# Appendix B Emission Inventory Documentation(This page intentionally left blank)

# Appendix B.1

Point Source Emissions Inventory Documentation

### (This page intentionally left blank)Point Source Emissions Inventory i

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston

- Salem Appendix B.1 CO Limit ed Maintenance Plan August 2 , 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

................................ ................................ .................... 1

- 1

2.0 OVERALL METHODOLOGY

................................ ................................ ....................... 2

- 1

2.1 Sour ce Identification

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2

- 1
2.2 Emission Estimation Approach

................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 1

3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

................................ ................................ ............................... 3

- 1

4.0 TOTAL POINT SOURCES EMISSIONS

................................ ................................ ...... 4

- 1

4.1 Summary of Point Source Emissions

................................ ................................ ........... 4

- 1
4.2 Durham County Plant Emissions

................................ ................................ ................. 4

- 2
4.3 Wake County Plant Emissions

................................ ................................ ..................... 4

- 3
4.4 Forsyth County Plant Emissions

................................ ................................ .................. 4

- 4
4.5 Mecklenburg County Plant Emissions

................................ ................................ ......... 4

- 5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Summary of Point Source CO Emissions

................................ ................................ .... 4

- 1 Table 4.2 Summary of Plant CO Emissions for Durham County (tons/day)

............................... 4

- 2 Table 4.3 Summary of Plant CO Emissions for Wake County (tons/day)

................................ .. 4

- 3 Table 4.4 Summary of Plant CO Emissions for Forsyth County (tons/day)

............................... 4

- 4 Table 4.5 Summary of P lant CO Emissions for Mecklenburg County (tons/day)

...................... 4

- 5Point Source Emissions Inventory ii

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston

- Salem Appendix B.1 CO Limit ed Maintenance Plan August 2 , 2012



### (This page intentionally left blank )Point Source Emissions Inventory 1

- 1

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston

- Salem Appendix B.1 CO Limited Maintenance Plan August 2 , 2012 

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

The point source inventory consists of emissions from individual facilities. Primarily, these are industrial or com mercial facilities that require permits issued by the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), the Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department and Mecklenburg Air Quality Section under the Land Use & Environmental Services Agency (LUESA) to emit air pollutants.

The emissions in this report are based on the 2010 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Durham and Wake Counties while Forsyth and Mecklenburg provided emissions to NCDAQ for this r eport

. Most point source emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) are associated with industrial, utility or large institutional boilers. Other CO sources which may be treated as point sources are industrial process combustion (such as kilns) and large stationary inte rnal combustion engines

.Point Source Emissions Inventory 2

- 1

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston

- Salem Appendix B.1 CO Limited Maintenance Plan August 2 , 2012 

### 2.0 OVERALL METHODOLOGY

All permitted sources are required to report emissions annually in the case of larger sources while every five years in the case of smaller sources. The emissions data obtained for this report were pulled from f

iles maintained by the NCDAQ, Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department and Mecklenburg County Air Quality. This 2010 data also represents submissions to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

2.1 Source Identification

All facilities req uired to have permits to operate sources of air pollution are known and are required to submit emission inventories. The local programs in Forsyth and Mecklenburg counties provided the NCDAQ with county specific point source CO inventory data for 2010.

2. 2 Emission Estimation Approach

The emission inventory information reported to the State was transferred to the Integrated Build Environment for Application Management ( IBEAM ) program by both State e mployees. This program helps assure that certain required data elements are not omitted. It also performs calculations, thereby minimizing the occurrence of errors. Depending on the particular process and facility, emissions may be calculated by various methods. In many cases, emissions are estimated using em ission factors published in USEPA’s AP

- 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors . For some processes, a mass balance calculation can be employed to estimate emissions or direct continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) data can be reported. In a rela tively few cases, locally produced emission factors may be used. For any particular case, it is possible to determine how emissions were calculated by going to the NEI. This material may be downloaded from the following USEPA website: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html

. Annual emissions are reported in the NEI and maintained by NCDAQ, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, and Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department. The re is also data for operating hours per day and per year, days per week, and the percentage of emissions occurring in the winter quarter. Using this information, peak CO season daily emissions were calculated. Mecklenburg County and Forsyth County Air Qu ality provided NCDAQ with 2010 annual emissions

. For Durham and Wake Counties, the 2010 inventor y was obtained from the NCDAQ database

.Point Source Emissions Inventory 3

- 1

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston

- Salem Appendix B.1 CO Limited Maintenance Plan August 2 , 2012 

### 3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

The 2010 emission inventory has undergone a number of quality assurance checks to meet t he standards for the National E missions Inventory. The IBEAM program helps insure that important data elements are present and calculates some of the data fields, which reduces the number of errors in the data. In addition, since the State began collecti ng annual fees for emissions from Title V sources, both the State and the facilities ensure that the emissions that are reported annually are accurate.

Calculations of emissions from publicly

- owned treatment works (POTWs) and landfills were carefully ch ecked for accuracy. Segment level emissions were totaled to ensure they equaled the totals for plant level emissions.Point Source Emissions Inventory 4

- 1

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston

- Salem Appendix B.1 CO Limited Maintenance Plan August 2 , 2012 

### 4.0 TOTAL POINT SOURCES EMISSIONS

Summaries of the point source emissions data are listed in the following tables. All emiss ions are in tons per winter day.

Table 4 .1 Summary of Point Source Emissions

Table 4 .2 Summaries of Plant Emissions for Durham County

Table 4 .3 Summaries of Plant Emissions for Wake County

Table 4 .4 Summaries of Plant Emissions for Forsyth County

Table 4 .5 Summaries of Plant Emissions for Mecklenburg County

4 .1 Summary of Point Source Emissions

Table 4 .1 Summary of Point Source CO Emissions
COUNTY 2010

Raleigh/Durham Maintenance Area Durham 0.9 7 Wake 1. 17 TOTAL 2.14

Winston

- Salem Maintenance Area Forsyth 2.2 2

Charlotte Maintenance Area Mecklenburg 2.39Point Source Emissions Inventory 4

- 2

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston

- Salem Appendix B.1 CO Limited Maintenance Plan August 2 , 2012 4 .2 Durham County Plant Emissions

Table 4.2 Summary of Plant CO Emissions for Durham County (tons/day) Facility ID Location Name NAICS/SIC 2010 3200308 AW North Carolina, Inc. 33635 0.03 3200270 Carolina Sunrock LLC

- Muirhead Distribution Center 32732 0.10 3200296 City of Durham Sanitary Landfill 562212 0.07 3200299 Cree Inc

- Silicon Dr 334413 0.09 3200144 Duke University 61131 0.36 3200143 Durham Regional Hospital 62211 0.01 3200289 Eisai Inc 325412 0.02 3200295 Federal Medical Center 62211 0.01 3200214 Freudenberg Nonwovens Group 31323 0.03 3200041 G E Aviation

- Durham Engine Facility 336412 0.01 3200017 GlaxoSmithKline 325412 0.06 3200055 IBM Corporation 541512 0.02 3200375 MP Durham, LLC 221119 0.02 3200158 NIEHS 92119 0.05 3200251 North Carolina Central University 61131 0.01 3200257 PBM Graphics

- A Consolidated Graphics Company 323110 0.01 3200189 SCM Metal Products, Inc. 331423 0.01 3200234 South Durham Water Reclamation Facility 92411 0.03 3200184 The Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences 54171 0.01 3200215 Valassis Communications 323111 0.01 3200154 Veterans Affairs Medical Hospital 62211 0.01

Plant Total 0.97Point Source Emissions Inventory 4

- 3

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston

- Salem Appendix B.1 CO Limited Maintenance Plan August 2 , 2012 4 .3 Wake County Plant Emissions

Table 4.3 Summary of Plant CO Emissions for Wake County (tons/day) Facility ID Location Name NAICS /SIC 2010 9200408 Ajinomoto AminoScience, LLC 325414 0.05 9200504 Austin Quality Foods, Inc. 311821 0.02 9200398 Barnhill Contracting Company 324121 0.02 9200566 Biogen Idec US Limited Partnership 325414 0.02 9200208 Cargill Inc

- Raleigh 311222 0.06 9200457 Carolina Sunrock, LLC

- RDU Distribution Center 324121 0.06 9200599 CP&L

- Harris Nuclear Plant 221113 0.01 9200333 Dorothea Dix Campus 62221 0.05 9200550 Fred Smith Company

- Holly Springs Asphalt Plant 324121 0.01 9200752 Fred Smith Company

- Knightdale Asphalt Plant 324121 0.05 9200259 Fred Smith Company

- Westgate plant 324121 0.04 9200570 FUJIFILM Diosynth Biotechnologies U.S.A., Inc. 325414 0.01 9200314 Gelder & Associates Incorporated 324121 0.05 9200443 GSK, Inc. 325412 0.02 9200349 Mallinckrodt LLC 325411 0.04 9200266 Meredith College 61131 0.01 9200592 Metokote Corporation Plant 23 332812 0.01 9200378 Motiva Enterprises LLC 42471 0.01 9200291 NC DOA Central Heating Plant 22133 0.03 9200003 NC DOC

- Central Prison 92214 0.01 9200290 NCSU Central Heat Plant 61131 0.14 9200593 North Wake County Landfill Facility 562212 0.06 9200639 PNG Clayton Compressor Station 22121 0.03 9200377 Potters Industries L.L.C. 327215 0.09 9200620 Public Service Company of NC Inc 221119 0.01 9200621 Raleigh

- Durham Airport Authority 488119 0.01 9200338 Rea Contracting (Garner) 324121 0.03 9200339 Rea Contracting (Gresham Lake) 324121 0.07 9200341 Rea Contracting (West Raleigh) 324121 0.06 9200343 Rex Healthcare 62211 0.02 9200761 T R Vernal Paving, Inc. 324121 0.02 9200230 WakeMed 62211 0.03 9200617 WakeMed Cary Hospital 62211 0.01

Plant Total 1.17Point Source Emissions Inventory 4

- 4

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston

- Salem Appendix B.1 CO Limited Maintenance Plan August 2 , 2012 4 .4 Forsyth County Plant Emissions

Table 4.4 Summary of Plant CO Emissions for Forsyth County (tons/day) Facility ID Location Name NAICS /SIC 2010 00003 Wake Forest University 61131 0.02 00082 Microfibres, Inc. 3133 0.02 00131 HANES DYE AND FINISHING CO. 313311 0.04 00201 North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc. 6221 0.05 00339 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (Whitaker Park) 31222 0.12 00363 Hanesbrands, Inc. 315111 0.01 00449 Smurfit

- Stone Container Corporation 322211 0.01 00460 HIGHLANDS INDUSTRIES 3133 0.01 00464 Larco Construction 324121 0.09 00465 Oracle Flexible Packaging

- Phoenix (200) 331315 0.04 00466 Oracle Flexible Packaging

- Liberty (604) 322225 0.02 00473 Winston

- Salem State University 611310 0.01 00682 Rexam Beverage Can Company 332431 0.02 00732 Corn Products International, Inc. 311221 1.04 00735 Vulcan Materials

- East Forsyth Quarry 21239 0.01 00745 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Tobaccoville) 31222 0.08 00755 FORSYTH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 622110 0.03 00784 Deere

- Hitachi Construction Machinery Corp. 33312 0.01 00817 ARCHIE ELLEDGE WWTP 221320 0.01 00872 CRES TOBACCO COMPANY 312210 0.01 00884 Salem Energy Systems, L.L.C. 22111 0.12 00910 Cloverleaf Mixing, Inc. 324121 0.02 00914 Piedmont Landfill and Recycling Center 562212 0.30 00990 ARTISTREE 321999 0.01 01062 APAC

- Atlantic, Inc., Thompson

- Arthur Division, Plant

#5 Winston Salem 324121 0.02

00878 Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 221320 0.08

Plant Total 2.22Point Source Emissions Inventory 4

- 5

Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston

- Salem Appendix B.1 CO Limited Maintenance Plan August 2 , 2012 4 .5 Mecklenburg County Plant Emissions

Table 4.5 Summary of Plant CO Emissions for Mecklenburg County (tons/day) Facility ID Location Name NAICS /SIC 2010 0756 ALSCO, Inc. 7213 0.01
0322 Associated Asphalt Charlotte, LLC 5032 0.01
0067 Barnhardt Manufacturing Company 2269 0.01
0909 Barrday Corporation 2221 0.17
0710 C & M Recycling, Inc. 3272 0.08
0069 Cargill, Inc. 2079 0.01
0289 Carolinas Medical Center 8062 0.05
0109 Carolinas Medical Center

- Pineville 8062 0.01
0626 Charlotte Pipe & Foundry Company, Inc. 3321 0.01
0020 C

- MUD: Franklin Water Treatment Plant 4941 0.01
0937 C

- MUD: Lee S. Dukes, Jr. Water Plant 4941 0.02
0764 C

- MUD: McAlpine Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 4953 0.03
0222 D.H. Griffin Infrastructure, LLC 3295 0.02
0004 Davidson College 8221 0.01 0595 Emerald Carolina Chemical, LLC 2821 0.02
0054 General Steel Drum, LLC 3412 0.01
0058 Huntersville Hardwoods 2426 0.02 0590 IGM Resins Charlotte, Inc 2869 0.01
0588 Industrial Container Services

- NC, LLC (Matthews) 7699 0.01
0381 International Paper Company 2653 1.62
0999 J.T. Russell & Sons, Inc. 2951 0.01
0087 Lincoln Harris, LLC 6099 0.01
0148 Mallard Creek Polymers, Inc. 2821 0.01
0132 Metrolina Greenhouses, Inc. 0181 0.03
0201 Novant Healthcare's Presbyterian Hospital 8062 0.04
0936 Presbyterian Hospital

- Matthews 8069 0.03
0785 Presbyterian Hospital Huntersville 8062 0.01
0134 Rea Contracting (069 Arrowood) 2951 0.02
0668 Red Clay Industries 1499 0.01
0108 RR Donnelley 2752 0.01
0003 SteelFab, Inc. 3441 0.01
0215 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 8221 0.03
0216 US Airways, Four (4) Site Locations 4581 0.03

Plant Total 2.39

# Appendix B.2
Area Source Emissions Inventory Documentation

### (This page intentionally left blank)TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ......................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 OVERALL METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 SOURCE CATEGORY IDENTIFICATION ............................................................... 2-1
2.2 EMISSION ESTIMATION APPROACH .................................................................... 2-1

3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES .............................................................................. 3-1

4.0 DISCUSSION OF AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES .......................................................... 4-1

4.1 MAN MADE AREA SOURCES .................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.1 Forest Fires ............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 Structure Fires ........................................................................................................ 4-2
4.1.3 Vehicle Fires .......................................................................................................... 4-4 4.1.4 Charbroiling ........................................................................................................... 4-6 4.1.5 Open Burning – Municipal Solid Waste and Yard Waste ..................................... 4-7
4.2 SMALL STATIONARY COMB USTION AREA SOURCES .................................... 4-8
4.2.1 Residential Combustion Sources ........................................................................... 4-9
4.2.2 Commercial and Indus trial Combustion Sources ................................................ 4-12
5.0 SUMMARY OF AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS ............................................................... 4-18

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.2-1 County Population ................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 4.1.1-1 2007 Acres of Land Burned by Fires ................................................................... 4-1 Table 4.1.1-2 CO Emissions (tpd) from Forest Fires .................................................................. 4-2 Table 4.1.2-1 2009 County Employment .................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4.1.2-2 CO Emissions (tpd) from Structure Fires ............................................................. 4-4

Table 4.1.3-1 2010 Vehicle Miles Traveled ............................................................................... 4-5 Table 4.1.3-2 CO Emissions (tpd) from Vehicle Fires ............................................................... 4-5 Table 4.1.4-1 Charbroiling Emission Factors ............................................................................. 4-6 Table 4.1.4-2 CO Emissions (tpd) from Charbroiling ................................................................ 4-6 Table 4.1.5-1 CO Emissions (tpd) from Open Burning .............................................................. 4-8

Table 4.2-1 2007 Fuel Use in North Carolina ............................................................................. 4-9

Table 4.2-2 Residential Com bustion CO Emission Factors ....................................................... 4-9 Table 4.2.1-1 Residential Fuel Type ......................................................................................... 4-10

Area Source Emissions Inventory i Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012Table 4.2.1-2 Population Growth F actors for Residential Combustion .................................... 4-11 Table 4.2.1-3 CO Emissions (tpd ) for Residential Combustion ............................................... 4-12

Table 4.2.2-1 Commercial and I ndustrial Combustion Employment ....................................... 4-12

Table 4.2.2-2 Commerical/Industrial Combustion CO Emission Factors ................................ 4-14

Table 4.2.2-3 Growth Factors for Co mmercial and Industrial Combustion ............................. 4-15 Table 4.2.2-4 CO Emissions (tpd) for Commercial Combustion ............................................. 4-15 Table 4.2.2-5 CO Emissions (t pd) for Industrial Combustion .................................................. 4-16 Table 4.2.2-6 Point Source Commercial Combustion Emissions (tpd) .................................... 4-16

Table 4.2.2-7 Point Source Industr ial Combustion Emissions (tpd) ........................................ 4-17

Table 5-1 Total Area S ource CO Emissions (tpd) .................................................................... 4-18

Area Source Emissions Inventory ii Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012Area Source Emissions Inventory iii Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
CO Carbon Monoxide
EIIP Emissions Inventory Improvement Program
ERTAC Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Group
LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas
NAICS North American Indus try Classification System NCDAQ North Carolina Division of Air Quality
NCDFR North Carolina Divisi on of Forest Resources
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCOSBM North Carolina Office of State and Budget Management
NCSU North Carolina State University
NG Natural Gas QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
USCBP U.S Census Bureau, County Business Patterns
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFA U.S. Fire Administration
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

### (This page intentionally left blank)Area Source Emissions Inventory 1-1 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

Area sources represent a collection of many small, unidentified points of air pollution emissions within a specified geographical area, emitting less than the minimum level prescribed for point
sources. Because these sources are too sma ll and/or too numerous to be surveyed and characterized individually, all ar ea source activities are collectively estimated. The county is the geographic area for which emissions from area s ources are compiled, primarily because counties are the smallest areas for which data used for estimating emissions is readily available.

The area source emissions inventory has been devel oped in order to meet the requirement of the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Qua lity Standard, as part of the process of demonstrating continued maintenance for the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

The North Carolina maintenance areas for CO are comprised of Durham, Forsyth, Mecklenburg
and Wake Counties. Most of the activity data needed to estimate 2010 emissions was not available, therefore, the 2007 em issions inventory that has been developed for other purposes was grown to the 2010 base year. All emissions are calculated on a ton per wi nter day basis.Area Source Emissions Inventory 2-1 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 2.0 OVERALL METHODOLOGY

2 .1 SOURCE CATEGORY IDENTIFICATION

The area source categories were identified from two US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance documents: EPA-450/4-91-016, Procedures for the Preparation of Emission
Inventories of Carbon Monoxide a nd Precursors of Ozone, Vol. 1 , from this point on this
document will be referred to as the Procedures document, and the Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Technical Reports, Vol. 3, Area Sources, from this point on this
document will be referred to as EIIP Tech. Report

.

2 .2 EMISSION ESTIMATION APPROACH

Area source emissions are estimated by multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator of collective activity for each source category with in the inventory area. An indicator is any parameter associated with the activity level of a source that can be co rrelated with the air pollutant emissions from that source, such as production, number of em ployees, or population.

In general, one of the following emissions estima tion approaches is used to calculate the area source emissions: per capita emission factors, employment-related emissi on factors, commodity consumption-related emission factors and level of activity based emission factors. The emission
factors used were obtained from the EIIP Tech. Report , the USEPA’s AP

- 42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 5 th Edition , referred to as AP-42 or the emissions methods developed by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan) for the USEPA for the 2008 National Emissions Inventory. The methods Pechan developed were based upon the emission factor development work conducted by the Eastern Regional Techni cal Advisory Group (ERTAC) in conjunction
with the USEPA and states.

As previously stated, the area source emissions were calculated based on the emissions methods developed by Pechan or the USEPA’s EIIP Tech. Report and AP-42 . The majority of the area source categories were calculated with the met hods outlined by Pechan b ecause they incorporate the most recent emission factors and activity data available. The remaining area source categories were calculated using the USEPA’s EIIP Tech. Report and AP-42 because these categories were not included as part of the ar ea source categories Pechan updated. The following outlines the area source categories calculated us ing the emissions methods developed by Pechan:

• Residential Combustion

• Commercial Combustion

• Industrial CombustionArea Source Emissions Inventory 2-2 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 • Charbroiling

• Open Burning.

The remaining area source categories were calculated using the EIIP Tech. Report and AP-42

are:

• Structure Fires

• Vehi cle Fires

• Fore st Fires.

There are several methods for estimating the activ ity level for a specific area source category. Some of these methods include treating area sour ces as point sources, surveying local activity levels, apportioning national or statewide activity totals to local invent ory areas, or using population and employment data. All of these me thods were employed to determine the activity data needed for the various area source categories.

For certain categories, there can be overlap be tween the point sources and the area sources, which can lead to double counting of emissions. To avoid double counting of emissions, point source emissions were identified so they could be subtracted from the applicable area source
emissions.

There are a number of categories where emission s were calculated with emission factors based on employment. These emission factors were developed by the USEPA when employment reports were organized by Standard Indus trial Classification (SIC) code. Since 1997 employment statistics are organized by the No rth American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

The employment for the combustion source ca tegories were obtained from the on-line US Census Bureau, County Business Patterns (USCBP) for the vari ous NAICS codes at the county
level for North Carolina. In addition to having employment va lues (or employment ranges due to confidentiality rules) by NAICS, the USCBP breaks down the number of facilities by employment categories. The employment cat egories are 1 – 4, 5 – 9, 10 – 19, 20 – 49, 50 – 99, 100 – 249, 250 – 499, 500 – 999, >1000 employees. To account for point sources, it was assumed that facilities with 100 employees or greater were point sources and were not
considered in the calculations.

When a NAICS category gave a number of employees and there were no establishments with 100 employees or greater, then the value was us ed, however, in most cases the USCBP gave a range of total employees in the county instead of the actual number. When this occurred, facility sizes were considered and the mid-range of employees was assumed, in accordance with the EIIPArea Source Emissions Inventory 2-3 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Tech. Report . For example, a NAICS category for a county had a range of employment of 100- 249 with two establishments with 1-4 employees , one with 20-49 employees, and one with 100- 249 employees. Assuming 3 to be the mid-range of 1-4 and 35 to be the mid-range of 20-49, the employment used for the area sour ce calculation was estimated as:

(2 x 3) + (1 x 35) = 41 employees

The larger establishment was assumed to be a poi nt source and not taken into consideration for
the area source calculation.

If a total number of employees was provided a nd there were establishments with 100 employees or greater, then the mid-range of the smaller facilities were used as described above. The estimated employment was compared to the valu e given to ensure that remainder would account for the large establishment. In cases where the remainder would not be enough employment to account for the larger establishment, the ar ea source employment was adjusted down. For example, a NAICS category had 250 employees with one establishment with 20–49 employees (mid-range 35), two establishments with 50–99 employees (mid-range 75), and one establishment with 100–249 employees. The empl oyment estimated for the area source and the remainder employment was estimated as:

(1 x 35) + (2 x 75) = 185 employees 250 – 185 = 65 employees

The remainder of 65 employees is not enough to account for an establishment of 100–249 employees. Therefore, the area source employment was adjusted down by 35 so that there were 100 employees remaining to account for the large establishment.

Additionally, many of the categorie s for the area source emissions use total county population or the rural portion of the county population for the activity data. In order to calculate the emissions for these categories, the 2010 population was obtained from the North Carolina Office of State and Budget Management (NCOSBM). Since the 2010 populat ion was available, categories that have population as the activity data were not grown from 2007 but were calculated for 2010. The rural por tion of the total county population was determined by applying a rural percentage to the total county population. The rural percen tage was determined from the
latest census data ava ilable, the 2010 census.Area Source Emissions Inventory 2-4 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Table 2.2-1 contains the total county populat ion for the CO maintenance areas.

Table 2.2-1 County Population

County 2010 Population
Durham 267,587 Forsyth 350,670 Mecklenburg 919,628

Wake 900,993

Table 2.2-2 shows the rural per centage of each county and the corresponding rural population.

Table 2.2-2 County Rural Population

County Percentage of Rural Population 2010 Rural Population
Durham 5.63 15,065 Forsyth 7.35 25,774 Mecklenburg 1.07 9,840
Wake 6.10 54,961

Certain emission categories were adjusted for factors such as control efficiency, rule effectiveness and rule penetration. These are di scussed in the descrip tion of the area source categories where they are applicable.Area Source Emissions Inventory 3-1 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES

The first step in the quality assurance process is to develop a list of area sources in the
maintenance areas. The Procedures document and the EIIP Tech. Reportwere the primary references used in preparing this list for the emissions inventory. To ensure the accuracy of the emissions estimates, the area source emissions in ventory team followed the quality assurance measures as outlined in the NCDAQ Emissions Inventory Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

Under the direction of the quali ty assurance coordinator, emi ssion sources whose contribution was either at the high or low end of the range of estimates were scrutinized more closely for reasonableness. The accuracy was addressed by pe rforming independent checks of the emissions calculations, verifying the activity data and emi ssion factors as well as plotting all of the area source categories vs. pollutants.Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-1 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 4.0 DISCUSSION OF AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES

There are two major area source categories, man made area sources and small stationary combustion sources, that produce CO emissions. Sections 4.1 and 4.2 address each of these categories and include subsections that corr espond to the category. The objective of each subsection is to describe the emission estimation and projection procedures.

4.1 MAN MADE AREA SOURCES

Man made area sources include forest fires, wh ich encompasses wildfires and prescribed burns, structure fires, vehicle fires, charbroiling a nd open burning. The method ology used to calculate
the emissions from these sources are desc ribed in detail in each subsection.

4.1.1 Forest Fires
There are two types of forest fires; wild fires, which are accidental or felonious fires and prescribed burns, which are intentionally se t for the purpose of forest and/or grassland management practice. The number of acres burned in 2007 for each of these categories was
obtained from the North Carolina Division of Fo rest Resources (NCDFR) and are listed in
Table 4.1.1-1. The U.S. Forest Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service also perform prescribed burns in North Carolina but none are in the CO maintenance areas.

Table 4.1.1-1 2007 Acres of Land Burned by Fires

County Wildfires Acres Prescribed Fires Acres Total Acres Burned Durham 83 531 614 Forsyth 28 0 28 Mecklenburg 62 24 86 Wake 121 665 786

The makeup of the plant life burned in each fire can vary from woodland to brush to grassland. The emission factors for the southern region of the United States were obtained from AP-42

, Table 13.1-2, were used to estimate the emissions from forest burns. The fuel loading was also
obtained from the AP-42 . The emission factors are 67 tons CO per acre burned for prescribed fires and 140 tons of CO per acre burned for wildfires.

The NCDFR was not able to provide seasonal numb ers, so the daily emissions are estimated by dividing by 365 days per year. It is assumed that the number of acres burned remains relativelyArea Source Emissions Inventory 4-2 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 constant; therefore, the 2007 acr es will be used to determine the 2010 fire emissions. The emissions were calculated using equation 4.1.1-1.

EM = no. acres burned *fuel loading* EF * (1 year/365 days) 4.1.1-1

where: EM = total daily emissions in tons/day Fuel loading = 9 tons/acre EF = emission factors, EF Prescribed Fires = 67 tons/acre burned and EF Wildfires = 140 tons/acres burned

The CO emission estimates, in tons/day (tpd), from forest fires for the CO maintenance areas are
listed in Table 4.1.1-2.

Table 4.1.1-2 CO Emissions (tpd) from Forest Fires

County Prescribed Fires Emissions Wildfires Emissions Total Forest Fires CO Emissions
Durham 0.44 0.14 0.58 Forsyth 0.00 0.05 0.05 Mecklenburg 0.02 0.11 0.13
Wake 0.55 0.21 0.76

4.1.2 Structure Fires
The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA ) maintains statistics on the number of fires per county. The number of fires per county for 2009 was obtained from the USFA fire st atistics website. The structure fires category is based on both residential and non-residential structures. A fires per person factor was calculated for the residentia l structures based on the national number of residential fires divided by th e national population for 2009. The fires per person factor for residential structures 0.0012 fires/person. A fire s per person factor was also calculated for the
non-residential structures based on the national nu mber of non-residential fires divided by the national employment for 2009. The fires per empl oyee factor for non-residential structures 0.00078 fires/employee.

The 2010 county population was obtained from the North Carolina State Demographics and the 2009 county employment was obtained from the US Census Bureau, County Business Patterns. The 2009 county employment is the latest data available. The 2009 employment data is not expected to be significan tly different from 2010. The fires pe r person factor was applied to the 2010 county population to determine the number of residential structure fires per county.Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-3 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Additionally, the fires per employee factor was applied to the 2009 total county employment to
determine the non-residential stru cture fires per county. To determine the total emissions from structure fires, the sum of the residential and non-residential structure fires were totaled for each county.

The 2010 county population, shown in Table 2.2-1, was used to estimate the emissions for the residential portion and the 2009 county employ ment, shown in Table 4.3.2-1, was used to estimate the emissions for the non-residential po rtion. The estimates of the residential and nonresidential portions were summed to obtain the total emissions for the structure fires.

Table 4.1.2-1 2009 County Employment County Employment Durham 163,018 Forsyth 163,419 Mecklenburg 531,089 Wake 375,345

The fuel loading factor, 1.15 tons of material bur ned per structural fire, was obtained from the EIIP Tech. Report , Chapter 18. The CO emission factor was also obtained from the EIIP Tech. Report , Table 18.4-1. The emission factor is 60 lbs of CO per ton burned.

According to the EIIP Tech. Report emissions from this source category occur 365 days per year and there is no seasonal adjustment required.

The structure fires emissions were calculated using equation 4.1.2-1.

EM = [(cnty pop * FPP) + (cnty empl * FPE)] * CF * EF * (1 year/365 days) 2,000 lbs/tons 4.1.2-1

where: EM = total daily emissions in tons/day FPP = fires per person, 0.0012 fires/person FPE = fires per employee, 0.00078 fires/employee CF = conversion factor, 1.15 t ons burned/structure fire EF = emission factors, CO = 60 lbs/ton burned/year

The CO emission estimates, in tons/day, from structure fires are list ed in Tables 4.1.2-2.Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-4 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Table 4.1.2-2 CO Emissions (t pd) from Structure Fires County CO Emissions
Durham 0.01 Forsyth 0.01 Mecklenburg 0.04
Wake 0.03

4.1.3 Vehicle Fires

Vehicle fire emissions within the maintenance areas are estimated by considering the estimated
number vehicles burned in the maintenance coun ties, the amount of material burned (the fuel loading) in a vehicle fire, and the emissi on factors for the open burning of automobile components. The method used to calculate the CO emissions from vehicle fires was obtained
from the EIIP Tech. Report, Vehicle Fires

.

The estimated number of vehicle fires per count y was determined by apportioning a national fire statistic to the county level using vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The USFA maintains nationallevel fire statistics. The latest available data for vehicle fires are for the year 2007. The number of vehicle fires nationwide in 2007 was 258,000. The number of national vehicle fires was apportioned to a state-level using a ratio of the 2007 NC VMT to 2007 U.S. VMT (249,698,650 miles/3,029,822 x 10 6 miles). The number of statewide ve hicle fires was then apportioned to a county level based on the ratio of the 2010 c ounty-level VMT to the 2010 NC VMT. The
nationwide VMT was obtained from the U.S. De partment of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration website. The statewide and c ounty VMT is Highway Performance Monitoring System data that was received from the NCDOT.

The CO emission factor was also obtained from the EIIP Tech. Report, Vehicle Fires . The CO emission factor is 125 lbs of CO per ton burne d. This source category can occur 365 days per year and there is no seasona l adjustment required.

The above methodology was employed to calculate the vehicle fire emissions per county. For 2010, the VMT for the CO maintenance areas are listed in Table 4.1.3-1.Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-5 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Table 4.1.3-1 2010 Vehicl e Miles Traveled

County Vehicle Miles Traveled
Durham 3,290,264,636 Forsyth 3,916,801,397 Mecklenburg 11,820,712,140
Wake 10,469,417,080
Statewide 102,384,967,632

The amount of vehicle material burned in a ve hicle fire was estimated by assuming that an average vehicle has 500 lbs. of components (0.25 tons) that can burn in a fire, based on a 3,700 lbs. average vehicle weight (CARB, 1995).

The emissions for 2010 were cal culated using equation 4.1.3-1.

EM = US veh fires * CF * EF * (NC VMT 2007 /US VMT 2007 )*(cnty VMT 2010 /NC VMT 2010 )*(1 yr/365 dys) 2,000 lbs/tons 4.1.3-1

where: EM = total daily emissions in tons/day CF = conversion factor, 0.25 tons burned/vehicle fire EF = emission factors, CO = 125 lbs/ton burned year

The CO emission estimates from vehicl e fires are listed in Table 4.1.3-2.

Table 4.1.3-2 CO Emissions (tpd) from Vehicle Fires County CO Emissions
Durham 0.01 Forsyth 0.01 Mecklenburg 0.04
Wake 0.04Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-6 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 4.1.4 Charbroiling
Charbroiling is one of the categories the USEPA revised for the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The emission factors were developed and reviewed by an ERTAC advisory panel composed of state and USEPA personnel. The emission factors we re generated by taking the 2002 NEI emissions and dividing by the 2002 population to develop per capita emission factors. The charbroiling emissi on factors are shown in Table 4.1.4-1

Table 4.1.4-1 Charbroiling Emission Factors

Subcategory CO Emission Factors (lb CO/person/year) Conveyorized Charbroiling 0.043 Under-fired Charbroiling 0.135 Deep Fat Frying 0.000 Flat Griddle Frying 0.013 Clamshell Griddle Frying 0.000

The 2010 emissions were calculated using equation 4.1.4-1.

EM = county population *EF * (1 year/365 days) 2,000 lbs/tons 4.3.4-1

where: EM = total daily emissions in tons/day EF = emission factor per charbroiling subcategory

The CO emission estimates, in tons/day, from charbroiling for the CO maintenance areas are
listed in Tables 4.1.4-2.

Table 4.1.4-2 CO Emissions (tpd) from Charbroiling

County Conveyorized Charbroiling

Emissions Under-fired Charbroiling Flat Griddle Frying Total Charbroiling CO Emissions
Durham 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.04 Forsyth 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.04 Mecklenburg 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.14
Wake 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.10Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-7 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 4.1.5 Open Burning – Municipal Solid Waste and Yard Waste
It was assumed that all municipal solid waste (M SW) and yard waste were burned in the open for solid waste generated outside the m unicipal corporate limits. Since it is illegal to burn within the corporate limits, only the rural percentage of th e total population was use d. The rural population was calculated by applying the 2010 census rural population percenta ge to the total 2010 county population as shown in Table 2.2-2. The 2010 to tal population for each county was obtained from the North Carolina Office of State Budge t and Management, State Data Center. The emission factors were developed by the USEPA in consultation with the ERTAC based primarily

on AP-42 . The fraction of leaf yard waste burned, the fraction of waste generated that is burned and the per capita waste generated was estima ted using data from a report by the USEPA on municipal solid waste.

The 2010 emissions were calculated using equations 4.1.5-1 and 4.1.5-2.

EM MSW = county rural pop * 0.28 * PC MSW * EF 2,000 lb/tons 4.1.5-1

EM Yard = county rural pop * 0.25* 0.28 * PC Yard * EF 2,000 lb/tons 4.1.5-2

where: EM = total daily emissions in tons/day fraction of waste generate d that is burned = 0.28 leaf fraction of yard waste = 0.25 PC MSW = per capita MSW generated = 0.000993 ton MSW/person/year PC Yard = per capita yard waste generated = 0.000295 ton yard waste/person/year EF = CO emission factor for MSW = 85 lbs MSW/ton burned/year and for yard waste = 112 lbs yard waste/ton burned/year

Since the NCDAQ has an open burning regulatio n that prohibits the burning of man-made materials, the emissions estimated for MSW were reduced to account for th is rule. The control efficiency is 100% since no burni ng yields no emissions. The rule penetration is also 100% since the regulation prohibits the burning of man-made materials statewide. Finally the rule
effectiveness was set to a conservative 56% for 2010 since the NCDAQ knows that burning of man-made materials does occur. The NCDAQ ha s started an aggressive campaign to make the public aware that it is illegal to burn man-made materials. Th e NCDAQ has sponsored radio ads as well as billboard signs in an effort to educate the public. Additionally, the NCDAQ has developed an educational video discussing open bu rning and the State’s re gulation. This video
has been distributed to the fire departments across the State. Finally, at the 2009 and 2010 NorthArea Source Emissions Inventory 4-8 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Carolina State Fair, the NCDAQ had a booth that al lowed staff to talk with the general public about the open burning regulations and provide hand outs that discussed what was legal to burn.

The formula used to apply these controls to the emissions estimates is shown below in equation 4.1.5-3.

EM MSW,Controlled = EM MSW x [1 – (CE x RP x RE)] 4.1.5-3

where: EM MSW,Controlled = controlled emissions from burning MSW EM MSW = emissions from burning MSW CE = control efficiency RP = rule penetration RE = rule effectiveness

The CO emission estimates, in tons/day, from the open burning of MSW and yard waste are
listed in Table 4.1.5-1.

Table 4.1.5-1 CO Emissions (tpd) from Open Burning

County 2010 MSW Emissions 2010 Yard Waste Emissions Total Open Burning CO

Emissions
Durham 0.08 0.02 0.10 Forsyth 0.13 0.03 0.16 Mecklenburg 0.05 0.01 0.06
Wake 0.29 0.06 0.35

4 .2 SMALL STATIONARY COMBUSTION AREA SOURCES

Combustion sources are comprised of the small stationary combustion sources that are not included in the point source emi ssions inventory. This source category covers emissions from natural gas (NG), liquid petrol eum gas (LPG), fuel oil, co al and wood combustion in the residential, commercial/institutional (referred to as commercial) and i ndustrial sectors. The methodology used to calculate the emissions from th ese sources are described in detail in each
subsection.

The 2010 emissions were developed by applying a growth factor to the 2007 emissions for these subcategories.Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-9 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 The 2007 fuel usage data for North Carolina was obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA ) website for fuel consumption.

The following table shows the fuel usage for the residential, commercial and industrial sectors.

Table 4.2-1 2007 Fuel Use in North Carolina
Fuel Units Residential Commercial Industrial Natural Gas 10 6 ft 3 58,909 45,861 89,289 LPG gallons 239,256,678 41,811,847 184,668,990 Oil gallons 117,527,897 66,949,824 295,999,749 Coal tons 4,447 40,020 0 Wood tons 1,466,667 Wood 10 6 BTU 1,641 75,691

The emission factors used to estimate the em issions, except resident ial wood, were obtained from E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. based on the ongoing emission factor development work conducted by the Eastern Regional Technical Adviso ry Group in conjunction with the USEPA.
The residential wood emission factors were obtai ned from a tool developed by the USEPA to calculate the emissions generated from residential wood combustion.

The emission factors used are s hown in Table 4.2-2 below.

Table 4.2-2 Residential Combus tion CO Emission Factors

Fuel Units CO Emission

Factors
Residential
NG lb/10 6 ft 3 40
LPG lb/10 3 gal 159.6
Fuel Oil lb/10 3 gal 5
Coal lb/ton 275
Wood lb/ton 149

4 .2.1 Residential Combustion Sources
The residential category for the fuel oil, co al, NG and LPG sources fuel usage for the CO maintenance areas were calculated by apportioning th e State total fuel usage to a county level. Fuel usage was apportioned by appl ying the ratio of the number of households heated with theArea Source Emissions Inventory 4-10 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 appropriate fuel type in a county to the total households in the St ate heated with the appropriate fuel type, see equation 4.2.1-1.

no. gal. fuel per cnty = (no. gal. fuel for State) * (no. housing units heated by fuel per county) (no. housing units heated by fuel in State) 4.2.1-1

The number of households heated with fuel oil, coal, NG and LPG was obtained from the U.S.
Census Bureau based on the latest census data which is 2000. The number of households heated per fuel type is shown in Table 4.2.1-1.

Table 4.2.1-1 Residential Fuel Type Number of Households per Fuel Type County Fuel Oil Coal NG LPG Wood Durham 4,231 6 35,446 4,569 14 Forsyth 22,223 39 32,646 3,763 18 Mecklenburg 6,568 29 142,812 4,009 0 Wake 4,265 17 100,902 17,686 43 Statewide 368,279 464 757,777 394,275 65,657

For the residential wood combustion emissions, th e USEPA developed a tool to generate the emissions for this subcategory. The emissions for this subcat egory are for housing units with fireplaces as their main source of heating. The activity data used in th e calculation was also obtained from the tool the USEPA develope d to calculate residential wood combustion
emissions.

For the residential source sector s, the growth factors are based on the population for each county. The population growth factors were developed ba sed on the ratio of th e 2010 population to the 2007 population, see equation 4.2.1-2.

Population Growth Factors = FY pop 4.2.1-2
BY pop

where:
BY pop = 2007 population per county
FY pop = 2010 population per countyArea Source Emissions Inventory 4-11 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 The population growth factor s are in Table 4.2.1-2.

Table 4.2.1-2 Population Growth Factors for Residential Combustion County Growth Factors
Durham 1.0621 Forsyth 1.0401 Mecklenburg 1.0566
Wake 1.0939

The emissions calculation is shown in equation 4.2.1-3.

EM 2007 = activity data * EF * (1 year/365 days) 4.2.1-3 2,000 lbs/ton

where: EM 2007 = 2007 daily emissions in tons/day EF = emission factors for CO are shown in Table 4.2-2 activity data = number of households per fuel type.

The 2010 emissions for residential combusti on were calculated us ing equation 4.2.1-4

EM 2010 = EM 2007 * POP GF 4.2.1-4

where: EM 2010 = 2010 emissions in tons/day EM 2007 = 2007 emissions in tons/day POP GF = population growth factors.

The CO emissions estimates for each residentia l fuel combustion source, in tons/day, for the
residential source sector are listed in Table 4.2.1-3.Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-12 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Table 4.2.1-3 CO Emissions (tpd) for Residential Combustion

County Coal Fuel Oil NG LPG Wood Total Residential Combustion CO Emissions
Durham 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.19 0.39 Forsyth 0.15 0.04 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.55 Mecklenburg 0.11 0.01 0.64 0.01 1.04 1.81
Wake 0.07 0.01 0.45 0.05 0.53 1.11

4 .2.2 Commercial and Industrial Combustion Sources

Commercial and industrial fuel usage was apportioned according to the number of employees in
the commercial/industrial business es tablishments in the State and the CO maintenance counties. Fuel usage was apportioned to the county level by applying the ratio of county employment to the total State employment, see equation 4.2.2-1.

no. gal. fuel per county = (no. gal. fuel for State) * (commercial/industrial employment per county) (commercial/industrial employment in State) 4.2.2-1

The commercial employment data was obtained from the County Business Patterns for NAICS codes 42 (wholesale trade) through 81 (other se rvices - except public administration). For industrial combustion, th e employment data was also obt ained from the County Business Patterns for NAICS codes 31-33 (manufacturing). The total number of employees for these establishments was used to allocate emissions to the county level. The 2007 commercial and industrial employment for each county are shown in Table 4.2.2-1.

Table 4.2.2-1 Commercial and Industrial Combustion Employment
County 2007 Commercial Employment 2007 Industrial Employment Durham 66,296 2,225 Forsyth 81,819 5,932 Mecklenburg 274,725 14,984
Wake 224,283 8,688
Statewide 1,829,856 163,364Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-13 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 The emissions for 2007 for each small stationa ry combustion source were calculated using equations 4.2.2-2 through 4.2.2-6.

EM coal = no. tons/year coal * EF coal * (1 year/365 days) – pse 2,000 lb/ton 4.2.2-2

EM NG = no. ft 3 /year NG * EF NG * (1 year/365 days) - pse 2,000 lbs /ton 4.2.2-3

EM LPG = no. gal/year LPG * EF LPG * (1 year/365 days) - pse 2,000 lbs /ton 4.2.2-4

EM fuel oil = no. gal/year fuel oil * EF oil * (1 year/365 days) - pse 2,000 lbs /ton 4.2.2-5

EM wood = no. ton/year wood * EF wood * (1 year/365 days) - pse 2,000 lbs /ton 4.2.2-6

where: EM coal = daily total coal em issions in tons/day EM NG = daily total Ng emissions in tons/day EM LPG = daily total LPG emissions in tons/day EM fuel oil = daily total fuel oil emissions in tons/day EM wood = daily total wood emissions in tons/day EF coal = CO emission factor for coal combustion EF NG = CO emission factor for NG combustion EF LPG = CO emission factor for LPG combustion EF oil = CO emission factor for fuel oil combustion EF wood = CO emission factor for wood combustion pse = point source emissions

The CO emission factors used to estimate th e emissions for the commercial and industrial stationary sources are shown in Table 4.2.2-2.Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-14 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Table 4.2.2-2 Commerical/Industrial Co mbustion CO Emission Factors

Fuel Units CO Emission

Factors
Commercial
NG lb/10 6 ft 3 84
LPG lb/10 3 gal 7.97
Fuel Oil lb/10 3 gal 5
Coal lb/ton 5
Wood lb/10 6 BTU 0.6
Industrial
NG lb/10 6 ft 3 84
LPG lb/10 3 gal 7.97
Fuel Oil lb/10 3 gal 5
Wood lb/10 6 BTU 0.6

The growth factors were developed based on the ratio of the 2010 employment to the 2007 employment, see equation 4.2.2-7.

Commercial/Industrial Growth Factors = FY emp 4.2.2-7
BY emp

where:
BY emp = 2007 employment per county
FY emp = 2010 employment per county

The commercial combustion growth factors were generated from the statewide employment data for NAICS codes 42 (wholesale trade) through 81 (o ther services - except public administration). The industrial combustion growth factors were al so generated from statewide data using NAICS codes 31-33 (manufacturing). The FORECAST function in Microsoft EXCEL was used to determine the future year employment data ba sed on the past statewide employment data for 2005 - 2009. The FORECAST tool uses linear interpol ation to projec t future values based on the
historic data.

Table 4.2.2-3 shows the commercial and i ndustrial combustion growth factors.Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-15 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Table 4.2.2-3 Growth Factors for Commercial and Industrial Combustion County Commercial Industrial
Durham 0.9792 0.6786 Forsyth 0.9795 0.9167 Mecklenburg 1.0235 0.8717
Wake 1.0430 0.9142

The emissions for 2010 for all of the small statio nary combustion sources were calculated using equation 4.2.2-8

EM 2010 = EM a,2007 * EMP GF 4.2.2-8

where: EM 2010 = 2010 emissions in tons/day EM a , 2007 = 2007 emissions in tons/day per combustion source EMP GF = employment growth factors.

The commercial and industrial small stationary combustion sources CO emission estimates, in tons/day, are shown in Tables 4.2.2-4 – 4.2.2-5, re spectively. There are no coal combustion
emissions for the industrial sour ce sector because the emissi ons generated from coal are accounted for in the point sources inventory.

Table 4.2.2-4 CO Emissions (tpd) for Commercial Combustion

County Coal Fuel Oil NG LPG Wood Total Commercial Combustion CO Emissions
Durham 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.06 0.25 Forsyth 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.05 0.07 0.31 Mecklenburg 0.04 0.06 0.56 0.19 0.24 1.09
Wake 0.03 0.04 0.61 0.16 0.17 1.01Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-16 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Table 4.2.2-5 CO Emissions (tpd) for Industrial Combustion

County Fuel Oil NG LPG Wood Total Industrial Combustion CO Emissions
Durham 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.16 Forsyth 0.02 0.15 0.05 0.06 0.28 Mecklenburg 0.05 0.48 0.16 0.21 0.90
Wake 0.04 0.53 0.14 0.15 0.86

Point sources are those stationary sources that require an air permit to operate. In general, these sources have a potential to emit more than 5 tons per year of CO from a single facility. Point
sources that meet this criteri on are accounted for in the point source emissions inventory. They
are subtracted from the area source emissions i nventory to prevent double counting of emissions. The 2007 point source emissions data was subtract ed from the overall area source emissions
calculation. Tables 4.2.2-6 and 4.2.2- 7 illustrates the point source em issions that were subtracted from the commercial and industrial fuel oil, NG and wood combustion sources. The coal and
LPG commercial and industrial combustion sour ces do not have point source emissions for the
CO maintenance areas.

Table 4.2.2-6 Point Source Commercial Combustion Emissions (tpd) County Fuel Oil NG Wood
Durham 0.01 0.03 0.00 Forsyth 0.00 0.03 0.01 Mecklenburg 0.00 0.19 0.13
Wake 0.00 0.15 0.00Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-17 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Table 4.2.2-7 Point Source Industrial Combustion Emissions (tpd) County Fuel Oil NG Wood
Durham 0.00 0.06 0.00 Forsyth 0.02 0.23 0.56 Mecklenburg 0.02 0.28 0.00
Wake 0.00 0.09 0.00Area Source Emissions Inventory 4-18 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.2 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 5 .0 SUMMARY OF AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS

The total area source CO emissions for the maintena nce areas are summarized in the table below. All of the emissions are in tons per day.

Table 5-1 Total Area Source CO Emissions (tpd) County 2010
Durham 1.54 Forsyth 1.41 Mecklenburg 4.21
Wake 4.26

# Appendix B.3

On-road Mobile Source
Emissions Inventory Documentationi (This page intentionally left blank)On-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory i Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE .......................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 MODELING METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 MOVES MODELING SCENARIO AND PARAMETERS ......................................... 2-1

3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES ............................................................................... 3-3

4.0 MODELING RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 4 -1

4.1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE .................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 MOVES INPUT DATA CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS ....................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled and Speeds ........................................................................ 4-2 4.2.2 Source Type Population .......................................................................................... 4-8 4.2.3 Source Type Age Distribution .............................................................................. 4-10 4.2.4 Road Type Distribution ......................................................................................... 4-11 4.2.5 Inspection and Maintenance Program ................................................................... 4-13 4.2.6 Fuel Supply and Formulation ............................................................................... 4-14 4.2.7 Meteorological Data .............................................................................................. 4-14
4.3 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES ...................... 4-16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1-1 MOVES Modeling Parameters ................................................................................. 2-2

Table 4.1-0-1 TDM Data Providers ............................................................................................. 4-1 Table 4.2-1 Peak and Off-p eak Travel Periods ............................................................................ 4-2

Table 4.2-2 2010 CO Maintenance Area AADV MT by Road Type (miles) ............................... 4-4 Table 4.2-3 2010 CO Maintenance Area Speed s by Road Type (miles/hour) ............................ 4-5 Table 4.2-4 MOVES Source Types a nd HPMS Vehicle Types .................................................. 4-9

Table 4.2-5 Fraction of VMT on Ro ad Type by Source Type ................................................... 4-12

Table 4.2-6 MOVES I/M Co mpliance Factors .......................................................................... 4-14 Table 4.2-7 Average Hourly Temperatur e and Humidity – January 2010 ................................ 4-15 Table 4.3-1 January 2010 On-road M obile Source CO emissions ............................................ 4-16On-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory ii Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 List of Acronyms Acronym Definition AADVMT Average Annual Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled CO Carbon Monoxide HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator NCDAQ North Carolina Division of Air Quality NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation NCOSBM North Carolina Office of State and Budget Management QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RVP Reid Vapor Pressure TDM Travel Demand Modeling USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

### (This page intentionally left blank)On-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 1-1 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from on-road m obile sources comprise a large percentage of
the total man-made CO emissions from all sources in the current North Carolina CO attainment/maintenance area. However, on-road mobile source CO emissions have continually decreased over the past two decades due to improved vehicle pollution controls and fuel economy, implementation of inspection and maintenance programs, and effective transportation planning measures. These decreases have been realiz ed in spite of continual increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and have led to ambien t CO concentrations well below the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in recent years.

These consistently low CO concentrations a llow North Carolina the option of implementing a limited CO maintenance plan for the four aff ected counties (Forsyth, Durham, Mecklenburg, and Wake Counties). An on-road mobile source CO em issions inventory has been developed as part of the limited maintenance plan requirements. This appendix covers the procedures associated with the emissions inventory development.

The CO emissions inventory data includes 2010 daily on-road mobile source CO emissions (tons/day) for a typical winter (January) day for each of the four affected counties. Emissions data were generated using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model. M onthly CO inventories for January 2010 were generated for each county and the average daily CO emissions values were calculated from the monthly inventory values. Details of the M OVES modeling process, including input data requirements, input data prepar ation, and modeling parameters and assumptions, are presented
below.On-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 2-1 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 2.0 MODELING METHODOLOGY

2.1 MOVES MODELING SCENARIO AND PARAMETERS

Mobile source emissions are estimated by the methodologies suggested in the USEPA documents Emissions Inventory Guidance for Im plementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard s (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations , Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes (EPA-420-B-09-046, December 2009), and
Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 fo r Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity ( EPA-420-B-10-023, April 2010).

In December 2009, the USEPA released a new m odel for mobile sources. MOVES is a computer program designed by the USEPA to es timate air pollution emissions from mobile sources. MOVES2010a (hereafter referred to as MOVES) replaces the USEPA’s previous emissions model for on-road mobile sources, MOBILE6.2. MOVES can be used to estimate exhaust and evaporative emissions as well as brak e and tire wear emissions from all types of onroad vehicles.

One important new feature of MOVES is the opti on to calculate emissions either as inventory estimates (total emissions in units of mass) or, emission rates (emissions pe r unit of distance for running emissions or per vehicle for starts, extend ed idle and resting evap orative emissions) in a look-up table format.

Use of the inventory option simplifies the pos t-processing of MOVES output, but it requires VMT and vehicle population data as an input to MOVES. When us ing the emission rates option, VMT and vehicle population are applied during po st-processing external to MOVES. Either approach can be used to develop emissions estim ates for state implementation plans (SIPs). If inventory option is selected, MOVES provides emissions estimates as mass, using VMT and vehicle population entered by th e user. If emission rate optio n is selected, MOVES provides emission rates as mass per unit of activity. The em ission rates option produces a look-up table of emission rates that must be post-processed to produce an inventory. Th e North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) is electing to run the m odel in the inventory mode due to faster model run times and fewer post-processing requirements.

To generate the emissions inve ntory data required for the limited CO maintenance plan, MOVES modeling was performed using the pa rameters listed ion Table 2.1-1.On-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 2-2 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Table 2.1-1 MOVES Modeling Parameters

MOVES Model Version MOVES2010a

Pollutant Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Modeling Spatial Domains CO Maintenance counties – Durham, Forsyth, Mecklenburg, Wake

Modeling Year 2010 Required Emissions Time
Period Typical winter day

Vehicle Types All on-road vehicles

Inspection and Maintenance Program Applicability As per the North Ca rolina Inspection and Maintenance SIP (includes OBD-II inspection of light duty gasoline vehicles)

While MOVES can model emissions for a weekda y and weekend day in a specified month, it cannot directly model a single day with specified “typical winter day” conditions. Therefore, to calculate emissions for a typica l winter day, MOVES was first run to estimate the total on-road CO emissions for the month of January 2010 fo r each of the listed counties. Each monthly emissions value (tons CO) was then divided by th e number of days in the month (31) to give typical winter day emi ssions (tons CO/day).On-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 3-3 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES

The quality assurance (QA) for the on-road mo bile source category can be broken into two components: 1) input files and 2) MOVES outpu ts/summaries. Each of these components is detailed in the paragraphs below.

After the speed and VMT information is acqui red from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the speed information is checked for reasonableness against previous sets of speeds for the areas. Once the speeds are deemed reasonable, the NCDAQ enters the speed information into MOVES input files. In a ddition to the speed inform ation, the user enters
data to characterize local meteor ology, fleet and activity informati on. All input files are checked against a “key” with the original source of the information. This QA step is always performed by a person other than the one who generated the files. If any discrepancies are found, they are noted back to the person who generated the input files for correction. Additionally, a report is kept that identifies the person who produced the input file, the person th at QA’d the file, and where the data originated. On ce the input files have passed through the QA procedure, MOVES is run to generate emissions.

MOVES output data from each county is also checked for reasonableness by comparison with historical emissions inventory data and by comparison with emi ssions data from counties with similar transportation activity. As with the MOVES input data, MOVES output data summaries are also reviewed for accuracy by someone other than the preparer of the summary.On-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-1 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 4.0 MODELING RESULTS

On-road mobile sources produce emissions of a ho st of pollutants. For the purpose of this maintenance plan, only the CO emissions were es timated. The objective of this section is to describe the source category, the input files, and the emissions estimation procedures. This section also includes tables summarizing the es timated emissions for the maintenance year 2010 by county.

4.1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

On-road highway mobile sources are considered as those vehicles that travel on public roadways. On-road mobile sources are a major contributor to CO emissions in North Carolina. CO is emitted from motor vehicles primarily while vehicles are in motion or at idle and only minimally while vehicles are parked or during refueling ope rations. However, emissions from all of these emissions processes were estimated to properly reflect the total emissions from this source category.

A very important component of the highway mob ile emission estimation process is interagency consultation among federal, state, regional and lo cal regulatory and planning agencies. For this CO emissions inventory development project , NCDAQ used travel demand modeling data provided by three organizations listed below. These organizations executed the travel demand modeling (TDM) for their respective counties in the CO nonattainment area and provided speeds and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Table 4.1-0-1 TDM Data Providers

Organization Providing TDM Data County VMT and Speed Data
Provided Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) Mecklenburg

Capital Area Metropolita n Planning Organization(CAMPO) in coordination with Durham-Chapel HillCarrboro Metropolitan Pl anning Organization (DCHC-MPO) Durham, Wake

Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) ForsythOn-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-2 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 4.2 MOVES INPUT DATA CRI TERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS

The following sections describe the input data used for the MOVES CO emissions modeling. Due to the size and the complexity of the MOVE S input and output files, the MOVES input files and output files will be provided electronically.

4.2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled and Speeds

The MOVES model calculates emissions based on several mobile source operating parameters, including the number of VMT on specific types of roadways as defined under the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). For each of the four affected counties, VMT data were obtai ned from the municipa l planning organization (MPO) representing that county. Each MPO used travel demand modeling (TDM), based on their specific demographic, roadway network, and soci oeconomic data and conditions, to estimate the average annual daily VMT (AADVMT) and co rresponding average speeds categorized by twelve HPMS roadway functional classes. For three of the four counties, VMT and speed data were furthered categorized by daily travel periods, includ ing morning and afternoon peak periods. Table 4.2-1 shows the travel periods for each county.

Table 4.2-1 Peak and Off-peak Travel Periods County AM Peak Period Midday Period PM Peak
Period Off-peak Period

Durham,
Wake 06:00-10:00 Included as offpeak 15:00-18:00 10:00-15:00, 18:00-23:59,
00:00-06:00

Mecklenburg 06:00-09:00 09:00-15: 00 15:00-18:00 18:00-23:59,
00:00-06:00 Forsyth No peak or off-peak travel periods specified – VMT and speeds provided apply to entire day

VMT and speed data were processed with converter applications to format the data for input into MOVES. Annual VMT for each of 6 HPMS vehicle types were tabulated, as well as the hourly distribution of VMT for each source type-road type-day type (weekday or weekend)
combination.On-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-3 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Vehicle power, speed, and acceleration have a sign ificant effect on vehicle emissions. MOVES models those emission effects by assigning activity to specific dr ive cycles or operating mode
distributions. The distribution of vehicle hours traveled (VHT) by average speed was used to determine an appropriate operating mode distri bution. The Average Speed Distribution importer in MOVES calls for a speed distribution in VHT in 16 speed bins, by each road type, source type, and hour of the day incl uded in the analysis. The me thodology used to develop the average speed distribution i nputs is documented below.

TDM-generated VMT and speeds were provided for 2010 for the time periods described above. Table 4.2-2 lists the AADVMT by HPMS functiona l class for each county. Table 4.2-3 provides a summary of the speeds in miles per hour (mph) for each county. The column headings in these tables represent the road t ypes used in the modeling and are listed below.

RI Rural Interstate UI Urban Interstate RPA Rural Other Principle Arterial UF Urban Freeway & Expressway RMA Rural Minor Arterial UPA Urban Other Principal Arterial RMjC Rural Major Collector UMA Urban Minor Arterial RMiC Rural Minor Collector UC Urban Collector RL Rural Local UL Urban Local UH Urban HOVTable 4.2-2 2010 CO Maintenance AreaAADVMT by Road Type (miles)County Durham Forsyth MecklenburgWakeHPMSRoadTypeAMPMOffpeakDailyAMMiddayPMNightAMPMOff-peakRI41255 53589 72624 NA NA NA NA NA 14672 29275 29675RPA8453 11066 17565 123182 37607 45986 42338 27117 53465 70992 92767RMA40171 50640 68161 160403 17023 20700 19749 13711 23839 38804 44561RMjC55109 80109 99517 53612 16862 22570 19703 10535 39049 51064 70029RMiC22082 32599 41498 124168 32474 40495 41432 20832 18482 31274 32964RL26544 47274 52352 133503 66263 89945 81369 42693 52333 96970 101612UI493549 671976 1070728 2008312 1736609 2268124 1919704 1315657 1544267 2108059 3169061UF320433 453358 667984 3393797 1110226 1389995 1282080 723369 499329 710404 945463UPA245321 340152 522121 380472 1111629 1680204 1284698 944660 1152837 1665360 2513928UMA315625 518730 740306 1677609 1024878 1553321 1202756 841426 1212659 1947914 2701970UC119318 209844 274128 1544519 806596 1207264 941722 642619 500159 836279 1056018UL225973 418299 585970 1131387 1459707 2340210 1736882 1126041 1021962 1838887 2366951UHNA NA NA NA 17763 374 7595 0 NA NA NATable 4.2-3 2010 CO Maintenance Area Speeds by Road Type (miles/hour)County Durham Forsyth Mecklenburg WakeHPMS Road TypeAMPMOffpeakDailyAMMiddayPMNightAMPMOff-peakRI64.7 69.7 58.7 NA NA NA NA NA 64.3 63.8 47.7RPA42.9 44.1 40.3 54.3 36 45 37 49 60.7 60.7 58.2RMA46.2 53.1 38.0 49.3 32 43 38 45 47.6 48.9 45.2RMjC49.4 50.1 46.7 44.6 30 40 31 46 47.5 48.1 46.1RMiC40.7 40.7 39.2 45.4 37 42 36 45 36.8 37.9 35.7RL27.5 26.6 26.7 44.2 30 29 30 29 24.7 23.2 24.7UI63.5 64.0 55.8 60.6 46 58 42 62 60.0 64.1 52.8UF53.8 53.5 48.5 50.3 49 55 47 58 57.5 58.6 49.8UPA40.6 39.6 34.1 41.5 24 28 22 37 43.8 45.3 36.6UMA39.3 39.1 34.5 41.8 24 28 23 37 39.6 41.2 33.8UC40.4 40.0 36.5 38.0 22 27 21 36 38.8 39.8 34.3UL21.8 21.5 21.7 36.4 22 21 19 24 25.1 23.9 24.2UHNA NA NA NA 6365 66 0 NA NA NAOn-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-6 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 MOVES uses four different roadway type catego ries that are affected by the average speed distribution input: rural restricted access, rural unrestricted acce ss, urban restricted access, and urban unrestricted access (these road types are discussed in mo re detail in Section 4.2.6). In MOVES, local roadways are included with arte rials and collectors in the urban and rural unrestricted access roads category. The USEPA reco mmends that the average speed distribution for local roadway activity be included as part of a weighted distribution of average speed across all unrestricted roads along with the distribution of average speed s for arterials and connectors.

When only a single average speed is available for a specific road type and that average speed is not identical to the average speed in a partic ular speed bin, MOVES gui dance stipulates that users should apply the following formula for cr eating the appropriate speed distribution among two adjacent speed bins.

The general formula is:

VHT Fraction A in Speed Bin with closest aver age speed lower than observed average speed + VHT Fraction B in Speed Bin with closest average speed higher that observed average speed = 1

VHT Fraction A (low bin) = 1 – [(observed average speed – average speed of lower speed bin) / (average speed of higher speed bin – average speed of lower speed bin)]

VHT Fraction B (high bin) = 1- [(average speed of higher sp eed bin – observed average speed) / (average speed of higher speed bin – average speed of lower speed bin)]

Or more simply: VHT Fracti on B = 1 – VHT fraction A

The following is an example of applying the abov e equations. If the single average speed for a roadway is 58 miles per hour, the average speed distribution will be spli t between the 55 and 60 mph speed bins. The appropriate VHT fracti ons are found with the following equations:

VHT fraction A (low bin) = 1 – [(58 mph Avg. Speed – 55 mph (B in Speed)) / (60 mph (Bin Speed) – 55 mph (Bin Speed)] = 0.4

VHT fraction B (high bin) = 1 – [(60 mph (Bin Speed) – 58 mph Avg. Speed) / (60 mph (Bin Speed) – 55 mph (Bin Speed)] = 0.6

VHT Fraction A (low bin) + VHT Fraction B (high bin) = 1

0.4 + 0.6 = 1On-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-7 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 As stated above, MOVES uses onl y four different roadway types: rural restrict ed access, rural unrestricted access, urban restricted access and urba n unrestricted access. This means that the speeds for multiple roadway types need to be combined into the appropriate speed bins. To create the speed bin fractions for combined roadways the VMT for each road way is used to weight the speed bin fraction. For example, below are speeds and VMT for urban restricted access road types:

Road type Speed (miles/hour) VMT (hourly miles) Urban Interstate 63 250,000 Urban Freeway 56 100,000

The first step is to determine the speed bin fractions for each road type separately. For the urban interstate road type, the speed 63 is split between the MOVES speed bins of 60 and 65 as described above, which results in the VHT fr actions of 0.4 and 0.6 for speed bins 60 and 65, respectively. Similarly, the speed for the urban freeway road type (56 miles/hour) is split between the MOVES speed bins of 55 and 60 a nd results in the VHT fractions of 0.8 and 0.2, respectively.

The next step requires road type VMT to wei gh the VHT Fractions so that the final MOVES speed bin fractions can be developed. The VHT Fraction, specific to the road type and speed bin, are multiplied by the corresponding hourly VM T. These hourly totals are divided by the total VMT for that hour for the road type cate gory (in this example, urban restricted access includes urban interstate and urban freeway). The following equation is used to calculate the combined speed bin fractions:

VHT (Speed Bin X) = [ ∑ (VHT Fraction (RT) × hourly VMT (RT) ] ÷ [ ∑ hourly VMT (RT) ]

Where: RT = the HPMS road type

In this example, the HPMS road types are urba n interstate (UI) and urban freeway (UF) and the speed bins are 55, 60 and 65. The table below summarizes the speed bin fractions for this example.On-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-8 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 HPMS Road Type Speed Bin 55 Speed Bin 60 Speed Bin 65 Urban Interstate 0.0 0.4 0.6 Urban Freeway 0.8 0.2 0.0

Using the equation below, the final MOVES spee d bin fractions are calculated for the urban restricted access road type.

VHT (Speed Bin X) = [(VHT Fraction ( UI ) * hourly VMT ( UI ) ) + (VHT Fraction ( UF ) * hourly VMT ( UF ) )] (hourly VMT ( UI ) + hourly VMT ( UF ) )

VHT (Speed Bin 55) = [(0.0 * 250,000) + (0.8 * 100,000)] (250,000 + 100,000)

VHT ( S p eed Bin 55 ) = 0.2286

VHT (Speed Bin 60) = [(0.4 * 250,000) + (0.2 * 100,000)] (250,000 + 100,000)

VHT ( S p eed Bin 60 ) = 0.3428

VHT (Speed Bin 65) = [(0.6 * 250,000) + (0.0 * 100,000)] (250,000 + 100,000)

VHT ( S p eed Bin 65 ) = 0.4286

The sum of the VHT fractions for all speed bins w ithin a road type category must add up to 1.0. The hourly VHT fractions by speed bin and road type are then processed through a MOVES supplied converter to develop the speed di stribution file by ho ur and road type.

4.2.2 Source Type Population

The MOVES model requires county -level source type (vehicle type) populations grouped by 13 categories. These data were developed from 20 10 North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles vehicle registration data. Counts of the total number of registered vehicles in each county were first obtained. The total populati ons were then broken down into 13 categories using the MOVES default source type distribution for each county for the year 2010.

Source type population is used by MOVES to calcu late start and evaporative emissions. In MOVES, start and resting evaporative emissions ar e related to the population of vehicles in anOn-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-9 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 area. Since vehicle type populat ion directly determines start and evaporative emission, users must develop local data for this input.

MOVES uses a vehicle classification system based the Federal Highway Administration’s HPMS vehicle classes (as opposed to the cla sses used with respect to USEPA emissions regulations). Since HPMS vehicl e class data is commonly availa ble from state transportation sources, this makes it easier for users to deve lop local data for MOVES. MOVES categorizes vehicles into 13 source types, wh ich are subsets of 6 HPMS vehi cle types in MOVES, as shown
in the crosswalk in Table 4.2-3. The USEPA believ es that states should be able to develop population data for many of these source type cat egories from state motor vehicle registration data (e.g., motorcycles, passenger cars, passenger trucks, light comme rcial trucks) and from local transit agencies, school districts, bus companies, and refuse haulers (inter city, transit, and school buses, and refuse trucks). The NCDOT supp lied the NCDAQ with source population data as described in the following section.

Table 4.2-4 MOVES Source Types and HPMS Vehicle Types

Source Type ID Source Types HPMS Vehicle Type ID HPMS Vehicle Type

11 Motorcycle 10 Motorcycles 21 Passenger Car 20 Passenger Cars 31 Passenger Truck 30 Other 2 axle-4 tire vehicles 32 Light Commercial Truck 30 Other 2 axle-4 tire vehicles 41 Intercity Bus 40 Buses 42 Transit Bus 40 Buses 43 School Bus 40 Buses 51 Refuse Truck 50 Single Unit Trucks 52 Single Unit Short-haul Truc k 50 Single Unit Trucks 53 Single Unit Long-haul Truc k 50 Single Unit Trucks 54 Motor Home 50 Single Unit Trucks 61 Combination Short-haul Truc k 60 Combination Trucks 62 Combination Long-haul Truc k 60 Combination Trucks

Source Type Population – Local Data

MOVES uses allocation factors to distribute emissions and ac tivity (such as vehicle type populations) to individual counties. The NCDAQ is committed to using repr esentative local data
which will over ride MOVES default values th rough the County Data Manager. This decision
was based on the fact that default allocation fact ors used in MOVES are derived from the VMT. Since the allocations are based on VMT, the vehicle populations allocated to counties areOn-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-10 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 proportional to the VMT being allocated to th at county. The NCDAQ corresponded with the USEPA Office of Transportation a nd Air Quality (OTAQ) to arrive at an acceptable method to allocate current year as well as to project future year vehicle popul ations to source type populations. The NCDAQ believes that using MOVES default ve hicle population to estimate a
fraction is the best method of ta king state specific vehi cle registration data and allocating county total vehicles to specific vehicle source types.

MOVES categorizes vehicles into 13 source types, which are subsets of 6 HPMS vehicle types. Presently NCDAQ is unable to develop county so urce type population data for many of these source type categories based on how NCDOT collect vehicle registra tion data. The latest vehicle registration data broken down by county and towns is available by January of each year. Since the vehicle types database available from NCDOT differs from what MOVES2010a expects, the NCDAQ relies on MOVES default fractions and app lies these fractions to county total vehicle population, minus trailers. It is assumed that tr ailers do not have engi nes and do not generate
VMT.

4.2.3 Source Type Age Distribution
The age distribution of vehicle fleets can vary si gnificantly from area to area. Fleets with a higher percentage of older vehicles will have higher emissions for two reasons. Older vehicles have typically been driven mo re miles and have experienced more deterioration in emission control systems. Additionally, a higher percentage of older vehicles also implies that there are
more vehicles in the fleet that do not meet newe r, more stringent emissions standards. Surveys of registration data indicate considerable loca l variability in vehicl e age distributions.

For SIP and conformity purposes, the USEPA re commends and encourages states to develop local age distributions. A typical vehicle fleet includes a mix of vehicles of different ages. MOVES covers a 31 year range of vehicle ages , with vehicles 30 years and older grouped together. MOVES allows the user to specify the fraction of vehicles in each of 30 vehicle ages
for each of the 13 source types in the model.

Local age distributions can be estimated from lo cal vehicle registration data. The vehicle age distribution comes from annual registration data for North Carolina from the NCDOT. For this analysis, the age distribution was generated ba sed on the 2010 data. The NCDOT provided the data based on the number of vehicle types per year from 1974 through 2010. Since MOVES categorizes the vehicle fleet into different ve hicle classes and more model years, USEPA has
created data converters that ta ke registration distribution inpu t files created for MOBILE6.2 and converts them to the appropriate age distribution input tables for MOVES. Vehicles greater thanOn-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-11 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 25 years old were combined and included as the 25 th model year. The vehicle count information is provided for nine vehicle ty pes; light duty gas vehicles (L DGV), light duty diesel vehicles (LDDV), light duty gas trucks 1 (L DGT1), light duty gas trucks 2 (LDGT2), light duty diesel trucks 1 (LDDT1), light duty dies el trucks 2 (LDDT2), heavy duty gas vehicles (HDGV), heavy duty diesel vehicles (HDDV) a nd motorcycles (MC). LDDT1 and LDDT2 are combined and labeled as light duty diesel trucks (LDDT).

4.2.4 Road Type Distribution

The distribution of VMT traveled by each sour ce type over the five MOVES road types was
determined. The basis of this distribution wa s the 2009 statewide vehicle mix data provided by the NCDOT, which shows, for a given road type, the activity of each source type as a percentage of total vehicle activity. The 2009 statewide vehicle mix dataset was the latest data available at the time this CO inventory was developed. This data was provided for each of twelve HPMS roadway functional classes and thirteen sour ce types. Procedures outlined in USEPA’s Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6.2 for EI Preparation (Aug. 2004) were used to re-aggregate the mix data from thirteen source types to sixt een source types and to project the 2009 vehicle mix data to the future year of 2010. Table 4.2-5 s hows the statewide vehicle mix used for each of the four counties. Column headings repr esent road types described in Section 4.2.1.Table 4.2-5 Fraction of VMT onRoad Type by Source TypeSourceType*RIRPARMARMjCRMiCRLUIUFUPAUMAUCULLDV 0.3178 0.3463 0.3599 0.3584 0.3668 0.3609 0.3515 0.3613 0.3685 0.3759 0.3809 0.3723LDT1 0.0798 0.0871 0.0905 0.0901 0.0922 0.0907 0.0884 0.0908 0.0927 0.0945 0.0958 0.0936LDT2 0.2657 0.2898 0.3012 0.2999 0.3069 0.3018 0.294 0.3023 0.3083 0.3145 0.3187 0.3114LDT3 0.0819 0.0893 0.0929 0.0925 0.0946 0.093 0.0906 0.0932 0.0951 0.097 0.0982 0.096LDT4 0.0376 0.0411 0.0427 0.0425 0.0435 0.0428 0.0417 0.0428 0.0437 0.0446 0.0451 0.0441HDV2 0.0682 0.0453 0.0344 0.0357 0.029 0.0338 0.0412 0.0334 0.0276 0.0218 0.0178 0.0247HDV3 0.0066 0.0044 0.0034 0.0035 0.0028 0.0033 0.004 0.0033 0.0027 0.0021 0.0017 0.0024HDV4 0.0056 0.0037 0.0028 0.0029 0.0024 0.0028 0.0034 0.0027 0.0023 0.0018 0.0015 0.002HDV5 0.0042 0.0028 0.0021 0.0022 0.0018 0.0021 0.0025 0.0021 0.0017 0.0013 0.0011 0.0015HDV6 0.0152 0.0101 0.0077 0.008 0.0065 0.0075 0.0092 0.0074 0.0062 0.0049 0.004 0.0055HDV7 0.018 0.012 0.0091 0.0094 0.0077 0.0089 0.0109 0.0088 0.0073 0.0057 0.0047 0.0065HDV8A 0.0196 0.013 0.0099 0.0102 0.0083 0.0097 0.0118 0.0096 0.0079 0.0062 0.0051 0.0071HDV8B 0.0698 0.0463 0.0352 0.0365 0.0297 0.0346 0.0422 0.0342 0.0283 0.0223 0.0182 0.0253HDBS 0.0035 0.0023 0.0018 0.0018 0.0015 0.0017 0.0021 0.0017 0.0014 0.0011 0.0009 0.0013HDBT 0.0017 0.0012 0.0009 0.0009 0.0007 0.0009 0.0011 0.0009 0.0007 0.0006 0.0005 0.0006MC 0.0048 0.0053 0.0055 0.0055 0.0056 0.0055 0.0054 0.0055 0.0056 0.0057 0.0058 0.0057* Source Type DefinitionsLDV - Light-Duty Vehicles (Passenger Cars)HDV5 - Class 5 Heavy-Duty Vehicles (16,001-19,500 lbs. GVWR)LDT1 - Light-Duty Trucks 1 (0-6,000 lbs. GVWR, 0-3,750 lbs. LVW) HDV6 - Class 6 Heavy-Duty Vehicles (19,501-26,000 lbs. GVWR)LDT2 - Light-Duty Trucks 2 (0-6,000 lbs. GVWR, 3,751-5,750 lbs. LVW) HDV7 - Class 7 Heavy-Duty Vehicles (26,001-33,000 lbs. GVWR)LDT3 -Light-Duty Trucks 3 (6,001-8,500 lbs. GVWR, 0-5,750 lbs.ALVW)HDV8A -Class 8a Heavy-Duty Vehicles (33,001-60,000 lbs.GVWR)LDT4 -Light-Duty Trucks 4 (6,001-8,500 lbs. GVWR, 5,751 lbs. andgreater ALVW)HDV8B - Class 8b Heavy-Duty Vehicles (>60,000 lbs. GVWR)HDV2 - Class 2b Heavy-Duty Vehicles (8,501-10,000 lbs. GVWR) HDBS - School BusesHDV3 - Class 3 Heavy-Duty Vehicles (10,001-14,000 lbs. GVWR) HDBT - Transit and Urban BusesHDV4 - Class 4 Heavy-Duty Vehicles (14,001-16,000 lbs. GVWR) MC - MotorcyclesOn-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-13 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Converter applications were used to reallocate the VMT fracti ons from the twelve functional
classes to the five MOVES ro ad types described below:

• Off-Network (road type 1) – all locations wher e the predominant activity is vehicle starts, parking and idling (parking lots, truck stops, rest areas, freight or bus terminals)

• Rural Restricted Access (road type 2) – rura l highways that can only be accessed by an
on-ramp

• Rural Unrestricted Access road type 3) – all other rural roads (arterials, connectors, and local streets)

• Urban Restricted Access (road type 4) – urban highways or freeways that can only be accessed by an on-ramp

• Urban Unrestricted Access (road type 5) – al l other urban roads (a rterials, connectors, and local streets)

The NCDAQ followed the USEPA guidance that st ates that all SIP and regional conformity analyses must include the Off-Network road type in order to account for emissions from vehicle starts, extended idle activity, and evaporative emissions (for volatile organic compounds). The Off-Network road type is automatically selected when start or extended idle pollutant processes are chosen and must be selected for all evapor ative emissions to be quantified. Off-Network activity in MOVES is primarily determined by the Source Type Population input, which is
described in Section 4.2.2. Some evaporative emissions are estim ated on roadways (i.e., road types 2, 3, 4, and 5) to account for evaporative em issions that occur when vehicles are driving. All roads types are automatically selected when Refueling emi ssion processes are selected.

MOVES uses Road Type to assign default drive cycles to activity on road types 2, 3, 4, and 5. For example, for unrestricted access road types, MOVES uses drive cycles that assume stop and go driving, including multiple accelerations, dece lerations, and short pe riods of idling. For restricted access road types, MOVES uses drive cy cles that include a high er fraction of cruise activity with less time spent accel erating or idling, although some ra mp activity is also included.

4.2.5 Inspection and Maintenance Program

In 2002, North Carolina implemented a new vehi cle emissions inspection program based on vehicle onboard diagnostics (OBD-II). This pr ogram covers all light duty gasoline powered vehicles that are model year 1996 and newer. The program was initially implemented in 9 counties and was expanded to include a total of 48 counties between July 2002 and January 2006. Requirements and specifications of th e inspection and maintenance program are established in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the North Carolina Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program. The I/M SIP specifies a compliance rate of 92%, meaning that atOn-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-14 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 least 92% of vehicles su bject to the I/M program must meet the inspection requirements in order for the program to meet the desired emissions reduction goals. The I/M SIP also specifies a 5% waiver rate. This means the program requirements can be waived for vehicles that cannot pass inspection, as long as the total number of waiv ers issued does not exceed 5% of all subject
vehicles.

In developing this emissions inventory, th e MOVES model was run with the appropriate parameters needed to show the effects of the North Carolina I/M program in reducing emissions. For each source type subject to an I/M program , the MOVES model uses a compliance factor based on the compliance rate, waiver rate, and “r egulatory class coverage adjustment”, which
accounts for the fraction of vehicles within a so urce type that are covered by the I/M program. Table 4.2-4 lists the MOVES I/M compliance fact ors based on the prescr ibed 92% compliance rate, 5% waiver rate, and class coverage ad justment for the applicable source types.
Table 4.2-6 MOVES I/M Compliance Factors Source Type Compliance Factor
Passenger Car 87.4
Passenger Truck 82.2
Light commercial Truck 76.9

4.2.6 Fuel Supply and Formulation

The MOVES model is populated w ith monthly default fuel formul ations (identified by fuel formulation ID) which are fuel year specific. The model incorporates all recent rulemakings (Tier 2, ultra low sulfur diesel, etc). The de fault dataset was exporte d from MOVES and was updated to reflect North Carolin a’s monthly Reid Vapor Pre ssure (RVP) requirements for gasoline. For the month modeled (January), an RVP value of 15 was used for all four counties modeled. Also, the MOVES default diesel fuel formulation for January 2010 included a fuel sulfur level of 43 parts per million (ppm). This value reflects the transition from low sulfur diesel fuel, (500 ppm sulfur) to ultra low sulfur diesel (15 ppm sulfur), which was gradually phased in over the period from October 15, 2006 to December 1, 2010.

4.2.7 Meteorological Data

Local temperature and humidity data are requi red inputs for SIP and regional conformity analyses with MOVES. Ambient temperature is a key factor in estimating emissions for on-road vehicles, with substantial effects on most pollutant processes. Relative humi dity is also importantOn-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-15 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 for estimating NO x emissions from motor vehicles. MOVE S requires a temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit) and relative humidity (in percent – 0 to 100 scale) for each hour selected in the Run Spec. 2010 monthly average (by hour) temperature and rela tive humidity from three weather stations listed in the table below were provide d by State Climate Office of North Carolina.

Table 4.2-7 Average Hourly Temperature and Humidity – January 2010 County Forsyth Mecklenburg Durham, Wake Weather Station KGSO KCLT KRDU

Location Piedmont Triad International Airport Charlotte / Douglas International Airport Raleigh-Durham International Airport

Hour Temp., °F Relative Humidity, % Temp., °F Relative Humidity, % Temp., °F Relative Humidity, %
12:00 AM-1:00 AM 32.6 68 34.2 70 34.5 66

1:00 AM-2:00 AM 31.9 69 33.2 72 33.7 68 2:00 AM-3:00 AM 31.4 70 32.5 73 32.7 70 3:00 AM-4:00 AM 31.0 71 31.6 75 32.0 72 4:00 AM-5:00 AM 29.8 72 31.0 77 31.4 73 5:00 AM-6:00 AM 29.5 72 30.2 79 30.9 74 6:00 AM-7:00 AM 29.3 71 29.7 79 30.4 75 7:00 AM-8:00 AM 29.3 71 30.1 79 30.7 74 8:00 AM-9:00 AM 32.5 67 33.5 74 33.4 70 9:00 AM-10:00 AM 35.7 59 36.7 65 36.9 62 10:00 AM-11:00 AM 38.7 52 39.7 56 40.2 53 11:00 AM-12:00 PM 40.6 48 42.4 50 42.3 48

12:00 PM-1:00 PM 42.5 45 43.8 47 44.4 45

1:00 PM-2:00 PM 43.4 43 45.3 44 45.6 43 2:00 PM-3:00 PM 44.1 43 45.8 43 46.3 42 3:00 PM-4:00 PM 43.7 43 46.6 43 45.8 43 4:00 PM-5:00 PM 42.0 45 44.8 46 44.2 45 5:00 PM-6:00 PM 40.1 48 42.1 51 41.6 49 6:00 PM-7:00 PM 38.0 53 40.9 53 39.8 52 7:00 PM-8:00 PM 36.7 56 39.0 58 38.3 56 8:00 PM-9:00 PM 36.2 57 37.8 60 37.5 57 9:00 PM-10:00 PM 34.4 61 37.0 62 36.2 60 10:00 PM-11:00 PM 33.5 63 36.0 64 35.4 62 11:00 PM-12:00 AM 33.0 65 34.6 67 34.8 63On-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory 4-16 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.3 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 4.3 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES

Table 4.3-1 lists the CO emissions modeling resu lts. The values listed re present CO emissions from all vehicle types, as well as all vehicle activity, including off ne twork (vehicle exhaust
emissions from starts and eva porative emissions) and on-road running exhaust emissions..

Table 4.3-1 January 2010 On-road Mobile Source CO emissions

County CO emissions, tons/month CO emissions, tons/day Durham 5,766 186.0 Forsyth 7,569 244.2 Mecklenburg 22,456 724.4 Wake 19,932 643.0

.

# Appendix B.4

Nonroad Mobile Sources Emission Inventory Documentation(This page intentionally left blank)Nonroad Mobile Sources Documentation i Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ............................................................................................ 1

2.0 OVERALL METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 1

2.1 SOURCE CATEGORY IDENTIFICATION .................................................................. 1

2.2 EMISSION ESTIMATION APPROACH ....................................................................... 1

3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES ................................................................................. 2

4.0 EMISSIONS AND DETAILED METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 3

4.1 CATEGORIES FROM THE NONROAD MOD EL WITHIN THE NMIM MODEL .... 3

4.2 AIRCRAFT ENGINES AND AIRP ORT GROUND SUPPORT.................................... 4

4.3 RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES........................................................................................ 6

4.4 COMBINED NONROAD EMISSIONS ......................................................................... 7

5.0 PROJECTION AND CONTROL FACTORS ......................................................................... 8

5.1 RAILROAD EMISSIONS GROWTH AND CONTROL ............................................... 8

6.0 NMIM RUNSPEC FILE ........................................................................................................ .. 9Nonroad Mobile Sources Documentation ii Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### List of Tables

Table 4-1 CO Emissions for NMIM Equipment Categories ......................................................... 4

Table 4-2 CO Emissi ons from Airports ......................................................................................... 6

Table 4-3 CO Emissi ons from Railroads ....................................................................................... 7

Table 4-4 Combined Nonroad CO Emissions ............................................................................... 7

Table 5-1 Railroad CO Growth and Control Factors, 2008 to 2010 .............................................. 8Nonroad Mobile Sources Documentation 1 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

Nonroad mobile sources are equipment that can m ove but are not licensed to use the public roads and highways. The nonroad mobile source catego ry includes a diverse co llection of equipment such as lawn mowers, chain saws, tractors, a ll terrain vehicles, forklifts and construction equipment. Emissions from this type of e quipment are calculated us ing the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) developed by the Unit ed States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This category also includes emi ssions from aircraft, railroad locomotives, and commercial marine vessels which are calculated outside of NMIM. No commercial marine vessels operate in Durham, Fors yth, Mecklenburg, or Wake counties so there are no emissions reported for this sub-category.

For this maintenance demonstration, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) are estimated for the year of 2010.



### 2.0 OVERALL METHODOLOGY

2.1 SOURCE CATEGORY IDENTIFICATION

Nonroad mobile sources were identified us ing the USEPA guidance document EPA-450/4-91- 016, Procedures for the Preparation of Emissi ons Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone (Procedures document). Nonroad mob ile source emissions are estimated by the methodologies suggested in th e USEPA document, EPA-454/R-05-001, Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Partic ulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Re gional Haze Regulations ; EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised) Procedures for Emission Inventory Prepar ation, Volume IV; Mobile Sources (Mobile Source Procedures); from the USEPA’s NMIM model (incorporati ng NONROAD2008a released July 6, 2009); and from the Emissions and Dispersion Mode ling System version 5.1.3 (EDMS 5.1.3) model developed by the USEPA and the Fede ral Aviation Administration (FAA).

2.2 EMISSION ESTIMATION APPROACH

For the majority of nonroad mobile categories, emissions were estimated using the USEPA’s NMIM model. Model runs were performed for each of the four counties for January, February, and December of 2010. The county sums of these runs were divided by 90 to produce typical winter day emissions for the several nonroad mo bile equipment categor ies for the counties.Nonroad Mobile Sources Documentation 2 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 Aircraft emissions were calculated with activity da ta for the year 2010 for the most part. Activity data for the very small airports was from less y ear specific FAA data but, in several cases, was obtained by phone calls to the airports. Most of the emissions were calcu lated using the EDMS 5.1.3 model where the the number of landings and takeoffs for specific aircraft and engine combinations are entered. For air taxi activity and general av iation, not calculated with the EDMS 5.1.3 model, methods and emission factors described in Documentation for Aircraft Component of the National Em ission Inventory Methodology (ERG No.: 0245.03.402.001, January 27, 2011) were employed. Emission factors developed for military aircraft at military airports in North Carolina as part of the 2008 National Emission Inventory (NEI) were used to calculate emissions for military aircra ft operating at civilian airports.

Railroad emissions from the 2008 NEI including passenger railroad emissions developed by the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) fo r the NEI were used as the starting point for developing 2010 emissions. Growth factors were ba sed on projected railroad fuel use. Future emission reductions due to emission control meas ures were calculated based on future emission factors published in the USEPA document Emission Factors for Locomotives , EPA-420-F-09- 025. Two additional trains were added to the Piedmont route in June, 2010. Emission adjustments were made for this to ac count for extra emissions in December.



### 3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES

For the NMIM model run, the run specification file (f ile that displays the va riables used to setup a model run) was reviewed by a second person w ho did not perform the actual runs. The model results (month totals for thr ee winter months) were also evaluated for completeness and comparability to a previous annual run.

For the aircraft portion of the inventory, data wa s obtained from sources consistent with USEPA emission inventory methodology. Data entry for the EDMS model was reviewed. Spreadsheet calculations were also reviewed by a sec ond person. NEI 2008 emissions projected to 2010 (annual numbers) were compared to those direc tly calculated (mostly seasonal) and were found to be comparable.

Railroad emission calculations and projection methods were reviewed by a second person.Nonroad Mobile Sources Documentation 3 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 4.0 EMISSIONS AND DETAILED METHODOLOGY

4.1 CATEGORIES FROM THE NONROAD MODEL WITHIN THE NMIM MODEL

The USEPA included more than 80 different type s of equipment in the NONROAD model. To facilitate analysis and reporti ng, the USEPA grouped the equipmen t types into twelve equipment categories. These include: Agricultural equipment Lawn and garden equipment, commercial Commercial equipment Logging equipment Construction and mining equipment Pleasure craft (recreational marine) Industrial equipment Railroa d maintenance equipment Lawn and garden equipment, residential Recreational equipment

The eleventh category, aircraft ground support equipment, was not calculated with the NMIM / NONROAD model because the method of calcu lation performed by th e EDMS model was judged to be superior. The twelvth category is underground mining equipment; there are no underground mining operations in the four countie s. Additionally, the emissions are estimated for five different engine types. These include : 2-stroke and 4-stroke spark ignition engines, diesel engines, liquid propane gas and co mpressed natural gas fueled engines.

The NMIM model containing the NONROAD2008a model version was used to estimate emissions for the maintenance plan. NONROAD2008a is the la test release of the USEPA NONROAD model that was first released in June 2000, and incorporates many revisions to improve the model’s predictive ability. Compared to NONROAD2005c, this model revision accounts for emission reductions from the Dies el Recreational Marine standards in the Loco/Marine final rule publishe d in the Federal Register (FR) (73FR 25098) and the Small Spark Ignition and Spark Ignition Recreat ional Marine final rule (FR 59034). There are a number of additional improvements including th e ability to model the effects of ethanol blends on fuel tank and hose permeation losses.

The seasonal file for the NONROAD2008a model wa s modified to place North Carolina in the Southeast states group rather than the Mid-Atla ntic group. This change was made because the NCDAQ had reviewed temperature data of North Carolina compared to states in the Southeast and the Mid-Atlantic. The results of this comp arison indicated that Nort h Carolina temperatures are more in-line with the Southeast States. Me terological data specific for the year 2010 was incorporated in the NMIM model by modifica tion of the model’s CountyYearMonthHour table For reporting purposes, the resulting emissions were totaled for each equipment category by county.Nonroad Mobile Sources Documentation 4 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 The NMIM model was operated through the graphi c user interface (GUI). A runspec file was created which directed the running of the NONROAD 2008a model. A copy of the runspec file is in Section 6.0 of this document. The model was run for January, February, and December of 2010. Values for the three months were summed a nd then divided by 90 to get tons of CO per day. The summary of the model results expressed in tons emitted per typical winter day are tabulated in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 CO Emissions fo r NMIM Equipment Categories

Equipment Categories CO tons/day Durham Forsyth Mecklenburg Wake
Agricultural Equipment 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03
Commercial Equipment 4.38 10.76 51.99 27.02 Construction and Mining Equipment 3.44 2.00 11.41 9.51

Industrial Equipment 4.55 3.68 6.23 3.80 Lawn and Garden Equipment, Commercial 3.33 3.84 24.12 19.36
Lawn and Garden Equipment, Residential 1.79 2.42 5.67 4.98

Logging Equipment 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.25
Pleasure Craft (Recreational Marine) 0.09 0.04 0.26 0.27

Railway Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Recreational Equipment 1.37 0.83 3.73 1.93

Total 18.99 23.64 103.47 67.15

4.2 AIRCRAFT ENGINES AND AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT

Aircraft engines, like other engines, emit pollu tants whenever the engines are in operation. However, the only emissions that are of con cern for this inventory are the portion of the operation that occurs below the mixing layer. Th is is because the emissions tend to disperse whenever the aircraft is above the mixing layer and therefore have litt le or no effect on ground level air pollutant concentrations.Nonroad Mobile Sources Documentation 5 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 The aircraft emissions of interest are produced during the landing and take off (LTO) cycle. The cycle begins when the aircraft approaches the airport, descending below the mixing layer, lands and taxis to the gate. It continue s as the aircraft idles at the gate and then taxis back out to the runway for the subsequent takeoff and climb out as it heads back to cruisi ng altitudes, above the mixing layer. Associated with these emissi ons are emissions from ground support equipment (GSE) and auxiliary power units (APU) which are sm all engines used to maintain aircraft power and air conditioning when the main engines are shut off.

Aircraft can be categorized by use into four classifications: commercial, air taxis, general aviation and military. Commercial aircraft includ e those used for scheduled service transporting passengers, freight or both. Air taxis and commuter aircraft also fly scheduled service carrying passengers and/or freight but usua lly are smaller aircraft and oper ate on a more limited basis than commercial carriers. Air taxis may also be used for unscheduled on-demand flights. General aviation includes all other non- military aircraft used for recreational flying, personal transportation, and various other activities. Military aircraft cover a wide range of sizes, uses, and operating missions. Milita ry operations at civilian airports are often associated with National Guard, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve training.

Emission estimates were developed by NCDAQ for a typical winter day of 2010 for all airports in the four counties. Emission calculations fo r commercial aircraft were made using the EDMS 5.1.3 model developed by the USEPA and the FAA. Emissions for air taxi and general aviation (both subgrouped into piston engine and turbine engine categories) were made using emission factors developed by the USEPA wo rking with the FAA. More deta il about this process is found in Documentation for Aircraft Component of th e National Emissions Inventory Methodology

, ERG No.: 0245.02.302.001, Contract No.: EP-D-07- 097 prepared by Eastern Research Group under contract to E.H. Pechan for the EPA. For mi litary operations at civili an airports, emissions were calculated using emission factors develope d by NCDAQ from surveys of military airports in North Carolina for the 2008 National Emission I nventory (NEI). The next paragraph describes the general approach to deve lop these emission factors.

For the 2008 NEI, requests for counts of operations by aircraft type were sent to the military airports in North Carolina. Tw o Army airports, two Air Force airports, and one Coast Guard airport supplied the requ ested information The Marine Corps fa iled to supply any requested data. From the available data, the EDMS 5.1.3 model wa s used to calculate th e airport’s emissions. Seymour Johnson Airforce Base is home to a larg e number of fighter aircraft. However, it is believed that fighter airc raft operations are not co mmon at civilian airports in NC. The NC Air National Guard (based in Charlotte) is equipped for airlift operations. The Air Force Reserve units based here (at the two Air Force bases) perform refueling and ai rlift operations. Fighter airplanes tend to make a lot of noise yet we don’t hear of strong complaints about noise aroundNonroad Mobile Sources Documentation 6 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 our civilian airports. All this considered, it was decided to assu me no fighter operations at the civilian airports. Military aircraft at milita ry airports often perform touch and go (T&G) operations for landing practice (t hey don’t actually stop so ther e are no taxi or ground support emissions) The assumption was made that military operations at civilian airports would have the same proportion of T&Gs to LTOs as at military ai rports (civilian operations are not considered to include touch and go). Considering all the mili tary airports together and excluding the fighter aircraft, emission factors for military aircraft and ground supp ort were calculated on a per operation basis.

Activity data for commercial flights was obtained from the Bureau of Tr ansportation Statistics (BTS) T-100 Segment data for 2010. This data is reported by month so January, February, and December data were used to calculate commerci al flight CO tons per day for the Charlotte Douglas airport in Mecklenburg County and th e Raleigh Durham airport in Wake County. December data appeared to be missing for the Smith Reynolds airport in Forsyth County so just January and February data were used. For the rest of the operations data at these three airports an Airport Operations: Standard Report was genera ted using the FAA’s Air Trafic Activity Data System (ATADS). This data, after adjustment with annual T-100 Segment data, was used to calculate emissions from air taxis, general aviatio n and military flights. For the smallest airports, operations data and based aircraft data was obtained through the FAA National Flight Data Center form 5010 data. This was additionally supplemented with phone calls to three of the small airports because it appeared that the most recent inspection was a number of years in the past. Table 4-2 shows airport emissions.

Table 4-2 CO Emissions from Airports

Equipment Categories CO tons/day Durham Forsyth Mecklenburg Wake Aircraft and Auxiliary Power Units 0.03 0.31 6.32 2.16
Aircraft Ground Support Equipment 0.00 0.00 4.69 1.26

Total 0.03 0.31 11.01 3.42

4.3 RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES

Freight railroad companies are categorized by si ze (Class I, Class II, or Class III). Class I railroad companies are long haul operations, c onsisting of Norfolk Southern Corporation and CSX Corporation. Class II and Class III railroad companies are short li nes serving localizedNonroad Mobile Sources Documentation 7 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 markets. Amtrak and the North Carolina Depa rtment of Transportati on (NCDOT) Rail Division provide passenger service.

Railroad locomotive emissions for classes I, II, a nd III plus rail yards were calculated for all of North Carolina as part of the 2008 NEI. This inventory was prepared by the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (E RTAC) Rail Subgroup for the USEPA. Some of the details of the ERTAC work are based on proprietary inform ation provided by the railroad companies. The calculation methodologies followed proce dures acceptable to the USEPA.

Passenger railroad emissions were devel oped by NCDAQ for 2008. This was done using information supplied by the NCDOT and emission factors from Emission Factors for
Locomotives , EPA-420-F-09-025. The daily runs of the Piedmont train fr om Raleigh to Charlotte was increased from two trains to four in J une, 2010. Emissions were increased based on the expected additional fuel use.

Growth and control factors were produced to project the 2008 emissions to 2010. Railroad emissions are shown in Table 4-3 below.

Table 4-3 CO Emissions from Railroads

Equipment Categories CO tons/day Durham Forsyth Mecklenburg Wake

Railroad Emissions 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.05

4.4 COMBINED NONROAD EMISSIONS

Table 4-4 Combined Nonroad CO Emissions County 2010 CO tons/day

Charlotte Maintenance Area Mecklenburg 114.71

Raleigh/Durham Maintenance Area Durham 19.04 Wake 70.62 Total 89.66

Winston-Salem Maintenance Area Forsyth 23.97Nonroad Mobile Sources Documentation 8 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 5.0 PROJECTION AND CONTROL FACTORS

5.1 RAILROAD EMISSIONS GROWTH AND CONTROL

Railroad growth factors were cal culated using national fuel use estimates for freight and for intercity passenger service found on table 46 of the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook, 2011 . Fuel use for 2010 was divided by fuel use for 2008 and the quotient was multiplied by the 2008 emissions to adjust for growth.Control factors were calculated by using recommended CO emission factors for from Emission Factors for Locomotives , EPA-420-F-09- 025. The control factors were calculated by dividing base year emission factors into the future year emission factors. Since the CO emission fact ors were the same the control factor was 1 in all cases. Table 5-1 shows the growth and contro l factors used and the e quation used is below:

2008 CO emissions * 2010 fuel use * 2010 CO emission factor = 2010 CO emissions 2008 fuel use 2008 CO emission factor

An additional adjustment was made to passenger train emissions due to two extra runs (one round trip) of the Piedmont each day starting in June, 2010. Therefore, miles traveled and emissions were greater in December then in Ja nuary and February. Emissions were originally calculated based on known usage of diesel fuel pe r mile and miles traveled in each county by all passenger trains. The estimated annual fuel us e for the original tw o Piedmont runs was calculated as was total annual passe nger train fuel use in the three counties. Daily emissions were found by adding 59/90 of the original daily emissions to 31/90 of the orig inal daily emissions times the new annual fuel amount divided by the original:

CO t * 59 +CO t * Original fuel use + additional fuel * 31 =Adjusted CO t d 90 d Original fuel use 90 d

Table 5-1 Railroad CO Growth and Control Factors, 2008 to 2010

Type of Service Control Factor Growth Factor
Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations 1 0.918868646 Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations 1 0.918868646 Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak) 1 1.005665722 Yard Locomotives 1 0.918868646Nonroad Mobile Sources Documentation 9 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 

### 6.0 NMIM RUNSPEC FILE

<runspec> <description>CO limited maintenance plan, 2010 inventory</description>
<geography mode="3">
<location fipsstateid="37" fipscountyid="63"/>
<location fipsstateid="37" fipscountyid="67"/>
<location fipsstateid="37" fipscountyid="119"/>
<location fipsstateid="37" fipscountyid="183"/>
</geography>

<months>
<month index="1"/>
<month index="2"/>
<month index="12"/>

</months>
<weather useYearlyWeatherDataActive="true" useYearlyWeatherDataSelected="true"/>

<years> <year index="2010"/>
</years>

<onroad>

</onroad>

<offroad>
<scc fuel="CNG" segment="1"/>
<scc fuel="CNG" segment="2"/>
<scc fuel="CNG" segment="3"/>
<scc fuel="CNG" segment="4"/>
<scc fuel="CNG" segment="5"/>
<scc fuel="CNG" segment="6"/>
<scc fuel="CNG" segment="7"/>
<scc fuel="CNG" segment="9"/>
<scc fuel="CNG" segment="10"/>
<scc fuel="CNG" segment="11"/>
<scc fuel="CNG" segment="12"/>
<scc fuel="Dies" segment="1"/>
<scc fuel="Dies" segment="2"/>
<scc fuel="Dies" segment="3"/>
<scc fuel="Dies" segment="4"/>Nonroad Mobile Sources Documentation 10 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 <scc fuel="Dies" segment="5"/>
<scc fuel="Dies" segment="6"/>
<scc fuel="Dies" segment="7"/>
<scc fuel="Dies" segment="9"/>
<scc fuel="Dies" segment="10"/>
<scc fuel="Dies" segment="11"/>
<scc fuel="Dies" segment="12"/>
<scc fuel="Gas" segment="1"/>
<scc fuel="Gas" segment="2"/>
<scc fuel="Gas" segment="3"/>
<scc fuel="Gas" segment="4"/>
<scc fuel="Gas" segment="5"/>
<scc fuel="Gas" segment="6"/>
<scc fuel="Gas" segment="7"/>
<scc fuel="Gas" segment="9"/>
<scc fuel="Gas" segment="10"/>
<scc fuel="Gas" segment="11"/>
<scc fuel="Gas" segment="12"/>
<scc fuel="LPG" segment="1"/>
<scc fuel="LPG" segment="2"/>
<scc fuel="LPG" segment="3"/>
<scc fuel="LPG" segment="4"/>
<scc fuel="LPG" segment="5"/>
<scc fuel="LPG" segment="6"/>
<scc fuel="LPG" segment="7"/>
<scc fuel="LPG" segment="9"/>
<scc fuel="LPG" segment="10"/>
<scc fuel="LPG" segment="11"/>
<scc fuel="LPG" segment="12"/>

</offroad>
<pollutants hydrocarbonunits="VOC">
<pollutant index="10"/>
</pollutants>

<advanced>
<countydb server="" name=""/>
<mobile6run path=""/>
<mobile6scenario path=""/>
<nonroadalt path=""/>Nonroad Mobile Sources Documentation 11 Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham & Winston-Salem Appendix B.4 Pre-hearing Draft CO Limited Maintenance Plan June 29, 2012 </advanced>
<onroadretrofit retrofit="false" parametersFile="" fleet="false" fleetInformationFile=""/>
<offroadretrofit retrofit="false" parametersFile="" fleet="false" fleetInformationFile=""/>
<output granularity="2" shouldPreAggregateForNIF3="true">
<outputdb server="localhost" name="nmimCO10out"/>
</output>
</runspec>