2015 FIVE-YEAR NETWORK ASSESSMENT FOR NORTH CAROLINA

Transcription

1 2015 FIVE-YEAR NETWORK ASSESSMENT FOR NORTH CAROLINA July 22, 2015 North Carolina Division of Air Quality A division of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Mail Service Center 1641 Raleigh, North Carolina

2 CERTIFICATION By the signatures below, the North Carolina Division of Air Quality, DAQ, certifies that the information contained in the 2015 Five-Year Network Assessment for North Carolina is complete and accurate at the time of submittal to EPA Region 4. However, due to circumstances that may arise due to changes in the monitoring regulations, population growth and air quality, some network information may change. These changes will be discussed in the annual network plans submitted each year. Signature Date Donald D. Redmond, Jr. Ambient Monitoring Section Chief, DAQ Signature Date Sheila C. Holman Director, DAQ

3 Executive Summary The North Carolina Division of Air Quality, DAQ, works with three local program partners: Forsyth County Office of Environmental Assistance and Protection, Forsyth County, Mecklenburg County Air Quality, MCAQ, and Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency. Together these four agencies operate a network of monitors to measure various air pollutants. These monitors are located in a variety of locations across the state to determine: Population exposure, Maximum concentrations, Background concentrations and Air pollution transported from other regions. The most well-known air pollutants are ozone and particulate matter, but we also monitor for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead and toxic air pollutants. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has for years required the state to publish an annual plan of changes to its monitoring network. Since 2010, there is an additional requirement to publish a five-year network assessment. The annual plan contains details of the monitoring network, while this five-year network assessment is a look forward at the projected needs of the ambient air monitoring program. The need for changes to the program is driven by a number of factors, including: Changes to the national ambient air quality standards, NAAQS, due to better understanding of the science, Increases in population or shifts in that population, New emission sources, Changes in technology and The availability of funding and other resources. As the rest of this document, and the associated annual network plan, discuss in detail, the following changes to the monitoring network are anticipated over the next five years: Three ozone, nine fine particle and one ammonia monitoring stations are no longer needed and will be shut down. Three additional nitrogen dioxide sites are required to meet new EPA rules; these are near-road sites in Durham, Greensboro and Winston-Salem, An unknown number of additional sulfur dioxide sites are required to meet new EPA rules for source oriented monitoring and will probably be located in the Asheville, Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, Durham-Chapel Hill, Greensboro-High Point, Hickory and Wilmington areas, Two photochemical assessment monitoring stations may be needed depending on the proposed ozone standard classification in Charlotte and Raleigh, 3

4 Two additional carbon monoxide and fine particle sites are required to meet new EPA rules; these are near-road sites in Charlotte and Raleigh, The manual fine particle federal reference method, FRM, monitors will be replaced with automated federal equivalent monitors, FEM, Other sites may be added or upgraded to improve our understanding of the impact of emissions control measures, industrial expansion, population growth patterns, or the transport of pollutants into or out of a region, Miscellaneous moves of existing sites are expected because of construction or other activities near the monitoring site or to comply with new EPA rules, Mature networks will continue to be evaluated and downsized as appropriate to free up resources for new monitoring initiatives and The DAQ also expects to continue a significant effort to replace its aging monitoring shelters and equipment. Finally, it is important to note that despite what all this additional monitoring might suggest, the air in North Carolina is getting cleaner and that trend is expected to continue well into the future. 1 The monitoring network is vital to demonstrate that the state is providing a healthy environment for its citizens in the face of tightened national standards and increased population and industrial expansion. 1 See 4

5 Contents Executive Summary... 3 List of Figures... 7 List of Tables... 7 Chapter 1. Introduction... 8 Chapter 2. Status of Network Monitoring Objectives Defined in Appendix D Design Criteria for National Core, NCore, Monitoring Sites Pollutant-Specific Design Criteria for State and Local Air Monitoring Station, SLAMS, Sites Ozone, O3, Design Criteria Carbon Monoxide, CO, Design Criteria Nitrogen Dioxide, NO2, Design Criteria Reactive Oxides of Nitrogen, NOy, Design Criteria Sulfur Dioxide, SO2, Design Criteria Lead, Pb, Design Criteria Particulate Matter, PM10, Design Criteria Fine Particulate Matter, PM 2.5, Design Criteria Coarse Particulate Matter, PM , Design Criteria Network Design for Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations, PAMS Network Design for Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Stations, UAT Chapter 3. Need for New Sites NCORE Sites Pollutant-Specific SLAMS Sites Ozone, O3, Sites Carbon Monoxide, CO, Sites Nitrogen Dioxide, NO 2, Sites Reactive Oxides of Nitrogen, NOy Sites Sulfur Dioxide, SO2, Sites Lead, Pb, Sites Particulate Matter, PM 10, Sites Fine Particulate Matter, PM Coarse Particulate Matter, PM Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations, PAMS Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Stations, UAT Chapter 4. Existing Sites That Are No Longer 5 Needed and Can Be Terminated... 33

6 4.1 NCORE Sites Pollutant-Specific Slams Sites Ozone, O3, Sites Carbon monoxide, CO, Sites Nitrogen dioxide, NO2, sites Reactive Oxides of Nitrogen, NOy Sulfur dioxide, SO2, sites Lead, Pb, sites Particulate matter, PM 10, sites Fine particulate matter, PM 2.5 Sites Coarse Particulate Matter, PM Chapter 5. Evaluation of New Technologies to Benefit the Ambient Air Monitoring Network Telemetry Automated monitors Data acquisition systems Electronic logbooks Handheld devices New monitors Chapter 6. Ability of Existing and Proposed Sites to Support Air Quality Characterization of Areas with Relatively High Populations of Susceptible Individuals, e.g., Children with Asthma Chapter 7. Effect on Data Users for Any Sites That Are Being Proposed For Discontinuation Chapter 8. Needed Changes to PM 2.5 Population-Oriented Sites Chapter 9. Monitoring Network Infrastructure Needs

7 List of Figures Figure 1. North Carolina national core, NCore, monitoring stations Figure Ozone monitoring network Figure 3. Location in North Carolina of reactive oxides of nitrogen monitors Figure 4. Map showing PWEI values for North Carolina Figure 5. Required PWEI SO2 monitoring sites for Figure North Carolina PM 10 network Figure 7. Population projections for small North Carolina MSAs Figure 8. Population projections for North Carolina MSAs between 350,000 and 500, Figure 9. Population projections for North Carolina MSAs between 500,000 and 1,00, Figure 10. Projected 2017 carbon monoxide network in North Carolina Figure 11. Expected locations of near-road and area-wide NO 2 monitors in Figure 12. Proposed 2016 ozone monitoring network Figure 13. Proposed 2016 continuous fine particle network Figure 14.Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Asheville monitoring region Figure 15. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Winston-Salem monitoring region Figure 16. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Mooresville monitoring region Figure 17. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Raleigh monitoring region Figure 18. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Fayetteville monitoring region Figure 19. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Washington monitoring region Figure 20. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Wilmington monitoring region List of Tables Table 1. Required Phase 1 Near-Road Monitoring Stations for North Carolina MSAs Table 2. County-wide 2011 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from all Sources Table 3. Population-Weighted Emission Indices Using the 2011 National Emissions Inventory and 2014 Population Estimates for North Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Areas Table 4. Population-Weighted Emission Indices Using the 2011 National Emissions Inventory and 2014 Population Estimates for North Carolina Micropolitan Statistical Areas Table 5. Population-Weighted Emission Indices Using the 2011 National Emissions Inventory and 2014 Population Estimates for North Carolina Counties not in Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Areas Table 6. Possible Future Sites and Site Upgrades in the Next Five Years Table 7. Monitors and Sites to be Shut Down in the Next Five Years Table 8. Ranking of Relative Value of Ozone Sites Based on Site Longevity, Measured Concentrations and Other Considerations Table 9. Ranking of Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Stations Table 10. Ranking of Relative Value of Fine Particle Sites Based on Site Longevity, Measured Concentrations and Other Considerations

8 Chapter 1. Introduction The requirement to submit an assessment of the air quality surveillance system is provided for in 40 CFR (d) which states: The state, or where applicable local, agency shall perform and submit to the EPA Regional Administrator an assessment of the air quality surveillance system every 5 years to determine, at a minimum, if the network meets the monitoring objectives defined in appendix D to this part, whether new sites are needed, whether existing sites are no longer needed and can be terminated and whether new technologies are appropriate for incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network. The network assessment must consider the ability of existing and proposed sites to support air quality characterization for areas with relatively high populations of susceptible individuals (e.g., children with asthma) and, for any sites that are being proposed for discontinuance, the effect on data users other than the agency itself, such as nearby states and tribes or health effects studies. The state, or where applicable local, agency must submit a copy of this 5-year assessment, along with a revised annual network plan, to the Regional Administrator. The assessments are due every five years beginning July 1, The assessment should provide a description of the networks and the relative value of each monitor and station with consideration of the data users. Annual monitoring network plans are to provide for actual proposed changes to the networks that are consistent with the findings of the five year assessment. The rest of this document provides the information requested in (d) for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality and the Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency in the following order: Chapter 2. Status of Network Monitoring Objectives Defined in Appendix D Chapter 3. Need for New Sites Chapter 4. Existing Sites That Are No Longer Needed and Can Be Terminated Chapter 5. Evaluation of New Technologies to Benefit the Ambient Air Monitoring Network Chapter 6. Ability of Existing and Proposed Sites to Support Air Quality Characterization of Areas with Relatively High Populations of Susceptible Individuals, e.g., Children with Asthma Chapter 7. Effect on Data Users for Any Sites That Are Being Proposed For Discontinuation Chapter 8. Needed Changes to PM 2.5 Population-Oriented Sites Chapter 9. Monitoring Network Infrastructure Needs Forsyth County and MCAQ have submitted separate 5-year assessments for their networks. 8

9 Chapter 2. Status of Network Monitoring Objectives Defined in Appendix D This chapter provides the network monitoring objectives defined in Appendix D to 40 Code of Federal Regulations, CFR, 58 and states whether the 2015 North Carolina Monitoring Network meets those objectives. This chapter is organized as follows: 2.1 Design Criteria for National Core, NCore, Monitoring Sites, 2.2 Pollutant-Specific Design Criteria for State and Local Air Monitoring Station, SLAMS, Sites and 2.3 Network Design for Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations, PAMS 2.4 Network Design for Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Stations, UAT North Carolina is meeting the network monitoring objectives defined in appendix D for all networks with these exceptions: The current population-weighted emission index, PWEI, indicates that a PWEI sulfur dioxide, SO2, monitor is needed in the Asheville MSA. The DAQ is requesting a temporary waiver for this monitor until the 2014 national emission inventory is released. The current PWEI indicates that a PWEI SO2 monitor is needed in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA and our current monitoring agreement with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ, does not include SO2. In 2013 the primary beta attenuation monitor, BAM, in Raleigh started to report fine particle values that were higher than expected for some reason. As a result the design value for the Raleigh metropolitan statistical area, MSA, went above 85 percent of the standard in North Carolina is now required to operate three fine particle monitors and two continuous fine particle monitors in the Raleigh MSA. We have asked for a waiver for the third fine particle monitor while we continue to follow up recent leads from the EPA and the manufacturer on why the BAM may have been reading higher than expected. 2.1 Design Criteria for National Core, NCore, Monitoring Sites The State of North Carolina is required to operate two national core, NCore, monitoring sites. The locations of these two sites are shown in Figure 1. The DAQ operates one of those NCore sites and MCAQ operates the other. The status of the NCore site operated by DAQ is provided in Chapter IX of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for The North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions. Currently, DAQ and MCAQ are meeting the design criteria for NCore sites. 9

10 Figure 1. North Carolina national core, NCore, monitoring stations 2.2 Pollutant-Specific Design Criteria for State and Local Air Monitoring Station, SLAMS, Sites This subsection describes the network monitoring objectives for each of the criteria pollutants and is organized as follows: Ozone, O3, Design Criteria Carbon Monoxide, CO, Design Criteria Nitrogen Dioxide, NO2, Design Criteria Reactive Oxides of Nitrogen, NOy Criteria Sulfur Dioxide, SO2 Design Criteria Lead, Pb, Design Criteria Particulate Matter, PM10, Design Criteria Fine Particulate Matter, PM2.5, Design Criteria Coarse Particulate Matter, PM10-2.5, Design Criteria Ozone, O 3, Design Criteria State and, where appropriate, local agencies must operate O 3 sites for various locations depending upon area size, in terms of population and geographic characteristics and typical peak concentrations, expressed in percentages below or near the O 3 standard. Specific SLAMS O 3 site minimum requirements are included in Table D 2 of 40 CFR 58 Appendix D. The NCore sites are expected to complement the O 3 data collection that takes place at single pollutant SLAMS sites and both types of sites can be used to meet the network minimum requirements. The total number of O 3 sites needed to support the basic monitoring objectives of public data reporting, air quality mapping, compliance and understanding O 3 -related atmospheric processes will include more sites than these minimum numbers required in Table D 2. The EPA regional administrator and the responsible state or local air monitoring agency must work together to design and/or maintain the most appropriate O 3 network to service the variety of data needs in an area. Within an O 3 network, at least one O 3 site for each metropolitan statistical area, MSA, or combined statistical area, if multiple MSAs are involved, must be designed to record the maximum concentration for that particular metropolitan area. More than one maximum concentration site may be necessary in some areas. Currently the DAQ is required to operate 21 monitors in 12 MSAs. The DAQ meets or exceeds those requirements in all but two MSAs. The DAQ does not operate any monitors 10

11 in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA because we have an agreement with the DEQ that they will maintain the required number of monitors for the MSA, fulfilling our appendix D monitoring requirements. The DAQ does not operate any ozone monitors in the Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSA. However, the DAQ has a monitoring agreement with DHEC. The 2015 ozone monitoring network is shown in Figure 2. More information on the ozone monitoring network is provided in Chapter V of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for The North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions. Figure Ozone monitoring network Carbon Monoxide, CO, Design Criteria The minimum monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 58 Appendix D for CO monitoring sites are stated as follows: General Requirements. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), one CO monitor is required to operate collocated with one required near-road NO2 monitor, as required in Section of this part, in CBSAs having a population of 1,000,000 or more persons. These near-road monitors are required to start on Jan. 1, In addition to these required near-road CO monitors, the regional administrators can require additional CO monitoring: Regional Administrator Required Monitoring. (a) The Regional Administrators, in collaboration with states, may require additional CO monitors above the minimum number of monitors required in of this part, where the minimum monitoring requirements are not sufficient to meet monitoring objectives. 11

12 The Regional Administrator may require, at his/her discretion, additional monitors in situations where data or other information suggest that CO concentrations may be approaching or exceeding the NAAQS. Such situations include, but are not limited to, (1) characterizing impacts on ground-level concentrations due to stationary CO sources, (2) characterizing CO concentrations in downtown areas or urban street canyons and (3) characterizing CO concentrations in areas that are subject to high ground level CO concentrations particularly due to or enhanced by topographical and meteorological impacts. Additionally, continued operation of existing SLAMS CO sites using FRM or FEM monitors is required until discontinuation is approved by the EPA regional administrator. Where SLAMS CO monitoring is ongoing, at least one site must be a maximum concentration site for the area under investigation. In North Carolina there are currently three SLAMS sites that must operate until late 2015 to meet the conditions of the state s maintenance plan for CO. One of these sites, located in Forsyth County, is a maximum concentration site. The other two sites are located at the NCore sites. The Charlotte CO monitor is not a maximum concentration site because MCAQ received a waiver for the requirement to have a SLAMS site at a maximum concentration site. The Forsyth County site will be shut down at the end of More information on the carbon monoxide monitoring network is provided in Chapter III of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for The North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions Nitrogen Dioxide, NO 2, Design Criteria The subsections below provide specific details about the design criteria in Appendix D to 40 CFR 58 and how the North Carolina network measures up Requirement for Near-road NO 2 Monitors Within the NO 2 network, there must be one micro-scale near-road NO 2 monitoring station in each core-based statistical area, CBSA, with a population of 500,000 or more persons to monitor a location of expected maximum hourly concentrations sited near a major road with high average annual daily traffic, AADT, counts. The CBSA populations shall be based on the latest available census figures. The near-road NO 2 monitoring stations shall be selected by ranking all road segments within a CBSA by AADT and then identifying a location or locations adjacent to those highest ranked road segments, considering fleet mix, roadway design, congestion patterns, terrain and meteorology, where maximum hourly NO 2 concentrations are expected to occur and siting criteria can be met in accordance with Appendix E of 40 CFR 58. When a state or local air monitoring agency identifies multiple acceptable candidate sites where maximum hourly NO 2 concentrations are expected to occur, the monitoring agency shall consider the potential for population exposure in the criteria utilized to select the final site location. There are three MSAs in North Carolina with over one million people: Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, Raleigh and Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News. Monitoring sites in areas with over one million people were required to be operational by 12

13 Jan. 1, Table 1 provides the status of these three near-road monitoring stations. Both monitoring stations in North Carolina are up and operational. Monitoring sites with 500,000 to one million people are required to be operational by Jan. 1, Table 1. Required Phase 1 Near-Road Monitoring Stations for North Carolina MSAs CBSA Full Name Charlotte-Concord- Gastonia, NC-SC Raleigh, NC Virginia Beach- Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC EPA Regional Office Phase State NC NC VA County Mecklenburg Wake Virginia Beach City City Charlotte Raleigh Virginia Beach Site Name Remount Road Triple Oak AQS ID Latitude Longitude Target Road I-77 I-40 I-264 AADT 153, , ,000 AADT Rank in CBSA FE-AADT 260, , ,816 FE-AADT Rank in CBSA Distance to Road, meters NO 2 Probe Height, meters Operational YES YES NO NO2 Start Date 7/17/14 1/8/2014 1/1/2016 CO Start Date 1/1/2017 1/1/2017 PM2.5 Start Date 1/1/2017 1/1/2017 Meteorology Start Date 1/1/2015 Data from accessed June 10, Requirement for Area-wide NO2 Monitoring Within the NO 2 network, there must be one monitoring station in each CBSA with a population of 1,000,000 or more persons to monitor a location of expected highest NO 2 concentrations representing the neighborhood or larger spatial scales. Emission inventories and meteorological analysis should be used to identify the appropriate locations within a CBSA for locating required area-wide NO 2 monitoring stations. CBSA populations shall be based on the latest available census figures. These monitoring sites were required to be operational by Jan. 1, Both area-wide NO 2 monitoring stations in North Carolina are located at the NCore sites in Wake and Mecklenburg Counties. As shown in Table 2, these counties had the highest emissions of nitrogen oxides in

14 Table 2. County-wide 2011 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from all Sources County Name State USPS Code Nitrogen Oxides Emissions a Units of Measure Raleigh Metropolitan Statistical Area: Franklin NC 1, Ton Johnston NC 6, Ton Wake NC 21, Ton Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord Metropolitan Statistical Area Cabarrus NC 4, Ton Gaston NC 11, Ton Iredell NC 7, Ton Lincoln NC 2, Ton Mecklenburg NC 28, Ton Rowan NC 6, Ton Union NC 5, Ton Chester SC 3, Ton Lancaster SC 2, Ton York SC 8, Ton a Data from the 2011 National Emission Inventory available at accessed June 4, Regional Administrator Required Monitoring The regional administrators, in collaboration with states, must require a minimum of 40 additional NO2 monitoring stations nationwide in any area, inside or outside of CBSAs, above the minimum monitoring requirements, with a primary focus on siting these monitors in locations to protect susceptible and vulnerable populations. The regional administrators, working with states, may also consider additional factors to require monitors to be sited inside or outside of CBSAs in which: (i) The required near-road monitors do not represent all locations of expected maximum hourly NO2 concentrations in an area and NO2 concentrations may be approaching or exceeding the NAAQS in that area; (ii) Areas that are not required to have a monitor in accordance with the monitoring requirements and NO2 concentrations may be approaching or exceeding the NAAQS; or (iii)the minimum monitoring requirements for area-wide monitors are not sufficient to meet monitoring objectives. The regional administrator and the responsible state or local air monitoring agency should work together to design and/or maintain the most appropriate NO 2 network to address the data needs for an area and include all monitors under this provision in the annual monitoring network plan. The DAQ does not operate any regional administrator required monitors. However, the NO2 monitor at Hattie Avenue, operated by Forsyth County was designated in 2013 as a regional administrator required monitor

15 2.2.4 Reactive Oxides of Nitrogen, NO y, Design Criteria Appendix D states: NO/NOy measurements are included within the NCore multi-pollutant site requirements and the PAMS program. These NO/NOy measurements will produce conservative estimates for NO2 that can be used to ensure tracking continued compliance with the NO2 NAAQS. NO/NOy monitors are used at these sites because it is important to collect data on total reactive nitrogen species for understanding O3 photochemistry. As shown in Figure 3, DAQ operates two NOy monitors at Rockwell and at East Millbrook Middle School in Raleigh and MCAQ operates one at Garinger High School in Charlotte. These monitors support ozone and fine particle precursor monitoring as well as validation of emission inventories. Figure 3. Location in North Carolina of reactive oxides of nitrogen monitors Sulfur Dioxide, SO 2, Design Criteria The subsections below provide specific details about the design criteria in Appendix D to 40 CFR 58 and how the current North Carolina sulfur dioxide network measures up. More information on the network is provided in Chapter IV of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for The North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions Requirement for Monitoring by the Population Weighted Emissions Index For the SO 2 monitoring network, the EPA developed the population weighted emissions index, PWEI. The PWEI is calculated for each CBSA by multiplying the population of each CBSA, using the most current census data or estimates, by the total amount of SO 2 in tons per year emitted within the CBSA area, using an aggregate of the most recent county level emissions data available in the latest national emissions inventory for each county in each CBSA. The resulting product is divided by 1,000,000, providing a PWEI value, the units of which are million persons-tons per year. For any CBSA with a calculated PWEI value equal to or greater than 1,000,000, a minimum of three SO 2 monitors are required within that CBSA. For any CBSA with a calculated PWEI value equal to or greater than 100,000, but less than 1,000,000, a minimum of two SO 2 monitors are required within that CBSA. For any CBSA with a calculated PWEI value equal to or greater than 5,000, but less than 100,000, a minimum of one SO 2 monitor is required within that CBSA. 15

16 The SO 2 monitoring sites required as a result of the calculated PWEI in each CBSA shall satisfy minimum monitoring requirements if the monitor is sited within the boundaries of the parent CBSA and is one of the following site types, as defined in section of 40 CFR 58 Appendix D: population exposure, highest concentration, source impacts, general background, or regional transport. SO 2 monitors at NCore stations may satisfy minimum monitoring requirements if that monitor is located within a CBSA that is required to have one or more PWEI monitors. The latest population-weighted emission indices using the 2011 National Emission Inventory 3 and 2014 population estimates 4 are mapped in Figure 4 and provided in Table 3 through Table 5 for every CBSA in North Carolina. According to these calculations, North Carolina is required to operate four PWEI monitors in four CBSAs: Virginia Beach- Norfolk-Newport News, Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, Durham-Chapel Hill and Asheville. The DAQ has an agreement with the DEQ that they will maintain the required number of monitors for the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA so the DAQ did not consider adding PWEI SO 2 monitors in Currituck or Gates County. However, that agreement was specific for ozone, PM2.5 and PM10 monitoring so the EPA says it does not apply to SO2 monitoring requirements. As a result DAQ is in the process of updating its monitoring agreement with Virginia. Figure 5 shows the required PWEI monitors for 2016 in North Carolina. The sites in Charlotte and Durham are already operating. The SO 2 emissions in the Asheville MSA increased from 10,307 tons in 2008 to 11,471 tons in According to the national emissions inventory this increase was due to a 1,715 ton increase in SO 2 emissions from coal-fired electric generating units. The DAQ is requesting a waiver for this monitor until the 2014 national emission inventory is released. Figure 4. Map showing PWEI values for North Carolina EST html 16

17 Table 3. Population-Weighted Emission Indices Using the 2011 National Emissions Inventory and 2014 Population Estimates for North Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Areas SO 2 Emissions, tons Estimated Population, July 1, 2014 Population Weighted Emission Index Number of SO 2 Monitors Required Metropolitan Statistical Area Asheville 11, ,316 5, Burlington , Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord 19, ,380,314 46, Durham Chapel Hill 26, ,710 14, Fayetteville , Goldsboro 9, ,456 1, Greensboro 3, ,593 2, Greenville , Hickory 4, ,896 1, Jacksonville , Myrtle Beach-Conway-North 8, ,668 3, Myrtle Beach New Bern 1, , Raleigh 1, ,242,974 1, Rocky Mount , Virginia Beach-Norfolk- 36, ,716,624 62, Newport News Wilmington 14, ,548 3, Winston-Salem 4, ,015 3,

18 Table 4. Population-Weighted Emission Indices Using the 2011 National Emissions Inventory and 2014 Population Estimates for North Carolina Micropolitan Statistical Areas SO 2 Emissions, tons Estimated Population, July 1, 2014 Population Weighted Emission Index Number of SO 2 Monitors Required Micropolitan Statistical Area Albemarle MiSA , Boone MiSA , Brevard MiSA , Cullowhee MiSA , Dunn MiSA , Elizabeth City MiSA , Forest City MiSA , Henderson MiSA , Kill Devil Hills MiSA , Kinston MiSA , Laurinburg MiSA , Lumberton MiSA 2, , Marion MiSA , Morehead City MiSA , Mount Airy MiSA , North Wilkesboro MiSA , Oxford MiSA , Pinehurst-Southern Pines MiSA , Roanoke Rapids MiSA 1, , Rockingham MiSA , Sanford MiSA , Shelby MiSA , Washington MiSA 5, , Wilson MiSA ,

19 Table 5. Population-Weighted Emission Indices Using the 2011 National Emissions Inventory and 2014 Population Estimates for North Carolina Counties not in Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Areas SO 2 Emissions, tons Estimated Population, July 1, 2014 Population Weighted Emission Index Number of SO 2 Monitors Required County Alleghany County , Anson County , Ashe County , Avery County , Bertie County , Bladen County , Caswell County , Cherokee County , Chowan County , Clay County , Columbus County 1, , Duplin County , Graham County , Greene County , Hertford County , Hyde County , Macon County , Martin County , Mitchell County , Montgomery County , Polk County , Sampson County , Swain County , Warren County , Washington County , Yancey County ,

20 Figure 5. Required PWEI SO2 monitoring sites for Regional Administrator Required Monitoring The regional administrator may require additional SO 2 monitoring stations above the minimum number of PWEI monitors required, where the minimum monitoring requirements are not sufficient to meet monitoring objectives. The regional administrator may require, at his/her discretion, additional monitors in situations where an area has the potential to have concentrations that may violate or contribute to the violation of the NAAQS, in areas impacted by sources which are not conducive to modeling, or in locations with susceptible and vulnerable populations, which are not monitored under the minimum PWEI monitoring provisions. The regional administrator and the responsible state or local air monitoring agency shall work together to design and/or maintain the most appropriate SO 2 network to provide sufficient data to meet monitoring objectives. At this time, DAQ anticipates there is not a need for regional administrator required SO 2 monitoring in North Carolina. The minimum required PWEI monitors and the existing DAQ network currently meet the needs for SO 2 monitoring in North Carolina especially with the significant decrease in SO 2 emissions from coal-fired power plants resulting from implementation of the Clean Smoke Stacks Act Background PSD Industrial Expansion Monitoring Sites There are no network design requirements in Appendix D for PSD industrial expansion monitoring. For information on the North Carolina rotating background SO 2 monitoring network see Chapter IV of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for The North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions Lead, Pb, Design Criteria State and, where appropriate, local agencies are required to conduct ambient air Pb monitoring taking into account Pb sources which are expected to or have been shown to contribute to a maximum Pb concentration in ambient air in excess of the NAAQS, the potential for population exposure and logistics. The current requirements in 40 CFR 58 Appendix D are for at least one source-oriented SLAMS site located to measure the maximum Pb concentration in ambient air resulting from each Pb source that emits 0.5 or more tons per year based on either the most recent national emission inventory available at or other scientifically justifiable methods and data, such as improved emissions factors or site-specific data, taking into account logistics and the potential for population exposure. Currently, the DAQ is required to operate a source-oriented SLAMS site at Fort Bragg. The amounts of lead emitted vary 20

21 depending on the level of activity occurring at the site. In June 2015 the site submitted documentation that its current fugitive emissions are below 0.5 tons. As a result the DAQ has requested a waiver from doing source-oriented lead monitoring at this facility. Appendix D also requires a certain number of population-oriented monitors. The EPA changed the population-oriented monitoring requirements to require population-oriented monitors only at NCore sites. Both of the NCore sites in North Carolina now analyze the low-volume PM10 samples collected at the sites for lead on a one-in-six day schedule Particulate Matter, PM 10, Design Criteria Table D 4 of Appendix D to 40 CFR 58 indicates the approximate number of permanent stations required in MSAs to characterize national and regional PM 10 air quality trends and geographical patterns. The number of PM 10 stations in areas where MSA populations exceed 1,000,000 must be in the range from 2 to 10 stations, while in low population urban areas no more than two stations are required. A range of monitoring stations is specified in Table D 4 because sources of pollutants and local control efforts can vary from one part of the country to another and therefore, some flexibility is allowed in selecting the actual number of stations in any one locale. Modifications from these PM 10 monitoring requirements must be approved by the regional administrator. Currently Table D-4 requires North Carolina to operate between eight and 21 PM 10 analyzers in 10 MSAs. The Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, Charlotte-Gastonia- Concord and Raleigh-Cary MSAs are each required to have between two and four PM 10 analyzers. The DAQ has an agreement with the DEQ that they will maintain the required number of monitors for the Virginia Beach-Norfolk- Newport News MSA. Currently, the DEQ operates two PM 10 monitors in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA, meeting the appendix D requirements. MCAQ operates three PM 10 monitors in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord MSA in compliance with the appendix D requirements. The DAQ operates one PM 10 monitor in the Raleigh-Cary MSA and received a waiver from the regional administrator for the second required monitor. The DAQ is requesting that this waiver be renewed because the PM10 levels in Raleigh continue to remain low. The DAQ is required to operate one to two PM 10 monitors in the Greensboro-High Point and Durham-Chapel Hill MSAs. Currently, the DAQ operates one PM 10 monitor in the Greensboro-High Point MSA and one PM 10 monitor in the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA. Forsyth County is required to operate one to two PM 10 monitors in the Winston-Salem MSA. They currently operate one, meeting the appendix D requirements. Four MSAs have requirements for between zero and one PM 10 monitors: Asheville, Hickory, Fayetteville and Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach. The DAQ operates a PM 10 monitor in Fayetteville. Currently the Asheville, Hickory and Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSAs do not have a PM 10 monitor. The 2015 PM10 network is shown in Figure 6. 21

22 Figure North Carolina PM10 network More information on these sites is provided in Chapter VI of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for The North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions Fine Particulate Matter, PM 2.5, Design Criteria The subsections below provide specific details about the design criteria in Appendix D to 40 CFR 58 and how the North Carolina network measures up. More information on the fine particulate matter network is provided in Chapter VII of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for The North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions General Requirements State, and where applicable local, agencies must operate the minimum number of required PM 2.5 SLAMS sites listed in Table D-5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR 58. The NCore sites are expected to complement the PM 2.5 data collection that takes place at non-ncore SLAMS sites and both types of sites can be used to meet the minimum PM 2.5 network requirements. The required monitoring stations or sites must be sited to represent community-wide air quality. These monitoring stations will typically be at neighborhood or urban scale. At least one monitoring station is to be sited in a population-oriented area of expected maximum concentration. For CBSAs with a population of 1,000,000 or more persons, at least one PM2.5 monitor is to be collocated at a near-road NO2 station required in section 4.3.2(a) of appendix D. For areas with additional required SLAMS, a monitoring station is to be sited in an area of poor air quality. Table D-5 requires North Carolina to operate two PM 2.5 analyzers in the Virginia Beach- Norfolk-Newport News and Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord MSAs, three in the Raleigh-Cary MSA and one in the Greensboro-High Point, Winston-Salem and Durham-Chapel Hill MSAs. The DAQ has an agreement with the DEQ that DEQ will maintain the required 22

23 number of monitors for the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA. Currently, the DEQ operates three PM 2.5 monitors in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA, exceeding the appendix D requirements. Currently MCAQ operates three PM 2.5 analyzers in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord MSA and DAQ operates one, exceeding the requirements of appendix D. The DAQ operates two PM 2.5 analyzers in the Raleigh-Cary MSA and one in the Greensboro-High Point and Durham-Chapel Hill MSAs. The DAQ is requesting a waiver for the third PM2.5 monitor in the Raleigh MSA. Forsyth County operates two PM2.5 monitors in the Winston-Salem MSA and DAQ operates one, exceeding the appendix D requirements. Forsyth County plans to shut down one of its monitors at the end of Requirement for Continuous PM2.5 Monitoring The State, or where appropriate, local agencies must operate continuous PM 2.5 analyzers equal to at least one-half (round up) the minimum required sites listed in Table D-5 of Appendix D to 40 CFR 58. At least one required continuous analyzer in each MSA must be collocated with one of the required FRM/FEM/approved regional method, ARM, monitors, unless at least one of the required FRM/FEM/ARM monitors is itself a continuous FEM or ARM monitor in which case no collocation requirement applies. State and local air monitoring agencies must use methodologies and quality assurance/ quality control, QA/QC, procedures approved by the EPA regional administrator for these required continuous analyzers. Currently Table D-5 requires North Carolina to operate one continuous PM 2.5 analyzer in each of the following five MSAs: Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, Winston-Salem, Greensboro-High Point and Durham-Chapel Hill. The DAQ has an agreement with the DEQ that Virginia will maintain the required number of monitors for the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA. Currently, the DEQ operates one continuous monitor in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News MSA, meeting the appendix D requirements. Currently MCAQ operates two continuous PM 2.5 analyzers in the Charlotte-Gastonia- Concord MSA, Forsyth County operates two continuous PM2.5 analyzers in the Winston- Salem MSA and the DAQ operates one continuous PM 2.5 analyzer in the Raleigh, Greensboro-High Point and Durham-Chapel Hill MSAs. The DAQ plans to add a continuous PM2.5 analyzer to the Raleigh MSA in 2015 to meet the appendix D requirements Requirement for PM2.5 Background and Transport Sites Each state shall install and operate at least one PM 2.5 site to monitor for regional background and at least one PM 2.5 site to monitor regional transport. These monitoring sites may be at community-oriented sites and this requirement may be satisfied by a corresponding monitor in an area having similar air quality in another State. State and local air monitoring agencies must use methodologies and QA/QC procedures approved by the 23

24 EPA regional administrator for these sites. Methods used at these sites may include nonfederal reference method samplers such as IMPROVE or continuous PM 2.5 monitors. The DAQ designated a regional background and a regional transport monitor for each of the three regions of North Carolina the western mountain area, the central piedmont area and the eastern coastal plain area. These monitors are located at Boone, regional background, and Bryson City, regional transport, in the western mountains, Candor, regional background, and Cherry Grove, regional transport, in the central piedmont and Kenansville, regional background, and Jamesville, regional transport, on the eastern coastal plain. Thus, the DAQ meets the appendix D requirements PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Site Requirements Each state shall continue to conduct chemical speciation monitoring and analyses at sites designated to be part of the PM 2.5 Speciation Trends Network, STN. The selection and modification of these STN sites must be approved by the regional administrator. The PM 2.5 chemical speciation urban trends sites shall include analysis for elements, selected anions and cations and carbon. Samples must be collected using the monitoring methods and the sampling schedules approved by the regional administrator. Chemical speciation is encouraged at additional sites where the chemically resolved data would be useful in developing state implementation plans and supporting atmospheric or health effects related studies. Mecklenburg County Air Quality currently operates a PM 2.5 STN at the NCore Station in Mecklenburg County, meeting the appendix D requirements. In addition to this STN site, the DAQ operates a PM 2.5 chemical speciation site at the Millbrook NCore site. Forsyth County operates a PM 2.5 Chemical Speciation site at Hattie Avenue in Winston-Salem for health effects related studies Coarse Particulate Matter, PM , Design Criteria The only required monitors for PM are those required at NCore Stations. The DAQ and MCAQ are currently operating PM at both of the NCore Stations in North Carolina, meeting the appendix D requirements. In addition to those required sites the DAQ also measures PM in Durham and at Jamesville and MCAQ measures PM at Montclaire. 2.3 Network Design for Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations, PAMS The PAMS program provides more comprehensive data on O 3 air pollution in areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment for O 3 than would otherwise be achieved through the NCore and SLAMS sites. More specifically, the PAMS program includes measurements for O 3, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds and meteorology. Currently, North Carolina does not have any ozone nonattainment areas that are classified as serious, severe, or extreme and thus is not required to have any PAMS sites. 2.4 Network Design for Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Stations, UAT There are no network design requirements in Appendix D for UAT monitoring. See Chapter IX of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for The North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions for more information. 24

25 Chapter 3. Need for New Sites This chapter describes the need for new sites in North Carolina over the next five years. The need for sites was determined based on requirements listed in 40 CFR 58 Appendix D, estimated changes in population and air quality over the next five years, proposed changes to appendix D that will occur in the next year, possible changes to the NAAQS that will occur in the next couple of years and projected needs of the state. North Carolina county population estimates and projections were obtained from the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management. 5 These estimates for the past five years and projections for the next five years are graphed in Figure 7 through Figure 9 for the 12 MSAs in North Carolina that have a population of less than one million, excluding the Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSA. None of these MSAs are projected to cross an important monitoring threshold that would require additional monitoring during the next five years. The important monitoring thresholds are at 350,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000. Table 1 lists the new sites that may be needed in the next five years as a result of changes in population and air quality over the next five years, proposed changes to appendix D that will occur in the next year, possible changes to the NAAQS that will occur in the next couple of years and projected needs of the state. Figure 7. Population projections for small North Carolina MSAs 5 North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, available on the worldwide web at ntytotals_2010_2019.html, accessed June 9,

26 Figure 8. Population projections for North Carolina MSAs between 350,000 and 500,000 Figure 9. Population projections for North Carolina MSAs between 500,000 and 1,00,000 26

27 27 Time Frame site 4/1/2015 I /1/2017 I-40 1/1/2017 Table 6. Possible Future Sites and Site Upgrades in the Next Five Years Pollutant AQS Site Id Number Site Name Monitor Type Proposed Changes Solar radiation sensors added to Ozone All All New near-road monitoring site on CO Remount Road SLAMS New near-road monitoring site on CO Triple Oak SLAMS New near-road monitoring site on NO Page Road SLAMS I-40 1/1/ X New near-road monitoring site on NO2 X Forsyth SLAMS I-40 1/1/2017 New near-road monitoring site on NO Greensboro SLAMS I-40 1/1/2017 New source-oriented monitors if SO xx Asheville MSA SLAMS required 1/1/2017 New source-oriented monitors if SO x Hickory MSA SLAMS required 1/1/2017 Charlotte- Gastonia- New source-oriented monitors if SO xx Concord MSA SLAMS required 1/1/2017 New PWEI monitor for Asheville SO Waynesville SLAMS MSA 1/1/2013 Wilmington New source-oriented monitors if SO x MSA SLAMS required 1/1/2017 SO2 SO2 SO x Durham MSA SLAMS Greensboro- High Point xx MSA SLAMS Winston-Salem xx MSA SLAMS Lead 37xxxxxxx Fort Bragg SLAMS Lenoir Community Special College Purpose PM PM Castle Hayne PM West Johnston Special Purpose Special Purpose PM Remount Road SLAMS New source-oriented monitors if required 1/1/2017 New source-oriented monitors if required 1/1/2017 New source-oriented monitors if required 1/1/2017 May need a source oriented lead 2017 or monitor on or near Fort Bragg 2018 Proposed background site for PSD modeling and industrial expansion operating on a 1-in-3 year rotation 1/1/2016 Proposed background site for PSD modeling and industrial expansion operating on a 1-in-3 year rotation 1/1/2016 Add continuous monitor to meet appendix D requirements 1/1/2016 New near-road monitoring site on I /1/2017

28 Table 6. Possible Future Sites and Site Upgrades in the Next Five Years Pollutant AQS Site Id Number Site Name Monitor Type Proposed Changes Time Frame Spruce Pine Special PM Hospital Purpose Add continuous monitor 1/1/2016 PM Pitt Co. Ag Center Special Purpose Add continuous monitor 1/1/2016 PM Triple Oak SLAMS New near-road monitoring site on I-40 1/1/2017 PAMS Garinger PAMS May be needed if Metrolina area is nonattainment for ozone 1/1/2017 PAMS Millbrook PAMS May be needed if Triangle area is nonattainment for ozone 1/1/ NCORE Sites The DAQ has no plans to add any NCore sites within the next five years. 3.2 Pollutant-Specific SLAMS Sites Ozone, O 3, Sites The DAQ does not have an ozone monitor in the Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSA as required by 40 CFR 58 Appendix D. Consequently, the DAQ established a monitoring agreement with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. The DAQ is also following the situation regarding the permitting of the Titan concrete plant in Wilmington. The proposed facility would be across the street and about one mile from the existing Castle Hayne ozone monitoring site. If the facility is built, after it becomes operational, the DAQ will reassess the Castle Hayne ozone monitoring station to ensure it still meets its intended monitoring objectives. As a result of that assessment, the DAQ may establish a new ozone monitoring site at another location in the Wilmington area. In 2015 DAQ added solar radiation sensors to all of its ozone monitoring stations Carbon Monoxide, CO, Sites The DAQ plans to add a CO monitor at the Triple Oak Road near-road monitoring station in Raleigh. MCAQ will also be required to add a CO monitor to the Remount Road nearroad monitoring station in Charlotte. These monitors will start operating on Jan. 1, The projected 2017 North Carolina CO monitoring network is shown in Figure

29 Figure 10. Projected 2017 carbon monoxide network in North Carolina More information on the CO monitoring stations is provided in Chapter III of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for The North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions Nitrogen Dioxide, NO 2, Sites The subsections below provide specific details about sites that are proposed to be added to the network in the next five years Requirement for Near-road NO 2 Monitors The DAQ anticipates that by 2017 when the near road NO2 monitoring sites for MSAs between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people are required to be up and operational that North Carolina will have three CBSAs with a population between 500,000 and 1,000,000 based on the latest available census figures. These CBSAs are Greensboro-High Point, Winston-Salem and Durham-Chapel Hill. For these three areas Forsyth County and DAQ will need to monitor in locations of expected maximum hourly concentrations sited near a major road with high AADT counts. Figure 11 shows the approximate location of these three near-road NO 2 monitors based on 2013 AADT counts. 29

30 Figure 11. Expected locations of near-road and area-wide NO2 monitors in Requirement for Area-wide NO 2 Monitoring North Carolina has two CBSAs with a population of 1,000,000 or more persons, excluding Currituck and Gates Counties which are in the Virginia Beach-Norfolk- Newport News MSA. Thus, two area-wide NO2 monitors were required in North Carolina one in Mecklenburg County and one in Wake County to monitor a location of expected highest NO 2 concentrations representing the neighborhood or larger spatial scales. These monitors were placed at the Garinger and Millbrook NCore sites shown in Figure 1. No additional area-wide NO2 monitors are required at this time Regional Administrator Required Monitoring The DAQ is not subject to any current requirement to add any regional administrator required NO 2 monitoring sites in North Carolina during the next five years Reactive Oxides of Nitrogen, NOy Sites The DAQ has no current plans to add any NOy sites during the next five years Sulfur Dioxide, SO 2, Sites The subsections below provide specific details about sites that are proposed to be added to the network in the next five years. More information on these sites is provided in Chapter IV of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions Population Weighted Emissions Index Sites Based on the PWEI values for every CBSA in Table 3, the DAQ is required to begin operating one new PWEI SO 2 monitor in the Asheville MSA. The DAQ is requesting a waiver for this monitor until the 2014 national emission inventory is released. If a waiver is not granted, the monitor would be added to an existing ozone site at the Waynesville Elementary School in the Asheville MSA. This monitor would be a population exposure monitor. Figure 5 shows the required PWEI sites using the 2014 population estimates and the 2011 national emissions inventory Regional Administrator Required Monitoring Sites The DAQ has no current requirement to add any regional administrator required SO 2 monitoring sites in North Carolina during the next five years Background PSD Industrial Expansion Monitoring Sites 30

31 The DAQ operates a background PSD Industrial Expansion SO 2 Monitoring Network. No sites are expected to be added to this network in the next five years Source-oriented Monitoring Sites The EPA is expected to add regulations in 2015 that may require SO2 monitoring at sources emitting over a certain threshold of SO2. These regulations could result in DAQ adding additional SO2 monitors in the Asheville, Hickory, Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, Winston-Salem, Greensboro-High Point, Durham-Chapel Hill and Wilmington MSAs. The DAQ will be required to provide detailed information on these monitoring sites in the network monitoring plan and to have these sites up and operational by Jan. 1, Lead, Pb, Sites The DAQ and MCAQ began monitoring lead at the NCore sites shown in Figure 1 at the end of 2011 or beginning of Low-volume PM 10 samples collected at the sites are analyzed for lead on a one-in-six day schedule. No additional population-oriented lead monitors are expected to be added to the network in the next five years. The DAQ may place one source-level monitor at the fence-line of Fort Bragg in Hoke or Cumberland County. This site emits various amounts of lead depending on the level of training activity occurring at the site. In 2014 the site emitted less than 0.5 tons falling below the lead monitoring threshold. Lead monitoring is also required at airports that emit over one ton of lead. None of the airports in North Carolina exceed this threshold and require monitoring Particulate Matter, PM 10, Sites The DAQ does not plan to add any SLAMS PM 10 monitors to the network during the next five years. The DAQ meets the minimum monitoring requirements in Table D-4 of Appendix D to 40 CFR 58 in all areas except for the Raleigh MSA. The DAQ has a waiver for the second required PM10 monitor and is requesting that this waiver be renewed. The waiver renewal request is provided in Chapter II of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions. The DAQ does plan to add special purpose background PM 10 monitors at two sites: Lenoir Community College, , in Lenoir County and Castle Hayne, , in New Hanover County. These monitors would operate for one year out of every three to provide data for use in prevention of significant deterioration modeling for industrial expansion. More information on these sites is provided in Chapter VI of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions Fine Particulate Matter, PM 2.5 The subsections below provide specific details about sites that are proposed to be added to the network in the next five years. More information on these sites is provided in Chapter VII of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions. 31

32 General PM 2.5 Sites The DAQ does not have any definite plans during the next five years to add additional PM2.5 monitoring stations anywhere in North Carolina unless the standard is lowered or the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 58 Appendix D change. The DAQ is also following the situation with the permitting of the Titan concrete plant in Wilmington. The proposed facility would be across the street and about one mile from the existing Castle Hayne monitoring site. If the facility is built, the DAQ will reassess the current Castle Hayne monitoring station to ensure that it still meets its intended monitoring objectives. As a result of that assessment, the DAQ may establish a new PM 2.5 monitoring site at another location in the Wilmington area Requirement for continuous PM 2.5 monitoring To meet the appendix D requirements, sometime in the future the DAQ anticipates needing to add a continuous PM 2.5 analyzer in the Raleigh-Cary MSA. This continuous PM 2.5 analyzer will be located at the West Johnston site in Johnston County and will begin operation in 2015 or In 2015 the DAQ is adding a continuous PM 2.5 analyzer to the Pitt County Agricultural Center site in Greenville. The DAQ wants to upgrade this site so that the Greenville area will have a continuous PM 2.5 monitor when the Jamesville continuous PM 2.5 monitor is shut down at the end of The DAQ also has plans to add a continuous PM 2.5 monitor to the Spruce Pine Hospital site in Mitchell County PM 2.5 background and transport sites The DAQ does not plan to add any PM 2.5 regional background or PM 2.5 regional transport sites in the next five years PM 2.5 chemical speciation sites The DAQ does not plan to add any PM 2.5 chemical speciation urban trends sites in the next five years Coarse Particulate Matter, PM In 2015 DAQ changed the monitoring method for the PM monitoring station in the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA at the Durham Armory, No additional PM monitoring stations are proposed at this time or planned during the next five years. 3.3 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations, PAMS Currently the DAQ does not have any PAMS sites. However, if the Metrolina or Triangle areas are designated as nonattainment, MCAQ and the DAQ will be required to establish PAMS monitoring at the NCore sites in the Charlotte and Raleigh areas. These sites could be required to begin operating as early as Jan. 1, Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Stations, UAT Currently the DAQ does not have plans to add any additional toxics monitors or toxic monitoring stations to the UAT monitoring network. For information on the North Carolina UAT network see Chapter IX of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for The North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions. 32

33 Chapter 4. Existing Sites That Are No Longer Needed and Can Be Terminated This chapter describes the monitors and sites in North Carolina that are or will no longer be needed and will be shut down over the next five years. Table 7 provides a summary. Table 7. Monitors and Sites to be Shut Down in the Next Five Years AQS Site Id Monitor Pollutant Site Name Number Type Proposed Changes Ozone Pittsboro SLAMS Monitor and site will shut down Ozone Franklinton SLAMS Monitor & site will shut down Ozone Fuquay SLAMS Monitor & site will shut down CO Peters Creek SLAMS Monitor & site will shut down 33 Time Frame 10/31/ /31/ /31/ /31/2015 SO2 Monitor & site will shut Pittsboro SLAMS Rotating down 10/31/2015 SO Bushy Fork SLAMS Monitor will shut down 6/30/2015 SO Bryson City SLAMS Monitor will shut down 8/31/2015 Lead, PM Garinger SLAMS Monitor may shut down if 2017 or monitoring regulations are 2018 changed Lead, PM Millbrook PM10 Rotating PM10 Rotating PM2.5 General PM2.5 General PM2.5 General PM2.5 General PM2.5 General Kenansville Marion Clemmons School SLAMS Special Purpose Special Purpose Waynesville SLAMS Marion SLAMS Monitor may shut down if monitoring regulations are changed Monitor and site will shut down Monitor and site will shut down 2017 or /31/ /31/2015 SLAMS Monitor will shut down 12/31/2015 Monitor & site will shut down Monitors & site will shut down 12/31/ /31/ Rockwell SLAMS Monitors will shut down 12/31/ Dillard SLAMS Monitor & site will shut down PM2.5 Continuous Hopedale SLAMS Monitor & site will shut down PM2.5 Continuous Cherry Grove 12/31/2015 6/30/2015 SLAMS Monitor will shut down 12/31/2015

34 Table 7. Monitors and Sites to be Shut Down in the Next Five Years AQS Site Id Monitor Pollutant Site Name Number Type Proposed Changes PM2.5 Continuous Kenansville SLAMS Monitor & site will shut down PM2.5 Continuous Marion SLAMS Monitor & site will shut down Time Frame 12/31/ /31/2015 PM Jamesville SLAMS Monitor will shut down 12/31/2015 Continuous PM Rockwell SLAMS Monitor will shut down 12/31/2015 Continuous PM2.5 Continuous Boone Special Purpose Monitor & site will shut down PM2.5 Continuous Dillard SLAMS Monitor & site will shut down PM2.5 Background Kenansville SLAMS Monitor & site will shut down PM2.5 Background Boone Special Purpose PM2.5 Transport Cherry Grove Monitor & site will shut down 12/31/ /31/ /31/ /31/2015 SLAMS Monitor will shut down 12/31/2015 PM Jamesville Transport SLAMS Monitor will shut down 12/31/2015 WS/WD Hopedale Not Sensors and site were shut applicable down 5/27/2015 WS/WD William Not Owen applicable Sensors were shut down 11/12/2014 Not Sensors and site will shut WS/WD Grier School applicable down 1/28/2015 Not WS/WD Mendenhall applicable Sensors were shut down 1/27/2015 WS/WD Marion Not applicable Sensors were shut down 5/19/2015 WS/WD Dillard Not applicable Sensors were shut down 12/10/2014 PM2.5 Speciation Board of Education SLAMS Monitor was shut down 1/25/2015 PM Speciation Hickory SLAMS Monitor was shut down 6/30/2014 PM Lexington SLAMS Speciation Monitor was shut down 1/25/2015 PM Rockwell Speciation SLAMS Monitor was shut down 1/25/

35 4.1 NCORE Sites The North Carolina Division of Air Quality, DAQ, does not plan to terminate any NCore sites in the next five years. More information on the NCore site operated by the DAQ is provided in Chapter IX of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions. 4.2 Pollutant-Specific Slams Sites Ozone, O 3, Sites The DAQ plans to shut down three ozone sites at the end of 2015: Pittsboro, , in the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA, Franklinton, , and Fuquay, , in the Raleigh MSA. Table 8 provides a relative ranking of the ozone sites operated by DAQ and WNC. The ranking was based on how long the site was in operation, concentrations measured at the site based on design values, number of other pollutants and meteorological conditions measured at the site, Appendix D and G requirements and the estimated population and area served. Monitors in operation longer with higher design values and collocated monitors or meteorological towers received higher ranks. Monitors required by Appendix D and G and that served a larger population or area also received higher ranks. As can be seen in Table 8, Pittsboro, with a rank of 30, Franklinton, with a rank of 21, and Fuquay, with a rank of 22, ranked lower than the other monitors in their MSAs. Additional rationale for shutting down these three sites is provided in Chapters II and V of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions. The proposed 2016 ozone network is shown in Figure 12. Figure 12. Proposed 2016 ozone monitoring network 35

36 Table 8. Ranking of Relative Value of Ozone Sites Based on Site Longevity, Measured Concentrations and Other Considerations Total Overall Rank AQS Site Identification Number 2014 Design Value Parameters Measured at Site Site Name Date Established Required by Appendix D Required by Appendix G Area Served Population Served West Johnston Jan. 1, Yes Yes ,627 Raleigh MSA, CSA or CBSA represented Greensboro-High Point Mendenhall April 15, Yes Yes , Castle Hayne Jan. 1, Yes No ,025 Wilmington Honeycutt School May 9, Yes Yes ,820 Fayetteville Leggett Jan. 1, Yes No ,019 Rocky Mount Durham Armory April 1, Yes Yes ,698 Durham-Chapel Hill Millbrook April 17, Yes No ,363 Raleigh Lenoir Jan. 1, Yes Yes ,970 Hickory e Bent Creek April 1, Yes Yes ,795 Asheville Bushy Fork April 1, Yes Yes ,731 Durham-Chapel Hill Rockwell April 1, No No , Bethany July 7, Yes No ,004 Cherry Grove April 1, No No ,160 None Pitt County April 1, Yes No ,841 Greenville Wade May 8, Yes No ,316 Fayetteville Crouse July 1, No No , Jamesville April 1, No No ,614 None Lenoir Community College April 1, No No ,988 None Frying Pan July 1, No No ,284 None Charlotte-Concord- Gastonia Greensboro-High Point Charlotte-Concord- Gastonia 36

37 Table 8. Ranking of Relative Value of Ozone Sites Based on Site Longevity, Measured Concentrations and Other Considerations Total Overall Rank AQS Site Identification Number 2014 Design Value Parameters Measured at Site Site Name Date Established Required by Appendix D Required by Appendix G Area Served Population Served Monroe Middle School April 7, No No , Franklinton April 1, No No ,041 Raleigh Fuquay April 1, No No ,507 Raleigh Blackstone Nov. 5, No No ,780 None Butner Jan. 1, No No ,612 None Linville Falls Aug. 1, No No ,202 None Mount Mitchell June No No ,919 None Taylorsville- Liledoun Aug. 2, Yes No ,814 Hickory Purchase Knob June 6, No No ,849 None MSA, CSA or CBSA represented Charlotte-Concord- Gastonia f Joanna Bald April 3, No No ,546 None Pittsboro April 15, No No ,900 Durham-Chapel Hill Bryson City April 1, No No ,834 None Waynesville E.S. April 1, Yes No ,995 Asheville 37

38 At this time the DAQ does not plan to shut down any other ozone monitors in the next five years unless (1) the owner of the property evicts the monitor from the site and the DAQ cannot find a suitable place to relocate the monitor or (2) the DAQ is required to add additional monitors to other MSAs and does not have the resources to do so without discontinuing existing monitors that are not required by 40 CFR 58 Appendix D Carbon monoxide, CO, Sites Currently, the DAQ does not plan to shut down any CO monitors. All of the CO monitors operated by DAQ are required by 40 CFR 58 Appendix D. Forsyth County plans to shut down the Peters Creek CO monitor at the end of The monitor is no longer needed for the maintenance plan and the levels have been low in recent years. More information on the CO sites operated by the DAQ is provided in Chapter III of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for The North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions Nitrogen dioxide, NO 2, sites The DAQ currently operates four NO 2 sites and does not plan to shut down any of these sites at this time. The local programs in Forsyth County and Mecklenburg County do not plan to make any changes to their existing NO 2 sites. As a result there are no NO 2 sites in North Carolina that will be discontinued in the next five years Reactive Oxides of Nitrogen, NO y The DAQ has no plans to shut down any NOy sites in the next five years Sulfur dioxide, SO 2, sites The subsections below provide specific details about sites that are proposed for discontinuation in the next five years as well as proposed technology and sampling schedule changes at various sites. Table 9 provides a relative ranking of the sulfur dioxide sites operated by DAQ and the local programs. The ranking was based on how long the site was in operation, concentrations measured at the site based on design values, number of other pollutants and meteorological conditions measured at the site, Appendix D requirements, the estimated population and area served. Monitors in operation longer with higher design values and collocated monitors or meteorological towers received higher ranks. Monitors required by Appendix D and that served a larger population or area also received higher ranks. More information on these sites is provided in Chapter IV of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions Population-weighted emissions index sites Currently, there is one PWEI site in North Carolina that is no longer required. This site is the New Hanover site, The DAQ operated this monitor before it was designated as a PWEI and still has reasons to operate it. Thus, DAQ has no plans to discontinue any PWEI sites in the next five years. Although the PWEI sites are currently operated using existing analog technology, the DAQ plans to upgrade to trace-level monitors using digital technology in 2016 or

39 Table 9. Ranking of Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Stations Total Hourly Parameters Overall AQS Site Id Date Design Measured at Required by Population Area MSA, CSA or CBSA Rank Number Site Name Established Value Site Appendix D Served Served represented Hattie Avenue Jan. 1, Yes 994,252 10,648 Winston-Salem Millbrook Jan. 25, Yes 1,482,471 13,396 Raleigh Garinger Nov. 15, Yes 1,844,974 10,984 Charlotte New Hanover Jan. 1, No 719,803 14,096 Wilmington Bushy Fork Dec. 31, No 306,417 9,437 Durham-Chapel Hill Jamesville Dec. 1, No 394,553 12,436 None Durham Armory Jan. 1, Yes 449,018 2,112 Durham-Chapel Hill Bayview Jan. 28, No 270,895 9,053 None Bethany Jan. 1, No 642,725 5,829 Greensboro-High Point Lenoir Jan. 1, No 600,165 12,190 Hickory Honeycutt May 9, No 855,163 15,873 Fayetteville Blackstone Dec. 8, No 295,956 6,935 None Bryson City April 1, No 86,234 3,835 None Pittsboro Jan. 1, No 206,507 2,955 Durham-Chapel Hill 39

40 Regional Administrator Required Monitoring Sites Currently there are no Regional Administrator Required SO 2 monitoring sites in North Carolina. The DAQ anticipates that these sites will not be required at this time Background PSD Industrial Expansion Monitoring Sites The DAQ plans to shut down the rotating SO2 monitor at Pittsboro because the monitoring site is being closed at the end of The temporary background monitors at Bryson City, , and Bushy Fork, , that started operating in 2014 will also be shut down in 2015 after 12 months of data are collected. As shown in Table 9, the monitors at Pittsboro and Bryson City ranked at the bottom of the list. In 2016 or 2017 the remaining PSD industrial expansion monitors will be upgraded to trace- level monitors that use digital technology Other SLAMS SO 2 monitoring sites The DAQ does not plan to discontinue any of the other SLAMS SO2 monitoring sites unless the DAQ gets evicted Lead, Pb, sites Currently there are two lead monitoring sites in North Carolina, one operated by the DAQ and one by MCAQ. These sites are required by 40 CFR 58 Appendix D so they cannot be shut down. However, if the EPA changes the monitoring requirements and allows these sites to end, the DAQ and MCAQ plan to shut down these sites because the levels of lead measured are less than 50 percent of the standard. For more information on this network see Chapter VIII of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions Particulate matter, PM 10, sites The DAQ plans to shut down the rotating PM 10 monitors at Kenansville, , and at Marion, , because we plan to close those sites. These rotating PM 10 monitors will be moved to the Lenoir Community College, , and Castle Hayne, , sites. More information on the PM 10 monitoring network is provided in Chapter VI of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions Fine particulate matter, PM 2.5 Sites The subsections below provide specific details about sites that are proposed for discontinuation in the next five years as well as proposed technology and sampling schedule changes. Table 10 provides a relative ranking of the fine particle sites operated by DAQ and the local programs. The ranking is based on how long the site has operated, concentrations based on design values and number of other pollutants and meteorological conditions measured at the site, Appendix D and G requirements, the estimated population, susceptible population and area served. Monitors in operation longer with higher design values and collocated monitors or meteorological towers received higher ranks. Monitors required by Appendix D and G and that served a larger population or area also received higher ranks. More information on these sites is provided in Chapter VII of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 1 Network Descriptions. 40

41 Table 10. Ranking of Relative Value of Fine Particle Sites Based on Site Longevity, Measured Concentrations and Other Considerations Overall Daily Annual Total Parameters Required by Appendix: Total Area Served in PM2.5 Probability of Susceptible MSA, CSA AQS Site Id Date Design Design Measured at Population Square Exceeding Population or CBSA rank Number Site Name Established Value Value Site D G Served Kms 35ug/m3 Served represented Garinger July 30, Yes No 563, <25% 48, Hattie Ave. Jan. 1, No Yes 284, <25% 22, Durham Armory Sept. 15, Yes Yes 328, <25% 26, Millbrook Jan. 1, Yes Yes 510, <25% 43,528 Raleigh Montclaire Sept. 12, Yes Yes 618, <25% 52,872 Charlotte- Concord- Gastonia Charlotte- Concord- Gastonia Winston- Salem Durham- Chapel Hill Winston- Salem Lexington Jan. 1, Yes No 108, %-80% 9,442 West Johnston Jan. 1, Yes No 372, %-80% 35,075 Raleigh Dec. 14, Greensboro Mendenhall Yes Yes 279, <25% 21,953 High Point Candor July 16, Yes No 157, <25% 12,613 None Cherry Grove Jan. 1, No No 401, <25% 31,064 None Clemmons Aug. 1, No No 406, <25% 31,550 Winston- Salem Rockwell Jan. 1, No No 268, <25% 23,149 Charlotte- Concord- Gastonia July 01, Castle Hayne No No 389, %-80% 28,561 Wilmington 41

42 Table 10. Ranking of Relative Value of Fine Particle Sites Based on Site Longevity, Measured Concentrations and Other Considerations Overall AQS Site Id Date Parameters by Population Served Probability Population or CBSA Total Required Total Area PM2.5 Susceptible MSA, CSA rank Number Site Name Established Daily Annual Measured at Appendix: Served in of Served represented Kenansville Jan. 1, No No 465, <25% 38,672 None Jamesville Sept. 25, No No 165, %-80% 12,875 None Board of Ed Jan. 1, No Yes 220, <25% 17,309 Asheville Bryson City Jan. 1, Yes No 98, <25% 7,397 None Hickory Jan. 1, No Yes 115, <25% 8,375 Hickory William Owen Jan. 1, No Yes 126, <25% 9,783 Fayetteville Oakdale Jan. 1, No No 376, <25% 29,989 Charlotte- Concord- Gastonia Dillard Jan. 1, No No 158, <25% 13,204 Goldsboro Waynesville Jan. 1, No No 220, <25% 19,037 Asheville Pitt County April 3, No No 197, %-70% 15,540 Greenville Marion Jan. 1, No No 126, <25% 9,319 None Boone Sept. 15, No No 203, <25% 13,817 None Spruce Pine Jan. 9, No No 72, <25% 5,211 None 42

43 General PM 2.5 Sites The DAQ plans to shut down four general PM 2.5 monitoring sites and Forsyth County is planning on shutting down one at the end of 2015: Clemmons in Forsyth County, , Waynesville, , Marion, , Rockwell, , and Dillard School in Goldsboro, As can be seen in Table 10, Clemmons, with a rank of 11, Waynesville, with a rank of 22, and Rockwell, with a rank of 12, ranked lower than the other monitors in their MSAs. Marion, with a rank of 24, and Dillard with a rank of 21, were ranked near the bottom of the list of 26 monitors. The DAQ is following the situation with the permitting of the Titan concrete plant in Wilmington. The proposed facility would be across the street and about one mile from the existing Castle Hayne monitoring site. If the facility is built, the DAQ will reassess the Castle Hayne monitoring station to ensure the monitoring site still meets its intended monitoring objectives. As a result of that assessment, the DAQ may discontinue the Castle Hayne PM 2.5 monitoring site and establish a new site at another location in the Wilmington area. The DAQ will also change the technology used at several of the PM 2.5 sites to reduce the number of manual FRM monitors in use throughout the network. Sites where the manual FRM monitors are likely to be discontinued and replaced with continuous FEM monitors are: Hickory, , in Catawba County, Lexington, , in Davidson County, Candor, , in Montgomery County, Durham Armory, , in Durham County and Castle Hayne, , in New Hanover County. The DAQ will also reduce the number of collocated PM 2.5 FRM analyzers it operates by shutting down the collocated monitors at Marion and Rockwell at the end of Continuous PM 2.5 Monitoring Sites The DAQ plans to shut down eight continuous PM 2.5 analyzers at the end of These continuous analyzers include two tapered element oscillating microbalances, TEOMs, at Marion, , and Hopedale, , and six BAMs at Jamesville, , Dillard, , Cherry Grove, , Boone, , Kenansville, , and Rockwell, Six of these eight sites are being totally shut down, that is, all of the monitors are being shut down and the site is being closed. The proposed PM2.5 continuous network for 2016 is shown in Figure

44 Figure 13. Proposed 2016 continuous fine particle network PM 2.5 Background and Transport Sites The DAQ plans to shut down two PM 2.5 regional background and two PM 2.5 regional transport monitors at the end of These monitors are regional background monitors located at Kenansville, , and Boone, , and regional transport monitors located at Cherry Grove, , and Jamesville, The DAQ changed the technology used to measure concentrations of PM 2.5 regional background or PM 2.5 regional transport starting in 2013 at Bryson City, a regional transport monitor. On March 1, 2014, the technology used to measure PM2.5 at Cherry Grove was changed. The DAQ plans to change the technology used to measure concentrations of PM2.5 at Candor, a regional background monitor, on July 1, PM 2.5 Chemical Speciation Site In 2014 the EPA published a list of PM2.5 chemical speciation monitors that it would no longer fund. Four monitors in North Carolina were on the list: Board of Education in Asheville, , Hickory, , Lexington, and Rockwell, As a result the DAQ shut down the Hickory speciation monitors at the end of June 2014 when one of the monitors broke and needed major repairs. The other three monitors were shut down in January The DAQ does not plan to discontinue any of the remaining PM 2.5 chemical speciation urban trends sites in the next five years. 44

45 Wind Speed and Direction Sensors at PM2.5 Sites In 2014 and 2015 DAQ shut down wind speed and direction sensors at the following PM2.5 sites: Hopedale in Burlington, , on May 27, 2015, William Owen in Fayetteville, , on Nov. 12, 2014, Grier School in Gastonia, , on Jan. 28, 2015, Mendenhall School in Greensboro, , on Jan. 27, 2015, Marion, , on May 19, 2015, and Dillard School in Goldsboro, , on Dec. 10, These sensors were shut down because the data were no longer needed. The fine particle concentrations have declined throughout the state, the entire state is in attainment with the particle standards and wind speed and wind direction data are no longer needed to support exceptional events data exclusion requests. In addition, DAQ no longer has the personnel resources to support the collection and validation of these data. The DAQ does not plan to discontinue any additional wind speed and direction sensors collocated at PM 2.5 monitoring sites in the next five years Coarse Particulate Matter, PM The DAQ does not have any plans to discontinue any PM monitoring stations in the next five years. Sometime in the next five years, MCAQ may shut down the PM10 monitor at Montclaire, effectively ending the PM monitoring there. 4.3 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations, PAMS The DAQ currently does not have any PAMS to discontinue. During the next five years the DAQ does not plan to discontinue any of the remaining PAMS-like sites. 4.4 Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Stations, UAT The DAQ currently does not plan to discontinue any of the UAT monitors or monitoring stations in the next five years. 45

46 Chapter 5. Evaluation of New Technologies to Benefit the Ambient Air Monitoring Network The DAQ is considering an array of new technologies as a means to meet increasing demands in a time of decreasing resources. EPA has revised a number of ambient standards and related monitoring requirements in a short period of time, increasing the burden on state and local programs with no assurance of full funding. In the meantime, The DAQ is evaluating new technologies that would allow increased efficiency and productivity. These new technologies are discussed more fully below and include: Telemetry, Automated monitors, Data acquisition systems, Electronic logbooks, Handheld devices and New monitors Each of these technologies must be carefully evaluated to ensure it provides increased benefit relative to cost, especially since near-term cash flow is problematic. 5.1 Telemetry The DAQ is looking to ensure telemetric access to all of its remote monitors, especially the PM 2.5 FRM instruments. A history of filter changing problems, with associated missed samples, has led field staff to distrust the FRM instruments reliability. As a result they often make special trips to the FRM sites to ensure that the sample collection occurred. These trips take several hours per week from the technicians schedules. The DAQ has acquired several communications boards to install in the more remote machines so that technicians can check an FRM unit from their office. Although there is an added cost to put these units online, the cost is offset by freeing up the technician to perform higher priority tasks. It also improves technician morale and satisfaction by being able to determine whether the FRM sampled without making a special trip. 5.2 Automated monitors Also related to the PM 2.5 FRM, the DAQ is evaluating switching from manual monitors to new automated ones. This is driven by the manpower-intensive nature of the PM 2.5 FRM program, coupled with the inherent delays in obtaining data consisting of only a daily average. Today s society has grown to expect real-time information, whether it is news, personal communications, or air quality forecasts, including monitoring data. Although FRM s do not completely satisfy this expectation, continuous monitors provide much more data much more quickly. In addition to FRMs, the DAQ currently operates several BAMs and a shrinking network of TEOMs. The TEOMs owned and operated by the DAQ will no longer be supported by the manufacturer after The need to replace these continuous monitors also drives the switch from manual monitors to new automated ones. The DAQ is required to operate a certain number of continuous monitors and switching to the new automated monitors will allow the replacement of two monitors with one. The decision has been made not to purchase any more FRMs. The expectation is that the existing monitors 46

47 will continue operating for at least several more years, but as they are retired, they will be replaced with continuous monitors. 5.3 Data acquisition systems DAQ upgraded to AirVision in a process that started in 2012 and was completed in In 2014 DAQ determined that AirVision would not be able to meet the long term data acquisition and handling needs. The AirVision database has already exceeded the capabilities of the current AirVision computer resulting in an inability to complete data validation processes. In addition the DAQ reorganization in 2014 changed validation processes and created new needs for greater flexibility and more remote access. Plus newer monitoring equipment is better accessed using digital technology. As a result the DAQ is investigating and seeking to purchase a data system that collects data digitally and is more windows and personal computer based. 5.4 Electronic logbooks The DAQ has developed a series of electronic logbooks, elogs, to help document the various activities that occur in the field and to communicate them to the central office. Although it requires a culture change to move from paper to electronic format, the field offices and central office have embraced the change and are now fine-tuning the details. The DAQ is investigating software for creating manual maintenance logs and site logs that could be accessed via the internet. Such electronic logs would make the DAQ s operations more efficient because information could be recorded once instead of in multiple paper logbooks. 5.5 Handheld devices Traditionally, DAQ computers and laptops that were deemed obsolete for office work were transferred to ambient monitoring sites just prior to being discarded. Although these machines did not have the capacity for running the latest office software, they were deemed adequate for ambient monitoring operations. While it makes no difference to the monitors, the technicians are complaining about the laptops. They are heavy, have short battery lives and the screens are difficult to read in bright sunlight. Our younger technicians are purchasing relatively inexpensive, lightweight, handheld electronic devices for their personal use and are demanding that we consider such devices for their field work. The DAQ is researching handheld devices to replace obsolete laptops in the future. 5.6 New monitors Similar to handheld devices, the DAQ understands that new generation monitors are webbased. One of the local programs is pioneering the effort with web-based monitors and the DAQ expects to learn from their experience. As new monitors are purchased web-based instruments will be considered. However, the fact that it may be more of a challenge to switch over a large statewide network than a small local network must be considered. 47

48 Chapter 6. Ability of Existing and Proposed Sites to Support Air Quality Characterization of Areas with Relatively High Populations of Susceptible Individuals, e.g., Children with Asthma One way the DAQ assures air quality is characterized in areas with relatively high populations of susceptible children is by locating monitoring sites on school grounds, especially elementary and middle schools. Nine of 38 ozone and nine of 27 particulate monitors in the North Carolina network are on school property. There are a number of other advantages to locating monitoring sites on school property: In urban areas, schools are typically the place with sufficient open areas for adequate siting. Schools do not charge the DAQ rent or other fees. It is easy to defend a monitor located on school property. While there have been instances of opposition to or criticism of a monitor being located near a major roadway or industrial facility, such complaints significantly diminish when it is noted that the monitor is on a school playground. Monitors on school property provide teaching opportunities. Field staff report that science teachers often include the school s monitor in a lesson plan and schedule DAQ staff for show and tell with the students. This reinforces other DAQ programs at schools, such as anti-idling and school bus retrofits, that the children often take home to their families. 48

49 Chapter 7. Effect on Data Users for Any Sites That Are Being Proposed For Discontinuation The DAQ does not expect any of the sites proposed for discontinuation to impact data users. Some sites provide data that few external customers to DAQ use. In some cases the impact may be small because other monitors within the MSA or the region can be used to adequately continue to estimate ozone or fine particle values at the location where the monitor was shut down. 49

50 Chapter 8. Needed Changes to PM 2.5 Population-Oriented Sites Locations of PM 2.5 monitoring sites were determined in the late 1990s based on the data from the 1990 census. The PM 2.5 monitoring sites and the ozone monitoring sites existing in 2010 are shown overlaid on maps showing the population density based on the 2010 Census in Figure 3 through Figure 20. These maps show that the PM 2.5 monitoring sites are still located in highly populated areas based on the 2010 census data. Thus, at this time the DAQ does not recommend any changes to the PM 2.5 population-oriented sites. Figure 14.Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Asheville monitoring region 50

51 Figure 15. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Winston-Salem monitoring region Figure 16. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Mooresville monitoring region 51

52 Figure 17. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Raleigh monitoring region Figure 18. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Fayetteville monitoring region 52

53 Figure 19. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Washington monitoring region Figure 20. Location of PM2.5 and ozone monitors compared to 2010 population density in the Wilmington monitoring region 53