 3.40E-03

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 015 FUG15B 30400150 25% 91.25 VOC 4.8 0.013280233 4.6 1.27E-02 4.5 1.23E-02 4.8 1.33E-02 5.4 1.48E-02 6.1 1.66E-02

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 015 FUG15C 30400150 25% 91.25 VOC 5.8 0.015815315 5.5 1.52E-02 5.3 1.46E-02 5.8 1.58E-02 6.4 1.76E-02 7.2 1.98E-02

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 017 PNTS42 40200101 25% 91.25 VOC 0.0 0 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 020 MF305 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000151945 0.1 1.46E-04 0.1 1.41E-04 0.1 1.52E-04 0.1 1.69E-04 0.1 1.90E-04

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 021 BOI424 10100602 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000310274 0.1 3.25E-04 0.2 4.65E-04 0.3 7.43E-04 0.3 7.79E-04 0.3 7.14E-04

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 022 BOI425 10100602 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000310274 0.1 3.25E-04 0.2 4.65E-04 0.3 7.43E-04 0.3 7.79E-04 0.3 7.14E-04

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 023 BOI426 10100602 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000310274 0.1 3.25E-04 0.2 4.65E-04 0.3 7.43E-04 0.3 7.79E-04 0.3 7.14E-04

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 024 BOI428 10100602 25% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000429233 0.2 4.50E-04 0.2 6.43E-04 0.4 1.03E-03 0.4 1.08E-03 0.4 9.88E-04

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant 025 BOI429 30400103 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000396452 0.1 3.80E-04 0.1 3.67E-04 0.1 3.96E-04 0.2 4.42E-04 0.2 4.96E-04

Blount 05-0090 ALCOA - North Plant Facility Totals 476.6 1.3 457.1 1.3 442.2 1.2 477.3 1.3 532.2 1.5 595.9 1.6

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P01 SFC-1A 40202220 25% 91.25 VOC 31.5 0.08630137 33.9 9.28E-02 36.0 9.86E-02 39.0 1.07E-01 43.2 1.18E-01 47.9 1.31E-01

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P01 SFC-1B 40202229 25% 91.25 VOC 13.5 0.036986301 14.5 3.98E-02 15.4 4.22E-02 16.7 4.58E-02 18.5 5.07E-02 20.5 5.62E-02

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P01 SFC-1C 40202201 25% 91.25 VOC 5.4 0.014657534 5.8 1.58E-02 6.1 1.67E-02 6.6 1.81E-02 7.3 2.01E-02 8.1 2.23E-02

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P01 SFC-1D 40202230 25% 91.25 VOC 17.0 0.046575342 18.3 5.01E-02 19.4 5.32E-02 21.0 5.76E-02 23.3 6.39E-02 25.8 7.08E-02

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P01 SFC-1E 40202239 25% 91.25 VOC 39.7 0.108767123 42.7 1.17E-01 45.3 1.24E-01 49.1 1.35E-01 54.4 1.49E-01 60.3 1.65E-01

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P02 SFC-2A 40202230 25% 91.25 VOC 13.5 0.036986301 14.5 3.98E-02 15.4 4.22E-02 16.7 4.58E-02 18.5 5.07E-02 20.5 5.62E-02

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P02 SFC-2B 40202220 25% 91.25 VOC 15.0 0.04109589 16.1 4.42E-02 17.1 4.69E-02 18.6 5.08E-02 20.6 5.63E-02 22.8 6.24E-02

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P02 SFC-2C 40202229 25% 91.25 VOC 27.3 0.074794521 29.3 8.04E-02 31.2 8.54E-02 33.8 9.25E-02 37.4 1.03E-01 41.5 1.14E-01

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P02 SFC-2D 40202201 25% 91.25 VOC 0.9 0.002523288 1.0 2.71E-03 1.1 2.88E-03 1.1 3.12E-03 1.3 3.46E-03 1.4 3.83E-03

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P02 SFC-2E 40202239 25% 91.25 VOC 31.6 0.086575342 34.0 9.31E-02 36.1 9.89E-02 39.1 1.07E-01 43.3 1.19E-01 48.0 1.32E-01

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P03 SPB-1 40200110 25% 91.25 VOC 4.1 0.011178082 4.1 1.14E-02 4.2 1.15E-02 4.5 1.24E-02 5.0 1.38E-02 5.6 1.53E-02

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P03 SPB-2 40200110 25% 91.25 VOC 0.0 0 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P03 SPB-3 40200110 25% 91.25 VOC 4.1 0.011178082 4.1 1.14E-02 4.2 1.15E-02 4.5 1.24E-02 5.0 1.38E-02 5.6 1.53E-02

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P03 SPB-4 40200110 25% 91.25 VOC 0.0 0 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P03 SPB-5 40200110 25% 91.25 VOC 2.3 0.006191781 2.3 6.29E-03 2.3 6.37E-03 2.5 6.87E-03 2.8 7.62E-03 3.1 8.48E-03

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC P03 SPB-6 40200110 25% 91.25 VOC 2.3 0.006191781 2.3 6.29E-03 2.3 6.37E-03 2.5 6.87E-03 2.8 7.62E-03 3.1 8.48E-03

Blount 05-0176 USI, INC Facility Totals 208.1 0.6 222.9 0.6 236.2 0.6 255.8 0.7 283.5 0.8 314.2 0.9

Blount 05-0183 DENSO 001 EF-27 31303502 25% 91.25 VOC 6.3 0.017123288 6.3 1.72E-02 6.2 1.71E-02 6.9 1.89E-02 7.9 2.17E-02 9.0 2.48E-02

Blount 05-0199 Skier's Choice 001 1A 31401612 27% 91.25 VOC 12.5 0.036986301 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Blount 05-0199 Skier's Choice 001 1B 31401612 27% 91.25 VOC 12.5 0.036986301 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Blount 05-0199 Skier's Choice 001 1C 31401612 27% 91.25 VOC 12.5 0.036986301 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Blount 05-0199 Skier's Choice 001 1D 31401612 27% 91.25 VOC 8.8 0.026038356 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Blount 05-0199 Skier's Choice 001 1E 31401612 0% 91.25 VOC 1.6 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Blount 05-0199 Skier's Choice 002 FUG-01 31401612 27% 91.25 VOC 60.9 0.18019726 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Blount 05-0199 Skier's Choice 003 FUG-02 31401612 27% 91.25 VOC 12.1 0.03580274 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Blount 05-0199 Skier's Choice 004 FUG-03 31401612 27% 91.25 VOC 1.6 0.004734247 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Blount 05-0199 Skier's Choice 005 FUG-04 31401612 0% 91.25 VOC 0.0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Blount 05-0199 Skier's Choice Facility Totals 122.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Blount County Totals 878.56 2.43 750.65 2.06 748.44 2.05 808.49 2.22 898.84 2.46 1,002.04 2.75

Jefferson 45-0079 Tel-Trax Co Plant #2 001 S-001A 30800799 32% 91.25 VOC 1.5 0.00512 1.6 5.50E-03 1.7 5.85E-03 1.8 6.33E-03 2.0 7.02E-03 2.2 7.78E-03

Jefferson 45-0079 Tel-Trax Co Plant #2 001 S-001B 30800799 32% 91.25 VOC 1.5 0.00512 1.6 5.50E-03 1.7 5.85E-03 1.8 6.33E-03 2.0 7.02E-03 2.2 7.78E-03

Jefferson 45-0079 Tel-Trax Co Plant #2 002 S-002 40200201 32% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000280548 0.1 2.98E-04 0.1 3.15E-04 0.1 3.46E-04 0.1 3.91E-04 0.1 4.43E-04

Jefferson 45-0079 Tel-Trax Co Plant #2 Facility Totals 3.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.7 0.0 4.1 0.0 4.6 0.0

Jefferson County Totals 3.00 0.01 3.22 0.01 3.42 0.01 3.71 0.01 4.12 0.01 4.56 0.02

Loudon 53-0003 Viskase 001 FE-09 62540023 25% 91.25 VOC 2.9 0.008027397 3.1 8.43E-03 3.2 8.84E-03 3.4 9.25E-03 3.5 9.72E-03 3.7 1.02E-02

Loudon 53-0003 Viskase 001 FE-10 62540023 25% 91.25 VOC 1.0 0.002808219 1.1 2.95E-03 1.1 3.09E-03 1.2 3.24E-03 1.2 3.40E-03 1.3 3.57E-03

Loudon 53-0003 Viskase 001 FE-11 62540024 25% 91.25 VOC 0.7 0.001884932 0.7 1.98E-03 0.8 2.08E-03 0.8 2.17E-03 0.8 2.28E-03 0.9 2.40E-03

Loudon 53-0003 Viskase Facility Totals 4.6 0.0 4.9 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.6 0.0 5.9 0.0

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 002 MHS 30200761 25% 91.25 VOC 25.1 0.068767123 26.4 7.23E-02 27.6 7.57E-02 28.9 7.92E-02 30.4 8.33E-02 31.9 8.75E-02

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 002 FHS#1 30200768 25% 91.25 VOC 241.8 0.662465753 254.1 6.96E-01 266.4 7.30E-01 278.6 7.63E-01 292.9 8.02E-01 307.6 8.43E-01

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 002 FHS#2 30200766 25% 91.25 VOC 27.4 0.075068493 28.8 7.89E-02 30.2 8.27E-02 31.6 8.65E-02 33.2 9.09E-02 34.9 9.55E-02

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 002 PES#64 30200766 25% 91.25 VOC 0.4 0.00109589 0.4 1.15E-03 0.4 1.21E-03 0.5 1.26E-03 0.5 1.33E-03 0.5 1.39E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 003 PES#23 30201525 25% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000438356 0.2 4.61E-04 0.2 4.83E-04 0.2 5.05E-04 0.2 5.31E-04 0.2 5.58E-04

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 003 PES#66 30299998 25% 91.25 VOC 2.6 0.007123288 2.7 7.48E-03 2.9 7.85E-03 3.0 8.21E-03 3.1 8.63E-03 3.3 9.06E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 003 PES#67 30299998 25% 91.25 VOC 57.1 0.156438356 60.0 1.64E-01 62.9 1.72E-01 65.8 1.80E-01 69.2 1.90E-01 72.6 1.99E-01

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 003 SDS 30201411 25% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000547945 0.2 5.76E-04 0.2 6.04E-04 0.2 6.31E-04 0.2 6.64E-04 0.3 6.97E-04

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 004 PES28A 30125010 25% 91.25 VOC 12.3 0.03369863 12.2 3.33E-02 12.2 3.34E-02 13.0 3.56E-02 14.1 3.87E-02 15.3 4.20E-02

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 004 PES28B 30125010 25% 91.25 VOC 1.1 0.002931507 1.1 2.90E-03 1.1 2.90E-03 1.1 3.10E-03 1.2 3.37E-03 1.3 3.65E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 004 PES54A 40700809 25% 91.25 VOC 1.8 0.004931507 1.8 4.88E-03 1.8 4.88E-03 1.9 5.21E-03 2.1 5.67E-03 2.2 6.14E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 004 PES54B 40700809 25% 91.25 VOC 1.8 0.004931507 1.8 4.88E-03 1.8 4.88E-03 1.9 5.21E-03 2.1 5.67E-03 2.2 6.14E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 004 PES#55 30299999 25% 91.25 VOC 7.0 0.019178082 7.4 2.02E-02 7.7 2.11E-02 8.1 2.21E-02 8.5 2.32E-02 8.9 2.44E-02

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 004 PES#59 40301099 25% 91.25 VOC 1.0 0.002739726 1.0 2.87E-03 1.1 3.04E-03 1.2 3.17E-03 1.2 3.34E-03 1.3 3.52E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 004 PES#61 40301099 25% 91.25 VOC 1.6 0.004383562 1.7 4.59E-03 1.8 4.86E-03 1.9 5.08E-03 1.9 5.34E-03 2.1 5.63E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 004 PES#98 40700809 25% 91.25 VOC 0.4 0.000958904 0.3 9.48E-04 0.3 9.49E-04 0.4 1.01E-03 0.4 1.10E-03 0.4 1.19E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 004 PES#99 40700809 25% 91.25 VOC 1.4 0.003835616 1.4 3.79E-03 1.4 3.80E-03 1.5 4.05E-03 1.6 4.41E-03 1.7 4.78E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 005 BHS 10200204 25% 91.25 VOC 25.3 0.069315068 25.3 6.94E-02 25.6 7.02E-02 25.8 7.07E-02 26.1 7.16E-02 26.5 7.26E-02

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 005 PES#43 40301075 25% 91.25 VOC 0.0 8.21918E-05 0.0 8.61E-05 0.0 9.11E-05 0.0 9.52E-05 0.0 1.00E-04 0.0 1.06E-04

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 002 PES#5 30200768 25% 91.25 VOC 6.7 0.018356164 7.0 1.93E-02 7.4 2.02E-02 7.7 2.11E-02 8.1 2.22E-02 8.5 2.34E-02

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 002 PES#65 30200768 25% 91.25 VOC 4.4 0.012054795 4.6 1.27E-02 4.8 1.33E-02 5.1 1.39E-02 5.3 1.46E-02 5.6 1.53E-02

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 006 PES#71 20100202 25% 91.25 VOC 0.5 0.001369863 0.5 1.44E-03 0.7 2.05E-03 1.2 3.28E-03 1.3 3.44E-03 1.2 3.15E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 007 PES#72 30299999 25% 91.25 VOC 2.6 0.007123288 2.7 7.48E-03 2.9 7.85E-03 3.0 8.21E-03 3.1 8.63E-03 3.3 9.06E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 007 PES#73 30299999 25% 91.25 VOC 0.5 0.001369863 0.5 1.44E-03 0.6 1.51E-03 0.6 1.58E-03 0.6 1.66E-03 0.6 1.74E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 007 PES#74 30299999 25% 91.25 VOC 2.1 0.005753425 2.2 6.05E-03 2.3 6.34E-03 2.4 6.63E-03 2.5 6.97E-03 2.7 7.32E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 007 PES#75 30299999 25% 91.25 VOC 0.5 0.001369863 0.5 1.44E-03 0.6 1.51E-03 0.6 1.58E-03 0.6 1.66E-03 0.6 1.74E-03

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 007 PES#76 30299999 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000356164 0.1 3.74E-04 0.1 3.92E-04 0.1 4.10E-04 0.2 4.31E-04 0.2 4.53E-04

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle 008 FUGITIVE 30200821 25% 91.25 VOC 242.9 0.665479452 255.2 6.99E-01 267.6 7.33E-01 279.9 7.67E-01 294.2 8.06E-01 309.0 8.47E-01

Loudon 53-0081 Tate & Lyle Facility Totals 668.7 1.8 700.3 1.9 732.5 2.0 766.0 2.1 805.1 2.2 845.1 2.3

Loudon 53-0090 Hubbell - Lenoir City 002 E09 30899999 25% 91.25 VOC 9.0 0.024547945 9.6 2.64E-02 10.2 2.80E-02 11.1 3.04E-02 12.3 3.37E-02 13.6 3.73E-02

Loudon 53-0090 Hubbell - Lenoir City 002 FUG-02 30899999 25% 91.25 VOC 0.0 0 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00

Page 2 of 3VOC Point Emissions

County Company

Number Company Name Emission Unit Emission Release

Point SCC Summer

Seasonal

Operation Days per

Season Pollutant Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day Emission TPY Emission

Ton/Day 2007 2010 2013 2016 2020 2024

Loudon 53-0090 Hubbell - Lenoir City 003 FUG-03 30899999 25% 91.25 VOC 92.8 0.254246575 99.8 2.73E-01 106.0 2.90E-01 114.8 3.15E-01 127.2 3.49E-01 141.0 3.86E-01

Loudon 53-0090 Hubbell - Lenoir City 004 E10 30800722 25% 91.25 VOC 0.1 0.000191781 0.1 2.06E-04 0.1 2.19E-04 0.1 2.37E-04 0.1 2.63E-04 0.1 2.91E-04

Loudon 53-0090 Hubbell - Lenoir City 005 E09 30899999 25% 91.25 VOC 0.0 0 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00 0.0 0.00E+00

Loudon 53-0090 Hubbell - Lenoir City Facility Totals 101.8 0.3 109.5 0.3 116.3 0.3 126.0 0.3 139.6 0.4 154.7 0.4

Loudon County Totals 775.2 2.1 814.6 2.2 853.9 2.3 897.3 2.5 950.3 2.6 1,005.8 2.8

Sevier 78-0086 East TN Natl Gas Co 3302 001 S-001A 20200201 20% 91.25 VOC 0.5 0.001093674 0.5 1.15E-03 0.5 1.20E-03 0.6 1.23E-03 0.6 1.30E-03 0.6 1.37E-03

Sevier 78-0086 East TN Natl Gas Co 3302 002 S-002A 20200201 9% 91.25 VOC 0.2 0.000213137 0.2 2.24E-04 0.2 2.33E-04 0.2 2.39E-04 0.3 2.53E-04 0.3 2.67E-04

Sevier 78-0086 East TN Natl Gas Co 3302 003 S-003A 20200201 8% 91.25 VOC 0.1 6.33509E-05 0.1 6.67E-05 0.1 6.94E-05 0.1 7.11E-05 0.1 7.52E-05 0.1 7.92E-05

Sevier 78-0086 East TN Natl Gas Co 3302 Facility Totals 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.0 0.0

Sevier County Totals 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.94 0.002 0.98 0.002

Page 3 of 3

# Appendix B

– Area Source SummaryArea Source NOx

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day

2102001000 Industrial - Anthracite Coal 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.66E+00 2.67E-04 6.01E-01 9.69E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.60E-01 4.20E-05

2102002000 Industrial - Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.35E+02 5.41E-02 1.22E+02 1.96E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.27E+01 8.50E-03

2102004000 Industrial - Distillate Oil 3.67E+01 9.85E-02 3.08E+01 8.27E-02 1.12E+01 3.00E-02 1.38E+01 3.71E-02 4.84E+00 1.30E-02

2102005000 Industrial - Residual Oil 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.85E+00 1.03E-02 1.40E+00 3.75E-03 1.73E+00 4.64E-03 6.05E-01 1.63E-03

2102006000 Industrial - Natural Gas 1.07E+02 2.86E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.43E+01 9.22E-02 4.23E+01 1.14E-01 1.19E+01 3.19E-02

2103004000 Commercial/Institutional - Distillate Oil 6.65E+00 1.07E-02 6.05E+00 9.78E-03 1.50E+00 2.43E-03 1.62E+00 2.62E-03 6.77E+00 1.09E-02

2103005000 Commercial/Institutional - Residual Oil 1.53E-01 2.47E-04 1.39E-01 2.25E-04 3.46E-02 5.59E-05 3.73E-02 6.02E-05 1.56E-01 2.51E-04

2103006000 Commercial/Institutional - Natural Gas 4.24E-02 6.86E-05 3.86E-02 6.24E-05 9.59E-03 1.55E-05 1.03E-02 1.67E-05 4.32E-02 6.98E-05

2103007000 Commercial/Institutional - Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 1.25E+00 3.35E-03 1.14E+00 3.05E-03 2.82E-01 7.58E-04 3.04E-01 8.17E-04 1.27E+00 3.41E-03

2104001000 Residential - Anthracite Coal 1.49E-03 2.40E-07 5.70E-04 9.20E-08 7.46E-04 1.20E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.26E-04 8.49E-08

2104002000 Residential - Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal 7.49E-01 1.21E-04 2.86E-01 4.62E-05 3.75E-01 6.04E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.64E-01 4.27E-05

2104004000 Residential - Distillate Oil 5.55E-01 8.95E-05 1.48E+00 2.39E-04 8.28E-01 1.34E-04 4.21E-01 6.79E-05 1.36E+00 2.19E-04

2104006000 Residential - Natural Gas 4.54E+01 7.32E-03 4.65E+01 7.50E-03 1.02E+01 1.65E-03 1.76E+01 2.83E-03 1.29E+01 2.09E-03

2104007000 Residential - Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 4.02E+00 1.08E-02 1.89E+01 5.07E-02 5.49E+00 1.48E-02 5.53E+00 1.49E-02 1.04E+01 2.79E-02

2104011000 Residential - Kerosene 8.59E-01 0.00E+00 2.29E+00 0.00E+00 1.28E+00 0.00E+00 6.52E-01 0.00E+00 2.10E+00 0.00E+00

2302002100 Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20 - Commercial Cooking – Conveyorized

Charbroiling

2302002200 Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20 - Commercial Cooking – Under-fired Charbroiling

2302003000 Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20 - Commercial Cooking – Deep Fat Fying

2302003100 Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20 - Commercial Cooking – Flat Griddle Frying

2302003200 Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20 - Commercial Cooking – Clamshell Griddle Frying

2401001000 Surface Coating - Architectural Coatings

2401005000 Surface Coating - Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532

2401008000 Surface Coating - Traffic Markings

2401015000 Surface Coating - Factory Finished Wood: SIC 2426 thru 242

2401020000 Surface Coating - Wood Furniture: SIC 25

2401025000 Surface Coating - Metal Furniture: SIC 25

2401030000 Surface Coating - Paper: SIC 26

2401040000 Surface Coating - Metal Cans: SIC 341

2401045000 Surface Coating - Metal Coils: SIC 3498

2401055000 Surface Coating - Machinery and Equipment: SIC 35

2401060000 Surface Coating - Large Appliances: SIC 363

2401065000 Surface Coating - Electronic and Other Electrical: SIC 36 - 363

2401070000 Surface Coating - Motor Vehicles: SIC 371

2401075000 Surface Coating - Aircraft: SIC 372

2401080000 Surface Coating - Marine: SIC 373

2401085000 Surface Coating - Railroad: SIC 374

2401090000 Surface Coating - Miscellaneous Manufacturing

2401100000 Surface Coating - Industrial Maintenance Coatings

2401200000 Surface Coating - Other Special Purpose Coatings

2415000000 Degreasing

2420000000 Dry Cleaning

2425000000 Graphic Arts

2460100000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All Personal Care

Products

2460200000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All Household Products NOx

SCC Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier SCC Description

Page 1 of 3Area Source NOx

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day NOx

SCC Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier SCC Description

2460400000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All Automotive

Aftermarket Products

2460500000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All Coatings and Related

Products

2460600000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All Adhesives and

Sealants

2460800000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All FIFRA Related

Products

2460900000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - Miscellaneous Products

(Not Otherwise Covered)

2461021000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial - Cutback Asphalt

2461022000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial - Emulsified Asphalt

2501011011 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Residential Portable Gas Cans -

Permeation

2501011012 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Residential Portable Gas Cans -

Evaporation (includes Diurnal losses)

2501011013 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Residential Portable Gas Cans - Spillage

During Transport

2501011014 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Residential Portable Gas Cans - Refilling

at the Pump - Vapor Displacement

2501011015 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Residential Portable Gas Cans - Refilling

at the Pump – Spillage

2501012011 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Commercial Portable Gas Cans -

Permeation

2501012012 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Commercial Portable Gas Cans -

Evaporation (includes Diurnal losses)

2501012013 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Commercial Portable Gas Cans - Spillage

During Transport

2501012014 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Commercial Portable Gas Cans - Refilling

at the Pump - Vapor Displacement

2501012015 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Commercial Portable Gas Cans - Refilling

at the Pump – Spillage

2501050120 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Bulk Terminals: All Evaporative Losses -

Gasoline

2501055120 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Bulk Plants: All Evaporative Losses -

Gasoline

2501060051 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Gasoline Service Stations - Stage 1:

Submerged Filling

2501060052 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Gasoline Service Stations - Stage 1:

Splash Filling

2501060053 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Gasoline Service Stations - Stage 1:

Balanced Submerged Filling

2501060100 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Gasoline Service Stations - Stage 2: Total

2501060201 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Gasoline Service Stations - Underground

Tank: Breathing and Emptying

2501080050 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Airports : Aviation Gasoline - Stage 1:

Total

2501080100 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Airports : Aviation Gasoline - Stage 2:

Total

Page 2 of 3Area Source NOx

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day NOx

SCC Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier SCC Description

2505030120 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport – Truck - Gasoline

2505040120 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport - Pipeline - Gasoline

2610000100 Open Burning - Yard Waste - Leaf Species Unspecified 7.10E-01 1.91E-03 1.03E+00 2.76E-03 8.79E-01 2.36E-03 5.30E-01 1.43E-03 1.27E+00 3.40E-03

2610000400 Open Burning - Yard Waste - Yard Waste - Brush Species Unspecified 5.73E-01 1.54E-03 8.29E-01 2.23E-03 7.09E-01 1.91E-03 4.28E-01 1.15E-03 1.02E+00 2.74E-03

2610000500 Open Burning - Land Clearing Debris (use 28-10-005-000 for Logging Debris Burning) 1.69E+01 3.35E-02 3.05E+01 6.06E-02 2.42E+01 4.81E-02 1.72E+01 3.42E-02 4.81E+01 9.56E-02

2610030000 Open Burning -Household Waste (use 26-10-000-xxx for Yard Wastes) 2.75E+00 7.39E-03 3.98E+00 1.07E-02 3.40E+00 9.15E-03 2.05E+00 5.52E-03 4.90E+00 1.32E-02

2630020000 Wastewater Treatment - Public Owned

Totals 2.24E+02 4.62E-01 4.85E+02 2.95E-01 2.18E+02 2.27E-01 1.04E+02 2.19E-01 1.61E+02 2.15E-01

Page 3 of 3Area Source VOC

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day

2102001000 Industrial - Anthracite Coal 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.52E-02 8.90E-06 2.00E-02 3.23E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 8.68E-03 1.40E-06

2102002000 Industrial - Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.52E+00 2.46E-04 5.53E-01 8.92E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.40E-01 3.86E-05

2102004000 Industrial - Distillate Oil 3.67E-01 9.85E-04 3.08E-01 8.27E-04 1.12E-01 3.00E-04 1.38E-01 3.71E-04 4.84E-02 1.30E-04

2102005000 Industrial - Residual Oil 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.96E-02 5.27E-05 7.11E-03 1.91E-05 8.78E-03 2.36E-05 3.08E-03 8.28E-06

2102006000 Industrial - Natural Gas 5.86E+00 1.57E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.89E+00 5.07E-03 2.33E+00 6.26E-03 6.52E-01 1.75E-03

2103004000 Commercial/Institutional - Distillate Oil 1.13E-01 1.83E-04 1.03E-01 1.66E-04 2.56E-02 4.13E-05 2.75E-02 4.45E-05 1.15E-01 1.86E-04

2103005000 Commercial/Institutional - Residual Oil 3.14E-03 5.08E-06 2.86E-03 4.62E-06 7.10E-04 1.15E-06 7.65E-04 1.24E-06 3.20E-03 5.17E-06

2103006000 Commercial/Institutional - Natural Gas 2.33E-03 3.77E-06 2.12E-03 3.43E-06 5.28E-04 8.53E-07 5.69E-04 9.19E-07 2.37E-03 3.84E-06

2103007000 Commercial/Institutional - Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 6.87E-02 1.84E-04 6.24E-02 1.68E-04 1.55E-02 4.17E-05 1.67E-02 4.49E-05 6.99E-02 1.88E-04

2104001000 Residential - Anthracite Coal 4.97E-03 8.02E-07 1.90E-03 3.07E-07 2.49E-03 4.01E-07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.75E-03 2.83E-07

2104002000 Residential - Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal 8.23E-01 1.33E-04 3.15E-01 5.08E-05 4.12E-01 6.64E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.91E-01 4.69E-05

2104004000 Residential - Distillate Oil 2.16E-02 3.48E-06 5.76E-02 9.28E-06 3.22E-02 5.19E-06 1.64E-02 2.64E-06 5.28E-02 8.51E-06

2104006000 Residential - Natural Gas 2.66E+00 4.29E-04 2.72E+00 4.39E-04 5.99E-01 9.66E-05 1.03E+00 1.66E-04 7.57E-01 1.22E-04

2104007000 Residential - Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) 1.57E-01 4.21E-04 7.34E-01 1.97E-03 2.14E-01 5.75E-04 2.15E-01 5.79E-04 4.04E-01 1.09E-03

2104011000 Residential - Kerosene 3.34E-02 0.00E+00 8.91E-02 0.00E+00 4.98E-02 0.00E+00 2.53E-02 0.00E+00 8.17E-02 0.00E+00

2302002100 Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20 - Commercial Cooking – Conveyorized Charbroiling 4.42E-01 1.19E-03 7.21E-01 1.94E-03 3.02E-01 8.12E-04 2.73E-01 7.35E-04 5.03E-01 1.35E-03

2302002200 Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20 - Commercial Cooking – Under-fired Charbroiling 1.52E+00 4.08E-03 2.48E+00 6.67E-03 1.04E+00 2.80E-03 9.41E-01 2.53E-03 1.73E+00 4.65E-03

2302003000 Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20 - Commercial Cooking – Deep Fat Fying 4.62E-01 1.24E-03 7.54E-01 2.03E-03 3.16E-01 8.50E-04 2.86E-01 7.68E-04 5.26E-01 1.41E-03

2302003100 Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20 - Commercial Cooking – Flat Griddle Frying 2.18E-01 5.85E-04 3.55E-01 9.55E-04 1.49E-01 4.00E-04 1.35E-01 3.62E-04 2.48E-01 6.67E-04

2302003200 Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20 - Commercial Cooking – Clamshell Griddle Frying 8.48E-03 2.28E-05 1.38E-02 3.72E-05 5.81E-03 1.56E-05 5.25E-03 1.41E-05 9.67E-03 2.60E-05

2401001000 Surface Coating - Architectural Coatings 1.13E+02 3.04E-01 1.85E+02 4.97E-01 7.75E+01 2.08E-01 7.01E+01 1.88E-01 1.29E+02 3.47E-01

2401005000 Surface Coating - Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532 2.62E+01 7.03E-02 4.82E+01 1.30E-01 3.74E+00 1.00E-02 9.12E+00 2.45E-02 1.38E+01 3.69E-02

2401008000 Surface Coating - Traffic Markings 9.48E+00 2.55E-02 1.46E+01 3.93E-02 1.01E+01 2.71E-02 7.55E+00 2.03E-02 1.58E+01 4.23E-02

2401015000 Surface Coating - Factory Finished Wood: SIC 2426 thru 242 7.70E+00 2.07E-02 1.23E+00 3.31E-03 7.91E+00 2.13E-02 1.23E+00 3.31E-03 1.23E+00 3.31E-03

2401020000 Surface Coating - Wood Furniture: SIC 25 2.62E+01 7.03E-02 4.82E+01 1.30E-01 3.74E+00 1.00E-02 9.12E+00 2.45E-02 1.38E+01 3.69E-02

2401025000 Surface Coating - Metal Furniture: SIC 25 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.02E+01 2.76E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2401030000 Surface Coating - Paper: SIC 26 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2401040000 Surface Coating - Metal Cans: SIC 341 5.74E+01 1.56E-01 9.56E+00 2.59E-02 1.67E+02 4.54E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2401045000 Surface Coating - Metal Coils: SIC 3498 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.22E+01 1.69E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.04E+01 2.81E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2401055000 Surface Coating - Machinery and Equipment: SIC 35 4.31E-01 1.17E-03 1.70E+01 4.62E-02 7.11E+00 1.93E-02 1.91E+01 5.19E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2401060000 Surface Coating - Large Appliances: SIC 363 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2401065000 Surface Coating - Electronic and Other Electrical: SIC 36 - 363 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2401070000 Surface Coating - Motor Vehicles: SIC 371 9.42E+01 2.65E-01 2.73E+02 7.66E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.69E+01 7.55E-02 2.69E+01 7.55E-02

2401075000 Surface Coating - Aircraft: SIC 372 9.28E-01 2.61E-03 1.99E+00 5.59E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2401080000 Surface Coating - Marine: SIC 373 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.67E+01 4.53E-02 3.63E+01 9.84E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2401085000 Surface Coating - Railroad: SIC 374 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2401090000 Surface Coating - Miscellaneous Manufacturing 4.74E+00 1.29E-02 1.43E+00 3.90E-03 3.45E+00 9.40E-03 1.00E+01 2.74E-02 2.92E+00 7.98E-03

2401100000 Surface Coating - Industrial Maintenance Coatings 4.03E+01 1.10E-01 6.58E+01 1.80E-01 2.76E+01 7.53E-02 2.49E+01 6.81E-02 4.59E+01 1.25E-01

2401200000 Surface Coating - Other Special Purpose Coatings 2.56E-01 7.00E-04 4.19E-01 1.14E-03 1.76E-01 4.79E-04 1.59E-01 4.33E-04 2.92E-01 7.98E-04

2415000000 Degreasing 4.21E-01 1.14E-03 1.30E+02 3.53E-01 2.99E+01 8.10E-02 5.06E+01 1.37E-01 2.50E+01 6.78E-02

2420000000 Dry Cleaning 8.43E+00 2.31E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.66E+00 7.30E-03 1.57E+00 4.32E-03 3.25E+01 8.93E-02

2425000000 Graphic Arts 1.55E+02 4.25E-01 5.19E+01 1.42E-01 2.67E+02 7.32E-01 7.00E+00 1.92E-02 2.45E+01 6.71E-02

2460100000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All Personal Care Products 6.96E+01 1.87E-01 1.14E+02 3.05E-01 4.76E+01 1.28E-01 4.31E+01 1.16E-01 7.93E+01 2.13E-01

2460200000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All Household Products 6.59E+01 1.77E-01 1.08E+02 2.89E-01 4.51E+01 1.21E-01 4.08E+01 1.10E-01 7.52E+01 2.02E-01

2460400000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All Automotive Aftermarket

Products 4.98E+01 1.34E-01 8.13E+01 2.19E-01 3.41E+01 9.16E-02 3.08E+01 8.29E-02 5.68E+01 1.53E-01

2460500000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All Coatings and Related Products 3.48E+01 9.35E-02 5.68E+01 1.53E-01 2.38E+01 6.40E-02 2.15E+01 5.79E-02 3.97E+01 1.07E-01

2460600000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All Adhesives and Sealants 2.09E+01 5.61E-02 3.41E+01 9.16E-02 1.43E+01 3.84E-02 1.29E+01 3.47E-02 2.38E+01 6.40E-02

2460800000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - All FIFRA Related Products 6.52E+01 1.75E-01 1.06E+02 2.86E-01 4.46E+01 1.20E-01 4.04E+01 1.08E-01 7.43E+01 2.00E-01 SCC VOC

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier SCC Description

Page 1 of 2Area Source VOC

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day SCC VOC

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier SCC Description

2460900000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commercial - Miscellaneous Products (Not

Otherwise Covered) 2.56E+00 6.89E-03 4.19E+00 1.12E-02 1.76E+00 4.72E-03 1.59E+00 4.27E-03 2.92E+00 7.85E-03

2461021000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial - Cutback Asphalt 2.86E+00 7.74E-03 3.94E+00 1.06E-02 2.34E+00 6.34E-03 2.38E+00 6.44E-03 2.36E+00 6.39E-03

2461022000 Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial - Emulsified Asphalt 1.16E+01 3.13E-02 1.59E+01 4.30E-02 9.47E+00 2.56E-02 9.62E+00 2.60E-02 9.55E+00 2.58E-02

2501011011 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Residential Portable Gas Cans - Permeation 1.80E+01 3.93E+01 9.95E+00 1.39E+01 4.00E+01

2501011012 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Residential Portable Gas Cans - Evaporation

(includes Diurnal losses) 3.52E+01 7.68E+01 1.94E+01 2.71E+01 7.81E+01

2501011013 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Residential Portable Gas Cans - Spillage During

Transport 2.80E+00 6.12E+00 1.55E+00 2.16E+00 6.22E+00

2501011014 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Residential Portable Gas Cans - Refilling at the

Pump - Vapor Displacement 9.82E-01 2.15E+00 5.42E-01 7.58E-01 2.18E+00

2501011015 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Residential Portable Gas Cans - Refilling at the

Pump – Spillage 7.57E-02 1.67E-01 4.22E-02 5.69E-02 1.69E-01

2501012011 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Commercial Portable Gas Cans - Permeation 5.75E-01 1.25E+00 3.15E-01 4.41E-01 1.28E+00

2501012012 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Commercial Portable Gas Cans - Evaporation

(includes Diurnal losses) 1.12E+00 2.45E+00 6.20E-01 8.63E-01 2.49E+00

2501012013 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Commercial Portable Gas Cans - Spillage During

Transport 3.82E+00 8.34E+00 2.11E+00 2.94E+00 8.49E+00

2501012014 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Commercial Portable Gas Cans - Refilling at the

Pump - Vapor Displacement 1.90E+00 4.14E+00 1.05E+00 1.46E+00 4.21E+00

2501012015 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Commercial Portable Gas Cans - Refilling at the

Pump – Spillage 1.47E-01 3.20E-01 7.89E-02 1.11E-01 3.27E-01

2501050120 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Bulk Terminals: All Evaporative Losses - Gasoline 1.62E+01 4.35E-02 1.09E+02 2.93E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2501055120 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Bulk Plants: All Evaporative Losses - Gasoline 6.86E+00 1.84E-02 4.63E+01 1.24E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 See Note

below

2501060051 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Gasoline Service Stations - Stage 1: Submerged

Filling 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2501060052 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Gasoline Service Stations - Stage 1: Splash Filling 3.29E+02 8.85E-01 4.60E+02 1.24E+00 3.01E+02 8.09E-01 2.88E+02 7.75E-01 5.03E+02 1.35E+00

2501060053 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Gasoline Service Stations - Stage 1: Balanced

Submerged Filling 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2501060100 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Gasoline Service Stations - Stage 2: Total 9.98E+01 2.68E-01 1.38E+02 3.72E-01 8.89E+01 2.39E-01 8.81E+01 2.37E-01 1.44E+02 3.88E-01

2501060201 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Gasoline Service Stations - Underground Tank:

Breathing and Emptying 1.65E+01 4.43E-02 3.08E+01 8.28E-02 1.98E+01 5.32E-02 1.80E+01 4.85E-02 3.53E+01 9.49E-02

2501080050 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Airports : Aviation Gasoline - Stage 1: Total 3.62E+00 9.73E-03 3.02E+01 8.12E-02 7.25E-02 1.95E-04 6.10E+00 1.64E-02 1.92E+01 5.16E-02

2501080100 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage - Airports : Aviation Gasoline - Stage 2: Total 2.07E-01 5.58E-04 1.73E+00 4.66E-03 4.16E-03 1.12E-05 3.50E-01 9.40E-04 1.10E+00 2.96E-03

2505030120 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport – Truck - Gasoline 1.24E+00 3.32E-03 2.31E+00 6.21E-03 1.48E+00 3.99E-03 1.35E+00 3.63E-03 2.65E+00 7.11E-03

2505040120 Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport - Pipeline - Gasoline 7.34E+00 1.97E-02 4.95E+01 1.33E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

2610000100 Open Burning - Yard Waste - Leaf Species Unspecified 3.21E+00 8.62E-03 4.64E+00 1.25E-02 3.97E+00 1.07E-02 2.40E+00 6.44E-03 5.72E+00 1.54E-02

2610000400 Open Burning - Yard Waste - Yard Waste - Brush Species Unspecified 2.18E+00 5.85E-03 3.15E+00 8.46E-03 2.69E+00 7.24E-03 1.63E+00 4.37E-03 3.88E+00 1.04E-02

2610000500 Open Burning - Land Clearing Debris (use 28-10-005-000 for Logging Debris Burning) 3.91E+01 7.78E-02 7.08E+01 1.41E-01 5.62E+01 1.12E-01 3.99E+01 7.93E-02 1.12E+02 2.22E-01

2610030000 Open Burning -Household Waste (use 26-10-000-xxx for Yard Wastes) 2.26E+01 6.07E-02 3.27E+01 8.79E-02 2.80E+01 7.52E-02 1.69E+01 4.54E-02 4.03E+01 1.08E-01

2630020000 Wastewater Treatment - Public Owned 1.39E+00 3.73E-03 2.26E+00 6.09E-03 9.50E-01 2.55E-03 8.59E-01 2.31E-03 1.58E+00 4.25E-03

Totals 1.49E+03 3.83E+00 2.57E+03 6.50E+00 1.40E+03 3.65E+00 1.01E+03 2.55E+00 1.71E+03 4.15E+00

Note: No Allocation Factor found in Vistas to compute ton/day for the indicated rows See Note

below

Page 2 of 2

### Area Source Inventory

NOx Future Years

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day

2102001000 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.68 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00

2102002000 0.00 0.00 335.95 0.05 121.90 0.02 0.00 0.00 52.82 0.01 0.00 0.00 339.70 0.05 123.26 0.02 0.00 0.00

2102004000 37.04 0.10 31.11 0.08 11.29 0.03 13.94 0.04 4.89 0.01 39.14 0.11 32.87 0.09 11.92 0.03 14.72 0.04

2102005000 0.00 0.00 3.86 0.01 1.40 0.00 1.73 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.96 0.01 1.44 0.00 1.77 0.00

2102006000 112.19 0.30 0.00 0.00 36.11 0.10 44.59 0.12 12.49 0.03 116.72 0.31 0.00 0.00 37.57 0.10 46.39 0.12

2103004000 7.10 0.01 6.46 0.01 1.60 0.00 1.73 0.00 7.22 0.01 7.51 0.01 6.83 0.01 1.70 0.00 1.83 0.00

2103005000 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.00

2103006000 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

2103007000 1.27 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.31 0.00 1.30 0.00 1.27 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.31 0.00

2104001000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2104002000 0.73 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00

2104004000 0.54 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.41 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.53 0.00 1.42 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.40 0.00

2104006000 47.54 0.01 48.65 0.01 10.72 0.00 18.37 0.00 13.55 0.00 48.62 0.01 49.75 0.01 10.96 0.00 18.79 0.00

2104007000 4.10 0.01 19.22 0.05 5.60 0.02 5.64 0.02 10.58 0.03 4.18 0.01 19.59 0.05 5.71 0.02 5.74 0.02

2104011000 0.84 0.00 2.24 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.64 0.00 2.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 2.19 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.62 0.00

2302002100

2302002200

2302003000

2302003100

2302003200

2401001000

2401005000

2401008000

2401015000

2401020000

2401025000

2401030000

2401040000

2401045000

2401055000

2401060000

2401065000

2401070000

2401075000

2401080000

2401085000

2401090000

2401100000

2401200000

2415000000 SCC 2010 2010 2013 2013 2013 2013

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier 2010 2010 2010

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon



### Page 1 of 6

### Area Source Inventory

NOx Future Years

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day SCC 2010 2010 2013 2013 2013 2013

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier 2010 2010 2010

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon

2420000000

2425000000

2460100000

2460200000

2460400000

2460500000

2460600000

2460800000

2460900000

2461021000

2461022000

2501011011

2501011012

2501011013

2501011014

2501011015

2501012011

2501012012

2501012013

2501012014

2501012015

2501050120

2501055120

2501060051

2501060052

2501060053

2501060100

2501060201

2501080050

2501080100

2505030120

2505040120

2610000100 0.74 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.55 0.00 1.31 0.00 0.76 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.57 0.00

2610000400 0.59 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.44 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.46 0.00

2610000500 17.51 0.03 31.65 0.06 25.13 0.05 17.85 0.04 49.94 0.10 18.17 0.04 32.85 0.07 26.08 0.05 18.53 0.04

2610030000 2.85 0.01 4.13 0.01 3.53 0.01 2.13 0.01 5.09 0.01 2.96 0.01 4.28 0.01 3.67 0.01 2.21 0.01

2630020000

Total 233.14 0.48 489.81 0.30 222.27 0.24 108.35 0.23 164.85 0.22 242.26 0.50 498.77 0.31 227.34 0.24 112.42 0.24



### Page 2 of 6

### Area Source Inventory

NOx Future Years

2102001000

2102002000

2102004000

2102005000

2102006000

2103004000

2103005000

2103006000

2103007000

2104001000

2104002000

2104004000

2104006000

2104007000

2104011000

2302002100

2302002200

2302003000

2302003100

2302003200

2401001000

2401005000

2401008000

2401015000

2401020000

2401025000

2401030000

2401040000

2401045000

2401055000

2401060000

2401065000

2401070000

2401075000

2401080000

2401085000

2401090000

2401100000

2401200000

2415000000 SCC

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day

0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.69 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.71 0.00 0.62 0.00

53.41 0.01 0.00 0.00 341.90 0.06 124.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 53.75 0.01 0.00 0.00 346.33 0.06 125.66 0.02

5.17 0.01 40.72 0.11 34.20 0.09 12.41 0.03 15.32 0.04 5.38 0.01 42.77 0.11 35.92 0.10 13.03 0.04

0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.99 0.01 1.45 0.00 1.79 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.04 0.01 1.47 0.00

12.99 0.03 119.56 0.32 0.00 0.00 38.49 0.10 47.52 0.13 13.31 0.04 126.54 0.34 0.00 0.00 40.73 0.11

7.64 0.01 7.96 0.01 7.24 0.01 1.80 0.00 1.94 0.00 8.10 0.01 8.31 0.01 7.56 0.01 1.88 0.00

0.20 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.07 0.00

0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00

1.30 0.00 1.28 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.31 0.00 1.31 0.00 1.29 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.29 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.25 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.35 0.00

1.30 0.00 0.52 0.00 1.39 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.40 0.00 1.28 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.75 0.00

13.86 0.00 49.71 0.01 50.87 0.01 11.21 0.00 19.21 0.00 14.17 0.00 51.52 0.01 52.72 0.01 11.62 0.00

10.78 0.03 4.28 0.01 20.08 0.05 5.85 0.02 5.89 0.02 11.05 0.03 4.43 0.01 20.80 0.06 6.06 0.02

2.01 0.00 0.79 0.00 2.10 0.00 1.18 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.93 0.00 0.72 0.00 1.93 0.00 1.08 0.00 2016 2020 2020 2020

Sevier 2013

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier

2016 2016 2016 2016

Anderson Blount Jefferson



### Page 3 of 6

### Area Source Inventory

NOx Future Years

SCC

2420000000

2425000000

2460100000

2460200000

2460400000

2460500000

2460600000

2460800000

2460900000

2461021000

2461022000

2501011011

2501011012

2501011013

2501011014

2501011015

2501012011

2501012012

2501012013

2501012014

2501012015

2501050120

2501055120

2501060051

2501060052

2501060053

2501060100

2501060201

2501080050

2501080100

2505030120

2505040120

2610000100

2610000400

2610000500

2610030000

2630020000

Total TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day 2016 2020 2020 2020

Sevier 2013

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier

2016 2016 2016 2016

Anderson Blount Jefferson

1.36 0.00 0.79 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.59 0.00 1.42 0.00 0.83 0.00 1.21 0.00 1.03 0.00

1.10 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.48 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.83 0.00

51.83 0.10 18.87 0.04 34.12 0.07 27.09 0.05 19.25 0.04 53.84 0.11 19.82 0.04 35.83 0.07 28.45 0.06

5.28 0.01 3.08 0.01 4.45 0.01 3.81 0.01 2.30 0.01 5.48 0.01 3.23 0.01 4.67 0.01 4.00 0.01

169.42 0.23 249.21 0.52 505.82 0.32 231.21 0.25 115.66 0.24 173.60 0.24 261.68 0.54 516.78 0.33 237.92 0.26



### Page 4 of 6

### Area Source Inventory

NOx Future Years

2102001000

2102002000

2102004000

2102005000

2102006000

2103004000

2103005000

2103006000

2103007000

2104001000

2104002000

2104004000

2104006000

2104007000

2104011000

2302002100

2302002200

2302003000

2302003100

2302003200

2401001000

2401005000

2401008000

2401015000

2401020000

2401025000

2401030000

2401040000

2401045000

2401055000

2401060000

2401065000

2401070000

2401075000

2401080000

2401085000

2401090000

2401100000

2401200000

2415000000 SCC

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day

0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00

0.00 0.00 54.45 0.01 0.00 0.00 351.03 0.06 127.37 0.02 0.00 0.00 55.19 0.01

16.09 0.04 5.65 0.02 45.31 0.12 38.05 0.10 13.81 0.04 17.05 0.05 5.98 0.02

1.81 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.14 0.01 1.50 0.00 1.85 0.00 0.65 0.00

50.29 0.14 14.09 0.04 133.27 0.36 0.00 0.00 42.90 0.12 52.97 0.14 14.84 0.04

2.03 0.00 8.46 0.01 8.57 0.01 7.79 0.01 1.94 0.00 2.09 0.00 8.72 0.01

0.07 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.32 0.00

0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00

0.31 0.00 1.31 0.00 1.28 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.31 0.00 1.31 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00

0.38 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.48 0.00 1.28 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.36 0.00 1.17 0.00

19.91 0.00 14.69 0.00 53.09 0.01 54.33 0.01 11.97 0.00 20.52 0.00 15.14 0.00

6.10 0.02 11.45 0.03 4.61 0.01 21.64 0.06 6.30 0.02 6.35 0.02 11.91 0.03

0.55 0.00 1.77 0.00 0.65 0.00 1.74 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.49 0.00 1.59 0.00 2024 2020 2020

Loudon Sevier Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier 2024 2024 2024 2024



### Page 5 of 6

### Area Source Inventory

NOx Future Years

SCC

2420000000

2425000000

2460100000

2460200000

2460400000

2460500000

2460600000

2460800000

2460900000

2461021000

2461022000

2501011011

2501011012

2501011013

2501011014

2501011015

2501012011

2501012012

2501012013

2501012014

2501012015

2501050120

2501055120

2501060051

2501060052

2501060053

2501060100

2501060201

2501080050

2501080100

2505030120

2505040120

2610000100

2610000400

2610000500

2610030000

2630020000

Total TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day 2024 2020 2020

Loudon Sevier Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier 2024 2024 2024 2024

0.62 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.87 0.00 1.26 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.65 0.00 1.56 0.00

0.50 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.70 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.53 0.00 1.26 0.00

20.21 0.04 56.54 0.11 20.74 0.04 37.50 0.07 29.77 0.06 21.15 0.04 59.17 0.12

2.41 0.01 5.76 0.02 3.38 0.01 4.89 0.01 4.18 0.01 2.52 0.01 6.03 0.02

121.30 0.26 179.56 0.25 274.02 0.57 528.17 0.35 244.73 0.28 126.94 0.27 185.39 0.26



### Page 6 of 6

### Area Source Inventory

VOC Future Years

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day

2102001000 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

2102002000 0.00 0.00 1.53 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00

2102004000 0.37 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.15 0.00

2102005000 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

2102006000 6.17 0.02 0.00 0.00 1.99 0.01 2.45 0.01 0.69 0.00 6.42 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.07 0.01 2.55 0.01

2103004000 0.12 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00

2103005000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2103006000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2103007000 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00

2104001000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2104002000 0.81 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00

2104004000 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00

2104006000 2.78 0.00 2.85 0.00 0.63 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.79 0.00 2.84 0.00 2.91 0.00 0.64 0.00 1.10 0.00

2104007000 0.16 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00

2104011000 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00

2302002100 0.46 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.30 0.00

2302002200 1.60 0.00 2.61 0.01 1.09 0.00 0.99 0.00 1.82 0.00 1.67 0.00 2.73 0.01 1.15 0.00 1.04 0.00

2302003000 0.49 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.32 0.00

2302003100 0.23 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.15 0.00

2302003200 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

2401001000 122.79 0.33 200.50 0.54 84.08 0.23 76.04 0.20 140.00 0.38 132.12 0.36 215.74 0.58 90.47 0.24 81.83 0.22

2401005000 27.72 0.07 51.08 0.14 3.96 0.01 9.66 0.03 14.57 0.04 29.15 0.08 53.72 0.14 4.16 0.01 10.16 0.03

2401008000 9.73 0.03 15.00 0.04 10.36 0.03 7.75 0.02 16.17 0.04 9.85 0.03 15.19 0.04 10.49 0.03 7.85 0.02

2401015000 7.99 0.02 1.28 0.00 8.21 0.02 1.28 0.00 1.28 0.00 8.26 0.02 1.32 0.00 8.49 0.02 1.32 0.00

2401020000 26.11 0.07 48.12 0.13 3.73 0.01 9.10 0.02 13.72 0.04 25.48 0.07 46.96 0.13 3.64 0.01 8.88 0.02

2401025000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.17 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.92 0.03 0.00 0.00

2401030000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2401040000 59.40 0.16 9.90 0.03 173.26 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.38 0.17 10.23 0.03 179.02 0.49 0.00 0.00

2401045000 0.00 0.00 64.43 0.17 0.00 0.00 10.74 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.57 0.18 0.00 0.00 11.09 0.03

2401055000 0.55 0.00 21.86 0.06 9.13 0.02 24.57 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 26.84 0.07 11.21 0.03 30.17 0.08

2401060000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2401065000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2401070000 100.36 0.28 290.29 0.82 0.00 0.00 28.63 0.08 28.63 0.08 104.67 0.29 302.78 0.85 0.00 0.00 29.86 0.08

2401075000 0.95 0.00 2.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 2.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2401080000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.09 0.05 37.12 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.17 0.05 37.28 0.10

2401085000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2401090000 4.95 0.01 1.49 0.00 3.60 0.01 10.49 0.03 3.05 0.01 5.09 0.01 1.54 0.00 3.70 0.01 10.80 0.03

2401100000 44.19 0.12 72.16 0.20 30.26 0.08 27.37 0.07 50.39 0.14 48.14 0.13 78.61 0.21 32.96 0.09 29.81 0.08

2401200000 0.25 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.16 0.00

2415000000 0.42 0.00 131.23 0.36 30.13 0.08 51.01 0.14 25.20 0.07 0.43 0.00 131.59 0.36 30.21 0.08 51.15 0.14 SCC Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier

2010 2010 2010

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon 2010 2010 2013 2013 2013 2013



### Page 1 of 6

### Area Source Inventory

VOC Future Years

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day SCC Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier

2010 2010 2010

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon 2010 2010 2013 2013 2013 2013

2420000000 9.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.86 0.01 1.69 0.00 34.98 0.10 9.64 0.03 0.00 0.00 3.04 0.01 1.80 0.00

2425000000 150.16 0.41 50.32 0.14 258.78 0.71 6.79 0.02 23.72 0.07 148.47 0.41 49.76 0.14 255.86 0.70 6.71 0.02

2460100000 72.20 0.19 117.89 0.32 49.44 0.13 44.71 0.12 82.32 0.22 74.93 0.20 122.35 0.33 51.30 0.14 46.40 0.12

2460200000 68.40 0.18 111.69 0.30 46.83 0.13 42.36 0.11 77.99 0.21 70.98 0.19 115.91 0.31 48.60 0.13 43.96 0.12

2460400000 51.68 0.14 84.39 0.23 35.39 0.10 32.01 0.09 58.92 0.16 53.63 0.14 87.57 0.24 36.72 0.10 33.22 0.09

2460500000 36.10 0.10 58.95 0.16 24.72 0.07 22.36 0.06 41.16 0.11 37.46 0.10 61.17 0.16 25.65 0.07 23.20 0.06

2460600000 21.66 0.06 35.37 0.10 14.83 0.04 13.41 0.04 24.70 0.07 22.48 0.06 36.70 0.10 15.39 0.04 13.92 0.04

2460800000 67.64 0.18 110.45 0.30 46.31 0.12 41.89 0.11 77.12 0.21 70.19 0.19 114.62 0.31 48.06 0.13 43.47 0.12

2460900000 2.66 0.01 4.34 0.01 1.82 0.00 1.65 0.00 3.03 0.01 2.76 0.01 4.51 0.01 1.89 0.01 1.71 0.00

2461021000 3.14 0.01 4.32 0.01 2.57 0.01 2.61 0.01 2.59 0.01 3.40 0.01 4.68 0.01 2.79 0.01 2.83 0.01

2461022000 12.69 0.03 17.45 0.05 10.39 0.03 10.55 0.03 10.47 0.03 13.74 0.04 18.90 0.05 11.26 0.03 11.43 0.03

2501011011 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2501011012 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2501011013 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2501011014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2501011015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2501012011 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2501012012 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2501012013 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2501012014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2501012015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2501050120 16.62 0.04 112.01 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.83 0.05 113.41 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2501055120 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2501060051 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2501060052 338.12 0.91 471.94 1.27 308.94 0.83 296.02 0.80 515.96 1.39 342.34 0.92 477.83 1.28 312.80 0.84 299.71 0.81

2501060053 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25010600100 102.43 0.28 142.13 0.38 91.28 0.25 90.41 0.24 148.28 0.40 103.70 0.28 143.90 0.39 92.42 0.25 91.54 0.25

2501060201 16.93 0.05 31.62 0.08 20.31 0.05 18.51 0.05 36.23 0.10 17.14 0.05 32.02 0.09 20.57 0.06 18.74 0.05

2501080050 4.04 0.01 33.77 0.09 0.08 0.00 6.82 0.02 21.47 0.06 4.43 0.01 36.98 0.10 0.09 0.00 7.46 0.02

2501080100 0.23 0.00 1.94 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 1.23 0.00 0.25 0.00 2.12 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.43 0.00

2505030120 1.27 0.00 2.37 0.01 1.52 0.00 1.39 0.00 2.72 0.01 1.29 0.00 2.40 0.01 1.54 0.00 1.41 0.00

2505040120 7.45 0.02 50.24 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.65 0.02 51.53 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2610000100 3.33 0.01 4.81 0.01 4.12 0.01 2.49 0.01 5.93 0.02 3.45 0.01 5.00 0.01 4.28 0.01 2.58 0.01

2610000400 2.26 0.01 3.27 0.01 2.80 0.01 1.69 0.00 4.03 0.01 2.34 0.01 3.39 0.01 2.90 0.01 1.75 0.00

2610000500 40.62 0.08 73.43 0.15 58.30 0.12 41.42 0.08 115.87 0.23 42.15 0.08 76.21 0.15 60.51 0.12 42.99 0.09

2610030000 23.46 0.06 33.93 0.09 29.04 0.08 17.52 0.05 41.82 0.11 24.34 0.07 35.21 0.09 30.13 0.08 18.18 0.05

2630020000 1.46 0.00 2.38 0.01 1.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 1.66 0.00 1.53 0.00 2.50 0.01 1.05 0.00 0.95 0.00

Totals 1472.34 3.94 2479.46 6.65 1401.46 3.74 997.22 2.66 1631.46 4.31 1515.40 4.06 2563.19 6.87 1434.65 3.83 1030.70 2.75



### Page 2 of 6

### Area Source Inventory

VOC Future Years

2102001000

2102002000

2102004000

2102005000

2102006000

2103004000

2103005000

2103006000

2103007000

2104001000

2104002000

2104004000

2104006000

2104007000

2104011000

2302002100

2302002200

2302003000

2302003100

2302003200

2401001000

2401005000

2401008000

2401015000

2401020000

2401025000

2401030000

2401040000

2401045000

2401055000

2401060000

2401065000

2401070000

2401075000

2401080000

2401085000

2401090000

2401100000

2401200000

2415000000 SCC

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day

0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00

0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.57 0.00 0.57 0.00

0.05 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.13 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00

0.71 0.00 6.58 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.12 0.01 2.61 0.01 0.73 0.00 6.96 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.24 0.01

0.13 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.28 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.38 0.00

0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00

0.81 0.00 2.91 0.00 2.98 0.00 0.66 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.83 0.00 3.01 0.00 3.08 0.00 0.68 0.00

0.42 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.24 0.00

0.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.00

0.55 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.37 0.00

1.91 0.01 1.75 0.00 2.86 0.01 1.20 0.00 1.08 0.00 2.00 0.01 1.84 0.00 3.00 0.01 1.26 0.00

0.58 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.38 0.00

0.27 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.18 0.00

0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00

150.64 0.40 140.21 0.38 228.94 0.62 96.01 0.26 86.83 0.23 159.86 0.43 149.45 0.40 244.04 0.66 102.33 0.27

15.32 0.04 30.87 0.08 56.88 0.15 4.41 0.01 10.76 0.03 16.22 0.04 33.01 0.09 60.83 0.16 4.72 0.01

16.37 0.04 9.72 0.03 14.98 0.04 10.35 0.03 7.74 0.02 16.15 0.04 9.39 0.03 14.47 0.04 10.00 0.03

1.32 0.00 8.74 0.02 1.40 0.00 8.99 0.02 1.40 0.00 1.40 0.00 9.39 0.03 1.50 0.00 9.65 0.03

13.39 0.04 28.74 0.08 52.97 0.14 4.11 0.01 10.02 0.03 15.11 0.04 33.52 0.09 61.77 0.17 4.79 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.19 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.05 0.04

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 66.32 0.18 11.05 0.03 193.43 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.33 0.20 12.22 0.03 213.87 0.58

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.92 0.20 0.00 0.00 11.99 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79.53 0.22 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 31.33 0.09 13.09 0.04 35.23 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 37.83 0.10 15.80 0.04

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29.86 0.08 113.28 0.32 327.69 0.92 0.00 0.00 32.31 0.09 32.31 0.09 126.12 0.35 364.82 1.03 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 2.21 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 2.44 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.62 0.05 40.43 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.53 0.06

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14 0.01 5.45 0.01 1.64 0.00 3.96 0.01 11.56 0.03 3.36 0.01 5.99 0.02 1.80 0.00 4.35 0.01

54.89 0.15 53.15 0.15 86.79 0.24 36.39 0.10 32.92 0.09 60.60 0.17 60.35 0.16 98.54 0.27 41.32 0.11

0.29 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.20 0.00

25.26 0.07 0.46 0.00 142.43 0.39 32.70 0.09 55.37 0.15 27.35 0.07 0.51 0.00 158.35 0.43 36.35 0.10 Sevier 2013

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier

2016 2016 2016 2016

Anderson Blount Jefferson 2016 2020 2020 2020



### Page 3 of 6

### Area Source Inventory

VOC Future Years

SCC

2420000000

2425000000

2460100000

2460200000

2460400000

2460500000

2460600000

2460800000

2460900000

2461021000

2461022000

2501011011

2501011012

2501011013

2501011014

2501011015

2501012011

2501012012

2501012013

2501012014

2501012015

2501050120

2501055120

2501060051

2501060052

2501060053

25010600100

2501060201

2501080050

2501080100

2505030120

2505040120

2610000100

2610000400

2610000500

2610030000

2630020000

Totals TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day Sevier 2013

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier

2016 2016 2016 2016

Anderson Blount Jefferson 2016 2020 2020 2020

37.21 0.10 10.17 0.03 0.00 0.00 3.21 0.01 1.90 0.01 39.24 0.11 10.75 0.03 0.00 0.00 3.39 0.01

23.46 0.06 159.33 0.44 53.40 0.15 274.57 0.75 7.20 0.02 25.17 0.07 173.68 0.48 58.21 0.16 299.31 0.82

85.43 0.23 77.84 0.21 127.10 0.34 53.30 0.14 48.21 0.13 88.75 0.24 81.73 0.22 133.46 0.36 55.97 0.15

80.93 0.22 73.74 0.20 120.41 0.32 50.49 0.14 45.67 0.12 84.08 0.23 77.43 0.21 126.44 0.34 53.02 0.14

61.15 0.16 55.71 0.15 90.98 0.24 38.15 0.10 34.51 0.09 63.52 0.17 58.50 0.16 95.53 0.26 40.06 0.11

42.71 0.11 38.92 0.10 63.55 0.17 26.65 0.07 24.10 0.06 44.37 0.12 40.87 0.11 66.73 0.18 27.98 0.08

25.63 0.07 23.35 0.06 38.13 0.10 15.99 0.04 14.46 0.04 26.62 0.07 24.52 0.07 40.04 0.11 16.79 0.05

80.03 0.22 72.92 0.20 119.07 0.32 49.93 0.13 45.16 0.12 83.14 0.22 76.57 0.21 125.03 0.34 52.43 0.14

3.15 0.01 2.87 0.01 4.68 0.01 1.96 0.01 1.78 0.00 3.27 0.01 3.01 0.01 4.92 0.01 2.06 0.01

2.81 0.01 3.67 0.01 5.05 0.01 3.01 0.01 3.05 0.01 3.03 0.01 4.02 0.01 5.53 0.01 3.29 0.01

11.34 0.03 14.83 0.04 20.40 0.06 12.15 0.03 12.34 0.03 12.24 0.03 16.23 0.04 22.33 0.06 13.30 0.04

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 16.60 0.04 111.89 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.04 0.04 108.09 0.29 0.00 0.00

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

522.41 1.40 337.77 0.91 471.45 1.27 308.62 0.83 295.71 0.79 515.43 1.39 326.28 0.88 455.41 1.22 298.12 0.80

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

150.13 0.40 102.32 0.27 141.98 0.38 91.18 0.25 90.32 0.24 148.12 0.40 98.84 0.27 137.15 0.37 88.08 0.24

36.68 0.10 16.91 0.05 31.59 0.08 20.29 0.05 18.49 0.05 36.19 0.10 16.33 0.04 30.51 0.08 19.60 0.05

23.51 0.06 4.75 0.01 39.68 0.11 0.10 0.00 8.01 0.02 25.23 0.07 5.18 0.01 43.31 0.12 0.10 0.00

1.35 0.00 0.27 0.00 2.27 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.46 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.30 0.00 2.48 0.01 0.01 0.00

2.75 0.01 1.27 0.00 2.37 0.01 1.52 0.00 1.39 0.00 2.71 0.01 1.23 0.00 2.29 0.01 1.47 0.00

0.00 0.00 8.03 0.02 54.10 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.52 0.02 57.45 0.15 0.00 0.00

6.16 0.02 3.59 0.01 5.19 0.01 4.44 0.01 2.68 0.01 6.40 0.02 3.77 0.01 5.45 0.01 4.66 0.01

4.18 0.01 2.44 0.01 3.52 0.01 3.01 0.01 1.82 0.00 4.34 0.01 2.56 0.01 3.70 0.01 3.17 0.01

120.25 0.24 43.79 0.09 79.17 0.16 62.86 0.12 44.66 0.09 124.92 0.25 45.98 0.09 83.13 0.17 66.00 0.13

43.40 0.12 25.29 0.07 36.58 0.10 31.30 0.08 18.88 0.05 45.08 0.12 26.55 0.07 38.41 0.10 32.87 0.09

1.74 0.00 1.62 0.00 2.64 0.01 1.11 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.85 0.00 1.72 0.00 2.82 0.01 1.18 0.00

1683.08 4.45 1571.18 4.21 2667.23 7.15 1493.60 3.99 1064.62 2.84 1724.23 4.55 1638.89 4.39 2798.79 7.51 1566.44 4.19



### Page 4 of 6

### Area Source Inventory

VOC Future Years

2102001000

2102002000

2102004000

2102005000

2102006000

2103004000

2103005000

2103006000

2103007000

2104001000

2104002000

2104004000

2104006000

2104007000

2104011000

2302002100

2302002200

2302003000

2302003100

2302003200

2401001000

2401005000

2401008000

2401015000

2401020000

2401025000

2401030000

2401040000

2401045000

2401055000

2401060000

2401065000

2401070000

2401075000

2401080000

2401085000

2401090000

2401100000

2401200000

2415000000 SCC

TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00

0.16 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.06 0.00

0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.77 0.01 0.77 0.00 7.33 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.36 0.01 2.91 0.01 0.82 0.00

0.03 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.15 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00

0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00

1.16 0.00 0.86 0.00 3.11 0.00 3.18 0.00 0.70 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.89 0.00

0.24 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.46 0.00

0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00

0.33 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.64 0.00

1.14 0.00 2.10 0.01 1.93 0.01 3.16 0.01 1.32 0.00 1.20 0.00 2.20 0.01

0.35 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.67 0.00

0.16 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.32 0.00

0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

92.56 0.25 170.40 0.46 157.34 0.42 256.91 0.69 107.73 0.29 97.44 0.26 179.39 0.48

11.51 0.03 17.35 0.05 35.24 0.09 64.94 0.17 5.03 0.01 12.28 0.03 18.52 0.05

7.48 0.02 15.60 0.04 9.02 0.02 13.91 0.04 9.61 0.03 7.19 0.02 14.99 0.04

1.50 0.00 1.50 0.00 10.06 0.03 1.61 0.00 10.34 0.03 1.61 0.00 1.61 0.00

11.68 0.03 17.62 0.05 39.08 0.11 72.02 0.19 5.58 0.02 13.62 0.04 20.54 0.06

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.08 0.22 13.51 0.04 236.48 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13.25 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.93 0.24 0.00 0.00 14.66 0.04 0.00 0.00

42.53 0.12 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.00 45.25 0.12 18.91 0.05 50.87 0.14 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35.98 0.10 35.98 0.10 141.16 0.40 408.33 1.15 0.00 0.00 40.27 0.11 40.27 0.11

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 2.68 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

44.59 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.53 0.06 48.91 0.13 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12.70 0.03 3.69 0.01 6.60 0.02 1.99 0.01 4.80 0.01 14.00 0.04 4.07 0.01

37.38 0.10 68.81 0.19 68.49 0.19 111.84 0.31 46.90 0.13 42.42 0.12 78.09 0.21

0.18 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.36 0.00

61.56 0.17 30.40 0.08 0.57 0.00 176.51 0.48 40.52 0.11 68.62 0.19 33.89 0.09 Loudon Sevier 2024

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier 2024 2024 2024 2024 2020 2020



### Page 5 of 6

### Area Source Inventory

VOC Future Years

SCC

2420000000

2425000000

2460100000

2460200000

2460400000

2460500000

2460600000

2460800000

2460900000

2461021000

2461022000

2501011011

2501011012

2501011013

2501011014

2501011015

2501012011

2501012012

2501012013

2501012014

2501012015

2501050120

2501055120

2501060051

2501060052

2501060053

25010600100

2501060201

2501080050

2501080100

2505030120

2505040120

2610000100

2610000400

2610000500

2610030000

2630020000

Totals TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day TPY ton/day Loudon Sevier 2024

Anderson Blount Jefferson Loudon Sevier 2024 2024 2024 2024 2020 2020

2.01 0.01 41.49 0.11 11.31 0.03 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.01 2.11 0.01 43.65 0.12

7.85 0.02 27.44 0.08 188.98 0.52 63.33 0.17 325.66 0.89 8.54 0.02 29.86 0.08

50.62 0.14 93.19 0.25 85.54 0.23 139.67 0.38 58.57 0.16 52.97 0.14 97.53 0.26

47.96 0.13 88.29 0.24 81.03 0.22 132.32 0.36 55.49 0.15 50.19 0.13 92.39 0.25

36.23 0.10 66.71 0.18 61.23 0.16 99.97 0.27 41.92 0.11 37.92 0.10 69.81 0.19

25.31 0.07 46.60 0.13 42.77 0.11 69.84 0.19 29.28 0.08 26.49 0.07 48.76 0.13

15.19 0.04 27.96 0.08 25.66 0.07 41.90 0.11 17.57 0.05 15.89 0.04 29.26 0.08

47.42 0.13 87.31 0.23 80.13 0.22 130.85 0.35 54.87 0.15 49.63 0.13 91.37 0.25

1.86 0.01 3.43 0.01 3.15 0.01 5.15 0.01 2.16 0.01 1.95 0.01 3.59 0.01

3.34 0.01 3.32 0.01 4.38 0.01 6.03 0.02 3.59 0.01 3.65 0.01 3.62 0.01

13.50 0.04 13.40 0.04 17.72 0.05 24.37 0.07 14.51 0.04 14.74 0.04 14.62 0.04

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.41 0.04 103.89 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

285.65 0.77 497.89 1.34 313.61 0.84 437.73 1.18 286.54 0.77 274.56 0.74 478.56 1.29

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

87.24 0.23 143.08 0.38 95.00 0.26 131.82 0.35 84.66 0.23 83.86 0.23 137.53 0.37

17.86 0.05 34.96 0.09 15.70 0.04 29.33 0.08 18.84 0.05 17.17 0.05 33.60 0.09

8.74 0.02 27.53 0.07 5.65 0.02 47.22 0.13 0.11 0.00 9.53 0.03 30.02 0.08

0.50 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.32 0.00 2.71 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.55 0.00 1.72 0.00

1.34 0.00 2.62 0.01 1.18 0.00 2.20 0.01 1.41 0.00 1.29 0.00 2.52 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.06 0.02 61.06 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.81 0.01 6.72 0.02 3.94 0.01 5.70 0.02 4.88 0.01 2.94 0.01 7.03 0.02

1.91 0.01 4.56 0.01 2.68 0.01 3.87 0.01 3.31 0.01 2.00 0.01 4.77 0.01

46.89 0.09 131.17 0.26 48.12 0.10 87.00 0.17 69.08 0.14 49.08 0.10 137.27 0.27

19.83 0.05 47.34 0.13 27.79 0.07 40.20 0.11 34.40 0.09 20.75 0.06 49.54 0.13

1.07 0.00 1.97 0.01 1.83 0.00 2.99 0.01 1.25 0.00 1.13 0.00 2.09 0.01

1104.46 2.94 1766.88 4.66 1709.01 4.58 2939.29 7.89 1642.42 4.39 1145.75 3.05 1807.79 4.77



### Page 6 of 6

# Appendix C

– Area S ource Calculation Notes

## Area Source Calculation Notes

– Amanda Davis

Area Source Inventory was developed using EPA Nonpoint files located on EPA’s Chief

Emission Inventory website for 2008 NEI,

www.e pa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html#inventorydata as well as Appendix A

from Documentation for the Final 2002 Nonpoint Sector (Feb 06 version) National

Emission Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air Pollutants,

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002finalnei/documentation/nonpoint/2002nei_final_non

point_documentation0206version.pdf

.

Changes with the 2008 EPA’s 2008 NE I files:

Aviation Gasoline Distribution

– Stage I

– Activity Data

– 2007 amount of AvGas

consumed obtained from the Petroleum Supply Annual for designated Petroleum

Administration Districts, or PADDs; 20 07 LTOs (landing and take

- offs) by

http://aspm/faa/gov/opsnet/sys/airport.asp

Aviation Gasoline Distribution

– Stage II

– again 2007 AvGas consumption and

LTOs (note: could not allocate to county level LTO by City and SCC so used file

developed by L aurel Driver at OAQPS)

Gasoline Distribution Stage I

– (a) Bulk Terminals and Pipelines

– Table 2 of

Volume I of Petroleum Supply Annual (PSA) 2007; national volume of wholesale

gasoline supplie d

– movement of finished motor gasoline by pipeline between

PA DDs, 2007 Table 35 of PSA

- Bulk Terminals

– state refinery, bulk terminal

& natural gas plant stocks of motor gasoline, 2007 Table 33 of PSA

– 2007

County Business Patterns for NAICs 42471 to go from state to county; (b) Bulk

Plants

– Table 2 for 2007 ga soline consumption

– NAICs 42471 by 2007 County

Business Patterns; (c) Tank Trucks in Transit

– used Alternative Method from

EIIP, volume III

– allocate to county using 2007 County Business Patterns for 447

NAICs

– gasoline station; (d) Underground Storage Tank (EST) Breathing and

Emptying

– use same method as (c) for activity data; (e) Gasoline Service Station

Unloading

– 2007 TN Monthly Gasoline Through put MF33

- GA @ 2007 Federal

Highway Statistics

– allocation to county by getting county monthly allocati on

factor for 2008 w/ 2008 county monthly gasoline throughput/TN monthly

throuput

Gasoline Distribution Stage II

– 2007 NMIM run

– rf (refueling) table

Solvent Utilization

– Activity Data

– US Census Bureau for 2007 Populations and

2007 County Business Pat terns for associated NAIC; no change to Traffic Paints

since used 2007 Road miles to calculate emissions

Publicly Owned Treatment Works

– used 2007 projected flow rates and

population for 2007

Commercial Cooking

– Population for 2007

### Open Burning

– Res Hou sehold Waste

– pop for 2007

Open Burning

– Yard Waste

– Leaf and Brush

– Pop 2007

Open Burning

– Land Clearing

– 2007 housing stats for resi construction

– 2007

annual value of construction put in place for non

- res construction

– 2007 County

Business Patte rns for NAICs 2362

– 2007 Highway Stats Table SF

- 12A

Asphalt Paving

– Cutback and Emulsified

– no changes since the activity data is

from a bought survey

– VMT values are for 2007

Gasoline Distribution

– Portable Fuel Containers

– interpolated between 2002 and

2010 to get 2007

Fossil Fuel Combustion

- Residential

– Coal, Distillate Oil, Natural Gas, LPG,

and Kerosene

– used State Energy Data for 2007 from Energy Information

Administration

Fossil Fuel Combustion

– Industrial and Commercial/Institutional

– used

Appendix A methodology from 2002

– activity from EIA’s 2007 State Energy

Data and NAICs from 2007 County Business Patterns

For list with Point Source Contribution

– EDL’s were searched for SCC and NAICs

associated with Area Source, summed VOC and NOx emissions and subtracted from

Area Source calculations

Files for using County Business Allocations and temporal allocation factors to get

Ton/Day also included in files

### Nonpoint Sectors for 2008 NEI

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html

Nonpoint

- The following is a list of sectors in which EPA will provide county level emission

estimates. These estimates have been developed in consultation with the Eastern Regional

Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC). This data should be available on the EIS Gateway by

the end of August, 2009. These data will be used in those cases where S/L do not submit data.

Architectural Coatings

Aviation Gasoline Distribution Stage 1

Aviation Gasoline Distribution Stage 2

Traffic Paints

Consumer Solvents

Residential Heating; Distillate Fuel

Residential Heating; Natural Gas

Residential Heating; LPG

Residential Heating; Wood

Residential Heating; Kerosene

Residential Heating; Anthracite Coal

Residential Heating; Bituminous Coal

Paved Roads

Unpaved Roads

Commercial Cooking

Construction (Residential, Road & Commercial/Industrial/Institutional)

Cutback Asphalt

Emulsified Asphalt

Portable Fuel Containers (gas cans)

Open Burning

- Yard Waste

Land Clearing

Household Waste Burning

Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)

Animal Husbandry

Fertilizer Application

Pesticide Application

Portable Fuel Containers

Additionally, for the emission sectors listed below, EPA will provide tools to help the S/L

d evelop county level emission estimates. These sectors all have potential point source

contributions and EPA is not able to develop county level emission estimates. Examples of

these tools are emission factors based on employment data and county level emplo yment

data.

Fuel Combustion; Industrial, Commercial, & Institutional

Surface Coating

- Auto Refinishing

Surface Coating

- Factory Finished Wood: SIC 2426 thru 242

Surface Coating

- Wood Furniture

Surface Coating

- Metal Furniture: SIC 25

Surface Coating

- Paper, foil, and film

Surface Coating

- Metal Can Coating

Surface Coating

- Sheet, strip, and coilSurface Coating

- Machinery and Equipment: SIC 35

Surface Coating

- Large Appliances: S IC 363

Surface Coating

- Electronic and other Electric Coatings

Surface C oating

- Motor Vehicles

Surface Coating

- Aircraft

Surface Coating

- Marine

Surface Coating

- Railroad

Surface Coating

- Miscellaneous Manufacturing

Industrial Maintenance Coatings

Other Special Purpose Coatings

Degreasing

Graphic Arts

Dry Cleaning

Solvent Documentation

ERTAC State Co mparison

Gasoline Distribution Stage I

Stage 2 Gasoline Re fueling

These are the nonpoint emission sectors that EPA is not planning to estimate unless addiitonal

resources become available.

Agricultural Tiling

Agricultural Pesticide Application

Cremation, Human and Animal

Chrome plating (these reside in the facil ity inventory)

Cotton Ginning

Dental Preparation and Use

Drum and Barrel Reclamation

General Laboratory Activites

Grain Elevators

Hospital Sterilization

Lamp (Fluorescent) Recycling

Lamp Breakage (Landfill emissions)

Landfills (these currently reside in th e facility inventory)

Mining and Quarrying

Open Burning

- Scrap Tires

Structure Fires

Swimming Pools

Wood Combustion, Industrial/Commercial/Institutional

# Appendix D

– Onroad Emission ProjectionsAppendix D Onroad Mobile Source NO

x and VOC Emission Projections D

- 1



### Appendix D On r oad Mobile Source NO

x 

### and VOC Emission s Projections

The onroad mobile source emissions for the Greater Knoxville 8

- hour Ozone

Nonattainment Area were estimated for a typical summer day for the month of July

using the EPA’s latest MOBILE6 .2 emission factor model. The input parameters for the

model runs were developed and agreed to through Interagency Consultation (IAC).

B ase year (2007) VMT data was d eveloped by the Tennessee Department of

Transportation (TDOT ) through the HPMS (highway perf ormance monitoring system)

system. Future VMT (vehicle miles traveled) estimates were provided by the Knoxville

Area TPO based on travel demand modeling (TDM) performed for the 6 counties by the

Knoxville Area TPO. A summary of the modeling inputs used and the results of the

emission estimates are described in this section.

Emissions for base year 2007 were developed by the State and Local Air Pollution

Control Programs. The final year of the maintenance demonstration, 2024, had onroad

emissions develo ped by the Knoxville TPO in the most recent Metropolitan

Transportation Plan (MTP) and Conformity Determination Report (CDR). The latest

CDR that contains emissions calculation estimation methodologies is attached to this

documen t. Emissions estimation m ethodologies between the two efforts are consistent.

For all interim years between the years 2007 and 2024, onroad emissions were

interpolated between the values for 2007 and 2024.

Input Parameter Descriptions

The following input parameter description s briefly outlines the input parameters used to

develop onroad emissions. The following inputs were developed through consultation

with the IAC group.

1.) Calendar Year s of Evaluation:

The analysis year developed by the State and Local Air Pollution Cont rol Program is

2007. The last year of the Plan as agreed is 2024. This last year has been developed

by the TPO; the analysis for which is contained in the attached Conformity

Determination Report (CDR).

2.) Month of Evaluation:

July is most appropriate for ozone season analysis.

3.) Temperature:

The IAC group has previously agreed to use 66/96 as the MIN/MAX temperature input

for the ozone analysis. This is based on the requirement to remain consistent with the

temperature input that was used in the current Conformity Determination Report ( CDR )

.

4.) Absolute Humidity:

There has been much discussion for the h umidity input by the IAC during previous

conformity analysis, and ultimately it was determined to use the MOBILE6.2 defaultAppendix D Onroad Mobile Source NO

x and VOC Emission Projections D

- 2



### value of 75 grains/lb primarily in order to remain consistent with the most recent

Conformity Determination Report (CDR)

.

5.) Vehicle Age Distribution:

Th is analysis used the vehicle age distribution that was developed by UTCEE for

Knoxville region, which was used for the 2002 emissions inventory development. The

vehicle age distributions are only available for the light duty vehicle and light duty truck

categories at a local level, the MOBILE6.2 defaults are used for the others. T he EPA

technical guidance strongly recomm ends using local data for this input where available.

Since this is the most current data available, it was d eemed the most appropriate

.

6.) Vehicle Activity:

Historical HPMS data for 2007 ( Table 1 

### .) is us ed for vehicle VMT except for the portion in

Cocke County. The TPO has provided vehicle counts for 2007, and has developed

future DVMT for the nonattainment portion of Cocke County. This information will be

used for an off

- model analysis for Cocke County (see Appendix G)

.

Table 1 . 2007 HPMS Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT).



### Historical HPMS DVMT data was seasonally adjusted to develop the VMT for a typical

summer day for 2007 as well as all future years. Seasonally adjusted D VMT for 2014

and 2024 was obtained from the Knoxville TPO’s Travel Demand Model. DVMT for

2010, 2013, 2016 and 2020 were interpolated. Table 2



### . illustrates the DVMT for the

applicable years.Appendix D Onroad Mobile Source NO

x and VOC Emission Projections D

- 3

Table 2 . Seasonally Adjusted Summer Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled.



### 7.) VMT by vehicle classification (vmt mix) : The VMT by vehicle classification is available from TDOT v ehicle classification data.

The TDOT data has to be further disaggregated to the several vehicle types recognized

by MOBILE6.2 from the three major classifications that TDOT uses. Updated

classification data was developed f r om 2006 fractions provided by T DOT.

8.) F unctional classification:

The TPO ’s Travel Demand Model allocates estimates of VMT into the appropriate

functional classification as defined by TDOT. As a matter of practice, the TPO

traditionally combines rural major and minor collectors into a single rural collector

functional class. In addition, the urban expressway is combined with the urban

interstate for Knox County. This approach will also be taken in the development of

emissions for the Redesignation Request. There are four driving cycles used by

MOBILE6.2, the following table ( Table 3 

### .) shows the Driving Cycle proposed for each

FHWA functional classification c ategory:

Table 3 . MOBILE6.2 Drive Cycle Applied to FHWA Functional Classes

. FHWA Highway Functional System MOBILE6.2 Driving Cycle

Rural Interstate Freeway and Freeway Ramp

Rural Other Principal Arterial Arterial/Collector 1

Rural Minor Arterial Arterial/Collector

Rural Major Collector Arterial/Collector

Rural Minor Collector Arterial/Collector

Rural Local Arterial/Collector

Urban Interstate Freeway and Freeway Ramp

Urban Other Freeways Freeway and Freeway Ramp

Urban Other Principal Arterial Arterial/Collector

Urban Minor Arterial Arterial/Collector

Urban Collector Arterial/Collector

Urban Local Local Roadway

1 The technical guidance recommends the Freeway and Freeway Ramp driving cycle for the Rural Other Principal Arterial

class; however the arterial/collector cycle seems to be more appropriate in this region due to the lack of access control on

these types of facilities.Appendix D Onroad Mobile Source NO

x and VOC Emission Projections D

- 4



### 9.) VMT Fraction by Average Speed by Hour of the Day:

The TPO travel demand model has three time period s

- AM Peak (6

- 9 am), PM Peak

(3

- 6 pm) and the rest of the day. Therefore an average speed can be developed for

each of these time periods, by direction of travel in order to capture the peaking effect

on speed. The SPEED VMT command will be used a s it has a single VMT distribution

for the AM peak three

- hour period, a single VMT distribution for the PM peak three

- hour

period and one for the other 18 hours of the day. Separate scenarios will b e run for

Interstates, Arterials and Collectors which are handled with setting the appropriate field

in the VMT BY FACILITY command to 1.0. SPEED VMT files have been developed for

2006; the TPO believes these speed estimates are reasonable for representing speeds

in 2007.

10.) Weekday and Weekend Day Activity:

The technical guidance states that “for most purposes, EPA will not expect States to

develop local estimates that vary by day of the week”. There is no mention of season al

variation factors although it is fairly standard practice to apply a seasonal adjus tment

factor (SAF) to account for differences in travel during the summer months since the

HPMS data and travel demand model VMT estimates are normalized to an average

annual daily traffic volume. Seasonal variation factors are available from TDOT which

w ere used to develop an appropriate SAF.

Table 4



### . from TDOT was used to calculate an average summer time VMT adjustment

factor in order to account for changes in traffic volume:Appendix D Onroad Mobile Source NO

x and VOC Emission Projections D

- 5



### The averages for Rural Interstates in June, July and August were calculated as 0.93

, Rural other facilities as 0.96 , and Urban as 0.99 . The VMT estimates were divided by

these factors to calculate the summer traffic volumes.

11.) RVP Levels :

For July, the regulatory RVP maximum is 9.0 psi.

Results of Onroad Emission Estimates

MOBILE6 was run to develop emission factors in g rams /mile for NO

x 

### and VOC for each

county, facility type and year. The emission factors were multiplied by the VMT for each

county and facility type, then summed to tons/day emissions for each county and year.

Table 5



### . contains the onroad emissions estimates for the Greater Knoxville 8

- Hour

Ozone Nonattainment Area for 2007. Table 4 . Seasonal Adjustment Factors.Appendix D Onroad Mobile Source NO

x and VOC Emission Projections D

- 6

Table 5 . 2007 Onroad Emissions for the Greater Knoxville 8

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.Appendix D Onroad Mobile Source NO

x and VOC Emission Projections D

- 7



### The onroad emissions for 2024 were obtained from the Knoxville Transp ortation

Planning Organization’s most recent Transportation Conformity Determination (CDR).

The CDR is attached to this document. Onroad emissions for years between 2007 and

2024 were estimated by interpolation. These estimates are contained in Table 6 

### and

Table 7



### .

Table 6 . Onroad NO

x Emissions Summary for the Knoxville 8

- hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.

Table 7 . Onroad VOC Emissions Summary for the Knoxville 8

- hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.Appendix D Onroad Mobile Source NO

x and VOC Emission Projections D

- 8 

### Knoxville Air Quality Interagency Consultation Conference Call

February 19 th 

### , 2010

Meeting Notes

Call Participants:

Mike Conger, TPO

Marc Corrigan, TDEC

Alan Jones, TDOT

Tameka Macon, FHWA TN Division

Steve McDaniel, Knox County Air Quality Management

Angie Midgett, TDOT

Jim Renfro, National Park Service

Bob Rock, TDOT

Kelly Sheckler, EPA

Dianna Smith, EPA

Jane Spann, EPA

Jerry Yuknavage, TDOT

Note: this discussion was held in conjunction with the TPO’s Interagency

Consultation Conference Call to discuss the next Transportation Conformity

Determination.

There was considerable discussion regarding planning assumptions for use in

developing onroad emission s for the redesignation request. Key planning assumptions

discussed by the IAC are listed below.

1.) Calendar Year s of Evaluation:

The analysis years p roposed are :

2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2020, 2024

The proposed budget year: 2024

The base year (2007) will need a developed inventory. For the budget year (2024), it is

proposed the emissions inventory from the May 27 th 

### , 2009 Knoxville TPO’s CDR be

used to establish budgets. Emissions for the intermediate inventory years ( 2010, 2013,

2016, 2020) will be interpolated.

2.) Month of Evaluation:

July is most appropriate for ozone season analysis.

3.) Temperature:Appendix D Onroad Mobile Source NO

x and VOC Emission Projections D

- 9



### The IAC group has previously agreed to use 66/96 as the MIN/MAX temperature input

for the ozone analysis. This is based on the requirement to remain consistent with the

temperature input that was used in the current CDR

.

4.) Absolute Humidity:

There has been much discussion for the h umidity input by the IAC during previous

conformity analysis, and ultimately it was determined to use the MOBILE6.2 default

value of 75 grains/lb primarily in order to remain consistent with the TPO’s current CDR,

which also used the default value for humidity.

5.) V ehicle Age Distribution:

The TPO used the vehicle age distribution that was developed by UTCEE for Knoxville

region, which was used for the 2002 emissions inventory development. The vehicle age

distributions are only available for the light duty vehicle a nd light duty truck categories at

a local level, the MOBILE6.2 defaults are used for the others. T he EPA Technical

G uidance 1 

### strongly recommends using local data for this input where available. Since

this is the most current data available, it is propose d this age distribution be used.

There was discussion on the age of this vehicle age distribution data. Although it is the

most current local data available, if it is possible to substantiate this further, or

demonstrate that this information is still the most reasonable, that would be helpful in

the documentation.

6.) Vehicle Activity:

Historical HPMS data for 2007 is proposed for vehicle VMT except for the portion in

Cocke County. The TPO has vehicle counts for 2007, and has developed DVMT for the

nonattainment portion of Cocke County. This information will be used for an off

- model

analysis for Cocke County.

For ramp facilities the methodology recommended by the technical guidan ce is to

assume that the HPMS data for Freeway facilities can be broken out as 92% VMT on

the actual freeway and the other 8% on ramps. However, the Knoxville TPO may have

developed ramp fractions, if these are available, these should be used.

7.) VMT by vehicle classification (vmt mix) : The VMT by vehicle classification is available from TDOT vehicle classification data.

The TDOT data has to be further disaggregated to the several vehicle types recognized

by MOBILE6.2 from the three major classification s that TDOT uses. Updated

classification data was developed f r om 2006 fractions provided by TDOT. This

information is proposed for use in this redesignation request and maintenance plan

.

8.) VMT by functional classification:

The TPO model allocates esti mates of VMT into the appropriate functional classification

as defined by TDOT. As a matter of practice, the TPO traditionally combines rural

major and minor collectors into a single rural collector functional class. In addition, the

urban expressway is combined with the urban interstate for Knox County. ThisAppendix D Onroad Mobile Source NO

x and VOC Emission Projections D

- 10



### approach will also be taken in the development of emissions for the Redesignation

Request. There are four driving cycles used by MOBILE6.2, the following table shows

the Driving Cycle proposed for each FHWA functional classification c ategory:

FHWA Highway Functional System MOBILE6.2 Driving Cycle

Rural Interstate Freeway and Freeway Ramp

Rural Other Principal Arterial Arterial/Collector*

Rural Minor Arterial Arterial/Collector

Rural Major Collector Arterial/Collector

Rural Minor Collector Arterial/Collector

Rural Local Arterial/Collector

Urban Interstate Freeway and Freeway Ramp

Urban Other Freeways Freeway and Freeway Ramp

Urban Other Principal Arterial Arterial/Collector

Urban Minor Arterial Arterial/Collector

Urban Collector Arterial/Collector

Urban Local Local Roadway

* The technical guidance recommends the Freeway and Freeway Ramp driving cycle for the Rural Other Principal Arterial class;

however the arterial/collector cycle s eems to be more appropriate in this region due to the lack of access control on these types of

facilities.



### 9.) VMT Fraction by Average Speed by Hour of the Day:

The TPO travel demand model has three time periods

- AM Peak (6

- 9 am), PM Peak

(3

- 6 pm) an d the rest of the day. Therefore an average speed can be developed for

each of these time periods, by direction of travel in order to capture the peaking effect

on speed. The SPEED VMT command will be used a s it has a single VMT distribution

for the AM p eak three

- hour period, a single VMT distribution for the PM peak three

- hour

period and one for the other 18 hours of the day. Separate scenarios will b e run for

Interstates, Arterials and Collectors which are handled with setting the appropriate field

in the VMT BY FACILITY command to 1.0. SPEED VMT files have been developed for

2006; the TPO believes these speed estimates are reasonable for representing speeds

in 2007.

10.) Weekday and Weekend Day Activity:

The technical guidance states that “for most p urposes, EPA will not expect States to

develop local estimates that vary by day of the week”. There is no mention of season al

variation factors although it is fairly standard practice to apply a seasonal adjustment

factor (SAF) to account for differences in travel during the summer months since the

HPMS data and travel demand model VMT estimates are normalized to an average

annual daily traffic volume. Seasonal variation factors are available from TDOT which

were used to develop an appropriate SAF.

11.) RVP Levels :

For July, the regulatory RVP maximum is 9.0 psi.Appendix D Onroad Mobile Source NO

x and VOC Emission Projections D

- 11



### The IAC discussed these planning assumptions in light of any more recent information,

as well as the fact that these planning assumptions were also considered recently for

the 2009 CDR developed by the TPO.

1 

### Unless otherwise noted, the term “technical guidance” in the explanation of the input

values refers to the EPA guidance document

– Technical Guidance on the Use of

MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory Preparation , U.S. EPA Office of Trans portation and Air

Quality, August 2004.

# A I R Q U A L I T Y

C O N F O R M I T Y D E T E R M I N A T I O N

Addressing the PM 2.5 and Ozone

Standards

for



# T h e 2 0 0 9

- 2 0 3 4 K n o x v i l l e

R e g i o n a l L o n g R a n g e M o b i l i t y

P l a n

and



# T h e L a k e w a y A r e a M e t r o p o l i t a n

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g

O r g a n i z a t i o n 2 0 3 4 L o n g R a n g e

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n

May 27, 2009

Prepared by:

### The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway

Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of T ransportation, under the State

Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of

Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of

the U.S. Department of Transportation2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality Conformity Determination 

### i 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Adopting Resolution by TPO Executive Board for R egional M obility P lan

...... i ii

Adopting Resolution by TPO Executive Board for Conformity Determination iv

Adopting Resolution by East Tennessee South RPO

................................ ............ v

Ado pting Resolution by LAMTPO Executive Board for LRTP

......................... v i

Adopting Resolution by LAMTPO Executive Board for Conformity

................ v i i

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ . v ii i

Chapter 1

– In troduction and Background Information

................................ ..... 1

1.0

– Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1

1.1

– T ransportation Plans Covered under this Conformity Determination Report

....... 1

1. 2

– Background on the Knoxville Region Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

... 1

1. 3

– Transportation Conformity Background

................................ ................................ 3

1. 4

– Nonattainment Area Juri sdictional Coordination

................................ .................. 3

1. 5

– Emissions Analysis Background

................................ ................................ ........... 3

1. 6

– Emissions Analysis Procedures

................................ ................................ ............. 4



### Chapter 2

– S tatement of Conformity

................................ ................................ .... 5

2 .0

– Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 5

2 .1

– Statement of Conformity

– 8

- Hour Ozone Standard

................................ ............. 5

2

. 1 .1

– Interim Emissions Test #1

– 1

- Hour Budget Test for Knox County

......... 5

2

. 1 .2

– Interim Emissions Test #2

– No greater than Baseline 2002 Emissions Test 6

2

. 1 .3

– Summary of 8

- Hour Conformity Analysis

................................ ................ 7

2 .2

– Statement of Conformity

– PM2.5 Standard

................................ ........................ 7

2 .2.1

– Summary of PM2.5 Conformity Analysis

................................ ................. 9



### Chapter 3

– I nteragency Consultation

................................ ................................ .. 10

3 .0

– Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 0

3 .1

– Participating Agencies

................................ ................................ ........................... 1 0

3 .2

– Overview of Consultation Process and Comments

................................ ................ 10



### Chapter 4

– M obile Source Emissions Analysis & Applicable Governing Regulations 

### 1 1

4 .0

– Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 1 1

4 .1

– Regulations Related to Development of LRTP and Transpo rtation Conformity

... 1 1

4 .2

– Regulations Governing Mobile Source Emissions Analyses

................................ . 1 2



### Chapter 5

– Conclusion and Summary of Comment s

................................ .......... 18

5 .0

– Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 18

5 .1

– Public Involvement Summary

................................ ................................ ............... 18

5

. 2

– Public Commen t and Response

................................ ................................ ............. 192009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality Conformity Determination 

### ii References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 20

Glossary of Terms

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 21

Appendix

Appendix A

– IAC Participant List

................................ ................................ .................... 24

Appendix B

– IAC Meeting Minutes

................................ ................................ .................... 26

Appendix C

– Emissions Analysis Summary for each County

................................ ............ 4 4

Appendix D

– Travel D emand Model and Land Use Allocation Model Development

....... 6 7

Appendix E

– ULAM Population and Employment Control Totals

................................ ..... 7 4

Appendix F

– MOBILE6 Input Description

................................ ................................ ......... 8 7

Appendix G

– R egional Significance Screening Criteria

................................ ..................... 9 3

Appendix H

– Highway P roject List

................................ ................................ ..................... 9 5

Appendix I

– Existing Plus Committed Projects

................................ ................................ .. 11 4

Appendix J

– Updated Non

- Exempt TIP/LRMP Project Number Reference

...................... 11 5

Additional Technical Information and specific Input Files contained on Separate CD

- ROM



### Maps

1. Knoxville 8

- Hou r and PM2.5 Nonattainment Area s

................................ ...................... 2

2. Travel Demand Model Coverage Area

................................ ................................ .......... 16



### Tables

2 .1 Results of the 1

- Hour Budget Test for Ozone

................................ .............................. 6

2 .2 Results of the No Greater than Baseline Year 2002 Test for Ozone

............................ 7

2 .3 Results of the No Greater than Baseline Year 2002 Test for PM2.5

............................ 82009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality Conformity Determination 

### iii2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality Conformity Determination 

### iv2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality Conformity Determination 

### v2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality Conformity Determination 

### vi2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality Conformity Determination 

### vii2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality Conformity Determination 

### viii 

## EXEC UTIVE SUMMARY

An Air Quality Conformity Determination for transportation plans and programs within the

Knoxville Region is required since it is designated as a Nonattainment Area for both the 8

- Hour

Ozone and Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5) Standard s. The analysis included in this report

demonstrates that the 2009

– 2034 Long Range Transportation Plans and FY 2008

– 2011

Transportation Improvement Program s (TIP) of both the K noxville Regional Transportation

Planning Organization (KRTPO) and the Lakeway Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Organization (LAMTPO) conform to federal regulations from the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Eff icient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for

Users (SAFETEA

- LU).

The 8

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area includes Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon,

Sevier and a portion of Cocke County . A n original finding of conformity was made June 1, 2005

and i s being updated in this report

. There are two Metropolitan Planning Organization

jurisdictions within the 8

- Hour Nonattainment Area

– the KRTPO covers the urbanized portions

of Blount, Knox, Loudon and Sevier countie s and the LAMTPO covers the urbanized p ortion of

Jefferson County. This Conformity Determination Report includes an analysis for the entire

Nonattainment Area and is applicable for both the 200 9

- 203 4 Knoxville Regional Mobility Plan

and the LAMTPO 2034 Long Range Transportation Plan.

The Ozo ne conformity analysis consisted of a 1

- Hour Budget Test for Knox County and a No

Greater than Baseline Year 2002 Test for the other counties for ozone

- forming emissions of

“Volatile Organic Compounds” (VOC) and “Oxides of Nitrogen” (NOx) . The results are

summarized below:

Knox County 1

- Hour Budget Test for Ozone :

Analysis Year

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): 2009 2014 202 4 203 4

Emissions Budget 29.24 22.12 22.12 22.12

Projected Emissions 19.28 14.40 9.63 10.38

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx): 20 09 2014 202 4 203 4

Emissions Budget 33.89 22.49 22.49 22.49

Projected Emissions 32.05 20.72 10.87 9.46

(emissions in tons per day)2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality Conformity Determination 

### ix No Greater than Baseline Year 2002 Test for Ozone * :

Analysis Year

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): 2014 20 2 4 203 4

Budget (2002 Emissions) 25.11 25.11 25.11

Projected Emissions 12.70 8.77 10.02

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx): 2014 202 4 203 4

Budget (2002 Emissions) 57.94 57.94 57.94

Projected Emissions 21.86 11.42 10.31

(emissions in tons per day)

*Analysis includes Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Loudon, Sevier and portion of Cocke counties.



### The PM2.5 Nonattainment Area includes Anderson, Blount, Knox, Loudon and a port ion of Roane

County. The designation as a Nonattainment Area under the PM2.5 Standard bec ame effective on

April 5, 2005. An original finding of conformity was made April 3, 2006 and is being updated in

this report

.

The PM2.5 analysis consisted of a No G reater than Baseline Year 2002 Test for all counties in the

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area for the annual PM2.5

- related emissions from on

- road mobile sources

known as “Direct PM2.5” and “Oxides of Nitrogen” (NOx). The results of the emissions analysis

are summa rized below:

No Greater than Baseline Year 2002 Test for PM2.5 ** :

Analysis Year

Direct Particulate Matter 2.5: 2014 202 4 203 4

Budget (2002 Emissions) 473.6 473.6 473.6

Projected Emissions 213.6 182.1 202.8

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx): 2014 202 4 203 4

Budget (2002 Emissions) 31,609 31,609 31,609

Projected Emissions 12,313 6,534 5,866

(emissions in tons per year)

**Analysis includes Anderson, Blount, Knox, Loudon and porti on of Roane counties



### The emissions analysis performed by the KR TPO demonstrated that the projected emissions from

the proposed transportation system are less than the allowable amount for each of the required

analysis years of 2009, 2014, 202 4 and 203 4 ; a nd the P lan is therefore in conformity for both

standards. Since the TIP s are a direct subset of the LRTP s

, they also meet the requirements for

conformity.

The conformity determination was coordinated with stakeholder and regulatory agencies through

an I nteragency Consultation process and a 30

- day public review and comment period was held . A

summary of comments that were received and responses is included in the report

.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 1

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 1 

## Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of thi s document is to demonstrate that the 200 9

– 203 4 Knoxville Re gional

Long Range Mobility Plan (LRM P) meet s Transportation/ Air Quality Conformity

requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and the Safe, Accountable,

Flexible, Efficient Transpo rtation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA

- LU) for the

pollutants of Ozone and Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5)

. The 2009

– 2034 LR MP

contains projects from the entire Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment Area in the Knoxville

Region, which includes the portio n of Jefferson County within the Lakeway Area

Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization (LAMTPO).

1.1 Transportation Plans Covered under this Conformity Determination Report

The 2009

– 2034 LRMP is an update to the 2005

– 2030 Long Range Transport ation Plan,

for which the original finding of Conformity by the U.S. Department of Transportation

under the 8

- hour Ozone Standard was made on June 1, 2005 and a finding of Conformity

under the PM2.5 Standard was made on April 3, 2006

. The SAFETEA

- LU legis lation

requires that long range transportation plans be fully updated at a minimum of every four

years in a nonattainment area; therefore this Conformity Determination Report satisfies the

requirement for an update by June 1, 2009. Other Plans covered by this Conformity

Determination Report include:

The LAMTPO 2034 Long Range Transportation Plan,

FY 2008

– 2011 Transportation Improvement Program, and

The Knoxville Regional TPO FY 2008

– 2011 Transportation Improvement

Program.

Th e Transportation Improve ment Programs (TIP) for the Knoxville Regional TPO and

LAMTPO were adopted prior to and will remain active beyond the date of the adoption of

the 2009

– 2034 Long Range Mobility Plan. All of the projects in the TIP s are included in

th e updated LRMP, and a new cross

- reference of projects between the TIP and LRMP was

developed to match the updated project numbering system ( included in Appendix J )

.

Since this conformity determination report accompanies the LR M P document, there are

certain sections that are c overed in the LR M P document such as the financial constraint

methodology.

1. 2 Background on the Knoxville Region Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

The Clean Air Act requires t he United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

set National Ambien t Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six “Criteria Pollutants”

-

Particulate Matter

, Ozone

, Nitrogen Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Lead

in order to protect human health and the environment from unsafe l evels of these pollutants.

These pollut ants are regulated through the EPA s et ting maximum limits on exposure levels

,Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 1

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 2 which are based on scientific based guidelines that are reviewed periodically. R egion s

which are found to be out of compliance with those limits may be designa ted as a

“Nonattai nment Area”. Portions of the Knoxville Region have been designated as

nonattainment for two of the Criteria Pollutants

– Ozone and Particulate Matter

. Ozone is

measured as exposure for an 8

- hour period , known as the “8

- hour Ozone Standard”

. Particulate Matter is measured as exposure over both a daily and annual basis for different

sizes of particles. The Knoxville Region is currently nonattainment for the annual

maximum standard for Particulate Matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter, also

know n as “PM2.5”.

Map 1 depicts the geographical extents of both the Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

for the Knoxville Region. The counties of Anderson, Blount, Knox and Loudon carry a

designation as a Nonattainment Area for both pollutants

, while there is a small portion of

Roane County that is designated as a PM2.5 Nonattainment Area only ; and the counties of

Jefferson, Sevier and a small portion of Cocke County are designated as Ozone

Nonattainment Areas only

.

The designations of Ozone nonattainment a reas (under the 8

- Hour Ozone Standard) were

made effective on June 15, 2004 while the designations of PM2.5 areas were made effective

on April 5, 2005 by EPA.



## MAP 1 : KNOXVILLE 8

- HOUR OZONE and PM2.5

NONATTAINMENT AREASKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 1

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 3 1. 3 Transportation Conformity Bac kground

Transportation Conformity is required in nonattainment and maintenance areas by federal

regulations (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) and is the mechanism through which on

- road mobile

source emissions are addressed in the area’s goals for cleaner air. The basic intent of

Transportation Conformity is to ensure that federal funds will not be spent on transportation

projects that may delay the attainment of the air quality standard for which the area is

currently out of compliance . Therefore transportation p lans and programs must be

demonstrated to conform to the “State Implementation Plan” (SIP), which details the

emissions levels from each sector including mobile sources needed to regain compliance

with the air quality standard. If conformity is not demons trated then the area may enter

what is known as a “lapse” period in which only very specific projects may move forward

, while funding is essentially frozen for most new roadway construction or widening

projects.

1. 4 Nonattainment Area Jurisdictional Coor dination

The Knoxville Regional TPO (KRTPO) does not encompass the entire Nonattainment Area

for Ozone and PM2.5, and as such coordination with other transportation planning

organizations and the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) is required i n order

to ensure all of the proposed transportation projects are included in the conformity analysis.

The KRTPO boundary includes the urbanized portions of Blount, Knox, Loudon and Sevier

counties while the LAMTPO boundary includes the urbanized portions of Jefferson County

within the 8

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area. TDOT is responsible for transportation

planning in the rural portions of the nonattainment areas, and TDOT has set up a Rural

Planning Organization (RPO) that includes all counties within th e Knoxville N onattainment

A rea, known as the “ East Tennessee South R PO” which was coordinated with for this

LR M P update.

A M emorandum of Agreement (MOA) was entered into by KRTPO, LAMTPO and TDOT

in 2004 and subsequently revised in 2007. The MOA specifie s that the KRTPO is

responsible for compiling a single Conformity Determination Report for the entire

Nonattainment Area and that TDOT and LAMTPO w ill provide the KRTPO with proposed

project lists for their respective jurisdictions. T he LAMTPO is a fairly new Metropolitan

Planning Organization as it was created based on the 2000 Census.

1.5 Emissions Analysis Background

Transportation Conformity is demonstrated through a technical process known as an

“emissions analysis”, in which future estimates of emissi ons from the transportation system

are com pared against what has been determined to be sufficient to allow the area to re

- attain the air quality standard. Different types of emissions are involved in the production

of Ozone and PM2.5 pollution as describe d below:Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 1

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 4 Ozone: Ozone is not directly emitted into the atmosphere; rather it is formed

through a chemical reaction between “Volatile Organic Compounds” (VOC) and

“Oxides of Nitrogen” (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. M obile

- source s contribute

both sourc es of emissions

– VOC are primarily formed from the evaporation of

motor fuel, while NOx is formed from the internal combustion process and emitted

in vehicle exhaust.

PM2.5: There are some PM2.5 emissions, known as “Direct PM2.5”, that are

directly emit ted from motor vehicles. Direct PM2.5 emissions consist of elements

contained in vehicle exhaust as well as particles resulting from brake and tire wear.

In addition, it is believed that NOx emissions can contribute to secondary formation

of PM2.5 so it is included in the emissions analysis.

1.6 Emissions Analysis Procedures

The emissions analysis is performed primarily using two different models

– a Travel

Demand Forecasting Model (TDFM) , developed by the KRTPO and the MOBILE6

emissions rate model, which was developed by EPA and allows the user to input localized

parameters. The TDFM provides outputs of the estimated Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)

on the transportation system and associated average speeds by functional classification.

The MOBILE6 model p rovides outputs of emission factors in grams per mile of vehicle

travel, such that an overall emissions amount can be calculated by multiplying the VMT

output from the TDFM with the emission factor from MOBILE6.

There is one area

– the partial Cocke Count y Ozone Nonattainment Area that is not

represented in the TDFM for which an “off

- model” analysis was performed. The off

- model

analysis primarily consisted of using historical traffic count data to determine a growth

trend with which to project future VMT.

Appendix D describes the Travel Demand Forecasting Model parameters in more detail and

Appendix F of this document describes the MOBILE6 input structure that was used in the

emissions analysis.

Finally, the emissions analysis must also be performed fo r different years throughout the

life of the LR M P since the timeframe covered by the LR M P is from 200 9

– 203 4 . The

main requirement is that a year within the first five years of the plan must be studied as well

as the final year of the plan, and then year s must be chosen in between such that no more

than ten years separate any analysis year.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 2

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 5 

## Chapter 2

Statement of Conformity

2 .0 Introduction

This report covers the conformity requirements for the Knoxville Region under both the 8

-

Hour Ozone Standard as well as the PM2.5 Standard. The transportation conformity

analysis is being updated for the 8

- Hour Ozone Standard, which was first approved on June

1, 2005 by the U.S. DOT and for the PM2.5 analysis , which was originally approved on

April 3, 2006. The conformity report and LR M P comply with all applicable requirements

found in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), Clean Air Act, Tennessee Transportation

Conformity Regulation and the MPO Planning Regulations from SAFETEA

- LU (23 CFR

450.322).

2 .1 Statemen t of Conformity

– 8

- Hour Ozone Standard

In order to demonstrate conformity of the LRTP and TIP with the 8

- Hour Standard the

following interim emissions tests must be passed:

2.1.1 Interim Emissions Test #1

– 1

- Hour Budget Test for Knox County

The EPA decided that prior to the development of a Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

(MVEB) for the 8

- Hour Standard, areas with existing budgets under the 1

- Hour Standard

should continue to use them as an interim emissions test to demonstrate 8

- Hour conformity.

The latest a vailable MVEB is the one that was most recently approved for the 1

- Hour

Maintenance Plan update for Knox County. The Knox County Maintenance Plan MVEB

was published in the Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 21 on Monday, February 2, 2004 and

established the following MVEB for VOC and NOx in tons per day for Knox County:

2004 2014

VOC 29.24 22.12

NOx 33.89 22.49

The budget set for year “2004” above must be used if an analysis year falls between 2004

and 2013, while the budget set for “2014” must b e used for analysis years of 2014 and

beyond.

The conformity analysis was performed for the years 2009, 2014, 202 4 and 203 4 , which

meet the requirements for analysis years specified in 23 CFR 93.106(a)(1) of the

Transportation Conformity Rule. Appendix C of this document includes a detailed

breakdown of the emissions analysis for the 1

- Hour Budget Test, which is summarized in

Table 2

. 1 below:Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 2

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 6 Table 2 .1 : Results of the 1

- Hour Budget Test

Analysis Year

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): 2009 2014 202 4 203 4

Emissions Budget 29.24 22.12 22.12 22.12

Projected Emissions 19.28 14.40 9.63 10.38

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx): 2009 2014 202 4 203 4

Emissions Budget 33.89 22.49 22.49 22.49

Projected Emissions 32.05 20.72 10.87 9.46

(emissions in tons per day)

The results of the 1

- Hour emissions budget test demonstrate that the projected emissions

are less than the required MVEB from the State Implementation Plan for each analysis year,

and therefore conformity is demonstrated for the 200 9

– 203 4 LR M P under Interim

Emissions Test #1.

2.1.2 Interim Emissions Test #2

– No Greater than Baseline Year 2002 Emissions Test

In absence of any type of MVEB, either for the 8

- Hour Standard or the 1

- Hour Standard, an

area that is designated as a Basic Nonattainment Area has the choice of two types of interim

emissions test

– either the “ No

- greater

- t han Baseline Year 2002” test or the “Build no

-

greater

- than No

- Build” test. The KRTPO has chosen (with concurrence from its

Interagency Consultation Partners) to demonstrate c onformity for the area within the

Knoxville Nonattainment Area but outside of Knox County using the No

- greater than

Baseline Year 2002 test. This test is performed by determining an estimate of the actual

emissions that were present in the year 2002 (for VOC and NOx) and showing that

projections of future emissions for the life of the LR M P will be less than those 2002

emissions.

An analysis was performed to determine the estimated amount of emissions present in the

year 2002 for VOC and NOx using vehicle miles of travel (VMT) obtained from TDOT

along with other data as outlined in subsequent sections of this report. The following sum

of emissions from the area outside of Knox County, but within the Nonattainment Area was

calculated in tons per day for 200 2 :

200 2

VOC 25.11

NOx 57.94

The following table (Table 2

. 2) presents the results of the emissions analysis conducted for

interim emissions test #2. Th e analysis years of 2014, 202 4 and 203 4 were chosen under

guidelines required by 23 CFR 93.106(a)(1) of the Transportation Conformity Rule , whichKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 2

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 7 specify that a year no more than five years from the adoption year of the Long Range Plan

must be analyzed plus the last year of the Plan and years in between such that there are no

more than te n years between an analysis year.

Table 2

. 2: Results of the No Greater than B aseline Year 2002 Test for Ozone

Analysis Year

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): 2014 202 4 203 4

Budget (2002 Emissions) 25.11 25.11 25.11

Projected Emissions 12.70 8.77 1 0.02

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx): 2014 202 4 203 4

Budget (2002 Emissions) 57.94 57.94 57.94

Projected Emissions 21.86 11.42 10.31

(emissions in tons per day)

N ote: The above table represents the sum of emissions for the entire Ozone Nonattainment area outside of Knox County, which includes

Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Loudon, Sevier and a portion of Cocke County. Appendix C contains a summary of the emissions a nalysis

results for each individual county.



### The results of Interim Emissions Test #2 demonstrate that the projected emissions are in all

cases less than the emissions estimated in the Baseline Year 2002, and therefore this

conformity test is passed.

2.1.3 Summ ary of 8

- Hour Conformity Analysis

Based on the quantitative conformity analysis the KRTPO staff ha s determined that the

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP, the LAMPTO 2034 Long Range Transportation

Plan as well as the KRTPO and LAMTPO FY 200 8

– 20 11 TIP s demonstrate conformity

for the 8

- Hour Ozone Standard using the necessary interim emissions tests. Compliance

with the regulations of the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 (Transportation

Conformity Rule) and 23 CFR Part 450 (Metropolitan Planning Reg ulations established by

SAFETEA

- LU ) has also been demonstrated. All Plans are financially constrained

consistent with 23 CFR Part 450 Subpart C based on the projected costs and revenues as

presented in the accompanying KRTPO LR M P and LAMTPO LRTP document s

.

2.2 Statement of Conformity

– PM2.5 Standar d

Similar to the 8

- Hour Ozone standard, there has not yet been a MVEB established for the

Knoxville Region for the emissions that comprise PM2.5. The conformity rule therefore

requires that an interim emissions t est be chosen in the absence of a MVEB, which are the

same options of either a “Build No Greater than No

- Build” test or a “No Greater than

Baseline Year 2002” test similar to the Ozone standard . Since the KRTPO conducted a No

Greater than Baseline Year 20 02 test for Ozone, it made the most sense to use the same test

for PM2.5 since many of the model parameters and analysis techni ques are shared between

the two

.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 2

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 8 Through the Interagency Consultation Process it was determined that this conformity

determinati on should address the Direct PM2.5 emissions from vehicle exhaust and

brake/tire wear and the PM2.5 precursor of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx). The other types of

potential PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources were determined to not be required until

further an alysis could be undertaken to determine their contribution to overall PM2.5

pollution

– these included the Direct PM2.5 emissions of re

- entrained road dust and

construction dust, and the PM2.5 precursors of volatile organic compounds, sulfur oxides

and amm onia. It was also determined through IAC that the KRTPO conformity analysis

should onl y address the “Annual” PM2.5 standard.

An analysis was performed to determine the estimated amount of emissions present in the

year 2002 for Direct PM2.5 and NOx using vehicle miles of travel (VMT) obtained from

TDOT along with other data as outlined in subsequent sections of this report.

The following sum of emissions from the entire PM2.5 Nonattainment Area was calculated

in tons per year for 2002:

200 2

Direct PM2.5 473.6

NOx 3 1

, 609

The analysis years that are required are the same as for the Ozone Interim Emissions Test

#2. The following table (Table 2 .3) presents the results of the emissions analysis conducted

for the analysis ye ars of 2014, 202 4 and 203 4 against the estimated 2002 Baseline

emissions level:

Table 2 .3: Results of the No Greater than Baseline Year 2002 Test for PM2.5

Analysis Year

Direct Particulate Matter 2.5: 2014 202 4 203 4

Budget (2002 Emissions) 473.6 473.6 473.6

Projected Emissions 213.6 182.1 202.8

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx): 2014 202 4 203 4

Budget (2002 Emissions) 31,609 31,609 31,609

Projected Emissions 12,313 6,534 5,866

( emissions in tons per year)

Note: The above table represents the sum of emissions for the entire PM2.5 Nonattainment Area including Anderson, Blount, Knox,

Loudon and a portion of Roane County. Appendix C contains a summary of the emissions analysis res ults for each individual county.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 2

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 9 2.2.1 Summary of PM2.5 Conformity Analysis

Based on the quantitative conformity analysis the KRTPO staff has determined that the

200 9

– 203 4 Knoxville Regional LRM P and the FY 200 8

– 20 11 TIP demonstrate

conformity for th e Particulate Matter 2.5 Standard using the necessary interim emissions

test. Compliance with the regulations of the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93

(Transportation Conformity Rule) and 23 CFR Part 450 (Metropolitan Planning

Regulations established by SAFETEA

- LU ) has also been demonstrated.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 3

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 10 

## Chapter 3

Interagency Consultation

3 .0 Introduction

The Transportation Conformity Rule in 40 CFR Part 93.105 requires that Interagency

Consultation be a part of conformity determinations. Interagency Consul tation allows for

formal deliberation of any issues that arise as part of the conformity analysis and allows for

input from all stakeholder agencies into the process. Specific consultation procedures are

specified in the Tennessee Transportation Conformit y Regulation found in 1200

- 3

- 34

- .01(3) of the Tennessee State Code.

3 .1 Participating Agencies

The core list of Interagency Consultation Participants included representatives from the

following agencies:

Knoxville Regional TPO

Knox County Department of Air Quality Management

Tennessee Department of Transportation

Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation

Federal Highway Administration

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Transit Administration

Lakeway Area Metropolitan TPO

Great Smoky Mountains National Park Service

Additionally, several local jurisdictions were involved and provided input to the process. A

list of participant names is included in Appendix A

.

3 .2 Overview of Consultation Process and Comments

The conformity an alysis process began with a presentation of background information and

proposed analysis procedures to the Interagency Consultation Group on August 7 , 200 8

. Several subsequent meetings were held via teleconference in order to discuss modeling

parameters, project lists and to receive agreement on necessary assumptions. Appendix B

contains supporting documentation and minutes of each of the interagency meetings.

There were no significant comments on the draft conformity determination report from the

Intera gency Consultation Group.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 4

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 11 

## Chapter 4

Mobile Source Emissions Analysis and Applicable

Governing Regulations

4 .0 Introduction

The Metropolitan Planning Regulations of SAFETEA

- LU (23 CFR Part 450, February 14

, 200 7 ) and the USEPA Transportation Conformit y Rule (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93, August

15, 1997 and a mended July 1, 2004) specify certain minimum requirements that must be

addressed in performing a mobile source emissions analysis in order to determine

conformity of a Long Range Transportation P lan (LRT P) . The following sections in this

chapter discuss these requirements and how they were addressed by the KRTPO in making

the determination of conformity on the amended 200 9

– 203 4 LR M P

.

4

. 1 Regulations related to Development of LR T P and Transportation Co nformity

The Metropolitan Planning Regulations found in 23 CFR Part 450 specify the content of

Long Range Transportation Plans and relevant aspects related to Transportation

Conformity.

23 CFR 450.322(a)

– The LRTP must have a minimum 20

- year planning

ho rizon. The LR T P being updated covers the period of 200 9

– 203 4 which

meets the requirement for a minimum 20

- year planning horizon.

23 CFR 450.322(b)(6)

– The LRTP must “include design concept and scope

descriptions of all existing and proposed transport ation facilities in

sufficient detail, regardless of the source of funding, in nonattainment and

maintenance areas to permit conformity determinations under the U.S.

EPA conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 51. In all areas, all proposed

improvements shal l be described in sufficient detail to develop cost

estimates ”. The project list included in the LR M P document and in Appendix

H covers the necessary detail and project scopes to develop cost estimates as

accurately as possible.

23 CFR 450.322(b)(11)

– The LRTP must “include a financial plan that

demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation investments with

already available and projected sources of revenue...” The LR M P document

contains a financial analysis that demonstrates financial constra int.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 4

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 12 4 .2 Regulations Governing Mobile Source Emissions Analyses

The Transportation Conformity Rule was published in the Federal Register on August 15,

1997 and amended to cover the 8

- Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards on Ju ly 1, 2004. Subsequent amendments to the Final Transportation Conformity

Rules for Ozone and PM2.5 have been made by EPA on November 29, 2005 and May 6,

2005 respectively. Applicable guidelines from the Transportation Conformity Rule are as

follows:

40 CFR 93.106 (a)

– The transportation plan must specifically describe the

transportation system envisioned for certain future years, which are called

horizon years and are subject to the following restrictions:

The horizon years may be no more than 10 years a part;

The first horizon year may not be more than 10 years from the base year

used to validate the transportation demand planning model.

If the attainment year is in the time span of the transportation plan, the

attainment year must be a horizon year.

The last horizon year must be the last year of the transportation plan’s

forecast period.

The base year for validation of the KRTPO ’s transportation demand planning model is

200 6 and the LR M P’s forecast period is from 200 9

– 203 4 . Therefore the analysis year s

used in developing the conformity analysis are:

For Ozone:

All Counties except Knox

– Emission Test of “Less than Baseline Year 2002 Emissions”

for NOx and VOC

Analysis Years

–

2014

– Year that is no more than 5 years out from Plan adoption year

20 24

– Year such that there are no more than 10 years between analysis

years

2034

– Ultimate horizon year of Plan

Knox County

– Emission Test against the 1

- Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan MVEB for NOx

and VOC.

Analysis Years

–

2009

– 8

- hour Ozone Attainme nt Year (Required analysis year for areas

with previous 1

- Hour Budgets)

2014

– Year with a 1

- Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan BudgetKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 4

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 13 2024

– Year such that there are no more than 10 years between analysis

years

2034

– Ultimate horizon year of Plan

Note: The 200 9 analysis year will use the MVEB established for 2004 and the others will

be compared against the MVEB established for 2014.

For PM2.5 (Annual Standard):

All Counties = Analysis Years of 2014, 2024 and 203 4 using Emission Test of "Less than

Baseline Year 2002 Emissions" for Direct PM and NOx. (Same rationale as for the ozone

areas outside of Knox County). Proposing to use the ‘Single

- Run’ approach.

2009

– Year within ten years of validation of the transportation demand

planning model and also the a ttainment date for the 8

- Hour Ozone

Standard.

2014

– Year no more than 10 years apart, and also a 1

- Hour Maintenance

Plan year for Knox County.

2020

– Year no more than 10 years apart.

2030

– Last horizon year of LRTP.

The analysis years were discussed an d determined to be appropriate in the Interagency

Consultation process as noted earlier.

40 CFR 93.106(a)(2)(i)

– The transportation plan shall quantify and

document the demographic and employment factors influencing the

expected transportation demand

.

The summary of county

- level estimates of socioeconomic data and growth projections for

all study years is included in Appendix E of this document . The travel demand model used

the following socioeconomic characteristics in order to determine estimates of travel for

each analysis year:

Total Population

Household Population

Number of Households

Average Persons per Household

Average Median Household Income

Workers per Household

Vehicles per Household

Students per Household

School Enrollment (K

- 12)

Universit y Student Enrollment

Total Employment

Basic EmploymentKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 4

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 14 Industrial Employment

Retail Trade Employment

Services Employment

The 2000 Census provided estimates of base year values for the above socioeconomic data.

The KRTPO acquired forecasted data for the a bove variables from Woods & Poole

Economics, Inc. since they provided the most comprehensive set of data which was

available for each county in the KRTPO ’s travel demand model coverage area. A land use

allocation model known as ULAM was developed and appl ied for this LRMP, which

allocated the growth to appropriate Traffic Analysis Zones based on a number of factors

such as the amount of vacant and developable land. More information on the ULAM

process is provided in Appendix D

.

40 CFR 93.106(a)(2)(i)

– The highway and transit system shall be described

in terms of the regionally significant additions or modifications to the

existing transportation network which the transportation plan envisions to

be operational in the horizon years.

The transportation s ystem is described in the travel demand model through a GIS

- based

network of links and nodes with attributes describing the character of roadway. Some of

the key attributes that were used to account for the improvement projects that are being

proposed inc lude:

FHWA Functional Classification

Divided or Un

- divided Roadway

Level of Access Control

Number of Lanes in each direction

Lane Width

Posted Speed Limit

Area Type (Rural, Suburban, Urban or Major Employment District)

Transit usage is not formally model ed as part of the travel demand model since it currently

accounts for a very small percentage of trips (approximately 1% of all work trips), and there

is little reason to expect a major shift to transit in the future, however some increased use of

transit will likely occur with the increased opportunities being proposed by the LR M P.

40 CFR 93. 110

– The conformity determination must be based upon the

most recent planning assumptions in force at the time of the conformity

determination . The KRTPO documente d its assumptions and planning data

with the Interagency Consultation Group, which is summarized in the meeting

information included in the Appendix B . The demographic and transportation

modeling assumptions are documented in Appendix D & E.

40 CFR 93.11 1

– The conformity determination must be based on the latest

emission estimation model available . MOBILE6.2 software is the latestKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 4

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 15 mobile

- source emission estimation model that is available and was used for this

conformity determination. Development of sp ecific inputs used for MOBILE6.2

to describe the Knoxville Region is documented in Appendix F

.

40 CFR 93.112

– The conformity determination must satisfy consultation

requirements in the applicable implementation plan . Chapter 3 and

documentation in the appendix relate to the interagency consultation process.

40 CFR 93.118 and 93.119

– Motor vehicle emissions budget and other

applicable conformity tests that must be used. Chapter 2 of this report

documents the emissions tests that were used to demonstr ate conformity. The

emissions tests were discussed in the Interagency Consultation process to

determine their appropriateness.

40 CFR 93.122

– Procedures for determining transportation

- related

emissions. The TPO documented its assumptions and methodolog y for

determining future growth in vehicle miles of travel on the regionally significant

transportation system with the Interagency Consultation Group. The primary

source for projecting future vehicle activity is the travel demand forecasting

model, which includes all regionally significant roadways and represents all

regionally significant highway projects being proposed for implementation in

the LRTP by analysis year. All counties in the nonattainment area are

represented in the travel demand model exce pt for the portion of Cocke County

within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Map 2 below shows the

extents of the travel demand forecasting model’s coverage area as well as the

roadways that are included. Again, it should be noted that regionally si gnificant

roadways are included; however greater coverage of lower

- order roadways

(collectors and locals) is also provided in the core TPO planning area of Knox

and Blount counties as shown in the yellow

- shaded area.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 4

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 16 

## MAP 

## 2 : TRAVEL DEMAND MO DEL COVERAGE AREA

An existing plus committed (E+C) network was developed for the travel demand

forecasting model due to the fact that the validation year of the model is 200 6 and

the first analysis year for the Knox County 1

- HR Budget Test is 2009 . T he E+C

network serves to incorporate changes in the roadway system that occurred since the

year 200 6 , primarily due to construction projects having been completed and also

includes projects that are currently under construction and should be completed by

t he end of 2009. The E+C network serves as the “base” roadway network upon

which all future improvements proposed in the LRMP are analyzed. A full list of

the E+C projects that were added to the travel demand model prior to developing the

future analysis years is included in Appendix I

.

An off

- model analysis was performed for Cocke County in which future growth of

vehicle miles of travel was estimated using a growth trend that was based on growth

of historical observed traffic counts through 2008 . Since there were only three

roadways that were included in the analysis for Cocke County, and none are

proposed for improvement during the life of the LRTP, the off

- model analysis usedKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Chapter 4

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 17 a very simplified approach that is documented in the minutes of the Interagen cy

Consultation meetings and the chapter on MOBILE6.2 input development.

Other than Cocke County, there were other off

- model procedures that were

performed in order to account for the increase in VMT and change of emissions for

the transportation system n ot included in the model, which is primarily the local

road system outside of Knox County. It was assumed that the local VMT

percentage (as a proportion of the rest of the county’s VMT) would remain constant.

40 CFR 93.126 and 93.127

– Projects exempt from regional emissions

analysis. The highway project list included in the Appendix H of this d ocument

describes which projects were determined to be exempt from air quality

analysis. These projects were deliberated through the Interagency Consultation

p rocess to ensure that there was full agreement on the exempt status for projects.

Examples of exempt projects include:

Bridge Replacement Project

– A project that only entails rehabilitating or

replacing the existing bridge in

- kind without any addition al laneage

being constructed.

Pedestrian Improvement Project

Interchange Reconfiguration Project

Intersection Project

– This could include any type of project that

involves only a single intersection such as adding turn lanes

(channelization) or a traffic signal.

Street Lighting

Pavement Resurfacing

Reconstruction of a 2

- lane roadway which is only improving the width

and geometrics of the roadway and perhaps some additional turn lanes.Knoxville Regional Tr ansportation Planning Organization Chapter 5

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 18 

## Chapter 5

Conclusion and Summary of Comments

5 .0 Conclusion

The an alysi s included in this report has demonstrated that the 200 9

– 203 4 Knoxville

Regional Long Range Mobility Plan and accompanying 200 8

– 2011 Transportation

Improvement Program are in conformity with air quality regulations found in the Clean Air

Act Amend ments of 1990 and SAFETEA

- LU

. The LAMTPO LRTP and TIP are direct

subsets of the 2009

– 2034 Regional LRMP and therefore are also in conformance. The

ozone

- forming emissions of VOC and NOx and the PM2.5 emissions of Direct PM2.5 and

NOx from on

- road mobile sources are projected to be less than the amounts of allowable

emissions as determined by the required interim emissions tests by EPA.

Although Vehicle Miles of Travel are projected to increase steadily in the future, the

corresponding emissions rates fr om vehicles a re expected to decrease even more

significantly according to the modeling performed by the KRTPO . The primary reason that

emission rates are projected to decline so much is due to several regulations affecting

tailpipe emission standards and fuel sulfur levels (both gasoline and diesel) which will be

implemented nationwide by the year 2010. The MOBILE6 model incorporates these

regulations into its calculations and determines their impacts, which increase over time as

the vehicle fleet turns o ver and includes more of the vehicles affected by the new

regulations.

Currently there are no transportation control measures (TCMs) in the Tennessee SIP for the

Knoxville 8

- hour ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas. However, shoul d TCMs be

introduced in the area, nothing in the LRMP nor the Transportation Improvement P rogram

will prohibit the timely implementation of any that are approved in the SIP for the

Knoxville area.

5 .1 Public Involvement Summary

The Knoxville Regional TPO conducted a 30

- day comm ent period between April 27, 2009

to May 27, 2009 to allow for public review and comment on the Air Quality Conformity

Determination. In addition, two formal public hearings were held as part of regularly

scheduled Technical Committee and Executive Board meetings that were on May 12 , 200 9

and May 2 7, 2009 respectively. Copies of the Conformity Determination Report were

provided to area libraries and made available on the KRTPO web site. P ublic notice and

advertisements for the hearings and locations to v iew the draft conformity determination

report were placed in newspapers including The Knoxville News Sentinel, Maryville Daily

Times, The Oak Ridger, The Clinton Courier, Loudon County News Herald, Enlightener

(paper targeted toward minority population) an d Mundo Hispano (paper targeted toward

Hispanic population).

The Lakeway Area MTPO conducted a public comment period from April 27, 2009

through their Long Range Plan adoption on May 27, 2009 and held Public CommentKnoxville Regional Tr ansportation Planning Organization Chapter 5

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 19 meetings for their LRTP and the Conform ity Determination Report on Tuesday, May 12,

2009 at both White Pine Town Hall and at Jefferson City City Hall and on Wednesday,

May 13, 2009 at the Morristown City Center Building

.

5 .2 Public Comment and Response

Public Comments at Public Hearing s :

No questions or comments were received from the public hearing s that were hel d on the

final air quality conformity determination.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization References

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 20 

## References

1. Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory Preparation

, U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Jan 2002.

2. User ’ s Guide to MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2: Mobile Source Emission Factor

Model , OTAQ, U.S. EPA, EPA420

- R

- 02

- 028, Oct 2002.

3. Davis, W. T., Miller, T. L., Reed, G. D., Tang, A. M. Y., Doraiswamy, P., and

Sanhueza, P., Effects of G rowth in VMT and New Mobile Source Emission

Standards on NOx and VOC Emissions in Tennessee , Dept. of Civil and

Environmental Engineering in the University of Tennessee, Mar. 14, 2002.

4. Yun, Jeongran, Draft Report On

- Road Mobile Source Emissions in Tenness ee for

2002 an Inventory and Analysis

, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering in

the University of Tennessee, July 2004.

5. MOBILE6 website

, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm

6. Guidance for Creating Annual On

- Road Mobile Source Emission Inventories for

PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas for Use in SIPs and C onformity, U.S. EPA Office of

Transportation and Air Quality, August 2005.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Glossary of Terms

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 21 

## Glossary of Terms

1

- Hour Ozone Standard

– A national ambient air quality standard set for ozone based on

the peak 1

- hour concentration of ozone measured at a monitoring site. The maximum level

of ozone allowed under the standard is 12 4 parts per billion of ozone. The EPA

implemented a revised 8

- Hour Ozone Standard ef fective on June 15, 2004, with the 1

- Hour

Standard being replaced by the 8

- Hour Standard one year later on June 15, 2005.

8

- Hour Ozone Standard

– Similar to 1

- Hour Standard, but changes measurement to a

maximum level of 8 4 parts per billion over an 8

- hour average timeframe.

Arterial Roadway

– A major roadway facility with the primary function of traffic

movement and connects activity centers in the region.

CAA

– T he U.S. Clean Air Act, referring to the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, as

amended.

Coll ector Roadway

– A minor roadway facility primarily serving to provide access to and

from local streets and adjacent land use.

Conformity

– A n analysis which demonstrates that a transportation plan, program, or

project conforms with the State Implementatio n Plan purpose of eliminating or reducing the

severity and number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards and

achieving expeditious attainment of such standards; and that such activities will not cause

or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; increase the frequency or

severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or delay timely attainment of

any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.

EPA

– United St ates Environmental Protection Agency.

Exempt Project

– Projects that are determined to be exempt from the requirement to

determine conformity such as safety, maintenance, certain transit and other projects as

determined through Interagency Consultation. These projects may proceed toward

implementation even in absence of a conforming transportation plan and TIP.

Financial Constraint

– The requirement that the proposed projects in the transportation

plans for an area must not have costs which exceed the re asonably expected revenues.

FHWA

– Federal Highway Administration.

FTA

– F ederal Transit Administration.

Freeway

– A divided highway with two or more lanes for the exclusive use of traffic in

each direction, and with full control of access and egress.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Glossary of Terms

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 22 HPMS

– H ighway Performance Monitoring System. Summary information obtained from a

sample of the arterial and collector functional systems to assess highway condition,

performance, air quality trends, and future investment requirements.

Interagency Consult ation

– The formal process used to involve stakeholder agencies into

the conformity determination development.

Local Roadway

– A road, usually with low traffic volume, designed solely to serve

adjacent development rather than through traffic.

LRTP /LRMP

– Long Range Transportation Plan . Requirement for the metropolitan

transportation planning process under SAFETEA

- LU , must have a minimum of 20

- year

horizon and be updated every four years in metro areas with greater than 200,000

population.

Maintenance Area

– A classification of an area which was in nonattainment of an air

quality standard at one point in time and is required to demonstrate the ability to maintain

the standard.

MOBILE 6

– An emissions rate model approved by EPA for estimating on

- road veh icle

emission factors. Most current version is MOBILE6.2.

MVEB

– Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget. Established by the SIP, it sets out the

maximum levels of emissions from on

- road mobile sources for an area.

NAAQS

– National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Nonattainment Area

– A n area designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

as not being in attainment of the national standard for a specified pollutant.

NOx

– Oxides of Nitrogen , an emission resulting from the process of fuel combustion.

Ozo ne

– A secondary pollutant formed by the combination of VOCs and NOx in the

presence of sunlight.

PM2.5

- PM2.5 particles are air pollutants with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less, small

enough to invade even the smallest airways. These particles gene rally come from activities

that burn fossil fuels, such as traffic, smelting, and metal processing.

Ramps

– Connections to and from freeway facilities to the arterial and collector roadway

system.

Regionally Significant Project

– A project which is on a facility which serves a regional

transportation need and would normally be included in the modeling of an area’s

transportation network. These projects must be accounted for specifically in the regional

air quality analysis.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Glossary of Terms

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 23 SAFETEA

- LU

– Safe, Accountabl e, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A

Legacy for Users. The federal transportation legislation governing the use of federal funds

for transportation investments.

SIP

– S tate Implementation Plan. Mandated by the Clean Air Act, SIPs contain de tails to

monitor, control, maintain, and enforce compliance with National Ambient Air Quality

Standards.

TAZ

– Traffic Analysis Zone. A small geographic area for which socioecono mic data is

estimated in the KRTPO travel demand model.

TDEC

– Tennessee Dep artment of Environment and Conservation

TDOT

– Tennessee Department of Transportation

TIP

– T ransportation I mprovement Program. A biennial document listing a three to five

year program of projects with some phase of work to be implemented such as design, right

-

of

- way or construction

.

Travel Demand Forecasting Model

– A computer software tool developed to estimate the

travel activity of a region based on the correlation between household

- level characteristics

and travel behavior.

TPO

– Transportation Pla nning Organization. Each urbanized area in the U.S. with greater

than 50,000 population must have a MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) in order to

coordinate transportation planning. In the Knoxville urbanized area the name TPO was

chosen to better represent the activities that are performed.

VMT

– Vehicle Miles of Travel. Is calculated from the average daily traffic volume

multiplied by the length of roadway.

VOC

– Vo latile Organic Compounds. VOCs are emitted in the storage and use of fuel,

solv ents, and many industrial and consumer chemicals, as well as from vegetation.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization A ppendix A

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 24 

## Appendix A



# Knoxville

- Area Primary Interagency Consultation Participants

AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE

Knoxville Regional TPO Jeff Welch, TPO Director

400 Main Street Suite 403 Mike Conger, Transportation Engineer

Knoxville, TN 37902 Katie Habgood, Transportation Planner

(865) 215

- 2500 FAX 215

- 2068

Knox County Dept. of Air Quality Mgmt. Lynne Liddington, Director

140 Dameron Avenue Steve McDaniel, Engineer

Knoxville, TN 37917

(865) 215

- 5900 FAX 215

- 5902

Tennessee Dept. of Transportation Bob Rock, Transportation Manager III

505 Deaderick Street Angie Midgett, Transportation Specialist

Nashville, TN 37243 Alan Jones, Air Quality Policy Supervis or

(615) 741

- 2848 FAX 532

- 8451 Mark McAdoo, Env. Policy Analyst

TDEC Air Pollution Control Division Quincy Styke, Deputy Director

401 Church Street, 9th floor L&C Annex Vicki Lowe

Nashville, TN 37243

- 1531 Marc Corrigan, E n vironmental Specialist

(615) 532

- 0554 FAX 532

- 0614

Federal Highway Administration, Tenn. Division Tameka Macon , Community Planner

640 Grassmere Park

Nashville, TN 37211

(615) 781

- 5767 FAX 781

- 5773

FHWA, Southern Resource Center Michael Roberts, Air Quali ty Specialist

61 Forsyth Street

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 562

- 3570 FAX 562

- 3700

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Kelly Sheckler , Environmental Planner

61 Forsyth Street Dianna Smith, Environmental Scientist

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 562

- 9077 FAX 562

- 9019Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization A ppendix A

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 25 

# Knoxville

- Area Primary Interagency Consultation Participants

(continued)

Federal Transit Admin i stration, Atlanta Abigail Rivera , Community Planner

61 Forsyth Street

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 562

- 3500 FAX 562

- 3505

Lakeway M T PO Rich De s Grosseillers, MTPO Director

100 W. 1st North Street

Morristown, TN 37814

(423)581

- 0100 FAX 585

- 4679

GSMNP Resource Management & Science Division Jim Renfro, Air Quality Branch Chief

1314 Cherokee Orchard Road Tere sa Cantrell, Transportation Planner

Gatlinburg, TN 37738

(865)436

- 1708 FAX 430

- 4753Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 26 

## Appendix B

Interagency Consultation Meeting Information

B1 : Meeting 1

– Meeting Minutes :

Knoxville Air Quality Interagency Consultation Conference Call

Meeting Minutes for 8/7/08

Background:

The Interagency Conference Call began at 2:00 pm on Thursday, August 7, 2008. A set of

information was previously emailed to each participant for their review including an

agenda and an excerpt from a report prepared by P echan & Associates on behalf of TDOT

describing current and upcoming air quality and conformity issues in the Knoxville region

.

Call Participants:

Mike Conger, TPO

Jeff Welch, TPO

Katie Habgood, TPO

Marc Corrigan, TDEC

Angie Midgett, TDOT

Jerry Yuknavage, TDOT

Mark McAdoo, TDOT

Alan Jones, TDOT

Kelly Sheckler, EPA

Rich DesGroseillers, Lakeway MTPO

Jim Renfro, National Park Service

Discussion Items:

1.) Background & Discussion of Preliminary Schedule

Mike Conger provided a brief backgro und of the nonattainment status of the area and the

upcoming need for a conformity determination based on an update of the Long Range

Transportation Plan. Angie Midgett asked if there was not a conformity determination that

had been prepared fairly recent ly and if so why would another update be needed so soon.

Mike replied that the TPO had done a few updated conformity determinations since the

original 2005 LRTP and conformity determination, but that these only involved relatively

minor amendments and wer e not for a complete LRTP update as this one is. A complete

Plan and conformity update is required every 4 years so this is to satisfy that requirement.

Mike reviewed the preliminary schedule that was included in the information provided with

the agend a for this meeting. Mike stressed that the conformity analysis was being done

for the entire nonattainment area which includes areas outside of the TPO planning areaKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 27 and also includes part of the Lakeway TPO area. Mike noted that timelines were being

coo rdinated with the Lakeway TPO such that their LRTP development would provide the

necessary information to the Knoxville TPO in order to remain on schedule.

2.) Discussion of Required Analysis Years and Emissions Tests

Mike reviewed the need for determini ng the required analysis years so that the process of

developing travel demand model forecasts can be finalized

, which subsequently feed s into

the development of the LRTP project lists and associated conformity analyses. Mike also

noted that it would be p referable to align as many of the upcoming conformity triggers as

possible in order to avoid re

- doing conformity so often.

Mike asked for guidance from EPA regarding appropriate emission tests and analysis years.

Kelly Sheckler responded that there are several unknowns at this time which will likely

affect what emissions tests and analysis years will be required. One major issue she noted

was with the vacature of the CAIR rule, which could affect the recent PM2.5 SIP submittals

because of the emission reductions that were taken credit for from CAIR. It was also

noted that guidance was being waited on from EPA headquarters regarding the issue of

the court remand of the designation of areas under Subpart I like Knoxville for the 8

- hour

Ozone Standard.

K elly stated that she had developed a preliminary proposal for how the Knoxville area

could best align the conformity triggers to minimize the number of conformity

determinations that would be required, but that she still needed to review it with others at

EPA before she could send it out to the IAC group. She also stated that she would check

on the other issues raised today to get a response as soon as possible. She asked what

the TPO’s “drop

- dead” date would be to get the analysis years and emission test s finalized.

Mike responded that he would have to think about it and get back to her later on what the

exact deadline should be, but that it needs to be fairly soon. The IAC participants agreed

that this conformity process cannot wait until all the outst anding issues are fully resolved

so we need to proceed forward as necessary to stay on schedule.

Marc Corrigan raised an issue regarding what the first required analysis year should be.

Marc noted that if the PM2.5 SIP budgets were found adequate in the timeframe of this

conformity determination then it may be likely that a 2009 analysis year would be required

since that is the attainment year for PM2.5. Mike stated that a 2009 analysis year did not

make much sense in terms of the LRTP development since the plan will actually be

adopted in 2009 and therefore any transportation projects in the 2009 analysis year will be

basically those that are already built or close to being completed. Also, there is a potential

issue with meeting the emission budget for 2009 since it was developed using planning

assumptions and models which have since been updated. Since there is no safety margin

in the budget there could be a problem with meeting it if the new models predict even

small increases in emission rates than the previous models. Marc indicated that a SIP

revision to account for the new model changes would be very difficult to achieve within

the timeframe needed to stay on schedule for the Knoxville LRTP update. Marc asked

Kelly to consider th ese issue s as sh e discusses the analysis year requirements and PM2.5

SIP review process with the others at EPA.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 28 3.) General Discussion of Latest Planning Assumptions

Mike stated that the TPO had a new transportation model validated to a 2006 base year

and a land use model that would provide the basis for the emissions analyses of this

conformity determination, he further noted that additional detail regarding planning

assumptions would be provided at a future meeting. Two specific items were discussed

regarding recom mendations from the “Pechan” report that was prepared for TDOT.

First was the issue of diesel truck traffic potentially increasing at a higher rate than

passenger vehicle traffic , which would affect air quality because of the typically higher

emission rat es for large trucks . Alan Jones noted that FHWA sources are predicting

increases in freight and particularly truck traffic such that it should probably be accounted

for. Mike agreed that he has seen that information as well and that he would check into i t

further. Jeff Welch noted that TDOT now has a freight planning assistance contract with a

consultant who might be able to assist with this issue. Mike stated he would explore that

possibility further as well as check with TDOT on obtaining actual class ification data from

past years to see what the recent trends are with respect to truck VMT percentages. Mike

also noted that he would coordinate with the TDOT modeling office on what the statewide

travel model was predicting in terms of truck growth at ou r model’s external stations.

The second issue dealt with the possible need to update the vehicle age distribution that is

used as a MOBILE6 input. Mike stated that we have been using a n input file that was

developed by U.T. for TDEC and TDOT that was bas ed on year 2002 motor vehicle

registration data for our area. Kelly responded that she would need to check into what the

requirement for updating this information was. She stated it was her recollection that it

was more of a guidance statement rather tha n a strict requirement and that it was around

6 years for update intervals. Marc noted that it was the intent of TDEC to update this

information, but that they p referr ed to tie the update in with the switch over to the MOVES

model and that it would not li kely be available in the timeframe of this conformity process.

In closing Mike noted that it would he would like to schedule a regular monthly time for

IAC calls throughout the conformity determination process. It was determined

preliminarily that the first Thursday of each month at 2:00 pm ET would work as a possible

recurring time for these calls.



## B2 : Meeting 2

– Meeting Minutes:

Knoxville Air Quality Interagency Consultation Conference Call

Meeting Minutes for 9 / 18 /08

Background:

The Interagen cy Conference Call began at 2:00 pm on Thursday, September 18 , 2008. A

set of information was previously emailed to each participant for their review including anKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 29 agenda and documentation on the latest planning assumptions and proposed analysis

years and emissions tests.

Call Participants:

Mike Conger, TPO

Marc Corrigan, TDEC

Angie Midgett, TDOT

Alan Jones, TDOT

Kelly Sheckler, EPA

Dianna Smith, EPA

Jim Renfro, National Park Service

Discussion Items:

1.) Discussion of Pr oposed Analysis Years and Emissions Tests

Mike Conger reviewed the document that was provided to the IAC participants on the

proposed analysis years and emissions tests including the rationale for choosing them.

Mike explained that although we were previously planning to go o ut to the year 2035 with

our long range plan it makes more sense to back it off to year 2034 in terms of minimizing

the number of required analysis years and still meeting the requirement that the plan go

out at least 20 years in the future. There was agr eement from the IAC participants that

the proposed analysis years and emissions tests would be appropriate given the current

circumstances.

2.) Discussion of Latest Planning Assumptions and TPO Modeling Updates

Mike reviewed the documentation that was pr ovided to the IAC members regarding the

development of socioeconomic data and modeling updates in the Knoxville Nonattainment

study area. One major upgrade to the modeling process in the study area is the

development of a land use model that can be used t o improve the methodology used to

allocate future growth in the region to the TAZ level. Kelly Sheckler asked if the land use

model consultant could provide more information to the IAC on the model and how it is

connected to the travel demand model proces s. Mike replied that he would request a

presentation by the consultant for a future meeting.

Mike noted that another feature of the land use model was the ability to develop various

future growth scenarios to analyze their impacts on the transportation system. Mike

stated that it was desired to promote compact development growth that would potentially

reduce vehicle miles of travel as a mix of land uses are built closer together to allow for

greater transit use as well as walking and biking. Mike aske d if anyone had experience

with how other areas in the country dealt with scenario planning with respect to

conformity analysis. Kelly responded that the Atlanta area had done some of this type of

scenario planning and that discussions among the IAC were required to determine which

scenarios were realistic with respect to being able to be enforced through actual land use

regulations and policies that were in place. Mike responded that our area has very little inKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 30 the way of strict regulations such that we should rely on a scenario that fits in with what is

‘on the books’ with regard to land use policies rather than using the compact growth

scenario to demonstrate conformity. Kelly agreed and stated that it was still good to have

the capability to show the other scenarios in order to begin the dialogue of affecting future

land use decisions.

Mike noted that the validation statistics for the travel demand model’s base year of 2006

were included in the background documentation. He pointed out that for most f acility

types the model was well within the 20% margin of error for VMT that was recommended

by the ‘Pechan report’ for TDOT. As you would expect for a model area of this size there

were some lower order facilities such as local roads and collectors that required higher

correction factors. Marc stated that he thought these statistics looked good and that

overall it appeared that more effort had been put into this model update than ever before.

He asked if there was expected to be much difference in the f uture year projections than

what had previously been forecasted. Mike responded that it is still too early to tell for

sure as we are still refining our future year land use modeling, but that he did not expect

there to be a great deal of difference.

3.) Discussion of Preliminary MOBILE6 Input Structure & Assumptions

Mike stated that he wanted to briefly discuss some of the major changes proposed for

MOBILE6 inputs and that most input assumptions would just carry over from the most

recent conformity det erminations. There was discussion regarding the possibility of

changing the way that average speeds were computed in order to better account for

directional speeds on a roadway link. Mike asked how best to address the development of

the 2002 baseline emi ssions in terms of either needing to develop a new model scenario

for that year or if the previous emissions estimates that were developed for 2002 in the

previous conformity determination could be used. Mike noted that it could be an issue of

an ‘apples to oranges’ comparison if we compare the future year emissions against the

2002 emissions using different assumptions about the average speed computation

methodology. Marc Corrigan noted that since the model now has a 2006 base year

perhaps that could be used to develop 2006 baseline emissions, which would be used a

test rather than a 2002 baseline year emissions test. Kelly Sheckler responded that she

would need to check into this further to get an answer on appropriate methodologies.

4.) Future Meetin g Discussion Topics

Mike gave an overview of possible topics for future calls. He stated that the next call will

most likely involve discussion of more specific MOBILE6 inputs. He also mentioned that he

would like to revisit the definition of what is a “Regionally Significant Project” so that we

can have something a little better defined than what is just noted in the conformity

regulations for our area. Marc noted that a lot of time it comes down to an IAC

determination as to whether a specific project is regionally significant, but that it is good to

have a set of ground rules to work from. Mike asked for the IAC participants to please

forward him any examples that others might be aware of for definitions of regional

significance for other areas of th e country. Angie Midgett noted that she was aware of

some others that she would try to find and pass along.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 31 Another issue that Mike raised was in regards to the definition of what qualifies as an

‘Exempt’ project. In particular there was previously ag reement that any project that just

added a center turn lane no matter the length would be considered exempt from

conformity, however in a recent case it was questioned by EPA as to whether this type of

project would automatically be exempt. Kelly responde d that she would follow

- up to

determine what the final decision was with regard to the exempt status for this type of

project.



## B 3 : M eeting 3

– Meeting Minutes:

Knoxville Air Quality Interagency Consultation Conference Call

Meeting Minutes for 11 / 13 /08

Background:

The Interagency Conference Call began at 2:00 pm on Thursday, November 13 , 2008. A

set of information was previously emailed to each participant for their review including an

agenda and documentation on the land use model recently developed for the TPO and

MOBILE6 input assumptions.

Call Participants:

Mike Conger, TPO

Katie Habgood, TPO

Angie Midgett, TDOT

Mark McAdoo , TDOT

Dianna Smith, EPA

Tameka Macon, FHWA TN Division

Steve McDaniel, Knox County Air Quality Management

Mike Br own, Transportation Planning Services, Inc.

Discussion Items:

1.) Presentation on Urban Land Use Allocation Model (ULAM)

Mike Conger introduced the consultant, Mike Brown who was retained by the TPO to

develop the ULAM model. Mike Conger provided bac kground on the project and an

overview of the data that was collected. Mike Brown presented information on the steps

that were taken to develop the model and the basics of how it works to determine the

allocation of future land uses to the traffic analysi s zone level. Mike Brown noted that one

of the main benefits of ULAM was in its ability to provide a linkage between transportation

and land use decisions. It was also noted that coordination with local planning agencies,

the private sector and the TPO T echnical Committee were critical components of the

process of developing the model as well as the leadership and financial support from

TDOT.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 32 2.) Discussion of MOBILE6 Input Structure and Assumptions

Mike reviewed the documentation that was provided to t he IAC members regarding the

assumptions that are being proposed for the inputs to MOBILE6 that will be used for this

conformity determination. Mike noted that many of the inputs were simply going to be

carried forward from previous conformity determinati ons since many conditions have not

changed given the fact that SIPs have not yet been officially established for either Ozone

or PM2.5. Mike noted where slight deviations were expected from previous

methodologies, which include the ability to model the ro adway network in the Roane

County partial nonattainment area rather than performing an off

- model analysis, inclusion

of all freeway ramps in the model network, updated vehicle classification data for the year

2006 from the previous year 2002 data and a new methodology for inputting speed into

MOBILE6. Mike stated that further information would be provided at a future call that

would also help to clarify these input changes.

Steve McDaniel asked whether the temperature inputs that were being proposed still

needed to be tied back to the 1

- hour Ozone Maintenance Plan since it was his

understanding that the 1

- Hour Ozone Standard had been revoked. Dianna Smith

responded that it was still required to be consistent with the inputs used in the

Maintenance Plan SI P until either a SIP rule revision was made or a new 8

- hour SIP was

established for the area.

Dianna Smith asked whether the TPO received resolution on an issue related to the

requirements to model the 2002 base year that was raised on a previous confer ence call.

Mike stated that Kelly Sheckler had responded on that issue and basically what was

determined was that a new model run had to be made for 2002 rather than being able to

rely on the emissions generated for 2002 in the most recent conformity dete rmination.

This would be required in order to match the assumptions being modeled for the future

years since the modeling assumptions had been changed from the previous conformity

determination. Mike also noted that Kelly responded to another issue that was raised

regarding whether it would be allowable to use an emission test of no greater than

baseline year 2006 rather than 2002 since the model was now calibrated to a 2006 base

year. Kelly’s responses was that the requirement per the conformity regulat ions was that

it must still be a no greater than baseline year 2002 test even though it was likely that the

2006 test would be more stringent.

The IAC group agreed with the other basic MOBILE6 assumptions being proposed noting

that no changes have been ma de to what has already been established regarding fuel RVP

and so forth.

3 .) Discussion of Future Meeting Topics

Mike stated that the TPO was in the midst now of developing the LRTP project listing,

which would probably occur through December and into Ja nuary such that he did not think

that there would be sufficient new information to require another IAC conference call until

sometime in January 2009.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 33 

## B4 : Meeting 4

- Meeting Minutes:

Knoxville Air Quality Interagency Consultation Conference Call

Meetin g Minutes for 2 / 17 /0 9

Background:

The Interagency Conference Call began at 2:00 pm on Tuesday

, February 17 , 200 9 . A set

of information was previously emailed to each participant for their review including an

agenda, draft roadway improvement project li st and other items.

Call Participants:

Mike Conger, TPO

Katie Habgood, TPO

Ralph Comer , TDOT

Bob Rock, TDOT

Jerry Yuknavage, TDOT

Alan Jones, TDOT

Mark McAdoo , TDOT

Marc Corrigan, TDEC

Dianna Smith, EPA

Victor Otero, FHWA TN Division

Britta Stein, FHWA TN Division

Rich DesGrosseillers, Lakeway Area MTPO

Steve McDaniel, Knox County Air Quality Management

Jim Renfro, National Park Service

Discussion Items:

1.) Discussion of Conformity Determination for Lakeway Area MTPO

“SAFETEA

- LU Complian t” Plan

Mike Conger provided background on the proposed action which is to r eaffirm that the

updated Lakeway MTPO Long Range Transportation Plan still meets conformity. The

Lakeway MTPO updated their LRTP in order to satisfy the requirements that it be

c ompliant with the SAFETEA

- LU planning regulations

. Mike noted that the update did not

affect any projects listed in the LRTP and therefore no new conformity analysis would be

required. Mike described the history of conformity determinations that have bee n made

on the current Regional LRTP and that they still remain valid after this action. He noted

that the Lakeway Board was set to adopt the plan update on 2/18/09. Ralph Comer noted

that Deborah Fleming would not be able to attend that meeting, but that Angie Midgett

would be there representing TDOT

. Mike asked if there were any comments or questions

from the IAC on this action, he stressed that this was completely separate from the major

LRTP update that we were conducting currently and hoped there was not confusion about

this item. Victor Otero and Dianna Smith from FHWA and EPA respectively agreed that noKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 34 further conformity action was required as a result of the Lakeway SAFETEA

- LU compliant

Plan update.

2.) Discussion of Roadway Improvement Project List and Exempt/Non

- Exempt Status

Mike noted that we n eed to discuss projects and their “exempt” status, but he did not

want to go through all 200+ projects on this call so he identified ones that might be

questionable on the list in orange for discussion. The first type of questionable project type

is that of an addition of a continuous center turn lane. Dianna Smith stated that there are

some different interpretations around such as certain areas that use project length

thresholds for when a center turn lane project might be considered non

- exempt. Dianna

said that she would check with headquarters to get further clarification and guidance on

this issue. Marc Corrigan asked how the transportation model treated a center turn lane.

Mike responded that the TPO model has the capability of coding the presence of a median,

whether it is a center turn lane or raised median makes no difference but these do add

some limited amount of capacity to the roadway in the model. Marc stated that until we

learn otherwise fro m EPA we should probably go with previous assumption that these are

exempt unless there are unique situations that warrant treatment as a non

- exempt

project. Dian na noted that P roject #636 shows a 5 mile

- long center turn lane , which was a

possible non

- exem pt candidate

. Mike responded t hat project is so far in the future, we

don’t really know what the final design may end up with. We assume that there will be

turn lanes at major intersections, but we aren’t sure whether it will warrant a continuous

center t urn lane

. Mike stated that he will try to review the proposed center turn lane

projects further and provide additional information to the IAC.

Mike raised a question regarding whether auxiliary lane projects should be treated as

exempt. Marc stated that i t could depend on the scope and length of the project and used

an example in Nashville where a significant length of ramp was extended to connect

interchanges whereby a vehicle entering one interchange going to the next interchange

could stay in the same l ane. Mike stated that although it is possible for vehicles to use

auxiliary lanes in that manner that he felt they were still not adding the same amount of

capacity as a new through lane would so the issue was with how to model them. There

was consensus that auxiliary lanes would typically be considered non

- exempt.

Marc Corrigan asked about Project #312

– speed limit reduction sign rep lacement in terms

of its scope and whether it should be non

- exempt. Mike stated that project came from the

Lakeway proj ect listing and he wasn’t familiar with what was involved. Rich

DesGrosseillers stated he would find out more information. Note

– subsequent to the IAC

call Rich DesGrosseillers provided the information that this project only involves the

replacement of substandard actual “Reduced Speed Limit Ahead” signs and does not

change the actual posted speed limit.

Mike discussed Project #410 which involves converting an at

- grade intersection to grade

separated and whether this falls under the exempt category of a n “Interchange

Reconfiguration” project

. There was consensus that this should be considered exempt.

There was further discussion regarding other i nterchange reconfiguration projects in the

list and whether they should all be considered exempt or be looked at on a case

- by

- caseKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 35 basis. Some issues raised by the group dealt with whether the facility involved Interstate

lanes and other high traffic facilities with significant lane mile addition to the network

could possibly be non

- exempt. Mike stated that the main problem was that most of these

projects had not completed design so there was no way to know exactly what would go on

the ground and therefore how to model these projects. Mike stated that he would try to

provide additional information to the group o n these projects in order to assist in making a

determination on their exempt status.

Marc asked about Project #510 which involves a widening from 2

- lanes to 4

- lanes but was

listed as exempt. Mike responded that was an error and it should be instead li sted as non

- exempt. Marc also mentioned Project #246 which involves construction of a new 2

- lane

road being listed as exempt and Mike responded that was also an error as we

automatically assume new roadway construction and widening projects with additiona l

through lanes are non

- exempt. Marc also brought up Project #654 which is an interchange

project of three Interstates. Mike responded that project probably warrants a non

- exempt

description as it involves additional laneage although it is still very conc eptual at this stage.

Mike asked the group for comments regarding the exempt status of projects where

capacity was being removed, which are known as “Road Diet” projects

. There was

agreement with Mike’s assumption that these should be treated as non

- exem pt.

3.) Discussion of Regional Significance Definition

Mike described the definition of a regionally significant roadway in the conformity

regulations and noted that there might be a need to develop a more specific one to guide

our IAC process. Mike noted however that the Knoxville TPO intends to model all of the

projects included in the project listing so this is not a major issue at this point in time.

Mike confirmed with EPA that changes in scope or horizon year will affect whether or not a

new regiona l emissions analysis will be needed based on whether the roadway is

regionally significant or not. Mike stated that he has some examples from other areas that

he would share at a future IAC meeting to help guide possible development of a specific

definiti on for our area.

4.) Discussion of Project Description & Phasing Issues/Requirements

Mike described an issue with a particular large scale project in the project list which is

planned to be built in phases. The issue is with a mismatch in the NEPA document termini

and what will actually be constructed based on an overlap with another bypass project.

There was discussion regarding different questions and issues surrounding this project and

it was determined that further clarification was needed to be provid ed to the group.

Different options may be available and it was agreed that the IAC had the authority to

determine a proper course of action if consensus is achieved. Mike stated that he would

put together more information for future discussion.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 36 5.) Discus sion of Conformity Timeline & Request for Expedited Review

Mike reviewed a tentative timeline for completing the conformity determination. He

reminded the group that the ultimate deadline we are working towards is June 1 st 

### . Since

we do not plan to have our Executive Board approve the Plan until May 27 th 

### we will need

to request an expedited review from EPA and FHWA. Mike stated that the TPO was

planning on formally submitting the conformity determination in conjunction with the May

12 Technical Committee approval of the Long Range Plan with the signed resolutions from

the Executive Boards from the TPO and the Lakeway TPO to follow. Dianna Smith, EPA

and Victor Otero, FHWA indicated that an expedited review would be possible assuming

that drafts were avai lable to review prior to the end and major issues are worked out prior

to final submittal. Mike stated that it was his intention to keep the group informed of

progress on a frequent basis from here on out.



## B6: Meeting 5

– Meeting Minutes:

Knoxville Air Quality Interagency Consultation Conference Call

Meeting Minutes for 3 / 11 /0 9

Background:

The Interagency Conference Call began at 2:00 pm on Thursday

, March 11 , 200 9 . A set

of information was previously emailed to each participant for their review

.

Call Participants:

Mike Conger, TPO

Bob Rock, TDOT

Jerry Yuknavage, TDOT

Mark McAdoo , TDOT

Angie Midgett, TDOT

Darlene Reiter, Bowlby & Associates (TDOT Environmental Consultant)

Dianna Smith, EPA

Kelly Sheckler, EPA

Britta Stein, FHWA TN Divis ion

Jim Renfro, National Park Service

Discussion Items:

1.) Discussion of Center Turn Lane Projects and Exempt Status

Mike Conger noted that a separate listing was provided to the IAC group of all the

proposed center turn lane projects in the 2034 Long Range Mobility Plan. Dianna Smith,

EPA, stated that she received further guidance from headquarters regarding the exempt

status of these types of projects and that the criteria she had heard was that unless theKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 37 project involved only turn lanes at a single intersection of less than a quarter mile in length

then it would be considered a non

- exempt project. Mike clarified that these projects were

all proposed to be greater than a quarter mile in length and would span multiple

intersections so they would ther efore be non

- exempt. Mike asked if any IAC members had

an objection to still considering projects of the type “reconstruct 2

- lane section” as

exempt. He explained that these projects entail improving existing roadways that are

deficient in terms of lane width and geometric issues, but that they could also include

addition of turn lanes at certain intersections where warranted by traffic volume and safety

concerns. There was agreement that these projects should still be considered exempt

under 93.127 “Int ersection channelization projects”.

2.) Discussion of Interchange Modification Projects and Exempt Status

Mike stated that similar to the previous item a separate listing showing each Interchange

modification project in the proposed LRMP listing was sent to the IAC group. Mike stated

that he was still unsure about the intent of the conformity rule’s intent on making

Interchange Reconfiguration Projects as an exempt project as per 93.127, Table 3. Mike

stated that several of the proposed interchange projects on the listing had not been

through design or planning level analysis to determine the exact extent of improvements,

which makes it difficult to include them in the transportation model. He stated that most

interchanges have capacity issues dealing with a need for additional turn lanes on the

ramps or intersecting roadway. Kelly Sheckler stated that significant lengths of turn lane

improvements would be non

- exempt. Dianna stated that EPA could investigate the issue

further with respect to the projects o n the list that was provided, but that it would be

difficult without further information. Mike replied that limited information was available as

most projects were just conceptual in nature. Mike asked for further interpretation of the

exempt status inte nt for interchange reconfiguration projects

- specifically for projects

where a new loop ramp is added to an existing interchange or where an existing diamond

interchange were converted into a single

- point urban interchange (for a description of a

single p oint urban interchange see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single

- point_urban_interchange ). It was determined that this issue should be discussed further

pending ad ditional clarification from EPA.

3.) Discussion of Regional Significance Examples

Mike summarized briefly the examples of other MPO definitions for Regional Significance.

He explained that most used the standard conformity rule definition and then expanded on

the issue of which minor arterial and lower classified roadways should be also considered

regionally significant. Of the examples provided it appeared that Chattanooga had the

most detail with regard to how regional significance should be determined on these

roadway types using different criteria. Mike noted that Chattanooga actually developed a

specific listing of roadways that are regionally significant, but he felt that might be too

cumbersome in our area given the large size of our nonattainment ar ea. Mike stated that

he preferred to develop a screening tool that could be used to help determine regional

significance based on interrogatories similar to how the PM2.5 hotspot analysis process is

set up. He proposed to develop a series of questions an d apply that to our proposed

project list for review by the IAC. He stated that this would be developed in the next few

days so that the IAC could review it prior to its next meeting. One issue that Mike wantedKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 38 to clarify was whether an exempt project co uld automatically be determined to be not

regionally significant. Dianna confirmed that was true.

Mike discussed a specific project that the TPO was being requested by FHWA to add to its

TIP which could be used as a case study with respect to both region al significance and for

interchange reconfiguration projects. The project is a proposed slip ramp serving a new

mixed use (commercial and retail) development at Northshore Drive and I

- 140 in Knox

County. A schematic diagram was provided to the group show ing the extent of the

project, which affects only the off ramp from I

- 140 to Northshore Drive. Mike noted that

this project had previously gone through a PM2.5 hotspot determination and was

determined to be exempt and non

- regionally significant since the ramp connected to a

local road system that could not be modeled. Kelly asked why FHWA considered the

project to be regionally important. Mike replied that it was his understanding that it was

requested by Charlie O’Neill, Planning and Program Management Team Leader at FHWA

TN Division since he felt that because federal action was required on an Interchange

Modification Study that it should be reflected in the TPO’s TIP. Mike asked Britta Stein,

FHWA, if she had further info and she replied that others at her office were involved with

this and she would have to check with them. Mark McAdoo stated that he was involved

with the PM2.5 determination and that he supports the proposal that this project be

considered exempt. He noted that it was determined to n ot be a project of concern in

terms of localized air quality impacts so he felt it would therefore not have a regional

impact either. Dianna stated that this was a special case that would merit further

investigation. Mike stated that he would send out in formation related to the previous

PM2.5 determination and that he would like to resolve this issue at the next IAC

conference call as to whether this project should be considered non

- exempt and regionally

significant. Mike noted that if the project were d etermined to be non

- exempt and

regionally significant then a conformity determination would be required, which would

mean that it would have to be included in the LRMP update.

4.) Discussion of Alcoa Hwy Phasing

Mike stated that discussions were held with TD OT and FHWA in order to try and match the

segments and design parameters between the LRMP/TIP and NEPA documents. Mike

explained that a spreadsheet was sent out earlier in the day with the newly proposed

project descriptions, which should facilitate futur e project development and environmental

approvals. He noted that the segment between Pellissippi Parkway and Singleton Station

Road was left in the project list even though it may not get widened if the Alcoa Bypass is

built as planned.

5.) Discussion of Non

- Roadway Project List

Mike stated that a listing of non

- roadway projects being proposed in the LRMP update was

provided for the group’s information. He noted that these projects were all being

considered as exempt from conformity analysis, but that if any one had questions or

comments to please let him know.

6.) Future Meeting TopicsKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 39 Mike stated that the tentative date for the next meeting was Tuesday, March 31 st 

### at 2:00

pm and to let him know if there were any conflicts. He noted that there were items from

today’s meeting that would be followed up on as well as a plan to present some draft

emissions analysis results. The major items requiring follow

- up are:

Guidance from EPA on intent of what constitutes an exempt interchange

reconfiguration project,

Reg ional significance criteria and updated roadway project list to be provided by

the TPO,

Review of I

- 140/Northshore Drive interchange ramp exempt status, TPO to provide

additional information from previous PM2.5 determination.



## B 7 : Meeting 6

– Meeting Minu tes:

Knoxville Air Quality Interagency Consultation Conference Call

Meeting Minutes for 3 / 31 /0 9

Background:

The Interagency Conference Call began at 2:00 pm on Tuesday

, March 31 , 200 9 . A set of

information was previously emailed to each participant f or their review

.

Call Participants:

Mike Conger, TPO

Katie Habgood, TPO

Jeff Welch, TPO

Bob Rock, TDOT

Jerry Yuknavage, TDOT

Mark McAdoo , TDOT

Marc Corrigan, TDEC

Dianna Smith, EPA

Kelly Sheckler, EPA

Tameka Macon, FHWA TN Division

Cecilia C renshaw, FHWA TN Division

Steve McDaniel, Knox County Air Quality Management

Discussion Items:

1.) Discussion of Interchange Modification Projects and Exempt Status

– follow up from previous call

Mike Conger stated that he requested additional informat ion from the federal partners at

the previous conference call regarding what types of Interchange Reconfiguration projects

qualify as “exempt” as per 93.127. Tameka Macon responded with guidance that was

provided from FHWA HQ that one example would be goi ng from a diamond interchange toKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 40 a cloverleaf interchange. Kelly Sheckler responded that the intent of the interchange

project should be safety related and not necessarily increasing capacity but improving

operations and through

- put for it to be considere d exempt. Mike stated that with that

being the case then several projects on the proposed improvement list should be regarded

as exempt since they would most likely involve reconfiguring existing diamond

- type

interchanges to some other type or would invol ve intersection improvements rather than

major capacity expansion. Mike noted that projects #215 and #512 would be exceptions

as these projects are envisioned to include new access to the Interstate where none

currently exists.

Kelly asked why there was not more information in the project list for these projects as the

way they are currently shown it is very difficult to determine what exactly is going to be

built. Jeff Welch responded that most of these projects have not been fully designed and

that th ere are only preliminary alternatives for ones that actually have had some planning

studies done. He stated that generally the case is that these interchanges have been

determined to be deficient and in need of operational improvements in general. Kelly

asked if further information could be provided as to whether the project involved

improvements to address safety and operations versus major capacity additions. Mike

responded that he could revise the project list to include additional information for eac h of

the interchange projects as to the intent of the improvements.

2.) Discussion of Pellissippi Parkway/Northshore Drive Interchange Slip

Ramp

– follow up from previous call

Mike stated that the TPO had further discussions prior to today’s call with FHWA and the

determination was made that this project should be considered Non

- exempt and

Regionally Significant. Tameka explained that in discussing the project with FHWA HQ,

they felt that based on the scope of the project which involves connecting a major m ixed

- use development to the Interstate that it should definitely be modeled and considered

non

- exempt. Mike replied that the TPO understands the interpretation being made and

will include this project in the regional emissions analysis.

3.) Discussion of R egional Significance Screening Criteria/Updated

Roadway Project List

Mike described the screening process which was developed to help guide the IAC in

determining regional significance of specific projects although he noted that this was just a

guide and that the IAC still has discretion on making final determinations of regional

significance based on other factors and interpretations. Mike noted that a revised project

list was sent out with the information related to each of the screening criteria for al l of the

projects. Mike noted that projects that are non

- exempt and on a principal arterial or

higher have been automatically considered Regionally Significant, while projects that have

been determined to be exempt are considered Non

- Regionally Significan t, however the IAC

can still determine otherwise if it is determined that the project would have regional

impacts for any reason.

Mike discussed the types of areas that were considered as major activity centers in the

Knoxville Region. Marc Corrigan sugg ested that other terminals besides just the airportKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 41 should be listed as well, including freight terminals and intermodal transfer centers. Marc

also asked if tourist destinations included sports complexes and Mike replied that he could

add that to the lis t as a separate item as well as the terminals. There was some more

discussion regarding specific examples of tourist destinations and major retail centers and

Mike stated that his preference was to not list every specific location, but rather leave it

mor e general. Jeff Welch asked if we should develop a specific threshold for amount of

Average Daily Traffic on a roadway that would determine its regional significance. Mike

replied that the ADT was more for informational purposes and it would be difficult to come

up with a specific number to use as a cutoff. Marc stated that it was helpful to know the

amount of traffic in order to compare it against other roadways.

Mike asked the group to review the screening criteria and the determinations that have

be en made for each project on the project list and to provide him any additional

comments by the next conference call.

4.) Discussion of Preliminary Emission Results

Mike briefly described the emission tests results that were sent out earlier that day to the

I AC group. He noted that it appears that all conformity tests will be passed for both

Ozone and PM2.5 under the interim emissions tests. He stated that technical

documentation would be prepared to explain how these results were obtained and sent

out to th e group within a week and discussed at the next conference call.

Steve McDaniel asked if this emissions analysis was done using MOBILE6 or the MOVES

model. Mike replied that we were still required to use MOBILE6 as MOVES had not yet

officially been relea sed. Dianna Smith stated that MOVES was still in the draft

development stages and the final version was not expected until the end of 2010.

5.) Discussion of Conformity Timeline

Mike reviewed the remaining schedule for completion of the conformity determi nation. He

noted that the intent was to get draft reports by next week and allow a month of review

by the IAC. He stated that his intent was to hold IAC conferences calls every two weeks

as necessary through the completion of the conformity determination . He noted that a

short turnaround time was needed from the adoption of the Long Range Plan and

Conformity Determination on May 27 th 

### to the deadline date of June 1 st 

### for approvals by

U.S. DOT. Steve McDaniel asked what it meant if the June 1 st 

### deadline w eren’t met and

Mike replied that we would enter a conformity lapse grace period where the existing Long

Range Plan and TIP could still move forward but could not be amended with non

- exempt

projects. Mike stated that this schedule was based on everything g oing smoothly and

there not being any major changes to the drafts that the IAC would be reviewing along the

way.

The next conference call time was discussed and it was determined that the best date

would be Monday, April 13 th 

### at 2:00 PM ET.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 42 

## B 7 : Meeting 7

– Meeting Minutes:

Knoxville Air Quality Interagency Consultation Conference Call

Meeting Minutes for 4 / 27 /0 9

Background:

The Interagency Conference Call began at 2:00 pm on Monday

, April 27 , 200 9 . A set of

information was previously emailed to eac h participant for their review

.

Call Participants:

Mike Conger, TPO

Katie Habgood, TPO

Jeff Welch, TPO

Dianna Smith, EPA

Angie Midgett, TDOT

Deborah Fleming, TDOT

Mark McAdoo , TDOT

Darlene Reiter, Bowlby Associates/TDOT

Marc Corrigan, TDEC

St eve McDaniel, Knox County Air Quality Management

Rich DesGrosseillers, LAMTPO

Discussion Items:

6.) Discussion of IAC Comments on Draft Conformity Determination Report



### Mike Conger opened the floor for any comments to this point on the draft CDR. Mik e

noted that he had received and responded to some comments via email from Marc Corrigan.

Marc stated that his comments to this point were informal in nature, but that he did have a

follow

- up question regarding one issue, which was to what extent has the c hange in

methodology for calculating Local Road VMT growth changed the growth estimates as

compared to the previous methodology. Mike responded that he could take a look at that

and send a response to the group. Mike gave additional background on the rea sons for a

change in methodology to the group and he stated that he would also send out a link to

some guidance that he had discovered regarding this issue in which one recommendation

was to use VMT growth for collector facilities as a surrogate for local road VMT growth.

There were no further comments on the draft CDR at this point in time. Mike stated that he

wanted to get all IAC comments by the close of business on Friday, May 8 th 

### which is 30

days from when the original draft was sent to the group.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix B

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 43 7.) Discussion of next steps



### Mike stated that the Long Range Plan and Conformity were currently out for public

comment and that he would send a link to the TPO website where both documents can be

found. He noted that the upcoming public comment opportunitie s included the TPO

Technical Committee meeting on May 12 and the Executive Board meeting on May 27

where the Plan and Conformity were planned to be adopted. He stated that the adoption

date was contingent on there not being any significant comments either from the public or

IAC which would possibly require new documents and additional review time. Marc

Corrigan asked what would qualify as a significant comment. Katie Habgood responded

that the TPO Public Participation Plan states that the TPO Director ma kes the ultimate

decision on what is a significant comment. Angie Midgett stated that usually the comment

has to affect something on the financial side or be a project change in order to be

considered significant. Mike noted that the IAC would be consult ed as well in order to help

determine the significance level of any comments.

Mike stated that we could have another conference call in two weeks to discuss the final

IAC comments. A tentative date and time of Monday, May 11 at 10:00 EDT was selected

for the next conference call.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 44 

## Appendix C

Emissions Analysis Summary for each County

C 1: Ozone Analysis

C 1.1

. Baseline Year 2002:

Anderson County

2002

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 1.392 9.956 585,938 0.90 6.43

Rural Principal Arterial 1.769 2.116 128,009 0.25 0.30

Rural Minor Arterial 1.731 2.216 82,336 0.16 0.20

Rural Collector 1.797 1.974 415,364 0.82 0.90

Rural Local 1.797 1.974 116,956 0.23 0.25

Rural Ramps 1.850 4.611 7,718 0.02 0.04

Urban Interstate 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 1.820 1.968 621,164 1.25 1.35

Urban Minor Arterial 1.883 1.938 248,731 0.52 0.53

Urban Collecto r 2.038 1.824 67,900 0.15 0.14

Urban Local 3.196 1.827 131,453 0.46 0.26

Urban Ramps 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 2,405,569 4.75 10.41

Blount County

2002

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.000 0.000 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 1.718 2.348 351,198 0.67 0.91

Rural Minor Arterial 1.776 2.151 82,958 0.16 0.20

Rural Collector 1.824 1.938 384,786 0.77 0.82

Ru ral Local 1.824 1.938 311,300 0.63 0.67

Rural Ramps 0.000 0.000 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 1.685 2.268 72,499 0.13 0.18

Urban Principal Arterial 1.772 2.162 867,920 1.70 2.07

Urban Minor Arterial 1.866 2.056 295,955 0.61 0.67

Urban Col lector 1.963 1.930 264,581 0.57 0.56

Urban Local 3.189 1.922 281,439 0.99 0.60

Urban Ramps 2.226 2.012 14,744 0.04 0.03

TOTAL 2,927,381 6.26 6.71Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 45 Jefferson County

2002

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mi le) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 1.372 10.528 1,196,190 1.81 13.88

Rural Principal Arterial 0.000 0.000 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 1.729 2.557 457,546 0.87 1.29

Rural Collector 1.796 2.009 318, 803 0.63 0.71

Rural Local 1.796 2.009 116,648 0.23 0.26

Rural Ramps 1.824 4.796 23,168 0.05 0.12

Urban Interstate 1.372 10.528 42,651 0.06 0.49

Urban Principal Arterial 1.817 2.138 109,802 0.22 0.26

Urban Minor Arterial 1.880 2.095 19,61 3 0.04 0.05

Urban Collector 1.897 1.977 12,809 0.03 0.03

Urban Local 3.186 1.944 28,856 0.10 0.06

Urban Ramps 1.824 4.796 3,112 0.01 0.02

TOTAL 2,329,197 4.05 17.16

Loudon County

2002

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emissi on

Factor

(grams/mile) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 1.41 9.449 1,142,305 1.78 11.90

Rural Principal Arterial 1.693 2.880 166,833 0.31 0.53

Rural Minor Arterial 1.720 2.780 180,844 0.34 0.55

Rural Col lector 1.813 1.977 322,713 0.64 0.70

Rural Local 1.813 1.977 107,297 0.21 0.23

Rural Ramps 1.873 4.447 26,892 0.06 0.13

Urban Interstate 1.431 8.915 19,783 0.03 0.19

Urban Principal Arterial 1.857 2.025 138,182 0.28 0.31

Urban Minor Arter ial 1.903 1.955 25,580 0.05 0.06

Urban Collector 1.868 1.950 17,458 0.04 0.04

Urban Local 3.188 1.954 23,281 0.08 0.05

Urban Ramps 1.900 4.263 954 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 2,172,120 3.83 14.70Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 46 Sevier County

2002

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

( grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 1.834 1.940 479,029 0.97 1.02

Rural Minor Arterial 1.863 1.931 475,683 0.98 1.01

Rur al Collector 1.825 2.002 502,438 1.01 1.11

Rural Local 1.825 2.002 509,290 1.02 1.12

Rural Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 1.427 8.979 304,608 0.48 3.01

Urban Principal Arterial 1.894 1.903 573,268 1.20 1.20

Urban Minor Arterial 1 .876 1.908 55,063 0.11 0.12

Urban Collector 1.948 1.987 44,390 0.10 0.10

Urban Local 3.184 2.034 83,741 0.29 0.19

Urban Ramps 1.895 4.292 7,490 0.02 0.04

TOTAL 3,034,999 6.18 8.92



### C 1.2

. Analysis Year 2009:

Knox County

2009

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.816 4.297 734,535 0.66 3.48

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0.952 1.500 215,0 02 0.23 0.36

Rural Collector 1.045 1.140 297,612 0.34 0.37

Rural Local 1.045 1.140 282,556 0.33 0.36

Rural Ramps 1.039 2.383 4,906 0.01 0.01

Urban Interstate 0.885 2.828 4,999,671 4.88 15.59

Urban Principal Arterial 1.033 1.217 2,850,838 3.25 3.82

Urban Minor Arterial 1.083 1.175 1,853,730 2.21 2.40

Urban Collector 1.105 1.139 926,797 1.13 1.16

Urban Local 1.746 1.170 3,091,579 5.95 3.99

Urban Ramps 1.113 1.830 251,064 0.31 0.51

TOTAL 15,508,290 19.28 32.05Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 47 C 1.3

. Analysis Year 2014:

Anderson County

2014

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.546 2.741 640,123 0.39 1.93

Rural Principal Arterial 0. 701 0.785 145,936 0.11 0.13

Rural Minor Arterial 0.689 0.814 99,665 0.08 0.09

Rural Collector 0.712 0.746 472,928 0.37 0.39

Rural Local 0.712 0.746 123,560 0.10 0.10

Rural Ramps 0.676 1.506 8,727 0.01 0.01

Urban Interstate 0.000 0.000 0 .00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 0.720 0.738 717,337 0.57 0.58

Urban Minor Arterial 0.743 0.727 265,555 0.22 0.21

Urban Collector 0.792 0.704 80,335 0.07 0.06

Urban Local 1.184 0.724 151,594 0.20 0.12

Urban Ramps 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 2 ,705,760 2.10 3.63

Blount County

2014

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.000 0.000 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 0.686 0.823 375,164 0.28 0.34

Rural Minor Arterial 0.706 0.764 131,425 0.10 0.11

Rural Collector 0.723 0.721 199,844 0.16 0.16

Rural Local 0.723 0.721 286,326 0.23 0.23

Rural Ramps 0.000 0.000 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.674 0.850 169 ,013 0.13 0.16

Urban Principal Arterial 0.707 0.784 1,114,064 0.87 0.96

Urban Minor Arterial 0.738 0.755 552,724 0.45 0.46

Urban Collector 0.763 0.736 450,244 0.38 0.37

Urban Local 1.178 0.754 641,604 0.83 0.53

Urban Ramps 0.82 0.771 17,176 0.02 0.01

TOTAL 3,937,585 3.44 3.33Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 48 Knox County

2014

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.574 2.302 825,027 0.52 2.09

Rur al Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0.671 0.917 237,221 0.18 0.24

Rural Collector 0.726 0.731 317,951 0.25 0.26

Rural Local 0.726 0.731 311,112 0.25 0.25

Rural Ramps 0.707 1.340 5,089 0.00 0.01

Urban Interstate 0.62 0 1.618 5,378,823 3.68 9.59

Urban Principal Arterial 0.720 0.776 3,164,677 2.51 2.71

Urban Minor Arterial 0.748 0.752 1,979,824 1.63 1.64

Urban Collector 0.758 0.737 1,082,769 0.90 0.88

Urban Local 1.179 0.756 3,270,727 4.25 2.73

Urban Ramps 0.755 1. 100 266,336 0.22 0.32

TOTAL 16,839,557 14.40 20.72

Jefferson County

2014

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.542 2 .806 1,436,782 0.86 4.44

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0.693 0.834 427,646 0.33 0.39

Rural Collector 0.711 0.753 371,715 0.29 0.31

Rural Local 0.711 0.753 151,615 0.12 0.13

Rural Ramps 0.672 1.531 8,715 0.01 0.01

Urban Interstate 0.548 2.704 50,169 0.03 0.15

Urban Principal Arterial 0.713 0.798 187,741 0.15 0.17

Urban Minor Arterial 0.737 0.779 72,593 0.06 0.06

Urban Collector 0.744 0.742 46,235 0.04 0.04

Urban Local 1.179 0.752 50,124 0.07 0.04

Urban Ramps 0.679 1.492 3,622 0.00 0.01

TOTAL 2,806,956 1.94 5.75Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 49 Loudon County

2014

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Inters tate 0.554 2.600 1,298,162 0.79 3.72

Rural Principal Arterial 0.684 0.862 292,546 0.22 0.28

Rural Minor Arterial 0.696 0.830 185,776 0.14 0.17

Rural Collector 0.720 0.739 323,779 0.26 0.26

Rural Local 0.720 0.739 102,989 0.08 0.08

Rural Ramps 0.685 1. 455 13,671 0.01 0.02

Urban Interstate 0.561 2.504 95,486 0.06 0.26

Urban Principal Arterial 0.707 0.939 227,836 0.18 0.24

Urban Minor Arterial 0.719 0.902 46,279 0.04 0.05

Urban Collector 0.732 0.738 53,681 0.04 0.04

Urban Local 1.177 0. 760 63,309 0.08 0.05

Urban Ramps 0.694 1.415 4,566 0.00 0.01

TOTAL 2,708,078 1.91 5.19

Sevier County

2014

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Factored VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons /day)

Rural Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 0.723 0.750 265,800 0.21 0.22

Rural Minor Arterial 0.733 0.746 564,600 0.46 0.46

Rural Collector 0.727 0.719 478,811 0.38 0.38

Rural Local 0.727 0.719 626,488 0.50 0.50

Rural Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.562 2.488 367,192 0.23 1.01

Urban Principal Arterial 0.741 0.741 914,143 0.75 0.75

Urban Minor Arterial 0.733 0.742 203,785 0.16 0.17

Urban Collector 0.768 0.754 203,258 0.17 0.17

Urban Local 1.172 0.787 315 ,264 0.41 0.27

Urban Ramps 0.694 1.409 8,901 0.01 0.01

TOTAL 3,948,242 3.28 3.94Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 50 C 1.4

. Analysis Year 202 4 :

Anderson County

2024

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.317 0.952 751,646 0.26 0.79

Rural Principal Arterial 0.398 0.423 157,986 0.07 0.07

Rural Minor Arterial 0.393 0.433 119,223 0.05 0.06

Rural Collector 0.403 0.415 556,197 0.25 0.25

Rural Local 0.403 0.415 1 44,140 0.06 0.07

Rural Ramps 0.401 0.607 10,224 0.00 0.01

Urban Interstate 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 0.410 0.410 814,598 0.37 0.37

Urban Minor Arterial 0.421 0.410 306,725 0.14 0.14

Urban Collector 0.422 0.406 91,6 49 0.04 0.04

Urban Local 0.733 0.405 172,944 0.14 0.08

Urban Ramps 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 3,125,332 1.39 1.87

Blount County

2024

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.000 0.000 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 0.390 0.438 498,248 0.21 0.24

Rural Minor Arterial 0.404 0.414 167,799 0.07 0.08

Rural Collector 0.404 0.408 237,421 0.11 0.11

Rural Local 0.404 0.408 366,187 0.16 0.16

Rural Ramps 0.000 0.000 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.384 0.454 618,920 0.26 0.31

Urban Principal Arterial 0.402 0.416 1,118,882 0.50 0.51

Urban Minor Arterial 0.402 0.416 651,843 0.29 0.30

Urban Collector 0.436 0.405 509,384 0.24 0.23

Urban Local 0.730 0.412 815,157 0.66 0.37

Urban Ramps 0.471 0.444 27,210 0.01 0.01

TOTAL 5,011,051 2.52 2.32Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 51 Jefferson County

2024

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/d ay) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.317 0.951 1,753,356 0.61 1.84

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0.394 0.435 510,278 0.22 0.24

Rural Collector 0.405 0.414 446,596 0.20 0.20

Rural Local 0.405 0.414 183,7 60 0.08 0.08

Rural Ramps 0.402 0.607 10,578 0.00 0.01

Urban Interstate 0.320 0.927 61,560 0.02 0.06

Urban Principal Arterial 0.407 0.422 217,139 0.10 0.10

Urban Minor Arterial 0.423 0.414 83,982 0.04 0.04

Urban Collector 0.424 0.407 52,3 54 0.02 0.02

Urban Local 0.730 0.412 58,312 0.05 0.03

Urban Ramps 0.405 0.599 4,197 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 3,382,113 1.35 2.63

Knox County

2024

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.332 0.829 998,530 0.37 0.91

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0.382 0.461 274,135 0.12 0.14

Rural Collector 0.413 0.404 390,482 0.18 0.17

Rural Local 0.413 0.404 361,683 0.16 0 .16

Rural Ramps 0.417 0.567 5,505 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.354 0.653 6,025,892 2.35 4.34

Urban Principal Arterial 0.411 0.419 3,650,188 1.65 1.69

Urban Minor Arterial 0.426 0.411 2,358,083 1.11 1.07

Urban Collector 0.436 0.405 1,224, 115 0.59 0.55

Urban Local 0.730 0.413 3,671,343 2.95 1.67

Urban Ramps 0.438 0.522 299,537 0.14 0.17

TOTAL 19,259,493 9.63 10.87Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 52 Loudon County

2024

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.322 0.904 1,344,983 0.48 1.34

Rural Principal Arterial 0.375 0.511 356,819 0.15 0.20

Rural Minor Arterial 0.381 0.493 220,029 0.09 0.12

Rural Collector 0.411 0.407 381,120 0.17 0.17

Rur al Local 0.411 0.407 112,965 0.05 0.05

Rural Ramps 0.407 0.593 15,750 0.01 0.01

Urban Interstate 0.325 0.887 98,180 0.04 0.10

Urban Principal Arterial 0.407 0.449 271,165 0.12 0.13

Urban Minor Arterial 0.416 0.434 58,670 0.03 0.03

Urban Collector 0.419 0.403 65,047 0.03 0.03

Urban Local 0.729 0.413 73,749 0.06 0.03

Urban Ramps 0.410 0.586 5,342 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 3,003,819 1.22 2.22

Sevier County

2024

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 0.414 0.409 309,261 0.14 0.14

Rural Minor Arterial 0.417 0.409 683,058 0.31 0.31

Rural Collector 0.415 0.402 591,354 0.27 0.26

Rural Loca l 0.415 0.402 757,824 0.35 0.34

Rural Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.325 0.884 450,141 0.16 0.44

Urban Principal Arterial 0.425 0.405 1,086,427 0.51 0.49

Urban Minor Arterial 0.419 0.405 242,052 0.11 0.11

Urban Collector 0.415 0.409 243,114 0.11 0.11

Urban Local 0.726 0.419 377,536 0.30 0.17

Urban Ramps 0.410 0.584 10,798 0.00 0.01

TOTAL 4,751,564 2.27 2.37Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 53 C 1.5

. Analysis Year 203 4 :

Anderson County

2034

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emiss ion

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.293 0.572 1,191,915 0.38 0.75

Rural Principal Arterial 0.379 0.357 173,180 0.07 0.07

Rural Minor Arterial 0.375 0.363 147,183 0.06 0.06

Rural Collector 0 .384 0.354 599,221 0.25 0.23

Rural Local 0.384 0.354 191,665 0.08 0.07

Rural Ramps 0.373 0.409 15,853 0.01 0.01

Urban Interstate 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 0.391 0.349 869,941 0.37 0.33

Urban Minor Arterial 0.402 0. 348 332,624 0.15 0.13

Urban Collector 0.403 0.347 98,289 0.04 0.04

Urban Local 0.706 0.346 185,475 0.14 0.07

Urban Ramps 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 3,805,346 1.57 1.76

Blount County

2034

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Em ission

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.000 0.000 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 0.371 0.367 611,674 0.25 0.25

Rural Minor Arterial 0.383 0.351 209,597 0.09 0.08

Rural Collector 0.392 0.344 287,551 0.12 0.11

Rural Local 0.392 0.344 449,419 0.19 0.17

Rural Ramps 0.000 0.000 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.367 0.375 744,819 0.30 0.31

Urban Principal Arterial 0.383 0.354 1,275,604 0.54 0.50

Urban Minor Arterial 0.399 0.34 7 886,561 0.39 0.34

Urban Collector 0.419 0.343 503,251 0.23 0.19

Urban Local 0.703 0.347 959,265 0.74 0.37

Urban Ramps 0.449 0.384 33,320 0.02 0.01

TOTAL 5,961,062 2.88 2.32Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 54 Jefferson County

2034

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/m ile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.295 0.568 2,050,968 0.67 1.28

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0.375 0.360 597,824 0.25 0.24

Rural Collector 0 .385 0.351 540,096 0.23 0.21

Rural Local 0.385 0.351 216,211 0.09 0.08

Rural Ramps 0.375 0.409 12,400 0.01 0.01

Urban Interstate 0.298 0.561 72,879 0.02 0.05

Urban Principal Arterial 0.388 0.351 247,664 0.11 0.10

Urban Minor Arterial 0.4 05 0.347 95,549 0.04 0.04

Urban Collector 0.405 0.345 58,913 0.03 0.02

Urban Local 0.703 0.347 66,733 0.05 0.03

Urban Ramps 0.378 0.407 4,766 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 3,964,003 1.49 2.05

Knox County

2034

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) N Ox Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.31 0.518 1,182,691 0.40 0.68

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0.363 0.373 316,097 0.13 0.13

Rural Collector 0.394 0. 344 479,175 0.21 0.18

Rural Local 0.394 0.344 420,370 0.18 0.16

Rural Ramps 0.391 0.402 6,888 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.331 0.450 6,929,228 2.53 3.44

Urban Principal Arterial 0.392 0.353 4,141,078 1.79 1.61

Urban Minor Arterial 0.406 0.348 2,643,270 1.18 1.01

Urban Collector 0.406 0.347 1,359,773 0.61 0.52

Urban Local 0.703 0.348 4,126,820 3.20 1.58

Urban Ramps 0.410 0.397 332,663 0.15 0.15

TOTAL 21,938,052 10.38 9.46Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 55 Loudon County

2034

Facility Type VOC

Emission

Fact or (grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0.3 0.538 1,802,589 0.60 1.07

Rural Principal Arterial 0.356 0.387 424,183 0.17 0.18

Rural Minor Arterial 0.362 0.378 260,470 0.10 0.11

Rural Collector 0.393 0.345 455,024 0.20 0.17

Rural Local 0.393 0.345 144,200 0.06 0.05

Rural Ramps 0.379 0.406 17,558 0.01 0.01

Urban Interstate 0.302 0.538 128,627 0.04 0.08

Urban Principal Arterial 0.388 0.356 351,214 0.15 0.14

U rban Minor Arterial 0.397 0.345 68,996 0.03 0.03

Urban Collector 0.398 0.341 77,261 0.03 0.03

Urban Local 0.702 0.348 93,597 0.07 0.04

Urban Ramps 0.383 0.405 6,438 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 3,830,158 1.47 1.90

Sevier County

2034

Facility Type VOC

Emis sion

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) VMT

(miles/day) VOC

(tons/day) NOx

(tons/day)

Rural Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 0.394 0.348 362,361 0.16 0.14

Rural Minor Arterial 0.398 0.348 813,594 0.36 0.31

Rural Collector 0.396 0.343 727,752 0.32 0.28

Rural Local 0.396 0.343 910,967 0.40 0.34

Rural Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.302 0.537 525,591 0.17 0.31

Urban Principal Arterial 0.407 0.343 1,288,223 0.58 0.49

Urban Minor Arter ial 0.401 0.343 294,893 0.13 0.11

Urban Collector 0.431 0.343 286,383 0.14 0.11

Urban Local 0.699 0.348 447,304 0.34 0.17

Urban Ramps 0.383 0.405 13,052 0.01 0.01

TOTAL 5,670,122 2.60 2.27Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 56 C 1.6

. Cocke County Ozone Emissions Analysis:

2002

Summer

VMT 2014

Growth

Factor 2014

Summer

VMT 2024

Growth

Factor 2024

Summer

VMT 2034

Growth

Factor 2034

Summer

VMT

Foothills Parkway 5662 1.43 8096.66 1.79 10134.98 2.25 12739.5

Cosby Campground Road 471 1.37 645.27 2.09 984.39 3.17 1493.07

Sta te Route 32 11344 1.07 12138.08 1.23 13953.12 1.41 15995.04

Total 17,477.00 20,880.01 25,072.49 30,227.61

VOC Emissions Rate 1.841 0.724 0.483 0.394

TOTAL VOC Emissions

(tpd) 0.0355 0.0167 0.0133 0.0131

NOx Emissions Rate 1.984 0.74 6 0.485 0.351

TOTAL NOx Emissions

(tpd) 0.0382 0.0172 0.0134 0.0117

Summer is defined as average of June, July and August

A summertime Recreational Seasonal Adjustment factor of 0.72 was applied to the State Route 32 ADTKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 57 C 2 : PM2.5 Analysis

C 2.1

. 2002 Baseline Year:

Anderson County

2002

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0 .1409 10.0790 198,896,786 30.89 2209.79

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0346 2.2620 44,854,485 1.71 111.84

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0346 2.3690 28,850,695 1.10 75.34

Rural Collector 0.0313 2.1190 145,543,385 5.02 339.96

Rural Local 0.0313 2.1190 40,981,470 1. 41 95.72

Rural Ramps 0.1409 4.7360 2,619,715 0.41 13.68

Urban Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0323 2.1080 224,457,480 7.99 521.57

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0324 2.0720 89,879,060 3.21 205.28

Urban Collector 0.0307 1.94 20 24,535,665 0.83 52.52

Urban Local 0.0316 1.8850 47,500,370 1.65 98.70

Urban Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 848,119,110 54.23 3724.41

Blount County

2002

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0361 2.5030 123059750 4.90 339.53

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0361 2.2950 29068600 1.16 73.54

Rural Collector 0.0328 2.0770 134829175 4. 87 308.69

Rural Local 0.0328 2.0770 109079520 3.94 249.74

Rural Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.0304 2.4350 26197619.87 0.88 70.32

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0359 2.3070 313622965 12.41 797.56

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0360 2.1900 106943175 4.24 258.17

Urban Collector 0.0336 2.0550 95606275 3.54 216.57

Urban Local 0.0347 1.9800 101698125 3.89 221.97

Urban Ramps 0.0304 2.1830 5327795.135 0.18 12.82

TOTAL 1,045,433,000 40.01 2548.91Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 58 Knox County

2002

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0.0983 7.0960 426,445,151 46.21 3335.67

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0377 2.5620 176,832,280 7.35 499.40

Rural Collector 0.0331 2.0850 295,915,355 10.80 680.11

Rural Local 0.0331 2.0850 163,479,485 5.96 375.73

Rural Ramps 0.0983 3.7480 3,439,074 0.37 14.21

Urban Interstate 0.0763 5.4110 1,414,955,106 119. 01 8439.69

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0351 2.2570 925,094,325 35.79 2301.57

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0352 2.1730 471,720,160 18.30 1129.93

Urban Collector 0.0338 2.0670 245,547,910 9.15 559.48

Urban Local 0.0350 1.9940 948,074,360 36.58 2083.89

Urban R amps 0.0763 3.2410 116,381,589 9.79 415.79

TOTAL 5,187,884,795 299.31 19835.46

Loudon County

2002

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/yea r)

Rural Interstate 0.1340 9.5750 400263682.4 59.12 4224.66

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0507 3.0260 58458400 3.27 194.99

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0507 2.9210 63367650 3.54 204.04

Rural Collector 0.0328 2.1180 113078460 4.09 264.01

Rural Local 0.0328 2.11 80 37596825 1.36 87.78

Rural Ramps 0.1341 4.5750 9422788.839 1.39 47.52

Urban Interstate 0.1262 9.0440 7148716.446 0.99 71.27

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0354 2.1590 49932000 1.95 118.83

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0354 2.0820 9243260 0.36 21.2 1

Urban Collector 0.0346 2.0820 6308295 0.24 14.48

Urban Local 0.0359 2.0130 8412520 0.33 18.67

Urban Ramps 0.1262 4.3950 344697.0194 0.05 1.67

TOTAL 763,577,295 76.70 5269.12Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 59 Roane County

2002

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/ mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0.1401 9.9670 18820860 2.91 206.78

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Collec tor 0.0319 1.9500 3457280 0.12 7.43

Rural Local 0.0319 1.9500 1632280 0.06 3.51

Rural Ramps 0.1401 4.7120 662840 0.10 3.44

Urban Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0336 2.0560 42986 05 0.16 9.74

Urban Collector 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Local 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 28,871,865 3.35 230.91



### C 2.2

. Analysis Year 2014 :

Anderson County

2014

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Facto r (grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0.0399 2.7860 217,289,643 9.56 667.31

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0152 0.8440 51,135,829 0.86 47.57

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0152 0.8750 34,922,773 0.59 33.68

Rural Collector 0.0146 0.8030 165,714,085 2.67 146.68

Rural Local 0.0146 0.8030 43,295,517 0.70 38.32

Rural Ramps 0.0399 1.5520 2,962,529 0.13 5.07

Urban Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0147 0.7940 259,209,833 4.20 226.87

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0147 0.7810 95,958,214 1.55 82.61

Urban Collector 0.0145 0.7520 29,028,877 0.46 24.06

Urban Local 0.0145 0.7490 54,778,464 0.88 45.23

Urban Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 954,295,763 21.59 1317.41Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 60 Blount C ounty

2014

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0152 0.8850 131457540.8 2.20 1 28.24

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0152 0.8210 46051395.98 0.77 41.68

Rural Collector 0.0146 0.7760 70025240.74 1.13 59.90

Rural Local 0.0146 0.7760 100328696.6 1.61 85.82

Rural Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.0147 0.9160 61072966.68 0 .99 61.67

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0155 0.8410 402567132.7 6.88 373.20

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0155 0.8080 199726775.1 3.41 177.89

Urban Collector 0.0153 0.7860 162695748.6 2.74 140.96

Urban Local 0.0153 0.7800 231843756.1 3.91 199.34

Urban Ramps 0. 0147 0.8370 6206470.442 0.10 5.73

TOTAL 1,411,975,724 23.75 1274.43

Knox County

2014

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Int erstate 0.0343 2.3510 280,055,485 10.59 725.78

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0170 0.9780 83,122,363 1.56 89.61

Rural Collector 0.0149 0.7850 111,410,116 1.83 96.41

Rural Local 0.0149 0.7850 109,013,590 1.79 94.33

Rura l Ramps 0.0343 1.3900 1,727,462 0.07 2.65

Urban Interstate 0.0260 1.6740 1,943,637,616 55.71 3586.55

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0154 0.8320 1,143,555,957 19.41 1048.79

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0154 0.8040 715,409,325 12.14 634.04

Urban Coll ector 0.0153 0.7880 391,258,603 6.60 339.86

Urban Local 0.0153 0.7820 1,181,877,334 19.93 1018.79

Urban Ramps 0.0260 1.1570 96,240,589 2.76 122.74

TOTAL 6,057,308,439 132.38 7759.55Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 61 Loudon County

2014

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

( grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0.0382 2.6460 454876089.1 19.15 1326.75

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0163 0.9220 102508000.6 1.84 104.18

Rural Minor Arter ial 0.0163 0.8870 65095802.77 1.17 63.65

Rural Collector 0.0149 0.7940 113452336.6 1.86 99.30

Rural Local 0.1490 0.7940 36087346.61 5.93 31.59

Rural Ramps 0.0382 1.5020 4790150.525 0.20 7.93

Urban Interstate 0.0368 2.5510 34503758 1.40 97. 02

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0204 0.9890 82328388.7 1.85 89.75

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0204 0.9500 16722907.94 0.38 17.51

Urban Collector 0.0154 0.7910 19397651.16 0.33 16.91

Urban Local 0.0155 0.7860 22876640.85 0.39 19.82

Urban Ramps 0.0368 1.4630 1649762.82 0.07 2.66

TOTAL 954,288,836 34.57 1877.08

Roane County

2014

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0.0396 2.7490 24510921.65 1.07 74.27

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Collector 0.0149 0.7520 3739790 0.06 3.10

Rural Local 0.0149 0.7520 2227595 0.04 1.85

Rural Ramps 0.0396 1.5400 795083.15 0.03 1.35

Urban Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0147 0.7700 5218558.3 0.08 4.43

Urban Collector 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Local 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 36,491,948 1 .29 85.00Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 62 C 2.3

. Analysis Year 20 2 4 :

Anderson County

2024

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0.0237 0.9770 25 5,146,139 6.67 274.78

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0127 0.4570 55,358,374 0.77 27.89

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0127 0.4690 41,775,670 0.58 21.60

Rural Collector 0.0124 0.4490 194,891,542 2.66 96.46

Rural Local 0.0124 0.4490 50,506,547 0.69 25.00

Rural Ramp s 0.0237 0.6330 3,470,642 0.09 2.42

Urban Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0125 0.4420 294,354,849 4.06 143.42

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0125 0.4410 110,835,128 1.53 53.88

Urban Collector 0.0124 0.4370 33,117,309 0.45 15 .95

Urban Local 0.0124 0.4150 62,493,472 0.85 28.59

Urban Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 1,101,949,672 18.36 689.98

Blount County

2024

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0127 0.4740 174586001.4 2.44 91.22

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0127 0.4460 58796786.53 0.82 28.91

Rural Collector 0.0124 0.4410 83192267.88 1.14 40.44

Rural Local 0.0124 0.4410 128311827.7 1.75 62.38

Rural Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.0126 0.4910 223646586.8 3.11 121.05

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0127 0.4480 404308159.6 5.66 199.66

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0127 0.4480 235543632.1 3. 30 116.32

Urban Collector 0.0126 0.4330 184065765.5 2.56 87.86

Urban Local 0.0127 0.4210 294557109 4.12 136.70

Urban Ramps 0.0126 0.4830 9832364.082 0.14 5.23

TOTAL 1,796,840,500 25.04 889.76Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 63 Knox County

2024

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0.0210 0.8570 338,950,928 7.85 320.20

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0133 0.496 0 96,057,014 1.41 52.52

Rural Collector 0.0125 0.4350 136,824,947 1.89 65.61

Rural Local 0.0125 0.4350 126,733,784 1.75 60.77

Rural Ramps 0.0210 0.5960 1,868,596 0.04 1.23

Urban Interstate 0.0179 0.6840 2,177,456,087 42.96 1641.77

Urban P rincipal Arterial 0.0127 0.4510 1,318,995,321 18.47 655.73

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0127 0.4410 852,093,357 11.93 414.22

Urban Collector 0.0127 0.4330 442,333,902 6.19 211.13

Urban Local 0.0127 0.4220 1,326,639,812 18.57 617.12

Urban Ramps 0.0179 0.5550 108,237,737 2.14 66.22

TOTAL 6,926,191,485 113.19 4106.52

Loudon County

2024

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0.0227 0.9300 471282166 11.79 483.14

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0154 0.5420 125029258.7 2.12 74.70

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0154 0.5240 77098001.11 1.31 44.53

Rural Collector 0.0125 0.4390 133544543.8 1.84 64.62

Rural Local 0.0125 0.4390 39582954.45 0.5 5 19.15

Rural Ramps 0.0227 0.6190 5518627.189 0.14 3.77

Urban Interstate 0.0222 0.9140 35477396.33 0.87 35.74

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0146 0.4770 97985437.28 1.58 51.52

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0146 0.4610 21200555.86 0.34 10.77

Urban C ollector 0.0127 0.4320 23504868.12 0.33 11.19

Urban Local 0.1270 0.4230 26649294.93 3.73 12.43

Urban Ramps 0.0222 0.6130 1930158.496 0.05 1.30

TOTAL 1,058,803,262 24.64 812.88Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 64 Roane County

2024

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/m ile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0.0226 0.9270 28615492.65 0.71 29.24

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Colle ctor 0.0125 0.4130 3864335.3 0.05 1.76

Rural Local 0.0125 0.4130 2347680 0.03 1.07

Rural Ramps 0.0226 0.6180 835382.8 0.02 0.57

Urban Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0124 0.4240 5564866.65 0.08 2.60

Urban Collector 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Local 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 41,227,757 0.90 35.24



### C 2.4

. Analysis Year 20 34 :

Anderson County

2034

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emissi on

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0.0222 0.5930 404,595,570 9.90 264.47

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0123 0.3860 60,682,150 0.82 25.82

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0123 0.3930 51,573,0 61 0.70 22.34

Rural Collector 0.0121 0.3820 209,967,117 2.80 88.41

Rural Local 0.0121 0.3820 67,159,482 0.90 28.28

Rural Ramps 0.0220 0.4310 5,381,359 0.13 2.56

Urban Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0122 0.3760 314,3 53,148 4.23 130.29

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0122 0.3740 120,193,743 1.62 49.55

Urban Collector 0.0121 0.3730 35,516,731 0.47 14.60

Urban Local 0.0121 0.3520 67,021,263 0.89 26.01

Urban Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 1,336,443,623 22.46 652.34Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 65 B lount County

2034

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0123 0.3980 214330564.5 2.91 94.03

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0123 0.3790 73442786.24 1.00 30.68

Rural Collector 0.0121 0.3710 100757922.5 1.34 41.21

Rural Local 0.0121 0.3710 157476582.1 2.10 64.40

Rural Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Interstate 0.0122 0.4070 2691401 90.5 3.62 120.75

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0124 0.3830 460939390 6.30 194.60

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0124 0.3730 320358925.2 4.38 131.72

Urban Collector 0.0123 0.3670 181849873.4 2.47 73.57

Urban Local 0.0123 0.3530 346630454.6 4.70 134.88

Urban Ramp s 0.0122 0.4180 12040211.63 0.16 5.55

TOTAL 2,136,966,901 28.97 891.39

Knox County

2034

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rura l Interstate 0.0195 0.5420 401,464,448 8.63 239.86

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0.0128 0.4040 110,760,257 1.56 49.33

Rural Collector 0.0122 0.3700 167,902,830 2.26 68.48

Rural Local 0.0122 0.3700 147,297,553 1.98 60.08

Rural Ramps 0.0195 0.4260 2,338,197 0.05 1.10

Urban Interstate 0.0172 0.4760 2,503,876,467 47.47 1313.79

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0124 0.3800 1,496,378,366 20.45 626.80

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0124 0.3730 955,145,537 13.06 392.72

Urban Collector 0.0123 0.3720 491,353,966 6.66 201.49

Urban Local 0.0123 0.3530 1,491,226,481 20.22 580.26

Urban Ramps 0.0172 0.4240 120,207,869 2.28 56.18

TOTAL 7,887,951,970 124.62 3590.09Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix C

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 66 Loudon County

2034

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0.0211 0.5600 631627329 14.69 389.90

Rural Principal Arterial 0.0144 0.4140 148633895.8 2.36 67.83

Rural Minor Arteria l 0.0144 0.4040 91268762.18 1.45 40.65

Rural Collector 0.0122 0.3720 159440493.3 2.14 65.38

Rural Local 0.0122 0.3720 50527712.96 0.68 20.72

Rural Ramps 0.0211 0.4280 6152259.275 0.14 2.90

Urban Interstate 0.0207 0.5600 46479300.06 1.06 28 .69

Urban Principal Arterial 0.0138 0.3800 126911186.4 1.93 53.16

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0138 0.3680 24931827.68 0.38 10.11

Urban Collector 0.0123 0.3670 27918158.53 0.38 11.29

Urban Local 0.0123 0.3530 33821203.59 0.46 13.16

Urban Ramps 0.0207 0.428 0 2326369.777 0.05 1.10

TOTAL 1,350,038,499 25.73 704.90

Roane County

2034

Facility Type PM2.5

Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) NOx Emission

Factor

(grams/mile) Annual VMT

(miles/year) PM2.5

(tons/year) NOx

(tons/year)

Rural Interstate 0 .0210 0.5790 33901689.1 0.78 21.64

Rural Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Minor Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Rural Collector 0.0122 0.3520 4072940.1 0.05 1.58

Rural Local 0.0122 0.3520 2536020 0.03 0.98

Rural Ramps 0.0210 0.4320 936465.9 0.02 0.45

Urban Interstate 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Principal Arterial 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Minor Arterial 0.0121 0.3620 6097160.75 0.08 2.43

Urban Collector 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Local 0 0.00 0.00

Urban Ramps 0 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 47,544 ,276 0.98 27.08Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization

Appendix D

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 67 

## Appendix D

Travel Demand Model and Land Use Allocation Model

Development

D.1. Travel Demand Model Development

Background:

The following information related to the development of the Knoxville Regional Travel

Demand Forecasting Mo del and associated planning assumptions is intended to fulfill the

requirements under Section 93.105(c)(1)(i) of the Transportation Conformity Rule, which

requires interagency review of the models and assumptions used in the regional emissions

analysis.

Section 1

– Travel Demand Modeling Parameters:

I. General Information

– A.) Validation Year: 2006

B.) Calibration Data: Household Travel Behavior Survey and External Travel

Survey conducted in year 2000 in Knox and Blount counties. Data also taken

from U.S. Census since it was conducted in 2000.

C.) Model Geographic Coverage: Eight Full Counties (Anderson, Blount,

Jefferson, Loudon, Knox, Roane, Sevier, Union) and part of Grainger County.

There are a total of 893 traffic analysis zones consisting of 864 internal and 29

external zones. This represents an increase of 146 TAZs in the “regional”

area of the model (those areas outside of Knox and Blount counties)

D.) Model Structure: Based on Traditio nal “Four

- Step” Process of Trip

Generation, Trip Distribution, Mode Split and Traffic Assignment.

II. Model Components

– A.) Trip Generation: The trip generation component consists of trip production

and trip attraction models for the several trip purposes and were estimated

using data from the 2000 Knoxville Household Travel Behavior Study

. A

variety of statistical analyses were performed to identify how trip rates for

various trip purposes were linke d to household attributes such as household

size, auto ownership, workers per household, students per household and

household income.

1.) Trip Production Model

– The following six trip purposes were

identified from the surve y data and cross classification techniquesKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization

Appendix D

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 68 were used to determine number of trips produced for each given the

most appropriate socioeconomic predictor variable:

Home

- Based Work (HBW)

Home

- Based School (HBS)

Home

- Bas ed University (HBU)

Home

- Based Other (HBO)

Non

- Home

- Based Work (NHBW)

Non

- Home

- Based Other (NHBO)

In addition to the household based trips above, the model also

incorporates trips not associated with households such as from o n

- campus students that reside in group quarters and the short distance

truck trips such as mail and delivery trucks.

2.) Trip Attraction Model

– The trip attraction model was based on a

regression analysis of geo

- coded trip ends versus zonal socioeconomic

characteristics. The attractions were factored up so that total

attractions would approximately balance the productions in the base

year. Zonal level variables such as employment, pop ulation,

households and school enrollment formed the input to this model.

B.) Trip Distribution: The gravity model was used to distribute zonal trip

productions and attractions, which is the most widely used model for trip

distribution. The gravity model requires base year data on average trip

lengths and trip length distributions for each of the trip purposes which were

determined by the household survey. Friction factors were calibrated from

the trip length distribution data for each trip purpose which describe people’s

willingness to travel certain distances for different types of trips

– for

example, people generally will tolerate longer travel times to thei r place of

employment rather than to the grocery store. Socioeconomic adjustment

factors, also known as “K

- factors” were used to represent zone

- to

- zone

adjustments for selected zonal interchanges when necessitated by special

circumstances such as bridges or other perceived travel barriers.

C.) Mode Split: The trip distribution step yields tables of “person trips” by trip

purpose and time

- of

- day. The Knoxville model only assigns the trips that are

made by motor vehicles to the roadway network so the person trips were

converted to vehicle trips using data from the household travel survey.

Factors for vehicle occupancy were also developed and these were determined

to vary during different time periods throughout the day and incorporated into

the model.

D.) Time

- of

- Day Models: The Knoxville model allows analyses to be performed

for four major time periods

– 24

- hour (daily), morning peak (6:00

– 9:00 am)

, afternoon peak (3:00

– 6:00 pm) and off peak (all times other than morning orKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization

Appendix D

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 69 afternoon peak). The time

- of

- day model was accomplished using data

collected from the household behavior survey on hourly distributions of trips

by purpose.

E.) External Models: Trips with at least one trip end outside the study area are

considered external trips. The Knoxville model has 29 external stations where

traffic can enter or exit the model’s roadway network. A consultant

performed an external origin

- destination survey for the old two

- county

Knoxville model area in 2000 and an updated study for the interstate stations

and one other high volume station was conducted in September 2 007. The

external

- external volumes at the station locations from this survey were used

in validating the assignment of the external

- external trip table developed for

the expanded model area.

F.) Trip Assignment: The assignment of trips to the network is the last step of the

sequential modeling process. It provides the foundation for validating the

model’s performance in replicating base

- year (2006) travel patterns. Once the

base year is validated, it i s further used to forecast future traffic conditions on

the network and to evaluate any transportation improvements in the future.

One feature to note of the trip assignment process in the Knoxville model is

that it is includes a fee dback loop from the initial trip assignment back through

trip distribution, which runs until convergence is achieved. The reason a

feedback loop is made in this fashion is primarily to account for the fact that

people will sometimes t ake congestion into consideration in their decisions for

which destinations are chosen, therefore results from the initial assignment,

which produce congested speeds are fed back to the gravity model to

redistribute the person trips.

III. Model Roadway Network and Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Development

– A.) Roadway Network Information: A substantial effort was undertaken to create

a TransCAD

- based network that included all the necessary roadways

(arterial s, collectors and significant local roads) along with appropriate

attributes to characterize them. A key resource was the Tennessee Roadway

Information System (TRIMS), which is a comprehensive database of roadway

attributes (num ber of lanes, pavement width, posted speed limit, etc) that is

maintained by the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT). It should

be noted that there is significantly greater detail in terms of the number of

roadway links that are represented between the urbanized and rural portions of

the model study area. Traffic signals are included in the network as well for an

even greater level of precision in replicating traffic operations.

B.) Free

- Flow Speed Estimation : A key input to the modeling of traffic on the

roadway network deals with correctly estimating the free flow speed on each

link. Typically travel demand models use the posted speed limit as aKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization

Appendix D

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 70 surrogate for the free flow sp eed however this can overstate the travel time

since many times vehicles are traveling at well above the posted speed limit in

when there are free flow conditions, i.e. when little or no traffic is present and

weather conditions ar e ideal. The Knoxville model incorporates an estimation

procedure borrowed from studies performed in Indiana which relate free flow

speed to roadway characteristics such as the area type, facility type, speed

limit and number of l anes. Nonlinear formulas were developed from actual

field observations of speed data and then used in the model.

C.) Capacity Estimation: Peak hour capacities of the roadway network were

estimated using Highway Capacity Manual 2000 pr ocedures, which results in

much more precise estimates of capacity verses traditional methods used in

models that entail using a lookup table based on functional class and area

type.

D.) TAZ Development: The study area of the Knoxville regional model was

disaggregated into a number of traffic analysis zones (TAZ). The TAZ layer

of the model consists of a total of 893 zones. Demographic and employment

features of the Knoxville model area are reported for each of the 864 internal

zones for use in trip generation, the remaining 29 zones are external zones.

Each zone is characterized by 53 zonal attributes including population,

households, vehicle ownership, mean household inco me, school enrollment,

university enrollment and employment by the Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) category. The 2000 Census provided much of the data for the base year

model, and projection data was purchased from Woods & Poo le Economics,

Inc. to develop future TAZ attributes.

Section 2

– Model Validation:

I. Validation Criteria

– Criteria for acceptable errors between observed and estimated traffic

volumes vary by facility type, according to the magnitude of traffic v olume. For example,

higher volume roadways have stricter calibration guidelines than those with lower volumes.

The error standards set for the Knoxville model were developed for use in Michigan by the

Michigan Department of Transportation. These error s tandards meet or exceed the

standards set by FHWA for model validation.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization

Appendix D

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 71 Category Acceptable Error

The following table illustrates the Knoxville Model validation statistics:

II. Model Performance by Facility Type/HPMS Adjustment Factors

– T he model output of

vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for the base year 2006 was compared against the actual

highway performance monitoring system (HPMS) estimates of VMT by facility type in

each county. Below is a table showing the comparison of the model to HPMS and the

resulting adjustment factors that will need to be applied to the model VMT in future

analysis years to ensure that all emissions will be accounted for. In general the model

appears to be performing very well as most adjustment factors require less than 20%

adjustment. Those factors that are outside of the 20% range have been highlighted in

yellow and for the most part occur only on the lower

- order Collector and Local facility

types, which is not much of a concern.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization

Appendix D

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 72 III. Average Speed C alibration

– In addition to calibrating the travel demand model so that

it accurately replicates roadway traffic volumes according to validation criteria, the model

was also calibrated to replicate observed average speeds for different time periods of the

day. Average speed data that was collected from floating car studies in support of the

regional congestion management system plan in the urbanized area was compared with

outputs of post

- processed speeds from the model. In general there was very good

agre ement between the model speeds and the actual speeds with good root mean square

errors, however there are no national validation standards for average speeds.

D.2. Land Use Allocation Model Development

Background:

T h e U L A M p l a n n i n g p a c k a g e i s d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e a n a u t o m a t e d p r o c e s s t o a l l o c a t e

f u t u r e g r o w t h i n t h e f o r m o f c o u n t y

- w i d e p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t c o n t r o l t o t a l s a t t h e

t r a f f i c a n a l y s i s z o n e ( T A Z ) l e v e l p r o d u c i n g f i l e s r e a d y f o r i n p u t i n t o m o s t s t a n d a r d t r a v e l

d e m a n d f o r e c a s t i n g m o d e l s

. T h e U L A M m o d e l i s d e s i g n e d t o u t i l i z e e x i s t i n g z o n a l d a t a

data files to the maximum extent possible to reduce the need for duplication of data entry.

The most important input variable to the ULAM model is the vacant acreage information by

land use type which is developed from parcel level GIS data. The vacant land information is

u s e d t o i n c o r p o r a t e p h y s i c a l

, e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d p o l i c y c o n s t r a i n t s i n t o t h e l a n d u s e

a l l o c a t i o n p r o c e s s

, e n s u r i n g t h a t g r o w t h i s n o t a l l o c a t e d t o a r e a s a l r e a d y b u i l t o u t a n d t h a t

growth i s n o t a l l o c a t e d t o w e t l a n d s o r o t h e r t y p e s o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y s e n s i t i v e a r e a s

. B y

s e p a r a t i n g v a c a n t l a n d b y l a n d u s e t y p e

, t h e m o d e l i s a b l e t o r e f l e c t t h e c u r r e n t z o n i n gKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization

Appendix D

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 73 r e s t r i c t i o n s a n d l a n d u s e r e g u l a t i o n s

. I t e n s u r e s t h a t t h e m o d e l d o e s n o t a l l o c a t e

unacceptable types of land uses in areas where that type of development is not permitted.

C o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l t r a f f i c z o n e s i n c l u d e : v a c a n t b u i l d a b l e a c r e a g e b y l a n d u s e

t y p e

, a l l o w a b l e l a n d u s e d e n s i t i e s

, a p p r o v e d d e v e l o p m e n t

, p o p u l a t i o n p e r d w e l l i n g u n i t

,

p e r c e n t a g e o f v a c a n t o r s e a s o n a l u n i t s

, a u t o o w n e r s h i p i n f o r m a t i o n

, v a r i a b l e s f o r t h e l i f e

style trip generation model, and other restrictions for each TAZ.

A m a r k e t i n d e x o r d e s i r a b i l i t y s c o r e f o r e a c h T A Z a n d e a c h t y p e o f l a n d u s e i s c omputed

u s i n g a p p r o v e d d e v e l o p m e n t

, h i s t o r i c a l t r e n d s a n d t h e r e a l e s t a t e m a r k e t i n f o r m a t i o n

designed to reflect unique local market conditions. The real estate market index is then used

b y t h e U L A M m o d e l i n t h e a l l o c a t i o n p r o c e s s t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h T A Z s w i l l b e d e v e l o p e d

first for a particular type of land use.

T h e i m p a c t s o f c h a n g e s i n t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n n e t w o r k o n f u t u r e l a n d d e v e l o p m e n t p a t t e r n s

a r e r e f l e c t e d i n t h e U L A M R e a l E s t a t e M a r k e t I n d e x

. T h e m o d e l r a n k s e a c h T A Z f o r

d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f d e v e l o p m e n t b a s e d u p o n t r a v e l t i m e a n d a c c e s s i b i l i t y t o m a j o r l a n d u s e

a c t i v i t y c e n t e r s a n d b a s e d u p o n s o c i o

- e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n a g i v e n t r a v e l t i m e

a r o u n d e a c h t r a f f i c z o n e

. A s t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n n e t w o r k i s c h a n g e d

, t h e t r a v e l t i m e o n t h e

n e t w o r k c h a n g e s w h i c h a l s o c h a n g e s t h e r a n k i n g o f e a c h T A Z f o r d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f

d e v e l o p m e n t

. A s a n e x a m p l e i f a n e w e x p r e s s w a y i s a d d e d t o t h e n e t w o r k t h e t r a v e l t i m e

f r o m t h o s e T A Z s a r o u n d t h a t e x p r e s s w a y t o m a j o r l a n d u s e a c t i v i t y c e n t e r s d e c r e a s e s

m a k i n g t h o s e T A Z s m o r e a c c e s s i b l e a n d g i v i n g t h e m a h i g h e r r a n k i n g f o r m o s t t y p e s o f

d e v e l o p m e n t

. I n a d d i t i o n t h e m a r k e t a r e a b a s e d u p o n t r a v e l t i m e h a s i n c r e a s e d i n s i z e

,

m e a n i n g m o r e p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y e e s a r e w i t h i n t h a t m a r k e t a r e a o r d r i v e t i m e o f t h a t

T A Z

. T h e l a r g e r m a r k e t a r e a p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t o f t h a t T A Z m a k e s t h a t T A Z

more desirable for retail and other types of new development.

Knoxville ULAM Model Development:

The ULAM model was developed and tailored specifically to the Knoxville Region through

a p r o c e s s i n v o l v i n g i n p u t f r o m s e v e r a l v a r i o u s s o u r c e s

. D a t a w a s c o l l e c t e d f o r e a c h c o u n t y

i n t h e m o d e l i n g r e g i o n i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e t h e n e c e s s a r y i n p u t s t o U L A M a s d e s c r i b e d

above. A real estate market index charrette was conducted with local developers in order to

d e t e r m i n e t h e s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s a f f e c t i n g d e v e l o p m e n t d e c i s i o n s i n t h i s r e g i o n

. T h e

p r o p o s e d r o a d w a y p r o j e c t s w e r e f e d i n t o t h e t r a v e l d e m a n d m o d e l a n d a n e w m a r k e t i n d e x

w a s g e n e r a t e d b a s e d u p o n t h e i m p r o v e d a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f a r e a s a f f e c t e d b y roadway

i m p r o v e m e n t s

. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w a s t h e n i n p u t t o U L A M a g a i n i n o r d e r t o g e n e r a t e a n e w

land use input file for the travel demand forecasting model.Knoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 74 

## Appendix E



# K n o x v i l l e U r b a n A r e a

U L A M

- U r b a n L a n d U s e A l l o c a t i o n M o d e l

P o p u l a t i o n a n d E m p l o y m e n t C o n t r o l T o t a l s

Prepared for: The Knoxville

- Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission

Knoxville, Tennessee

and: The Tennessee Department of Transportation

Prepared by: Transportation Planning Services, Inc

. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

Nov . 2007Knoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 75 

# 1

. 0 I n t r o d u c t i o n

1.1 Purpose

T h e K n o x v i l l e R e g i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n ( T P O ) i s b e g i n n i n g t h e u p d a t e o f t h e 2 0 3 0 L o n g R a n g e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

P l a n ( L R T P )

. T h e u p d a t e d p l a n w i l l b e e x t e n d e d t o t h e y e a r 2 0 3 4 a n d w i l l i n c l u d e a n y c h a n g e s o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s n e e d e d t o t h e

Knoxville area transportation network to accommodate future growth. A key part of the technical analysis used to identify the need for

f u t u r e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i m p r o v e m e n t s i s t h e t r a v e l d e m a n d f o r e c a s t i n g m o d e l u s e d b y T P O

. O n e o f t h e m o s t i m p o r t a t i o n i n p u t s t o t h e

travel demand model is the future year land use data. The 2035 population and employment by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) is a critical

input that can significant ly impact the projected traffic volumes and transit ridership generated by the travel demand model.

T h e T P O h a s d e c i d e d t o u s e t h e U L A M ( U r b a n L a n d U s e A l l o c a t i o n M o d e l ) t o d e v e l o p t h e f u t u r e y e a r l a n d u s e d a t a b y T A Z n e e d e d

f o r t h e t r a v e l f o r e c a s t i n g e f f o r t

. T h e U L A M m o d e l b e e n u s e d b y a n u m b e r o f M P O s a n d o t h e r p l a n n i n g a g e n c i e s i n F l o r i d a s i n c e

1996.

T h e U L A M l a n d u s e m o d e l w a s u s e d b y t h e N a s h v i l l e M P O f o r t h e i r 2 0 3 0 L R T P a n d w i l l b e u s e d a g a i n f o r t h e i r 2 0 3 5 u p d a t e

. T h e

N a s h v i l l e U L A M m o d e l w a s p a r t o f a s p e c i a l s t u d y c o n d u c t e d f o r T D O T i n c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h U n i v e r s i t y o f T e n n e s s e e C e n t e r f o r

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n R e s e a r c h

. I n t h e 2 0 3 0 N a s h v i l l e s t u d y t h e U L A M m o d e l w a s u s e d t o e v a l u a t e t h e i m p a c t o f v a r i o u s l a n d u s e

alternatives designed to improve transit ridership for a number of commuter rail lines developed for the 2030 long range transportation

plan.

1.2 The ULAM Model

T h e U L A M p l a n n i n g p a c k a g e i s d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e a n a u t o m a t e d p r o c e s s t o a l l o c a t e f u t u r e g r o w t h i n t h e f o r m o f c o u n t y

- wide

population an d employment control totals at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level producing TAZ files for input into the transportation

m o d e l i n g s y s t e m

. T h e U L A M m o d e l i s d e s i g n e d t o u t i l i z e e x i s t i n g T A Z d a t a f i l e s t o t h e m a x i m u m e x t e n t p o s s i b l e t o r e d u c e t h e n e e d

for duplication of data entry. An important feature of the model is its GIS interface which allows visual inspection of the model output

as well as editing capabilities of the input files within an ArcView GIS environment. This GIS interface allows the model t o be used as

a land use visualization tool that can be used with other GIS coverages and applications.Knoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 76 County

- w i d e v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e t h e f u t u r e y e a r p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t c o n t r o l t o t a l s

, m a x i m u m p e r c e n t a g e o f a n y g i v e n z o n e t h a t

c a n b e d e v e l o p e d

, t h e a b i l i t y t o a l l o c a t e o n l y e x i s t i n g p l u s c o m m i t t e d d e v e l o p m e n t

, a n d t h e a b i l i t y t o r e s t r i c t g r o w t h b a s e d o n v a r i o u s

p o l i c y r e s t r i c t i o n s

. C o n t r o l s v a r i a b l e s a r e a l s o a v a i l a b l e f o r e a c h i n d i v i d u a l l a n d u s e c a t e g o r y

. T h e s e v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e t h e m i n i m u m

acreage r e q u i r e d i n e a c h t r a f f i c z o n e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r t y p e o f l a n d u s e

, t h e m a x i m u m a l l o w a b l e g r o w t h f o r a n y z o n e

, a g r o s s

- to

- net

a c r e a g e c o n v e r s i o n p r o c e s s t o s u b t r a c t v a c a n t l a n d r e q u i r e d f o r s u p p o r t i n g u s e s ( i

. e

. , R i g h t

- of

- w a y

, p a r k s

, s c h o o l s

, e t c

. )

, a n d

, subtr a c t i o n o f v a c a n t l a n d f o r a p p r o v e d d e v e l o p m e n t

. F u t u r e e n h a n c e m e n t s c u r r e n t l y u n d e r d e v e l o p m e n t i n c l u d e t h e a b i l i t y t o s e l e c t a

different land use allocation methodology for each land use type.

T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t i n p u t v a r i a b l e t o t h e U L A M m o d e l i s t h e v a c a n t a c r e a g e i n f o r m a t i o n b y l a n d u s e t y p e

. T h e v a c a n t l a n d

i n f o r m a t i o n i s u s e d t o i n c o r p o r a t e p h y s i c a l

, e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d p o l i c y c o n s t r a i n t s i n t o t h e l a n d u s e a l l o c a t i o n p r o c e s s

, e n s u r i n g t h a t

g r o w t h i s n o t a l l o c a t e d t o a r e a s a l r e a d y b u i l t o u t a n d t h a t g r o w t h i s n o t a l l o c a t e d t o w e t l a n d s o r o t h e r t y p e s o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y

s e n s i t i v e a r e a s

. B y s e p a r a t i n g v a c a n t l a n d b y l a n d u s e t y p e

, t h e m o d e l i s a b l e t o r e f l e c t t h e c u r r e n t l y a d o p t e d L a n d U s e E l e m e n t o f t h e

C o u n t y ' s C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n

, Z o n i n g R e s t r i c t i o n s a n d L a n d D e v e l o p m e n t R e g u l a t i o n s

. I t e n s u r e s t h a t t h e m o d e l d o e s n o t a l l o c a t e

unacceptable types of land uses in areas where that type of development is not permitted.

1.3 Knoxville ULAM Data

F i g u r e 1 s h o w s t h e c o u n t i e s t h a t w i l l b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e K n o x v i l l e 2 0 3 4 L o n g R a n g e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n u p d a t e

. T a b l e 1 s h o w s t h e

l a n d u s e v a r i a b l e s t h a t w i l l b e p r o j e c t e d f o r e a c h o f t h o s e n i n e c o u n t i e s b y T A Z f o r 2 0 3 5 a s w e l l a s f o r a n u m b e r o f i n t e r i m y e a r s

using the ULAM model.

A s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n

, t h e U L A M m o d e l i s a n a l l o c a t i o n m o d e l t h a t a l l o c a t e s p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t c o n t r o l t o t a l s

f r o m t h e c o u n t y l e v e l d o w n t o T A Z l e v e l

. T o d o t h i s t h e p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t c o n t r o l t o t a l s m u s t b e p r o v i d e d a s o n e o f t h e

inputs to the model. The remaining chapters of this technical memorandum describe the population and employment control totals that

b e e n d e v e l o p e d f o r i n p u t i n t o U L A M m o d e l w i t h a n o v e r v i e w o f t h e m e t h o d o l o g y u s e d t o d e v e l o p t h o s e p r o j e c t i o n s

. A p p e n d i x A

shows the control totals and other land use variables by county.Knoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 77 Figure 1 Land Use Modeling Study Area

K n o x

S e v i e r

B l o u n t R o a n e U n i o n

A n d e r s o n G r a i n g e r

J e f f e r s o n

L o u d o n

N

E W

S 

# L a n d U s e M o d e l i n g

S t u d y A r e aKnoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 78 Table 1 Travel Demand Model Land Use Variables

Input Name Description Additional Information

TOTPOP Total Population

HHP OP Population in Households

HHPOP Number of Households

AVGHHSIZE Average Persons per Household

AVG_MEDHHINC Average Median Household Income

WRKR_PER_HH Workers per Household

VEH_PER_HH Vehicles per Household

STD_PER_HH Students per Household Population Ages 5

- 17

ENROLL_K12 School Enrollment (K

- 12)

UNIV_STDNTS UT Students by Residence

UNIV_ENROLL University Enrollment

EMPCAT_A Agriculture Employment SIC 01

- 09

EMPCAT_B Mining Employment SIC 10

- 14

EMPCAT_C Construction Employment SIC 15

- 17 Basic

EMPCAT_D Manufacturing Employment SIC 20

- 39

EMPCAT_E Transportation/Communication/Utilities

Employment SIC 40

- 49

EMPCAT_F Wholesale Trade Employment SIC 50

- 51 Industrial

EMPCAT_G Retail Trade Employment SIC 52

- 59 Retail

EMPCAT_H Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Employment SIC 60

- 67

EMPCAT_I Services Employment SIC 70

- 89

EMPCAT_J Public Sector Employment SIC 91

- 97 Service

EMP_TOT Total EmploymentKnoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 79 

# 2

. 0 C o n t r o l T o t a l B a c k g r o u n d I n f o r m a t i o n

2.1 Sources of Control Total Data

A s n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y

, U L A M r e q u i r e s c o u n t y

- l e v e l c o n t r o l t o t a l s f o r d e m o g r a p h i c d a t a t h a t a r e t h e n a l l o c a t e d t o t h e s m a l l e r t r a f f i c

a n a l y s i s z o n e l e v e l

. D i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s o f c o n t r o l t o t a l s o f f u t u r e d e m o g r a p h i c p r o j e c t i o n s w e r e e v a l u a t e d f o r u s e i n t h i s p r o j e c t

–

p o p u l a t i o n d a t a f r o m t h e C e n t e r f o r B u s i n e s s a n d E c o n o m i c R e s e a r c h ( C B E R ) a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f T e n n e s s e e

,

e m p l o y m e n t p r o j e c t i o n s d e v e l o p e d b y T D O T a n d d a t a t h a t w a s p u r c h a s e d f r o m W o o d s & P o o l e E c o n o m i c s

, I n c o r p o r a t e d

. T h e

following sections discuss these sources in more detail and a recommendation is provided for which source should be used for input to

ULAM.

2.2 CBER Population Projection Data

T h e C B E R i s a d e p a r t m e n t w i t h i n t h e C o l l e g e o f B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f T e n n e s s e e w h i c h c o n d u c t s r e s e a r c h o n

n a t i o n a l a n d s t a t e e c o n o m i c t r e n d s

. T h e C B E R p u b l i s h e d a r e p o r t t i t l e d “ P o p u l a t i o n P r o j e c t i o n s f o r t h e S t a t e o f T e n n e s s e e : 2 0 0 5

–

2 0 2 5 ” i n D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 3

, w h i c h i n c l u d e d p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s f o r e a c h c o u n t y i n t h e s t a t e

. T h e T e n n e s s e e D e p a r t m e n t o f

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a d o p t e d t h e C B E R p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s a n d e x t r a p o l a t e d t h e p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s o u t t o t h e y e a r 2 0 3 0 u s i n g

regression techniques.

2.3 TDOT Employment Projections

A c o n s u l t a n t w o r k i n g t o d e v e l o p a s t a t e w i d e t r a v e l d e m a n d m o d e l f o r T D O T d e v e l o p e d e m p l o y m e n t p r o j e c t i o n s u s i n g l i n e a r

r e g r e s s i o n t e c h n i q u e s a p p l i e d t o h i s t o r i c a l d a t a ( 1 9 6 9

– 2 0 0 0 ) t h a t w a s o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e B u r e a u o f E c o n o m i c A n a l y s i s ( B E A )

. T h e

data was pro jected out to the year 2030.

2.4 Woods & Poole Data

W o o d s & P o o l e E c o n o m i c s

, I n c

. i s a n i n d e p e n d e n t f i r m t h a t s p e c i a l i z e s i n l o n g

- t e r m c o u n t y e c o n o m i c a n d d e m o g r a p h i c p r o j e c t i o n s

. W o o d s & P o o l e m a i n t a i n s a d a t a b a s e f o r e v e r y c o u n t y i n t h e U

. S

. c o n t a i n i n g p r o j e c t i o n s t h r o u g h 2 0 3 0 f o r m o r e t h a n 9 0 0 v a r i a b l e s

and is updated each year with new historical data. The TPO purchased datasets for each county in the study area in September 2007.Knoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 80 2.4 Recommendation for Control Total Data Source

T h e r e a r e s o m e l i m i t a t i o n s i n u s i n g t h e C B E R a n d T D O T d a t a f o r t h e 2 0 3 4 L R P u p d a t e

. M o s t n o t a b l y t h e p r o j e c t i o n s d o n o t i n c l u d e

m a n y o f t h e v a r i a b l e s n e e d e d b y t h e K n o x v i l l e t r a v e l d e m a n d m o d e l

. A l s o

, s i n c e t h e d a t a w e r e p u b l i s h e d i n 2 0 0 3 t h e y a r e a l r e a d y

f o u r y e a r s o l d a t t h e c u r r e n t t i m e

. F i n a l l y

, t h e W o o d s & P o o l e d a t a s e t h a s t h e a d v a n t a g e o f b e i n g c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i n i t s e l f r a t h e r t h a n

relying on two separate sources/methodologies for forecasting population and employment.

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s i t i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t h e W o o d s & P o o l e d a t a b e u s e d f o r t h e U L A M m o d e l c o n t r o l t o t a l i n p u t a s p a r t o f t h e

preparation of the 203 4 LRTP.



# 3

. 0 C o u n t y C o n t r o l T o t a l s

B a s e d o n u s i n g t h e 2 0 0 5

– 2 0 3 0 W o o d s & P o o l e d a t a a s r e c o m m e n d e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r

, a s u m m a r y o f t h e p r o j e c t i o n s f o r e a c h

o f t h e n i n e c o u n t i e s i n t h e s t u d y a r e a i s p r e s e n t e d h e r e

. S i n c e t h e W o o d s & P o o l e d a t a o n l y w e n t o u t t o t h e y e a r 2 0 3 0 t h e T P O s t a f f

used a forecasting software package known as “Forecast Pro” to project the data to the necessary future year of 203 5

.

T a b l e 2 o n t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e p r o v i d e s a s u m m a r y o f t h e p r o j e c t i o n s

. A s s e e n i n T a b l e 2 t h e p o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h i s p r o j e c t e d t o o c c u r

i n K n o x

, B l o u n t a n d S e v i e r c o u n t i e s

. T h e l a r g e s t e m p l o y m e n t g r o w t h i s a n t i c i p a t e d i n K n o x

, S e v i e r a n d A n d e r s o n c o u n t i e s

. N o t e t h e

‘ P e r c e n t ” c o l u m n r e p r e s e n t s p e r c e n t g r o w t h f o r e a c h c o u n t y f r o m 2 0 0 5 t o 2 0 3 5 a n d t h e “ R e g i o n a l ” c o l u m n i n d i c a t e s w h a t p e r c e n t a g e

of the 2005 to 2035 regional growth is associated with each county.

F i g u r e 2 i s a b a r g r a p h t h a t s h o w s t h e p r o j e c t e d g r o w t h o f p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t f o r e a c h c o u n t y f r o m 2 0 0 5 t o 2 0 3 5

. F i g u r e 3

s h o w s t h e p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e o f p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t

, F i g u r e 4 s h o w s p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e r e g i o n a l g r o w t h b y c o u n t y a n d F i g u r e 5

s h o w s t h e r a t e o f p o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h p r o j ected f o r e a c h c o u n t y o v e r t i m e

.Knoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 81 Table 2 2005

– 2035 Population and Employment



## Population

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Growth Percent Regional

Anderson 72,518 77,265 81,787 86,430 91,24 5 96,365 100,972 28,454 39% 6%

Blount 115,616 130,131 144,913 159,908 175,243 191,209 209,924 94,308 82% 20%

Grainger 22,188 23,804 25,466 27,166 28,921 30,775 32,609 10,421 47% 2%

Jefferson 48,261 53,120 57,746 62,456 67,295 72,369 77,453 29,192 60% 6%

Knox 405,355 433,507 459,953 487,076 515,178 545,005 574,950 169,595 42% 36%

Loudon 43,411 49,124 54,766 60,488 66,339 72,429 79,010 35,599 82% 7%

Roane 52,753 54,615 56,209 57,885 59,673 61,650 63,669 10,916 21% 2%

Sevier 79,339 93,234 107,940 122,803 137,938 153,595 170,928 91,589 115% 19%

Union 19,005 20,088 21,319 22,580 23,888 25,275 26,525 7,520 40% 2%

Region 858,446 934,888 1,010,099 1,086,792 1,165,720 1,248,672 1,336,041 477,595 56% 100%



## Employment

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Growth Percent Regional

Anderson 52,693 59,663 66,646 73,635 80,625 87,616 93,715 41,022 78% 12%

Blount 58,293 65,161 72,026 78,888 85,749 9 2,602 98,613 40,320 69% 12%

Grainger 7,358 7,951 8,541 9,131 9,721 10,307 10,670 3,312 45% 1%

Jefferson 18,754 20,496 22,238 23,980 25,720 27,461 29,007 10,253 55% 3%

Knox 293,068 324,410 355,716 386,994 418,237 449,450 481,664 188,596 64% 54%

Loudon 18,720 20,419 22,114 23,807 25,501 27,189 28,861 10,141 54% 3%

Roane 21,420 22,596 23,793 25,019 26,279 27,575 27,926 6,506 30% 2%

Sevier 49,918 57,498 65,084 72,680 80,277 87,875 95,939 46,021 92% 13%

Union 4,780 4,982 5,205 5,437 5,677 5,931 6,074 1,294 27% 0%

Region 525,004 583,176 641,363 699,571 757,786 816,006 872,469 347,465 66% 100%Knoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 8 2 Figure 2 2005

– 2035 Projected Growth



# 2 0 0 5

- 2 0 3 5 P r o j e c t e d G r o w t h

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000

Anderson Blount Grainger Jefferson Knox Loudon Roane Sevier Union

Population EmploymentKnoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 83 Figure 3 2005

– 2035 Pe rcent Increase



# 2 0 0 5

- 2 0 3 5 P e r c e n t I n c r e a s e

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Anderson Blount Grainger Jefferson Knox Loudon Roane Sevier Union

Population EmploymentKnoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 84 Figure 4 Percentage of Regional Growth



# P e r c e n t a g e o f R e g i o n a l G r o w t h

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Anderson Blount Grainger Jefferson Knox Loudon Roane Sevier Union

Population EmploymnetKnoxville Regional Transpo rtation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 85 Figure 5 Projected Population Growth Rate



# P r o j e c t e d P o p u l a t i o n G r o w t h R a t e

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Anderson Blount Grainger Jefferson Knox Loudon Roane Sevier UnionKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix E

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 86 

# 4

. 0 S u m m a r y

T h e c o u n t y

- w i d e p r o j e c t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s r e p o r t w i l l b e u s e d t o i d e n t i f y n e t g r o w t h i n p o p u l a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t f o r e a c h o f t h e

n i n e c o u n t i e s i n t h e l a n d u s e m o d e l i n g s t u d y a r e a

. T h e n e t c h a n g e w i l l b e d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e c o u n t y d o w n t o t r a f f i c z o n e l e v e l

using the ULAM land use model. The allocation will be based upon the availability of vacant buildable land in each traffic zone.

With population in the region projected to increase by almost 480,000 people over the next 30 years it expected that the travel demand

model will show a significant increase in traffic volumes on many of the major roads in the area.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix F

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 87 

## Appendix F

MOBILE6 Input Description

F .1. Background:

For the Ozone and PM2.5 emissions analyses the TPO is basing the MOBILE6 inputs

largely on those which have been previously agreed to by the IAC partner s as part of the

original 8

- Hour Ozone Standard and PM2.5 conformity determinations.

The MOBILE6.2 program runs in MSDOS and the user supplies an input file with the

parameters set to represent the conditions of the region where it is being applied. If i nputs

are not specifically called out then the software has built in default values that will be used.

This section describes the inputs that were used for both the Ozone and PM2.5 analysis for

the Knoxville Nonattainment Area within the travel demand mod el coverage area.

The MOBILE6.2 file consists of three sections

– Header, Run and Scenario. The Header

and Run sections are the same for all program runs and the Scenario section is used to

change inputs for the different roadway types being modeled.

F

. 2. Final IAC Agreed Upon MOBILE6 Input Assumptions:

Unless otherwise noted, the term “technical guidance” in the explanation of the input values

given below refers to the EPA guidance document

– Technical Guidance on the Use of

MOBILE6 for Emission Invent ory Preparation , U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air

Quality, Jan 2002.

1.) Calendar Year of Evaluation:

(Ozone and PM2.5)

– The analysis years have previously been established by the IAC as:

2009 (Knox County Ozone Analysis Only) , 2014, 202 4 and 2 03 4 . In addition, the year

2002 must be evaluated since the TPO is using the No Greater than Baseline Year 2002

emission test to demonstrate conformity.

2.) Month of Evaluation:

(Ozone)

– Use “7” (July) as it is most appropriate for ozone season analysis

.

(PM2.5)

– Use “7” (July) as recommended when using the “Single

- Run Approach” by EPA

guidance document “Guidance for Creating Annual On

- Road Mobile Source Emission

Inventories for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas for Use in SIPs and Conformity”, August

2005.

3 .) Temperature:

(Ozone)

– The IAC group has previously agreed to use 66/96 as the MIN/MAX

temperature input for the ozone analysis. This is based on the requirement to remain

consistent with the temperature input that was used in the Knox County 1

- Hour

Ma intenance Plan.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix F

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 88 (PM2.5)

– The 2002 annual emissions inventory inputs that were prepared by the

University of Tennessee Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering (UTCEE) are

proposed for use by the TPO. The following table taken from the UTCEE repor t

documents the meteorological and fuel RVP data for the Knoxville area. The

meteorological data was taken from the National Climatic Data Center and the Knoxville

McGhee

- Tyson Airport weather station was selected to represent the entire region.

From t he above table, the average annual MIN/MAX temperature is 50.1/70.0

.

4.) Absolute Humidity:

(Ozone)

– There was much discussion for the Humidity input by the IAC group during the

previous conformity analysis, and ultimately it was determined to use the M OBILE6.2

default value of 75 grains/lb primarily in order to remain consistent with the Maintenance

Plan which also used the default value for humidity.

(PM2.5)

– The above table from the UTCEE 2002 emissions inventory report includes an

annual average va lue of 62.57 grains/lb for Absolute Humidity, however it was determined

that this value would cause a relative humidity of greater than 100% in part of the

MIN/MAX temperature range. Based on discussions with EPA, FHWA and TDEC it was

determined to use th e highest absolute humidity value that would not exceed 100% relative

humidity throughout the temperature range

– this value was determined to be 52 grains/lb

.

5.) Vehicle Age Distribution:

(Ozone and PM2.5)

– The TPO used the vehicle age distribution tha t was developed by

UTCEE for Knoxville region, which was used for the 2002 emissions inventory

development. The vehicle age distributions are only available for the light duty vehicle and

light duty truck categories at a local level, the MOBILE6.2 default s are used for the others.

The EPA guidance strongly recommends using local data for this input where available. Monthly

Avg. Min

Temp (F) Relative

Magnitude Monthly

Avg. Max

Temp (F) Relative

Magnitude Absolute

Humidity

(gr/lb) Relative

Magnitude RVP

(psi) Relative

Magnitude

JAN 31.6 0.63 51.4 0.73 28.16 0.45 15 1.25

FEB 30.8 0.62 51.8 0.74 22.90 0.37 13.5 1.13

MAR 38.9 0.78 61.8 0.88 37.83 0.60 13.5 1.13

APR 51.4 1.03 73.9 1.06 55.61 0.89 13.5 1.13

MAY 54.1 1.08 76.4 1.09 68.97 1.10 9 0.75

JUNE 65.4 1.31 87.7 1.25 93.12 1.49 9 0.75

JULY 70.2 1.40 88.0 1.26 113.31 1.81 9 0.75

AUG 68.0 1.36 89.8 1.28 101.34 1.62 9 0.75

SEP 64.9 1.30 84.8 1.21 92.83 1.48 10.25 0.86

OCT 55.6 1.11 70.2 1.00 73.05 1.17 13.5 1.13

NOV 37.6 0.75 55.1 0.79 36.03 0.58 13.5 1.13

DEC 32.1 0.64 49.2 0.70 27.70 0.44 15 1.25

Average 50.1 70.0 62.57 11.98Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix F

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 89 6.) Vehicle Activity:

(Ozone)

– The TPO forecasted future vehicle activity using a travel demand forecasting

model in the entire nonattainm ent area except for the portion in Cocke County.

Another component that the technical guidance notes is that of developing appropriate

HPMS factors in order to match the model outputs to the actual observed vehicle miles

traveled data that was observed in the calibration or “base year” of the model. Since the

TPO model was calibrated to a base year of 2006 the outputs for each functional

classification in each nonattainment county are compared with the HPMS estimates to

derive a correction factor. This is necessitated because the model does not include every

roadway facility in the region, especially the lower classified roadways such as locals and

collectors in the regional area.

The VMT on local roadways is projected using an off

- model technique due to the small

number included in the travel demand model in all counties outside of Knox County. The

methodology used in this analysis differs from previous conformity analyses. Instead of

developing a growth rate based on historical trend data reported f or local roadway VMT,

the TPO determined that a more appropriate surrogate would be to calculate the percentage

of Local VMT to the other classifications in each County and assume that the percentage

would hold constant in the future. This methodology was deemed more appropriate given

that a historical trend growth rate may not be consistent with the projected growth rate

whereby Local VMT could be under or over represented in the future.

The TPO used historical traffic volume and visitation data to det ermine a growth factor to

apply to existing VMT estimates for Cocke County roadways within the pa rtial

- county

nonattainment area. Updated traffic counts through year 2008 were obtained for the three

roadways included in the Cocke County nonattainment area and updated growth factors

were computed.

For ramp facilities the methodology recommended by the technical guidance is to assume

that the HPMS data for Freeway facilities can be broken out as 92% VMT on the actual

freeway and the other 8% on ramps. Sinc e the model network was expanded to include all

ramps in the study area the actual model output values were used rather than the default

percentage breakdown.

(PM2.5)

– Basically the same as above with the ozone analysis, however, the Roane

County portion of the nonattainment area which was previously outside of the travel

demand model coverage area has now been included with the recent model update such that

model VMT was used rather than the off

- model technique used previously.

7.) VMT by vehicle classi fication:

(Ozone and PM2.5)

– The VMT by vehicle classification is available from TDOT vehicle

classification data. The TDOT data has to be further disaggregated to the several vehicle

types recognized by MOBILE6.2 from the three major classifications th at TDOT uses.

Updated classification data from the year 2006 was obtained which was used for this

analysis. The VMT by vehicle classification for future years was computed based on theKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix F

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 90 national vehicle mix distributions from MOBILE6. The future Intersta te VMT mix was

modified based on the projections from several sources that heavy duty diesel truck traffic

will increase as a proportion of the overall traffic due to growth in freight movement. This

is documented separately in the CDR.

8.) VMT by functi onal classification:

(Ozone and PM2.5)

– The TPO model allocates estimates of VMT into the appropriate

functional classification as defined by TDOT. There are four driving cycles used by

MOBILE6.2, the following table shows the Driving Cycle proposed for each FHWA

functional classification category:

FHWA Highway Functional System MOBILE6.2 Driving Cycle

Rural Interstate Freeway and Freeway Ramp

Rural Other Principal Arterial Arterial/Collector*

Rural Minor Arterial Arterial/Collector

Rural Major Col lector Arterial/Collector

Rural Minor Collector Arterial/Collector

Rural Local Arterial/Collector

Urban Interstate Freeway and Freeway Ramp

Urban Other Freeways Freeway and Freeway Ramp

Urban Other Principal Arterial Arterial/Collector

Urban Minor Ar terial Arterial/Collector

Urban Collector Arterial/Collector

Urban Local Local Roadway

* The technical guidance recommends the Freeway and Freeway Ramp driving cycle for

the Rural Other Principal Arterial class; however the arterial/collector cycle seem s to be

more appropriate in this region due to the lack of access control on these types of facilities.

9.) VMT Fraction by Average Speed by Hour of the Day :

(Ozone and PM2.5)

– The TPO travel demand model has three time periods

- AM Peak (6

- 9 am), PM Peak (3

- 6 pm) and the rest of the day. Therefore an average speed can be

developed for each of these time periods, by direction of travel in order to capture the

peaking effect on speed. T he SPEED VMT command was used and it ha s a single VMT

distributi on for the AM peak three

- hour period, a single VMT distribution for the PM peak

three

- hour period and one for the other 18 hours of the day. S eparate scenarios were run for

Interstates, Arterials and Collectors which are handled with setting the appropria te field in

the VMT BY FACILITY command to 1.0.

10.) Weekday and Weekend Day Activity:

(Ozone)

– The technical guidance states that “for most purposes, EPA will not expect

States to develop local estimates that vary by day of the week”. There is no me ntion of

season variation factors although it is fairly standard practice to apply a seasonal adjustment

factor (SAF) to account for differences in travel during the summer months since the HPMS

data and travel demand model VMT estimates are normalized to an average annual dailyKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix F

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 91 traffic volume. S easonal variation factors are available from TDOT which were used to

develop an appropriate SAF

.

(PM2.5)

– Since the PM2.5 analysis is based on computing annual emissions and the travel

demand model was calibrated to match the HPMS estimates of daily vehicle miles of travel

the emissions were calculated first at the daily level and then converted to an annual

amount by multiplying by 365.

11.) Gasoline Volatility:

(Ozone)

– A Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) value of 9. 0 was used since that is the type of fuel

that is distributed in the Knoxville region during the ozone season months.

(PM2.5)

– From the table included under #3 above the average annual RVP value is 11.98

.

12.) Diesel Sulfur Content:

(Ozone)

– The diese l sulfur content is only applicable to Particulate Matter modeling and

was not used.

(PM2.5)

– The technical guidance states that in the absence of survey data EPA

recommends that past data be taken from an EPA spreadsheet called “Diesel Sulfur Levels

by County” located at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm . This spreadsheet was reviewed for

the counties located in the Knoxville PM2.5 nonattainment area for the 2002 Analysis Year

– the Annual Diesel Sulfur Level A verage was the same for each county and was calculated

to be 358 ppm based on the information in the spreadsheet.

Beginning in the 2006 calendar year more stringent sulfur levels are phased in going from

the current level of 500 ppm to 15 ppm. The techni cal guidance recommends using the

following values which were used for the 2014, 202 4 and 203 4 analysis years as applicable:

Period Highway Diesel Sulfur Level (ppm)

June, 2006

– May, 2010 43

June, 2010

– 2015 11

E .3

. Input Structure for O zone and PM2.5 Analysis for Anderson, Blount, Jefferson,

Knox, Loudon and Sevier Counties for Urban and Rural Interstate, Arterial and

Collector facility types :

Header Section:

Input Command Value/Description

MOBILE6 INPUT FILE Identifies input file beg inning

PARTICULATES Enables computation of PM emissions (PM2.5 Only)

POLLUTANTS (NOX) Calculates and reports emissions factors for NOx only in

PM2.5 analysis. Not used in ozone analysis.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix F

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 92 Run Section:

Input Command Value/Description

RUN DATA Identifie s beginning of Run section

NO REFUELING Omits refueling emissions

MIN/MAX TEMP (66. 96.) for Ozone; (50.1 70.0) for PM2.5

ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY Not used for Ozone; (52.0) for PM2.5

REG DIST (Knreg.d) for both Ozone & PM2.5

– Calls external file with

local vehicle registration data.

FUEL RVP (9.0) for Ozone; ( 11.98) for PM2.5

Scenario Section:

Input Command Value/Description

SCENARIO REC Label to identify Scenario being run

CALENDAR YEAR (2002, 2009, 2014, 202 4 or 203 4 )

EVALUATION MONTH (7)

PARTICULA TE EF Used for PM analysis only

– calls several data files that contain

particulate emission factors, used default files provided by EPA

– PMGZML.CSV, PMGDR1.CSV, PMGDR2.CSV,

PMDZML.CSV, PMDDR1.CSV, PMDDR2.CSV

PARTICLE SIZE (2.5) Used for PM analysis onl y

– specifies particle size

DIESEL SULFUR (358) for Analysis Year 2002, (11) for Analysis Years 2014,

202 4 and 203 4 . Used in PM analysis only.

VMT BY FACILITY (Fi.def) for Freeway facility type scenario modeling, (Fa.def)

for Arterial facility type scen ario modeling

SPEED VMT (Sxyz.def) where x = first initial of county, y = first letter of

urban or rural, z = first initial of facility type. Calls external data

file with Average Speed by hour.

VMT FRACTIONS County

- specific VMT fractions for each of the 16 combined

vehicle types.Knoxville Regional Transportation Pla nning Organization Appendix G

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 93 

## Appendix G

REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE SCREENING CRITERIA

Background:

This document is intended to serve as a tool for assisting with determining whether a

roadway facility in the Knoxville Region is “Regionally Significant” wit h respect to the air

quality conformity requirements found in the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part

93). The purpose is to provide pertinent information to the Interagency Consultation (IAC)

group on the characteristics that would normally be us ed to consider the regional

significance of a transportation project and in particular one that is on a roadway facility

classified as a Minor Arterial or lower . The IAC will make the final determination of

regional significance on a case

- by

- case basis as needed, and additional criteria beyond what

is being presented in this document may be used at the IAC’s discretion.

Federal Conformity Rule Definition of Regional Significance:

Regionally significant project means a transportation project (other than an exempt project)

that is on a facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from

the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned

developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc ., or transportation terminals

themselves) and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area’s

transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed

guide way transit facilities that offer an alter native to regional highway travel.

Proposed Regional Significance Screening Criteria Interrogatories:

1.) What are the Exempt status and Functional Classification of the roadway project?

A non

- exempt project on a roadway facility classified as a Princi pal Arterial or

higher will generally be considered Regionally Significant.

A project determined to be Exempt under 40 CFR 93.126 or 93.127 will

generally be considered Non

- Regionally Significant unless the IAC group

determines that it will have regional impacts for any reason.

2.) Is the facility either included in the Regional Travel Demand Forecasting Model, or

would it be if it does not currently exist?

It is the practice of the Knoxville TPO to include most “major” roadways (most

major collectors and ab ove) in order to improve model performance so if a

roadway is not modeled it can generally be considered to be Non

- Regionally

Significant.

3.) Does the facility provide direct connection between two roadways classified as a

Principal Arterial or higher?Knoxville Regional Transportation Pla nning Organization Appendix G

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 94 Dire ct connections between major principal arterials and in particular

connections to the Interstate can generally be considered Regionally Significant.

4.) Does the facility provide the primary regional connectivity to a “Major Activity

Center”?

This is a crit erion listed in the federal Regional Significance definition; however

there can be different interpretations as to what constitutes a major activity

center. In the Knoxville Region the following are suggested as general types of

major activity centers, wi th specific locations to be determined on a case

- by

-

case basis:

Major Hospitals and Regional Medical Centers

Central Business Districts of cities with greater than 5,000 population

Major Regional Retail Centers and Malls (greater than 1,000,000 sf)

Major C olleges and Universities

Tourist Destinations

Airports

Freight Terminals and Intermodal Transfer Centers

Sports Complexes

5.) Does the project add significant vehicular capacity?

A project adding general purpose through lanes will typically be more

signific ant than one that is adding “auxiliary” lanes or a continuous center turn

lane or other projects that do not add significant roadway capacity.

6.) What is the length of the roadway segment being improved and what is the overall

corridor length?

Projects exte nding (or completing) long sections (typically greater than 1 mile)

will tend to be more regionally significant.

If the corridor is lengthy and there is an absence of other principal arterials in

the vicinity then the roadway will tend to be more regional ly significant.

7.) What is the current Average Daily Traffic of the roadway segment?

This is less important in determining Regional Significance although it will

provide additional information to be considered along with the above criteria.

Obviously high traffic segments will tend to be more correlated with the

increased regional significance of a roadway.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 95 

## Appendix H

– Highway Project List

H .1

. List of Primary Project Types and Exempt Status:

1.) Construct new roadway (any number of lanes)

– Non

- exem pt Project, Entails constructing a

roadway on new location.

2.) Modify Interchange

– Exempt Project, Entails ramp modifications such as realignment, relocation,

etc...

3.) Widen roadway from x lanes to y lanes

– Non

- exempt Project, Entails addition of capa city

through construction of additional through travel lanes on an existing roadway. Multilane facilities

will generally include either a non

- traversable median or a center turn lane. The final design will

usually determine the median configuration, and a project calling for a center turn lane in the project

list may end up with a non

- traversable median or vice versa, however there is no difference between

the two in terms of air quality impacts or treatment in the travel demand forecasting model.

4.) In stall traffic signal

– Exempt Project, Entails addition of traffic signal at a single intersection,

may also involve additional improvements at the intersection such as realignment of approaches or

additional turn lanes to maximize efficiency of the traffi c signal.

5.) Reconstruct 2

- lane road

– Exempt Project, Entails the improvement of an existing 2

- lane roadway

to bring it up to modern standards in terms of lane widths and geometric design chiefly to enhance

the safety of the roadway, it may also involve the construction of turn lanes at major intersections.

There are numerous roadways in the region that were not designed to accommodate the type an

amount of suburban development that is occurring, which leads to unsafe operating conditions.

6.) Replace Bridge

– Exempt Project, Entails the replacement of an existing bridge that has been

determined to be structurally deficient. The new bridge may include safety enhancements such as

wider lanes and shoulders, but will not have more through lanes than the p revious structure had.

7.) Install Street Lighting

– Exempt Project, Entails the addition of overhead lighting to enhance night

time visibility and improve safety.

8.) Intersection i mprovements

– Exempt Project, Entails the modification of a single inter section to

include the addition of separate turn lanes or realignment of approaches to improve safety.

9 .) Signal Coordination

– Can be either exempt or non

- exempt depending on scope, Entails retiming

traffic signals to optimize traffic flow.

1 0 .) Add Ce nter Turn Lane

– Entails addition of a two way left turn lane on an undivided roadway of

two or more lanes, also usually involves reconstructing the roadway to modern design standards for

lane width and geometric design. In previous conformity analyses th is type of project has been

determined to be “Exempt”, however it has since been determined that these projects will be

considered “Non

- Exempt” if they involve turn lanes at more than one intersection or greater than one

quarter mile in length.Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 96 H

. 2

. Re gional Highway Projects

L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

102 S R 2 9 P i n e R i d g e R d

t o S R 6 1 H a r r i m a n / R o

a n e C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

-

exempt Yes

2 0 0 C u s i c k R o a d A l c o a H w y

( S R 1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) t o

P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( S R 1 6 2 ) A l c o a A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

-

exempt No

201 E a s t

B e s s e m e r

S t r e e t I n t e r s e c t i o n w /

E W a t t S t A l c o a R e a l i g n

i n t e r s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

2 0 2 H u n t e r

G r o w t h S t u d y

C o r r i d o r # 2

-

R o b e r t C

. J a c k s o n D r

E x t e n s i o n M i d d l e s e t t l e m e

n t s R d t o

L o u i s v i l l e R d

( S R 3 3 4 ) A l c o a N e w 4

- l a n e r o a d

w / c e n t e r t u r n l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt No

203 O l d

K n o x v i l l e

H w y ( S R 3 3 ) H u n t R d ( S R

3 3 5 ) t o

P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( S R 1 6 2 ) A l c o a W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e w / c e n t e r

t u r n l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

204 P e l l i s s i p p i

P l a c e A c c e s s

R o a d C o n n e c t O l d

K n o x v i l l e H w y

( S R 3 3 ) t o

W i l d w o o d R d

t h r o u g h

P e l l i s s i p p i

P l a c e R e s e a r c h

P a r k A l c o a C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

a n d 4

- l a n e r o a d

w / c e n t e r t u r n l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

205 T o p s i d e R o a d

( S R 3 3 3 ) E a s t o f O l d

T o p s i d e R d t o

W r i g h t s F e r r y

R d A l c o a P h a s e I & I I

s i g n a l i z a t i o n a n d

i n t e r s e c t i o n

r e a l i g n m e n t 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

2 0 6 U S 1 2 9

B y p a s s ( S R

1 1 5 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n

w i t h L o u i s v i l l e

R d ( S R 3 3 4 ) A l c o a I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

207 W r i g h t s F e r r y

R o a d T o p s i d e R d

( S R 3 3 3 ) t o

A i r b a s e R d

( S R 4 2 9 ) A l c o a A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

-

exempt NoKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 97 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

2 0 8 I m p r o v e

S t r e e t s c a p e s

& P a v e m e n t L o c a t i o n s

t h r o u g h o u t

B l o u n t C o u n t y A l c o a /

M a r y v i l l e /

B l o u n t

C o u n t y I m p r o v e

s t r e e t s c a p e s a n d

r e p a i r p a v e m e n t 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

209 E l l e j o y R o a d R i v e r R d t o

J e f f r i e s H o l l o w

R d B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

2 1 0 J e f f r i e s

H o l l o w R o a d E l l e j o y R d t o

S e v i e r C o u n t y

L i n e B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

211 M o r g a n t o n

R o a d P h a s e 1 F o o t h i l l s M a l l

D r t o W i l l i a m

B l o u n t D r ( S R

3 3 5 ) B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

2 1 2 O l d

K n o x v i l l e

H w y ( S R 3 3 ) W i l d w o o d R d

t o M c A r t h u r

R d B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

213 O l d N i l e s

F e r r y R o a d M a r y v i l l e C i t y

L i m i t t o

C a l d e r w o o d

H w y ( S R 1 1 5 )

( U S 1 2 9 ) B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

2 1 4 S e v i e r v i l l e

R d ( S R 3 5 )

( U S 4 1 1 ) W a s h i n g t o n S t

( S R 3 5 ) t o

E v e r e t t H i g h

R d M a r y v i l l e C o n s t r u c t 2

- l a n e

r o a d w / c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e a l o n g

e x i s t i n g a n d n e w

a l i g n m e n t 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

237 E

. B r o a d w a y

A v e n u e ( S R

3 3 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n

w i t h B r o w n

S c h o o l R d M a r y v i l l e R e a l i g n a n d

i n s t a l l t r a f f i c

s i g n a l 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

301 C h u c k y P i k e I n t e r s e c t i o n a t

U S 1 1 E ( S R

3 4 ) J e f f e r s o n

C i t y I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t

-

a d d t u r n l a n e s a n d

m o d i f y s i g n a l 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

302 E

. M a i n S t / N

. C h u c k y P k I n t e r s e c t i o n a t

O l d A J H w y J e f f e r s o n

C i t y R e a l i g n

I n t e r s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

303 M u n i c i p a l D r I n t e r s e c t i o n a t

O l d A J H w y J e f f e r s o n

C i t y A d d l e f t a n d r i g h t

t u r n l a n e s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

304 O l d A J

H i g h w a y I n t e r s e c t i o n a t

C h u c k y P k J e f f e r s o n

C i t y A d d l e f t a n d r i g h t

t u r n l a n e s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

305 O d y s s e y R d I n t e r s e c t i o n a t

U S 1 1 E ( S R

3 4 ) J e f f e r s o n

C i t y A d d l e f t a n d r i g h t

t u r n l a n e s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

306 O d y s s e y R d U S 1 1 E ( S R

3 4 ) t o N o r f o l k

S o u t h e r n R R J e f f e r s o n

C i t y A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

-

exempt No

307 O l d A J

H i g h w a y R a i l r o a d

C r o s s i n g J e f f e r s o n

C i t y R e p l a c e b r i d g e 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

308 O l d A J

H i g h w a y ( S R

9 2 ) M a i n S t t o

O v e r l o o k R d J e f f e r s o n

C i t y A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e a n d

s i d e w a l k s 2 0 1 4 Non

-

exempt NoKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 98 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

309 O l d A J

H i g h w a y I n t e r s e c t i o n a t

S R 9 2 J e f f e r s o n

C i t y S i g n a l i z e

I n t e r s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

310 O l d A J

H i g h w a y I n t e r s e c t i o n a t

M o u n t c a s t l e S t J e f f e r s o n

C i t y S i g n a l i z e

I n t e r s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

311 R i t t e n h o u s e

R d / S l a t e R d R i t e n h o u s e R d

t o S l a t e R d J e f f e r s o n

C i t y N e w 2 l a n e r o a d

c o n n e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt No

312 U S 2 5 E ( S R

3 2 ) I n W h i t e P i n e W h i t e P i n e R e p l a c e

" R e d u c e d S p e e d

L i m i t " S i g n s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

313 S R 6 6

R e l o c a t i o n N o r t h o f I

- 8 1

a t S R 3 4 1 t o

S R 1 6 0 J e f f e r s o n

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 4

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

314 S R 9 2 B r i d g e i n

D a n d r i d g e D a n d r i d g e R e p l a c e B r i d g e 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

315 S R 9 2 U S 1 1 E t o

H i n c h e y

H o l l o w R d J e f f e r s o n

C i t y I n s t a l l s t r e e t

l i g h t i n g 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

316 S R 9 2 I n t e r s e c t i o n a t

O l d A J H w y J e f f e r s o n

C i t y A d d l e f t a n d r i g h t

t u r n l a n e s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

317 U S 1 1 E ( S R

3 4 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n w /

G e o r g e A v e J e f f e r s o n

C i t y I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

318 U S 1 1 E ( S R

3 4 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n w /

R u s s e l l A v e J e f f e r s o n

C i t y I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

319 U S 1 1 E ( S R

3 4 ) S R 9 2 t o

M o r r i s t o w n

C i t y L i m i t J e f f e r s o n

C i t y I n s t a l l s t r e e t

l i g h t i n g 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

320 U S 1 1 E ( S R

3 4 ) A l l s i g n a l i z e d

i n t e r s e c t i o n s J e f f e r s o n

C i t y L E D s i g n a l h e a d

r e p l a c e m e n t s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

321 U S 1 1 E ( S R

3 4 ) S R 9 2 S t o

H i c k s R d J e f f e r s o n

C i t y I n s t a l l P e d e s t r i a n

S i g n a l s a n d

P u s h b u t t o n

A c t i v a t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

322 U S 1 1 E ( S R

3 4 ) S R 9 2 S t o

O d y s s e y R d J e f f e r s o n

C i t y S i g n a l

C o o r d i n a t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

323 U S 1 1 E ( S R

3 4 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n a t

P e a r l A v e a n d

a t H a r r i n g t o n

S t J e f f e r s o n

C i t y I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t

-

a d d l e f t t u r n l a n e s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

324 U S 4 1 1 / U S

2 5 W ( S R 3 5 ) G r a p e v i n e

H o l l o w R d t o

4

- l a n e s e c t i o n

o f S R 9 J e f f e r s o n

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

4 0 0 H a r r i s o n

R o a d F r o m K i n g s t o n

S t t o L e n o i r

C i t y L i m i t s

( a p p r o x

. 7

, 0 0 0

f t

. ) L e n o i r C i t y I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t s

a n d r e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt N o

401 I m p r o v e R R

C r o s s i n g s V a r i o u s

l o c a t i o n s i n

L e n o i r C i t y L e n o i r C i t y I m p r o v e a t

- g r a d e

R R c r o s s i n g s 2 0 1 4 Exempt N oKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 99 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

4 0 2 I m p r o v e

S t r e e t s c a p e s

a n d P a v e m e n t V a r i o u s

l o c a t i o n s i n

L o u d o n

C o u n t y L o u d o n

C o u n t y I m p r o v e

s t r e e t s c a p e s a n d

r e p a i r p a v e m e n t 2 0 1 4 Exempt N o

403 I m p r o v e

S t r e e t s c a p e s

a n d P a v e m e n t V a r i o u s

l o c a t i o n s i n

G r e e n b a c k G r e e n b a c k I m p r o v e

s t r e e t s c a p e s a n d

r e p a i r p a v e m e n t 2 0 1 4 Exempt N o

4 0 4 U n i t i a R d U n i t i a R d

B r i d g e L o u d o n

C o u n t y R e p l a c e B r i d g e 2 0 1 4 Exempt N o

405 U S 1 1 ( S R 2 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n w /

S h a w F e r r y R d L o u d o n

C o u n t y I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t s 2 0 1 4 Exempt N o

4 0 6 U S 1 1 ( S R 2 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n w /

U S 7 0 ( S R 1 ) L o u d o n

C o u n t y I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t s 2 0 1 4 Exempt N o

407 U S 1 1 ( S R 2 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n w /

L o u d o n H

. S

. E n t r

. L o u d o n I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t s 2 0 1 4 Exempt N o

4 0 8 U S 3 2 1 ( S R

7 3 ) I

- 7 5

I n t e r c h a n g e t o

U S 1 1 ( S R 2 ) L e n o i r C i t y I n t e r s e c t i o n

I m p r o v e m e n t s

f r o m C o r r i d o r

S t u d y 2 0 1 4 Exempt N o

409 U S 3 2 1 ( S R

7 3 ) U S 1 1 ( S R 2 )

t o e a s t o f L i t t l e

T e n n e s s e e

R i v e r L o u d o n

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t 4

- l a n e

r o a d o n e x i s t i n g

a n d n e w

a l i g n m e n t 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Y e s

4 1 0 U S 3 2 1 ( S R

7 3 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n w /

U S 1 1 ( S R 2 ) L e n o i r C i t y C o n s t r u c t

I n t e r c h a n g e 2 0 1 4 Exempt N o

411 V e t e r a n ' s

M e m o r i a l

B r i d g e V e t e r a n ' s

M e m o r i a l

B r i d g e L o u d o n I n s t a l l l i g h t i n g 2 0 1 4 Exempt N o

502 D o l l y P a r t o n

P k w y ( U S

4 1 1 ) ( S R 3 5 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n w /

V e t e r a n s B l v d

( S R 4 4 9 ) S e v i e r v i l l e I m p r o v e

I n t e r s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

503 O l d

K n o x v i l l e

H i g h w a y B o y d s C r e e k

H w y ( S R 3 3 8 )

t o U S 4 1 1 / 4 4 1

( S R 7 1 ) S e v i e r v i l l e W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

v a r i o u s 3 a n d 4

l a n e d i v i d e d c r o s s

s e c t i o n s 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt No

504 V e t e r a n s

B l v d ( S R

4 4 9 )

E x t e n s i o n U S 4 1 1 ( S R

3 5 ) t o S R 6 6 S e v i e r v i l l e C o n s t r u c t n e w 4

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

505 B i r d s C r e e k

R o a d ( S R

4 5 4 ) G l a d e R d t o

S R 4 1 6 S e v i e r

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

506 S R 6 6 N o r t h o f

N i c h o l s S t t o

B o y d s C r e e k

H w y ( S R 3 3 8 ) S e v i e r v i l l e / S

e v i e r C o u n t y W i d e n 4

- l a n e t o

6

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

507 S R 6 6 B o y d s C r e e k

H w y ( S R 3 3 8 )

t o I

- 4 0 S e v i e r v i l l e / S

e v i e r C o u n t y W i d e n 4

- l a n e t o

6

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt YesKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 100 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

508 C h a p m a n

H w y ( S R 7 1 )

( U S 4 4 1 ) B o y d s C r e e k

H w y ( S R 3 3 8 )

t o M a c o n L n S e v i e r

C o u n t y / S e y

m o u r A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

509 T h o m a s R o a d

C o n n e c t o r T e a s t e r L a n e t o

V e t e r a n s B l v d

( S R 4 4 9 ) a t

M c C a r t e r

H o l l o w R d P i g e o n F o r g e C o n s t r u c t n e w 4

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 1 4 Non

-

E xempt Yes

510 U S 4 1 1 ( S R

3 5 ) S i m s R d t o

G r a p e v i n e

H o l l o w R d S e v i e r

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

600 W a t t R o a d

E x t e n s i o n O l d S t a g e R d

t o K i n g s t o n P k

( S R 1 ) ( U S

1 1 / 7 0 ) F a r r a g u t C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

-

l a n e r o a d w i t h

c e n t e r t u r n l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt No

601 C a m p b e l l

S t a t i o n R o a d J a m e s t o w n

B l v d t o

P a r k s i d e D r /

G r i g s b y

C h a p e l R d F a r r a g u t W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e w / c e n t e r

t u r n l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

602 O u t l e t D r i v e L o v e l l R d ( S R

1 3 1 ) t o

C a m p b e l l

S t a t i o n R d F a r r a g u t / K n o

x C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

-

l a n e r o a d

w / c e n t e r t u r n l a n e

a l o n g e x i s t i n g a n d

n e w a l i g n m e n t 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt No

603 E m o r y R o a d

( S R 1 3 1 ) C l i n t o n H w y

( S R 9 ) ( U S

2 5 W ) t o G i l l

R d K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e w / c e n t e r

t u r n l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

604 M a y n a r d v i l l e

H w y ( S R 3 3 ) T e m p l e A c r e s

D r t o U n i o n

C o u n t y L i n e K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

605 S c h a a d R o a d

E x t e n s i o n M i d d l e b r o o k

P i k e ( S R 1 6 9 )

t o w e s t o f O a k

R i d g e H w y

( S R 6 2 ) K n o x

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 4

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

607 H a l l s

C o n n e c t o r No rris Fwy

(SR 71) (US

441), Emory

Rd (SR 131),

Maynardville

Hwy (SR 33) K n o x

C o u n t y Reconfigure

intersections and

add SB thru lane

on Norris Fwy

from Emory Rd

to Maynardville

Hwy 2014 Non

- Exempt No

608 L o v e l l R o a d

( S R 1 3 1 ) Pellissippi

Pkwy (SR 162)

SB Ramp s to

Schaeffer Rd K n o x

C o u n t y Widen 2

- lane to

4

- lane w/center

turn lane 2014 Non

- Exempt Yes

609 E m o r y R d

( S R 1 3 1 ) Intersection

w/Tazewell Pk

(SR 331) K n o x

C o u n t y Intersection

improvement 2014 Exempt NoKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 101 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

610 W e s t e r n

A v e n u e ( S R

6 2 ) T e x a s A v e t o

M a j o r A v e K n o x v i l l e W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

611 I

- 6 4 0 /

B r o a d w a y

( S R 3 3 ) ( U S

4 4 1 )

I n t e r c h a n g e

P h a s e I I I

- 6 4 0 /

B r o a d w a y ( S R

3 3 ) ( U S 4 4 1 )

I n t e r c h a n g e K n o x v i l l e C o n s t r u c t

a d d i t i o n a l r a m p s

a n d a c c e s s

i m p r o v e m e n t s 2 0 1 4 Non

-

exempt Yes

612 W e s t e r n

A v e n u e ( S R

6 2 ) S c h a a d R d t o I

-

6 4 0 K n o x v i l l e W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e w / c e n t e r

t u r n l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

613 C u m b e r l a n d

A v e n u e ( S R

1 ) ( U S 1 1 / 7 0 ) 2 2 n d S t t o 1 6 t h

S t K n o x v i l l e P e d e s t r i a n

I m p r o v e m e n t s

a n d R e d u c e f r o m

4 l a n e s t o 2 l a n e s

w i t h c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

614 H e n l e y S t r e e t

B r i d g e ( S R

3 3 / 7 1 ) ( U S

4 4 1 ) B r i d g e o v e r

T e n n e s s e e

R i v e r K n o x v i l l e R e h a b i l i t a t e

b r i d g e & w i d e n

5

- l a n e t o 6

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

615 W a s h i n g t o n

P i k e I

- 6 4 0 t o

M u r p h y R d K n o x v i l l e W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

616 P l e a s a n t

R i d g e

R d / M e r c h a n t

D r P h a s e I I K n o x v i l l e C i t y

L i m i t s t o

M e r c h a n t D r /

P l e a s a n t R i d g e

R d t o

W i l k e r s o n R d K n o x v i l l e A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

617 S o u t h

K n o x v i l l e

W a t e r f r o n t

R o a d w a y

I m p r o v e m e n t

s S e v i e r A v e /

B l o u n t A v e

f r o m S c o t t i s h

P k t o J a m e s

W h i t e P k w y

( S R 7 1 ) K n o x v i l l e A d d t u r n l a n e s

w h e r e n e e d e d a n d

w i d e n o n e

- l a n e

u n d e r p a s s t o t w o

l a n e s 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

618 I

- 2 7 5

I n d u s t r i a l

P a r k A c c e s s

I m p r o v e m e n t

s I

- 2 7 5 C o r r i d o r K n o x v i l l e I m p r o v e r a i l r o a d

u n d e r p a s s e s a n d

m a k e a c c e s s

i m p r o v e m e n t s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

619 V a r i o u s

R a i l r o a d

C r o s s i n g s V a r i o u s

R a i l r o a d

C r o s s i n g

L o c a t i o n s K n o x v i l l e I m p r o v e c i r c u i t r y

o n v e h i c l e

p r o t e c t i o n d e v i c e s

o f a t

- g r a d e R R

c r o s s i n g s

t h r o u g h o u t

K n o x v i l l e 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

620 C e s s n a R o a d

R R C r o s s i n g C e s n a R d R R

c r o s s i n g K n o x v i l l e I m p r o v e t h e a t

-

g r a d e R R

c r o s s i n g a t

C e s s n a R d 2 0 1 4 Exempt NoKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 102 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

621 I

- 4 0 / 7 5 F r o m I

- 1 4 0 t o

L o v e l l R d ( S R

1 3 1 )

I n t e r c h a n g e

W e s t b o u n d

D i r e c t i o n K n o x v i l l e A d d f u l l a u x i l i a r y

l a n e w e s t b o u n d

b e t w e e n

i n t e r c h a n g e s

( a p p r o x 2

, 7 0 0 f t ) 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

622 I

- 4 0 / 7 5 a t

W e i g h

S t a t i o n E a s t b o u n d a n d

W e s t b o u n d

T r u c k W e i g h

S t a t i o n s K n o x v i l l e E x t e n d o n a n d o f f

r a m p s a t w e i g h

s t a t i o n s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

623 I

- 1 4 0

( P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ) I

- 4 0 t o

D u t c h t o w n R d K n o x v i l l e R e s t r i p e t o a d d

o n e l a n e o n

n o r t h b o u n d I

- 1 4 0

a n d r e m o v e o n e

l a n e f r o m t h e

r a m p f r o m I

- 4 0 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

624 C e d a r B l u f f

R o a d C r o s s P a r k D r

t o P e t e r s R d K n o x v i l l e I n t e r s e c t i o n a n d

O p e r a t i o n a l

I m p r o v e m e n t s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

625 S c h a a d R o a d O a k R i d g e

H w y ( S R 6 2 )

t o P l e a s a n t

R i d g e R d K n o x v i l l e /

K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

626 C h a p m a n

H i g h w a y ( S R

7 1 ) ( U S 4 4 1 ) B l o u n t A v e t o

B o y d C r e e k

H w y ( S R 3 3 8 )

i n S e v i e r

C o u n t y K n o x v i l l e /

K n o x

C o u n t y O p e r a t i o n a l a n d

S a f e t y

I m p r o v e m e n t s

i n c l u d i n g t u r n

l a n e s a t v a r i o u s

l o c a t i o n s 2 0 1 4 Exempt No

627 A l c o a

H i g h w a y ( S R

1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) M a l o n e y R d t o

W o o d s o n D r K n o x v i l l e W i d e n 4

- l a n e t o

6

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

628 A l c o a

H i g h w a y ( S R

1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) M a l o n e y R d t o

B l o u n t / K n o x

C o u n t y L i n e K n o x v i l l e W i d e n 4

- l a n e t o

6

- l a n e 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

694 I

- 1 4 0

( P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ) / N o r t h s

h o r e D r ( S R

3 3 2 )

I n t e r c h a n g e I

- 1 4 0 E B O f f

R a m p t o

N o r t h s h o r e D r

( S R 3 3 2 ) K n o x v i l l e C o n s t r u c t n e w

s l i p r a m p f r o m

e x i s t i n g o f f r a m p

t o s e r v e t h e

N o r t h s h o r e T o w n

C e n t e r

D e v e l o p m e n t 2 0 1 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

101 Edgemoor Rd

(SR 170) Oak Ridge

Hwy (SR 62)

to Clinto n Hwy

(SR 9) (US

25W) Oak

Ridge/Ander

son County Widen 2

- lane to

4

- lane 2024 Non

-

exempt YesKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 103 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

103 Park Lane Andersonville

Hwy (SR 61)

to End of

Route Anderson

County Reconstruct 2

-

lane section 2024 Exempt No

215 A i r p o r t

A c c e s s R o a d

t o I

- 1 4 0 A i r p o r t

T e r m i n u s t o

P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( I

- 1 4 0 )

( S R 1 6 2 ) A l c o a A d d n e w

i n t e r c h a n g e

r a m p s t o s e r v i c e

a i r p o r t c a r g o a r e a 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

216 A l c o a

H i g h w a y ( S R

1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) S i n g l e t o n

S t a t i o n R d t o

T o p s i d e R d

( S R 3 3 3 ) B l o u n t

C o u n t y /

A l c o a W i d e n 4

- l a n e t o

6

- l a n e p l u s 2

a u x i l i a r y l a n e s ( 8

t o t a l l a n e s ) 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

255 A l c o a

H i g h w a y ( S R

1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( I

- 1 4 0 )

( S R 1 6 2 ) t o

S i n g l e t o n

S t a t i o n R d B l o u n t

C o u n t y /

A l c o a W i d e n 4

- l a n e t o

6

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

256 A l c o a

H i g h w a y ( S R

1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) T o p s i d e R d

( S R 3 3 3 ) t o

K n o x C o u n t y

L i n e B l o u n t

C o u n t y /

A l c o a W i d e n 4

- l a n e t o

6

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

2 1 7 A l c o a

H i g h w a y ( S R

1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) S i n g l e t o n

S t a t i o n R d t o

H u n t R d ( S R

3 3 5 ) A l c o a I m p r o v e

i n t e r s e c t i o n s

i n c l u d i n g s i g n a l s

a n d t u r n l a n e s

w h e r e w a r r a n t e d

( u p o n c o m p l e t i o n

o f p r o p o s e d

B y p a s s ) 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

218 A l c o a

H i g h w a y

B y p a s s ( S R

1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) F r o m H a l l R d

( S R 3 5 ) / A l c o a

H w y ( S R 1 1 5 )

I n t e r c h a n g e t o

P r o p o s e d

I n t e r c h a n g e

s e r v i n g

M c G h e e T y s o n

A i r p o r t A l c o a C o n s t r u c t 8

- l a n e

f r e e w a y o n

e x i s t i n g a n d n e w

a l i g n m e n t 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

257 A l c o a

H i g h w a y

B y p a s s ( S R

1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) F r o m P r o p o s e d

I n t e r c h a n g e

s e r v i n g

M c G h e e T y s o n

A i r p o r t t o

P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( S R 1 6 2 ) A l c o a C o n s t r u c t n e w 8

-

l a n e f r e e w a y ( 6

t h r u l a n e s p l u s 2

a u x i l i a r y l a n e s ) 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt YesKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 104 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

258 A l c o a

H i g h w a y

B y p a s s ( S R

1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) F r o m

P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( S R 1 6 2 )

t o N e a r

S i n g l e t o n

S t a t i o n R d A l c o a C o n s t r u c t n e w 8

-

l a n e f r e e w a y ( 6

t h r u l a n e s p l u s 2

a u x i l i a r y l a n e s ) 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

2 1 9 W r i g h t R o a d H u n t R d ( S R

3 3 5 ) t o A l c o a

H w y ( S R 1 1 5 )

( U S 1 2 9 ) A l c o a R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

220 H u n t e r

G r o w t h S t u d y

C o r r i d o r # 1

-

H o m e A v e

E x t e n s i o n H o m e A v e t o

C a l d e r w o o d S t A l c o a /

M a r y v i l l e R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n

,

c o n s t r u c t n e w

b r i d g e

, d e m o l i s h

p a r t o f s h o p p i n g

c e n t e r 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt No

2 2 1 B u r n e t t

S t a t i o n R o a d S e v i e r v i l l e R d

( S R 3 5 ) ( U S

4 1 1 ) t o

C h a p m a n H w y

( S R 7 1 ) ( U S

4 4 1 ) B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

222 C a r p e n t e r s

G r a d e R o a d R a u l s t o n R d t o

M i n t R d B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

223 Carpenters

Grade R oad Cochran Rd to

Raulston Rd Maryville Reconstruct 2

-

lane section 2024 Exempt No

224 F o o t h i l l s

P a r k w a y L a m a r

A l e x a n d e r

P k w y ( S R 7 3 )

( U S 3 2 1 ) t o

S e v i e r C o u n t y

L i n e B l o u n t

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

225 H i n k l e R o a d S e v i e r v i l l e R d

( S R 3 5 ) ( U S

4 1 1 ) t o B u r n e t t

S t a t i o n R d B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

226 H u n t e r

G r o w t h S t u d y

C o r r i d o r # 5

-

R i d g e R d

E x t e n s i o n R i d g e R d t o

P l e a s a n t H i l l

R d B l o u n t

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt No

227 M e n t o r R o a d L o u i s v i l l e R d

( S R 3 3 4 ) t o

W r i g h t s F e r r y

R d B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

228 M i n t R o a d O l d N i l e s F e r r y

t o 4 m i l e s e a s t B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

229 M o r g a n t o n

R o a d P h a s e 2 W i l l a m B l o u n t

D r ( S R 3 3 5 ) t o

W a l k e r R d B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt NoKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 105 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

230 N a i l s C r e e k

R o a d W i l d w o o d R d

t o B u r n e t t

S t a t i o n R d B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

231 O l d

K n o x v i l l e

H i g h w a y ( S R

3 3 ) P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( S R 1 6 2 )

t o K n o x

C o u n t y L i n e B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

232 P e l l i s s i p p i

P a r k w a y ( S R

1 6 2 ) O l d K n o x v i l l e

H w y ( S R 3 3 )

t o L a m a r

A l e x a n d e r

P k w y ( S R 7 3 )

( U S 3 2 1 ) B l o u n t

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 4

-

l a n e f r e e w a y 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

233 P r o f f i t t

S p r i n g s R o a d L o u i s v i l l e R d

( S R 3 3 4 ) t o

H u n t R d ( S R

3 3 5 ) B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

234 W i l d w o o d

R o a d M a r y v i l l e C i t y

L i m i t t o

S e v i e r v i l l e R d

( S R 3 5 ) ( U S

4 1 1 ) B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

235 W i l k i n s o n

P i k e M a r y v i l l e C i t y

L i m i t t o

C h i l h o w e e

V i e w R d B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

236 Brown

School Rd E. Broadway

A ve (SR 33) to

Sevierville Rd

(SR 35) (US

411) Maryville Reconstruct 2

-

lane section 2024 Exempt No

238 H u n t e r

G r o w t h S t u d y

C o r r i d o r # 3

-

R o b e r t C

. J a c k s o n D r

E x t e n s i o n L a m a r

A l e x a n d e r

P k w y ( S R 7 3 )

( U S 3 2 1 ) t o

M o r g a n t o n R d M a r y v i l l e C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt No

239 M o n t v a l e

R o a d ( S R

3 3 6 ) M a r y v i l l e

S o u t h C i t y

L i m i t s t o

L a m a r

A l e x a n d e r

P k w y ( S R 7 3 )

( U S 3 2 1 ) M a r y v i l l e A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt No

240 Sandy

Springs Rd Intersection w/

Montgomery

Ln Maryville Intersection

Improvements 2024 Exempt NoKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 106 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

241 Tuckaleechee

Pk Lamar

Alexander

Pkwy (SR 73)

(US 321) to

Grandview Dr Maryville Reconstruct 2

-

lane section 2024 Exempt No

242 W

. B r o a d w a y

A v e n u e ( S R

3 3 ) ( U S 4 1 1 ) O l d N i l e s F e r r y

R d t o L a m a r

A l e x a n d e r

P k w y ( S R 7 3 )

( U S 3 2 1 ) M a r y v i l l e A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

-

exempt Yes

243 Wilkinson Pk Court St to

Maryville City

Limits Maryville Reconstruct 2

-

lane section 2024 Exempt No

244 P e p p e r m i n t

R d W i l d w o o d R d

t o S e v i e r v i l l e

R d ( S R 3 5 )

( U S 4 1 1 ) B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

245 S e v i e r v i l l e

R d ( S R 3 5 )

( U S 4 1 1 ) D o g w o o d D r t o

P e p p e r m i n t R d M a r y v i l l e /

B l o u n t

C o u n t y A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Y es

246 W i l l i a m

B l o u n t D r

E x t e n s i o n

( S R 3 3 5 ) U S 4 1 1 ( S R

3 3 ) @ W m

. B l o u n t D r t o

O l d N i l e s F e r r y

R d M a r y v i l l e /

B l o u n t

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

-

l a n e r o a d 2024 Non

- Exempt Yes

325 I

- 4 0 / I

- 8 1

I n t e r c h a n g e I

- 4 0 / I

- 8 1

I n t e r c h a n g e J e f f e r s o n

C o u n t y S a f e t y

I m p r o v e m e n t s t o

i n c r e a s e l e n g t h o f

a c c e l e r a t i o n

r a m p s 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

326 O l d A J

H i g h w a y M o s s y C r e e k

E

. o f B r a n n e r

A v e J e f f e r s o n

C i t y B r i d g e

r e p l a c e m e n t 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

4 1 2 O l d H i g h w a y

9 5 ( K i n g s t o n

S t r e e t ) H a r r i s o n R d t o

U S 3 2 1 ( S R

7 3 ) L e n o i r C i t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt N o

413 S R 7 2 U S 1 1 ( S R 2 )

t o C o r p o r a t e

P a r k L o u d o n

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Y e s

4 1 4 U S 1 1 ( S R 2 ) L e n o i r C i t y

L i m i t s t o U S

3 2 1 ( S R 7 3 ) L e n o i r C i t y S t r e e t s c a p e

i m p r o v e m e n t s

, P o t e n t i a l " R o a d

D i e t " ( r e d u c e

f r o m 4

- l a n e t o 3

-

l a n e ) 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Y e s

415 U S 1 1 ( S R 2 ) B l a i r B e n d R d

t o L e n o i r C i t y

L i m i t L o u d o n

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt N oKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 107 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

4 1 6 U S 1 1 ( S R 2 ) U S 3 2 1 ( S R

7 3 ) t o U S 7 0

( S R 1 ) L e n o i r C i t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Y e s

511 F o o t h i l l s

P a r k w a y B l o u n t C o u n t y

L i n e t o U S 3 2 1

( S R 7 3 ) i n

W e a r s V a l l e y S e v i e r

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

512 I

- 4 0 / S R 6 6

I n t e r c h a n g e I n t e r c h a n g e a t

S R 6 6 S e v i e r v i l l e M o d i f y

I n t e r c h a n g e t o

i m p r o v e c a p a c i t y

i n c l u d i n g a d d i t i o n

o f n e w I n t e r s t a t e

a c c e s s r a m p s 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

513 U S 3 2 1 ( S R

7 3 ) B u c k h o r n R d

( S R 4 5 4 ) t o

e a s t o f P i t t m a n

C e n t e r S e v i e r

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

629 I

- 4 0 / 7 5 /

C a m p b e l l

S t a t i o n R o a d

I n t e r c h a n g e I n t e r c h a n g e w /

C a m p b e l l

S t a t i o n R d F a r r a g u t Reconfigure

existing

interchange to

improve safety

and operations 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

630 V i r t u e R o a d B o y d S t a t i o n

R d t o K i n g s t o n

P i k e ( S R 1 )

( U S 1 1 / 7 0 ) F a r r a g u t R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

631 T u r k e y C r e e k

R o a d B r i x w o r t h

B l v d t o B o y d

S t a t i o n R d F a r r a g u t C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

-

l a n e b r i d g e a n d

a p p r o a c h e s t o

c o n n e c t r o a d s 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt No

632 C o n c o r d

R o a d ( S R

3 3 2 ) T u r k e y C r e e k

R d t o

N o r t h s h o r e D r

( S R 3 3 2 ) F a r r a g u t /

K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

633 P a r k s i d e

D r i v e M a b r y H o o d

R d t o H a y f i e l d

R d K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt No

634 P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( S R

1 6 2 ) / H a r d i n

V a l l e y R o a d

I n t e r c h a n g e H a r d i n V a l l e y

R d I n t e r c h a n g e

a t P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( S R 1 6 2 ) K n o x

C o u n t y Reconfigure

existing

interchange to

improve safety

and operations 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

635 K a r n s

C o n n e c t o r W e s t c o t t B l v d

t o O a k R i d g e

H w y ( S R 6 2 ) K n o x

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t N e w 2

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt No

636 E m o r y R o a d

( S R 1 3 1 ) O a k R i d g e

H w y ( S R 6 2 )

t o C l i n t o n H w y

( S R 9 ) ( U S

2 5 W ) K n o x

C o u n t y A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt YesKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 108 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

637 L o v e l l R o a d

( S R 1 3 1 ) S c h a e f f e r R d t o

M i d d l e b r o o k

P i k e ( S R 1 6 9 ) K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt

638 O a k R i d g e

H i g h w a y ( S R

6 2 ) S c h a a d R d t o

B y i n g t o n

-

B e a v e r R i d g e

R d ( S R 1 3 1 ) K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

-

Exem pt Yes

639 S t r a w b e r r y

P l a i n s P i k e G o v

. J o h n

S e v i e r H w y

( S R 1 6 8 ) t o

M o s h i n a R d K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt No

640 T a z e w e l l P i k e

( S R 3 3 1 ) M u r p h y R d t o

E m o r y R d ( S R

1 3 1 ) K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

641 T a z e w e l l P i k e

( S R 1 3 1 ) E m o r y R d ( S R

1 3 1 ) t o B a r k e r

R d K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

642 W e s t l a n d

D r i v e M o r r e l l R d t o

E b e n e z e r R d K n o x

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

643 E m o r y R o a d

( S R 1 3 1 ) M a y n a r d v i l l e

H w y ( S R 3 3 )

t o T a z e w e l l

P i k e ( S R 3 3 1 ) K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

644 G o v J o h n

S e v i e r

H i g h w a y ( S R

1 6 8 ) A l c o a H w y

( S R 1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) t o

C h a p m a n H w y

( S R 7 1 ) ( U S

4 4 1 ) K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

645 N o r t h s h o r e

D r i v e ( S R

3 3 2 ) M o r r e l l R d t o

E b e n e z e r R d K n o x

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

646 N o r t h s h o r e

D r i v e ( S R

3 3 2 ) P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( I

- 1 4 0 )

t o C o n c o r d R d

( S R 3 3 2 ) K n o x

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

647 P e l l i s s i p p i

P a r k w a y ( S R

1 6 2 ) E d g e m o o r R d

( S R 1 7 0 ) t o

D u t c h t o w n R d K n o x

C o u n t y A d d a u x i l i a r y

l a n e s b e t w e e n

i n t e r c h a n g e s a n d

a c c e s s c o n t r o l

i n c l u d i n g

f r o n t a g e r o a d s

w h e r e n e e d e d 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

648 P e l l i s s i p p i

P a r k w a y ( S R

1 6 2 ) / L o v e l l

R d ( S R 1 3 1 )

I n t e r c h a n g e Lovell Rd (SR

1 31)

Interchange at

Pellissippi

Pkwy (SR 162) K n o x

C o u n t y Reconfigure

existing

interchange to

improve safety

and operations 2024 Exempt NoKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 109 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

649 P e l l i s s i p p i

P a r k w a y ( S R

1 6 2 ) / O a k

R i d g e

H i g h w a y ( S R

6 2 )

I n t e r c h a n g e Oak Ridge

Hwy (SR 62)

Interchange at

Pellissippi

Pkwy (SR 162) K n o x

C o u n t y Reconfigure

existing

interchange to

improve safety

and operations 2024 Exempt No

650 B y i n g t o n

-

B e a v e r R i d g e

R o a d ( S R

1 3 1 ) At One

- Lane

Railroad

Underpass K n o x

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w

r o a d o r w i d e n

r a i l r o a d

u n d e r p a s s 2024 Non

- Exempt No

651 I

- 4 0 / 7 5 / W a t t

R o a d

I n t e r c h a n g e W a t t R d

I n t e r c h a n g e a t

I

- 4 0 / 7 5 K n o x

C o u n t y Reconfigure

existing

interchange to

improve safety

and operations 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

652 I

- 7 5 / E m o r y

R o a d ( S R

1 3 1 )

I n t e r c h a n g e E m o r y R d ( S R

1 3 1 )

I n t e r c h a n g e a t

I

- 7 5 K n o x v i l l e Reconfigure

existing

interchange to

improve safety

and operations 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

653 A l c o a

H i g h w a y ( S R

1 1 5 ) ( U S

1 2 9 ) W o o d s o n D r t o

C h e r o k e e T r a i l K n o x v i l l e W i d e n 4

- l a n e t o

6

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

654 I

- 6 4 0 / I

- 2 7 5 /

I

- 7 5

I n t e r c h a n g e I n t e r c h a n g e a t

I

- 6 4 0 & I

- 7 5 / I

-

2 7 5 K n o x v i l l e I n t e r c h a n g e

i m p r o v e m e n t s t o

i n c l u d e a d d i t i o n a l

t h r o u g h l a n e s o n

I

- 7 5 n o r t h a n d

s o u t h b o u n d

r a m p s 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Y es

655 M i l l e r t o w n

P i k e W a s h i n g t o n

P i k e t o I

- 6 4 0 K n o x v i l l e R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

656 M i l l e r t o w n

P i k e I

- 6 4 0 t o M i l l

R d K n o x v i l l e W i d e n 2

- l a n e a n d

4

- l a n e s e c t i o n s t o

4

- l a n e a n d 6

- l a n e

s e c t i o n s 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

657 W a s h i n g t o n

P i k e M i l l e r t o w n

P i k e t o I

- 6 4 0 K n o x v i l l e A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt No

658 N o r t h s h o r e

D r i v e ( S R

3 3 2 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n w /

K i n g s t o n P i k e

( S R 1 ) ( U S

1 1 / 7 0 ) K n o x v i l l e I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

659 T a z e w e l l P i k e

( S R 3 3 1 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n w /

O l d B r o a d w a y

& G r e e n w a y

D r K n o x v i l l e I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

660 G l e a s o n

D r i v e M o n t v u e R d t o

G a l l a h e r V i e w

R d K n o x v i l l e R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt NoKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 110 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

661 I

- 7 5 /

C a l l a h a n R d

I n t e r c h a n g e C a l l a h a n R d

I n t e r c h a n g e K n o x v i l l e Reconfigure

existing

interchange to

improve safety

and operations 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

662 I

- 7 5 /

M e r c h a n t D r

I n t e r c h a n g e M e r c h a n t D r

I n t e r c h a n g e K n o x v i l l e Reconfig ure

existing

interchange to

improve safety

and operations 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

663 N o r t h s h o r e

D r i v e ( S R

3 3 2 ) L y o n s V i e w P k

t o M o r r e l l R d K n o x v i l l e R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

664 B r o a d w a y

( S R 3 3 ) ( U S

4 4 1 ) I n t e r s e c t i o n

w i t h H a l l o f

F a m e D r K n o x v i l l e I n t e r s e c t i o n

i m p r o v e m e n t 2 0 2 4 Exempt No

665 M u r p h y R o a d

E x t e n s i o n W a s h i n g t o n

P i k e t o

M i l l e r t o w n

P i k e K n o x v i l l e /

K n o x

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 4

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

666 S o u t h

K n o x v i l l e

B o u l e v a r d

( S R 7 1 ) M o o d y A v e t o

C h a p m a n H w y

( S R 7 1 ) ( U S

4 4 1 ) K n o x v i l l e /

K n o x

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 4

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

667 S t r a w b e r r y

P l a i n s P i k e M o s h i n a R d t o

s o u t h o f I

- 4 0 K n o x v i l l e /

K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 2 4 Non

- Exempt No

247 S a m H o u s t o n

S c h o o l R o a d O l d K n o x v i l l e

H w y ( S R 3 3 )

t o W i l d w o o d

R d A l c o a /

B l o u n t

C o u n t y A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt No

248 T o p s i d e R o a d

( S R 3 3 3 ) A l c o a H w y

( U S 1 2 9 ) ( S R

1 1 5 ) t o

W r i g h t s F e r r y

R d A l c o a R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

249 M o n t v a l e R d

( S R 3 3 6 ) M a r y v i l l e C i t y

L i m i t s ( n e a r

H i l l C t ) t o S i x

M i l e R d B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

250 S e v i e r v i l l e

R o a d ( S R 3 5 )

( U S 4 1 1 ) P e p p e r m i n t R d

t o C h a p m a n

H w y ( S R 7 1 )

( U S 4 4 1 ) B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

251 T o p s i d e R o a d

( S R 3 3 3 ) P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( S R 1 6 2 )

t o L o u i s v i l l e

R d ( S R 3 3 4 ) B l o u n t

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt YesKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 111 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

252 H u n t e r

G r o w t h S t u d y

C o r r i d o r # 4

-

C o c h r a n R d

E x t e n s i o n C a r p e n t e r s

G r a d e R d t o

M o n t v a l e R d

( S R 1 3 6 ) M a r y v i l l e /

B l o u n t

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt No

253 H u n t e r

G r o w t h S t u d y

C o r r i d o r # 6

-

O l d G l o r y R d

E x t e n s i o n S

. O l d G l o r y

R d t o W i l l i a m

B l o u n t D R ( S R

3 3 5 ) M a r y v i l l e /

B l o u n t

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

254 H u n t e r

G r o w t h S t u d y

C o r r i d o r # 7

-

S o u t h e r n

L o o p

C o n n e c t o r U S 3 2 1 ( S R

7 3 ) @

p r o p o s e d

P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( S R 1 6 2 )

e x t e n s i o n t o

O l d N i l e s F e r r y

R d @ p r o p o s e d

W m B l o u n t D r

( S R 3 3 5 )

e x t e n s i o n M a r y v i l l e /

B l o u n t

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t 2

- l a n e

r o a d a l o n g

e x i s t i n g a n d n e w

a l i g n m e n t 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

417 S R 7 2 C o r p o r a t e P a r k

t o S t o c k t o n

V a l l e y R d L o u d o n

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt Y e s

4 1 8 S R 7 2 U S 1 1 ( S R 2 )

t o V o n o r e R d L o u d o n

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt Y e s

419 S R 7 2 V o n o r e R d t o

M o n r o e

C o u n t y L i n e L o u d o n

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt Y e s

4 2 0 S u g a r L i m b

R o a d U S 1 1 ( S R 2 )

t o I

- 7 5 L o u d o n W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt Y e s

421 U S 1 1 ( S R 2 ) S R 7 2 t o P o n d

C r e e k R d L o u d o n R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt N o

4 2 2 U S 3 2 1 ( S R

7 3 ) U S 1 1 ( S R 2 )

t o I

- 7 5 L e n o i r C i t y W i d e n 4

- l a n e t o

6

- l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt Y e s

668 K i n g s t o n P i k e

( S R 1 ) ( U S

1 1 / 7 0 ) S m i t h R d t o

C a m p b e l l

S t a t i o n R d F a r r a g u t W i d e n 4

- l a n e t o

6

- l a n e 2 0 3 4 No n

- Exempt Yes

669 E v e r e t t R o a d P r o p o s e d

S y n d e r R d

E x t e n s i o n t o

K i n g s t o n P k

( S R 1 ) ( U S

1 1 / 7 0 ) F a r r a g u t R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

670 S n y d e r R o a d

E x t e n s i o n C a m p b e l l

S t a t i o n R d t o

E v e r e t t R d

n o r t h o f I

- 4 0 F a r r a g u t C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

-

l a n e r o a d 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt YesKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 112 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

671 C e n t r a l

A v e n u e P i k e B e a v e r C r e e k

D r t o E m o r y

R d ( S R 1 3 1 ) K n o x

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

6 72 D a n t e R o a d C e n t r a l

A v e n u e P i k e t o

D r y G a p P k K n o x

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

673 O a k R i d g e

H i g h w a y ( S R

6 2 ) B y i n g t o n

-

B e a v e r R i d g e

R d ( S R 1 3 1 ) t o

P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( S R 1 6 2 ) K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

67 4 W e s t l a n d

D r i v e N o r t h s h o r e D r

( S R 3 3 2 ) t o

P e l l i s s i p p i

P k w y ( I

- 1 4 0 ) K n o x

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

675 M a r y v i l l e

P i k e ( S R 3 3 ) G o v

. J o h n

S e v i e r H w y

( S R 1 6 8 ) t o

B l o u n t C o u n t y

L i n e K n o x

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

676 E m o r y R o a d

( S R 3 3 1 ) T a z e w e l l P i k e

( S R 1 3 1 ) t o

G r a i n g e r

C o u n t y L i n e K n o x

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

677 G o v J o h n

S e v i e r

H i g h w a y ( S R

1 6 8 ) C h a p m a n H w y

( S R 7 1 ) ( U S

4 4 1 ) t o

A s h e v i l l e H w y K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 2

- l a n e t o

4

- l a n e 2 0 3 4 N on

- Exempt Yes

678 G l e a s o n

D r i v e G a l l a h e r V i e w

R d t o E b e n e z e r

R d K n o x

C o u n t y A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt No

679 I

- 7 5 / R a c c o o n

V a l l e y R d

I n t e r c h a n g e R a c c o o n

V a l l e y R d

I n t e r c h a n g e a t

I

- 7 5 K n o x

C o u n t y Reconfigure

existing

interchange to

improve saf ety

and operations 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

680 N o r t h s h o r e

D r i v e C o n c o r d R d

( S R 3 3 2 ) t o

C h o t o R d K n o x

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

681 R a c c o o n

V a l l e y R o a d

( S R 1 7 0 ) N o r r i s F r w y

( S R 7 1 ) ( U S

4 4 1 ) t o I

- 7 5 K n o x

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

682 T a z e w e l l P i k e

( S R 1 3 1 ) B a r k e r R d t o

U n i o n C o u n t y

L i n e K n o x

C o u n t y R e c o n s t r u c t 2

-

l a n e s e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 Exempt No

683 M c F e e R o a d /

H a r v e y R o a d M c F e e R d t o

H a r v e y R d

o v e r r a i l r o a d K n o x

C o u n t y /

F a r r a g u t C o n s t r u c t n e w

r o a d o r w i d e n

r a i l r o a d

u n d e r p a s s 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt YesKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix H

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 113 L R M P

I D # R o u t e T e r m i n i J u r i s d i c t i o n T y p e o f

I m p r o v e m e n t P r o p o s e d

H o r i z o n

Y e a r E x e m p t

S t a t u s R e g i o n a l l y

S i g n i f i c a n t

684 K n o x v i l l e

R e g i o n a l

P a r k w a y ( S R

-

4 7 5 ) I

- 4 0 / 7 5 i n

L o u d o n

C o u n t y t o I

- 7 5

i n A n d e r s o n

C o u n t y K n o x /

A n d e r s o n /

L o u d o n

C o u n t y C o n s t r u c t n e w 4

-

l a n e f r e e w a y 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

685 V a n o s d a l e

R o a d B u c k i n g h a m

R d t o

M i d d l e b r o o k

P i k e ( S R 1 6 9 ) K n o x v i l l e A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt No

686 C e d a r L a n e E a s t o f C e n t r a l

A v e n u e P i k e t o

I n s k i p R d K n o x v i l l e A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt No

687 M o o d y

A v e n u e C h a p m a n H w y

( S R 7 1 ) ( U S

4 4 1 ) t o

M a r y v i l l e P i k e

( S R 3 3 ) K n o x v i l l e C o n s t r u c t n e w 2

-

l a n e r o a d w /

c e n t e r t u r n l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt No

688 M o r r e l l R o a d W e s t l a n d D r t o

N o r t h s h o r e D r

( S R 3 3 2 ) K n o x v i l l e A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt No

689 P a p e r m i l l

R o a d K i n g s t o n P i k e

( S R 1 ) ( U S

1 1 / 7 0 ) t o

W e i s g a r b e r R d K n o x v i l l e A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt No

690 W o o d l a n d

A v e n u e C e n t r a l S t t o

H u r o n S t K n o x v i l l e A d d c e n t e r t u r n

l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

691 I

- 4 0 / 7 5 I

- 4 0 / I

- 7 5

I n t e r c h a n g e t o

L o v e l l R d ( S R

1 3 1 )

I n t e r c h a n g e K n o x v i l l e /

F a r r a g u t /

K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 6

- l a n e t o

8

- l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

- Exempt Yes

692 I

- 7 5 E m o r y R d ( S R

1 3 1 ) t o

R a c c o o n

V a l l e y R d ( S R

1 7 0 )

I n t e r c h a n g e K n o x v i l l e /

K n o x

C o u n t y W i d e n 4

- l a n e t o

6

- l a n e 2 0 3 4 Non

-

Exe mpt Yes

693 I

- 4 0 / G o v

J o h n S e v i e r

H w y ( S R

1 6 8 ) Gov John

Sevier Hwy

(SR 168)/

Hammer Rd/

Oglesby Rd

area K n o x v i l l e /

K n o x

C o u n t y New Interchange 2034 Non

- Exempt YesKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix I

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 114 

## Appendix I

– Existing Plus Committed Projects List

O l d

L R T P

# P r o j e c t J u r i s d i c t i o n L o c a t i o n D e s c r i p t i o n

56 I

- 40 Knoxville I

- 275 to Cherry St Widen 4

- lane to 6

- lane

613 I

- 275 Knoxville Baxter Ave to I

- 640 Widen 4

- lane to 6

- lane

614 I

- 640 Knoxville Interchange with I

- 75/ I

-

275 Widen I

- 75 underpass and add

eastbound through lane

71 Pleasan t Ridge

Road Knoxville Merchant Dr to I

- 640 Add center turn lane

51 Emory Road (SR

131) Knox County Bishop Rd to Norris

Frwy Widen 2

- lane to 4

- lane w/

center turn lane

18 US 321 (SR 73) Loudon County East of Tennessee River

to SR 95 Widen 2

- lane to 4

- lan e

59 Lovell Road (SR

131) Knox County Gilbert Rd to Pellissippi

Pkwy Widen 2

- lane to 4

- lane w/

center turn lane

12 Oak Ridge

Turnpike (SR 95) Oak Ridge Westover Dr to Illinois

Ave (SR 62) Add center turn laneKnoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization Appendix J

2009

– 2034 Knoxville Regional LRMP Air Quality C onformity Determination 

### 115 

## Appendix J

– Updated Non

- Exempt TIP/LRMP Project

Number Reference

FY 2008 - 2011

TIP ID# Project Name & Description Jurisdiction New 2009 - 2034

LRMP # Old 2005 - 2030

LRTP # Horizon

Year

2008-001 Alcoa Hy (SR-115/US-129), Woodson Dr to

Bridge over TN River Knoxville 653 86 2024

2008-002 Alcoa Hy (SR-115/US-129), Pellissippi Pkwy to

south of Little River Alcoa 255,216,256 88 2024

2008-003 Alcoa Hy (SR-115/US-129), North of bridge over

Little River to Maloney Rd Knoxville 627 87 2014

2008-004 Alcoa Hy (SR-115/US-129) bypass, Airport Rd

to Pellissippi Pkwy Alcoa 218,257,258 84 2024

2008-009 Blount/Sevier Rd Corridor improvements City of

Knoxville 617 E7 2014

2006-010 Boyd Station Rd Farragut 683 143 2034

2008-012 Campbell Station Rd, Jamestown to Parkside Dr Farragut 601 44 2014

2008-015 Concord Rd, Turkey Creek to Northshore Dr Knox County 632 46 2024

2008-017 Cumberland Av, Alcoa Hy to 16th Street City of

Knoxville 613 94 2014

2008-020 Harrison Rd, Kingston St to 1,000' west Lenoir City 400 65 2014

2008-023 I-640, Broadway modifications Knoxville 611 57 2014

2008-025 James White Parkway, Chapman to Moody Av Knoxville 666 105 2024

2008-029 Lovell Rd, Gilbert Rd to Shaeffer Rd Knox County 608 59 2014

2008-032 Millertown Pk, Washington Pk to I-640 City of

Knoxville 655 64 2024

2008-033 Millertown Pk, Kinzel Way to Norfolk Southern Knoxville 656 64 2024

2008-039 Pellissippi Py, SR 33 to SR 73 Alcoa 232 70 2024

2008-040 Pleasant Ridge Rd, Knoxville City Limits to

Merchant Rd Knoxville 616 71 2014

2008-046 SR-35, SR 338 to Macon Ln Sevier County 508 E18 2014

2008-052 Washington Pk, Millertown Pk to I-640 Knoxville 657 76 2024

2008-053 Washington Pk, Greenway Dr to Mill Rd City of

Knoxville 615 125 2014

2008-055 Watt Rd, Kingston Pk to Old Stage Rd Farragut 600 68 2014

2008-058 Western Av, Major Av to Texas Av Knoxville 610 78 2014

2008-059 Widen and improve SR-33 Knox County 604 60 2014

# Appendix E

– O n road Mobile Source Summary

### Onroad Summary

Onroad NO

x Emissions Summary for the Knoxville 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.

2007 2010 2013 2016 2020 2024

Anderson 6.24 5.47 4.70 3.93 2.90 1.87

Blount 4.58 4.19 3.79 3.39 2.85 2.32

Cocke* 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

Jefferson 10.87 9.42 7.96 6.51 4.57 2.63

Knox 33.81 29.76 25.71 21.66 16.27 10.87

Loudon 9.99 8.62 7.25 5.88 4.05 2.22

Sevier 6.32 5.62 4.93 4.23 3.30 2.37

Total 71.84 63.09 54.35 45.61 33.95 22.29

-12.2 -24.3 -36.5 -52.7 -69.0

*Only includes the area in the GSMNP.

Onroad VOC Emissions Summary for the Knoxville 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area.

2007 2010 2013 2016 2020 2024

Anderson 2.93 2.66 2.39 2.12 1.75 1.39

Blount 4.24 3.94 3.63 3.33 2.92 2.52

Cocke* 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

Jefferson 2.74 2.49 2.25 2.00 1.68 1.35

Knox 19.32 17.61 15.90 14.19 11.91 9.63

Loudon 2.65 2.40 2.15 1.90 1.56 1.22

Sevier 4.87 4.41 3.95 3.49 2.88 2.27

Total 36.78 33.54 30.29 27.05 22.72 18.39

-8.8 -17.6 -26.5 -38.2 -50.0

*Only includes the area in the GSMNP. --tons/day--

--tons/day-- Percent change in emissions

from 2007

Percent change in emissions

from 2007 County

County



### Page 1 of 1