The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAQ_AM_20230628_BP_AnnPln_Final 2023-2024 Volume 2-G Wilmington Region_Final 2023-2024 Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality Volume 2 Site Descriptions by Metropolitan Statistical Area G. The Wilmington Monitoring Region June 28, 2023 G2 Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 2 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 3 G. The Wilmington Monitoring Region .......................................................................................................... 4 (1) The Wilmington MSA ........................................................................................................................... 4 (2) The Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSA ........................................................................ 15 (a) Coastal Carolina Ozone Monitor.............................................................................................. 16 (b) Southport Sulfur Dioxide Monitor .......................................................................................... 16 (c) Other Monitoring Requirements ............................................................................................. 17 (3) The Jacksonville MSA ......................................................................................................................... 18 (4) The Non-MSA Portion of the Wilmington Monitoring Region ........................................................... 20 Appendix G.1 Annual Network Site Review Forms for 2022........................................................................ 25 List of Figures Figure G1. The Wilmington monitoring region ............................................................................................. 4 Figure G2. Castle Hayne ozone and particle monitoring site, 37-129-0002 ................................................. 4 Figure G3 Looking north from the Castle Hayne site .................................................................................... 6 Figure G4. Looking northwest from the Castle Hayne site ........................................................................... 6 Figure G5. Looking northeast from the Castle Hayne site ............................................................................ 6 Figure G6. Looking east from the Castle Hayne site ..................................................................................... 6 Figure G7. Looking west from the Castle Hayne site .................................................................................... 7 Figure G8. Looking southwest from the Castle Hayne site ........................................................................... 7 Figure G9. Looking southeast from the Castle Hayne site ............................................................................ 7 Figure G10. Looking south from the Castle Hayne site ................................................................................. 7 Figure G11. Comparison of BAM and FRM results at Castle Hayne after moving the BAM inside the building ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure G12. Comparison of the T640X fine particle data with the BAM 1020 fine particle data ............... 10 Figure G13. Population estimates and projections for the Wilmington MSA from 2010 to 2050 ............. 11 Figure G14. The Eagles Island urban air toxics and rainwater monitoring site .......................................... 11 Figure G15. Looking north from the Eagles Island site ............................................................................... 12 Figure G16. Looking northeast from the Eagles Island site ........................................................................ 12 Figure G17. Looking northwest from the Eagles Island site ....................................................................... 12 Figure G18. Looking west from the Eagles Island site ................................................................................ 12 Figure G19. Looking east from the Eagles Island site ................................................................................. 13 Figure G20. Looking southeast from the Eagles Island site ........................................................................ 13 Figure G21. Looking southwest from the Eagles Island site ....................................................................... 13 Figure G22. Looking south from the Eagles Island site ............................................................................... 13 G3 Figure G23. Lead and lead compound releases to the air from 2009 to 2020 in the Wilmington MSA ..... 14 Figure G24. Monitoring sites in the Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSA .............................. 15 Figure G25. Lead and lead compound emissions to the air in the Jacksonville MSA from 2009 to 2020 .. 19 Figure G26. Probability of ozone exceeding the 2015 standard at least once in the Jacksonville MSA ..... 20 Figure G27. Monitoring site locations......................................................................................................... 21 Figure G28. The Lake Waccamaw (NC08) MDN site ................................................................................... 21 Figure G29. Looking north from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site................................................................ 22 Figure G30. Looking northwest from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site ........................................................ 22 Figure G31. Looking northeast from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site ......................................................... 22 Figure G32. Looking east from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site .................................................................. 22 Figure G33. Looking west from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site ................................................................. 23 Figure G34. Looking southwest from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site ........................................................ 23 Figure G35. Looking southeast from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site ......................................................... 23 Figure G36. Looking south from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site ............................................................... 23 List of Tables Table G1. Site Table for Castle Hayne ........................................................................................................... 5 G4 G. The Wilmington Monitoring Region The Wilmington monitoring region, shown in Figure G1, has four parts: (1) The Wilmington metropolitan statistical area, or MSA, consists of New Hanover and Pender Counties; (2) the North Carolina part of the Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSA consists of Brunswick County; (3) the Jacksonville MSA consists of Onslow County; and (4) the non- MSA portion of this monitoring region consists of Carteret, Columbus and Duplin Counties. This subsection discusses the monitors in this region. Figure G1. The Wilmington monitoring region. The red dots show the approximate locations of the North Carolina Division of Air Quality monitoring sites in this region. (1) The Wilmington MSA The Wilmington MSA consists of two counties: New Hanover and Pender. The City of Wilmington is the major metropolitan area. The North Carolina Division of Air Quality, or DAQ, currently operates one criteria pollutant monitoring site and one urban air toxics monitoring site in this MSA. The criteria- pollutant monitoring site is the Castle Hayne ozone and particle-monitoring site. The urban air toxics site is at Eagles Island, formerly known as the Battleship site. At the Castle Hayne site, 37- 129-0002, DAQ operates an ozone monitor and a continuous fine particle monitor. Figure G2 shows the site. Table G1 summarizes monitoring information for the site. Figure G3 through Figure G10 provide views looking north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west and northwest. This site also has a rotating monitor to measure particles with aerodynamic diameters of 10 microns or less (PM10) Figure G2. Castle Hayne ozone and particle monitoring site, 37-129-0002 G5 Table G1. Site Table for Castle Hayne Site Name: Castle Hayne AQS Site Identification Number: 37-129-0002 Location: 6028 Holly Shelter Road, Castle Hayne, North Carolina MSA: Wilmington, NC MSA #: 9200 Latitude 34.364167 Longitude -77.838611 Datum: WGS84 Elevation 8 meters Parameter Name Method Method Reference ID Sample Duration Sampling Schedule Ozone Instrumental with ultraviolet photometry, 047 EQOA-0880-047 1-Hour March 1 to Oct. 31 PM10 Total 0-10 µm STP Teledyne API T640X at 16.67 LPM, 239 EQPM-0516-239 1-Hour 12 months, every third year PM 2.5 local conditions, FEM Met One BAM w/VSCC, 170 EQPM-0308-170 1-Hour Year-round Date Monitor Established: Ozone Jan. 1, 1979 Date Monitor Established PM10 Total 0-10 µm STP Aug. 1, 2016 Date Monitor Established: PM 2.5 local conditions, federal equivalent method July 1, 2017 Nearest Road: Holly Shelter Road Traffic Count: 10500 Year of Count: 2021 Parameter Name Distance to Road Direction to Road Monitor Type Statement of Purpose Ozone 58 North northwest SLAMS Real-time AQI reporting. Compliance with the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) PM10 Total 0-10 µm STP 58 North northwest SPM Industrial expansion monitoring for PSD modeling PM 2.5 local conditions, FEM 58 North northwest SLAMS Real-time AQI reporting. Compliance w/NAAQS Parameter Name Monitoring Objective Scale Suitable to Compare to NAAQS Proposal to Move or Change Ozone Population exposure Urban Yes None PM10 Total 0-10 µm STP General/Background Neighborhood Yes Will end in 2022 PM 2.5 local conditions, FEM Population exposure Neighborhood Yes None Parameter Name Meets Part 58 Requirements: Appendix A Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Ozone Yes Yes Yes – not required Yes PM10 Total 0-10 µm STP Yes Yes Yes – not required Yes PM 2.5 local conditions, FEM Yes Yes Yes – not required Yes Parameter Name Probe Height (m) Distance to Support Distance to Trees Obstacles Ozone 4.5 2.0 meters >20 meters None PM10 Total 0-10 µm STP 4.8 2.0 meters >20 meters None PM 2.5 local conditions, FEM 4.8 2.0 meters >20 meters None G6 Figure G3 Looking north from the Castle Hayne site Figure G4. Looking northwest from the Castle Hayne site Figure G5. Looking northeast from the Castle Hayne site Figure G6. Looking east from the Castle Hayne site G7 Figure G7. Looking west from the Castle Hayne site Figure G8. Looking southwest from the Castle Hayne site Figure G9. Looking southeast from the Castle Hayne site Figure G10. Looking south from the Castle Hayne site G8 DAQ completed one beta attenuation monitor, BAM, study in Dec. 2011. At that time, the division shut down the BAM and made the manual fine particle federal reference method, or FRM, monitor a state and local air monitoring station, or SLAMS. In 2012, DAQ installed another special purpose non- regulatory BAM and began a second BAM study at the site on Oct. 23, 2012. Comparisons for the BAM and FRM monitors are available from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/pm25-continuous-monitor-comparability-assessments. On March 12, 2015, DAQ moved the FRM to the roof of the building and installed the BAM inside the building to help stabilize temperature and relative humidity to see if the two monitors would agree better under these conditions. Figure G11 provides the data comparison for Jan. 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017. Since DAQ moved the BAM into the shelter, the BAM and FRM compare better at this site. Because of this improved agreement, the division made the BAM a SLAMS and the primary monitor at this site on Jan. 1, 2016. On Jan. 1, 2016, DAQ also made the FRM the collocated quality assurance monitor for the DAQ BAM 1020 monitoring network. However, the FRM and BAM data do not agree well enough to meet 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix A requirements, probably because the concentrations are so low, so the division shut down the collocated FRM at this site on June 30, 2017. DAQ requires PM10 data in the coastal area for Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or PSD, modeling for industrial expansion. Because DAQ shut down the PM10 monitoring site in Jacksonville on Dec. 31, 2007, DAQ began manual one-in-six-day PM10 monitoring at the Castle Hayne site in February 2008 to provide the necessary PM10 data for PSD modeling for the coastal area. However, a wildfire next to the site forced the division to shut down the monitor on March 31, 2008. After appropriate firefighting and rains extinguished the wildfire, the division decided not to resume PM10 monitoring at Castle Hayne because of the pending construction of the Titan Cement Facility across the street from the Castle Hayne site. Modeling results indicated that Titan would contribute over 10 percent of the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) to the PM10 concentrations measured at Castle Hayne, making Castle Hayne an unsuitable site for obtaining background data to use for PSD modeling. Thus, DAQ located the PM10 monitor at Kenansville in second quarter 2009. At the end of 2010, DAQ began operating the monitor on a one-in-three-year schedule and made the site one of six rotating background PM10 sites for the state. The Kenansville site collected PM10 data from August 2013 through July 2014. In 2016, Titan announced that they would not be building a cement facility in Castle Hayne. Since the Titan facility is no longer under consideration, DAQ collected PM10 data at Castle Hayne from October 2016 to October 2017 and is collecting PM10 data starting in October 2020. Since the DAQ used a T640X to collect the PM10 data at Castle Hayne, the DAQ is studying the PM2.5 data collected by the T640X and comparing it to the BAM 1020 data to determine if the two monitors compare and the BAM 1020 monitor at Castle Hayne can be replaced with the T640X. As shown in Figure G12, a comparison of the data from Nov. 2, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021, indicates that although the slope and intercept meet the criteria, the plot of the slope and the intercept barely misses falling within the desired parallelogram. G9 Figure G11. Comparison of BAM and FRM results at Castle Hayne after moving the BAM inside the building G10 Figure G12. Comparison of the T640X fine particle data with the BAM 1020 fine particle data When the Office of Management and Budget redefined the Wilmington MSA in February 2013, the estimated population of the Wilmington MSA dropped below 350,000. In July 2021, the United States Census Bureau estimated 291,833 people live in the Wilmington MSA.1 Thus, only one ozone monitor is required for the MSA if the ozone design value is above 85 percent of the NAAQS. The design value for 2020-2022 for Wilmington is at 83 percent of the standard. So currently, DAQ is not required to add additional ozone monitors in the MSA. As shown in Figure G13, the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management projects the population in the Wilmington MSA will remain under 350,000 until 2037. 1 Source: Annual and Cumulative Estimates of Resident Population Change for Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States and Puerto Rico and Metropolitan Statistical Area Rankings: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Released March 24, 2022, available online https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press- kits/2022/pop-estimates-county-metro.html. G11 Figure G13. Population estimates and projections for the Wilmington MSA from 2010 to 2050. Estimates and projections are from the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, updated on Jan. 27, 2022 At the Eagles Island site, 37-129- 0010, DAQ operates a year-round air toxics volatile organic compound sampler. The Wilmington Regional Office of DAQ collects samples in stainless steel canisters and sends them to the Laboratory Analysis Branch (LAB) where the LAB analyzes them for 66 compounds using the Compendium Method for Toxic Organics 15. Currently, DAQ has been forced to suspend the VOC portion of the UAT program due to staffing issues at the Reedy Creek Analysis Laboratory. This suspension of the VOC program Figure G14. The Eagles Island urban air toxics and rainwater monitoring site G12 Figure G15. Looking north from the Eagles Island site Figure G16. Looking northeast from the Eagles Island site Figure G17. Looking northwest from the Eagles Island site Figure G18. Looking west from the Eagles Island site G13 Figure G19. Looking east from the Eagles Island site Figure G20. Looking southeast from the Eagles Island site Figure G21. Looking southwest from the Eagles Island site Figure G22. Looking south from the Eagles Island site G14 began in February of 2023 and is expected to continue for the remainder of the year. DAQ hopes to reestablish the program in 2024 when staffing and training issues are resolved. DAQ continues to operate the UAT Aldehydes program. On Jan. 8, 2019, DAQ added a rainwater collection sampler to the site. Figure G14 through Figure G22 show the site and views looking north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west and northwest. In 2008, EPA expanded the lead monitoring network to support the lower lead NAAQS of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter.2 The 2010 changes to the lead monitoring requirements focused monitoring efforts on fence-line monitoring located at facilities that emit 0.5 ton or more of lead per year and at National Core, or NCore, monitoring sites.3 In 2016, the EPA removed the requirement for monitoring at NCore sites.4 These changes to the lead monitoring network requirements did not require lead monitoring in the Wilmington MSA. As shown in Figure G23, the MSA has no permitted facilities that emit more than 0.5 tons (1,000 pounds) per year of lead.5 Figure G23. Lead and lead compound releases to the air from 2009 to 2020 in the Wilmington MSA Changes to the ozone monitoring requirements extended the ozone season by a month. Beginning in 2017, the ozone season starts on March 1 instead of April 1. 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead, Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 219, \ Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2008, p. 66964, available on the worldwide web at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-11-12/pdf/E8-25654.pdf. 3 Revisions to Lead Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements, Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 247, Monday, Dec. 27, 2010, p. 81126, available on the worldwide web at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-27/pdf/2010- 32153.pdf#page=1. 4 Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Quality Assurance and Other Requirements, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 59, Monday, March 28, 2016, p. 17248, available on the worldwide web at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016- 03-28/pdf/2016-06226.pdf. 5 Data obtained from the 2020 EPA Toxics Release Inventory Tracker available at https://edap.epa.gov/public/extensions/TRIToxicsTracker/TRIToxicsTracker.html#. G15 The 2010 nitrogen dioxide monitoring rule does not require the Wilmington MSA to monitor for nitrogen dioxide. It is too small to require area-wide monitors or near-roadway monitoring. This MSA was also not required to do carbon monoxide monitoring because of the changes to the carbon monoxide monitoring requirements because the population is less than 1,000,000. The 2010 sulfur dioxide monitoring rule has not required the Wilmington MSA to add additional sulfur dioxide monitors. The sulfur-dioxide monitor at the New Hanover site met the PWEI monitoring requirements for the MSA from 2011 through 2017. With the release of the 2014 National Emissions Inventory, a PWEI monitor was no longer required in this MSA so DAQ shut down the New Hanover site at the end of 2017. (2) The Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSA The Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSA consists of Brunswick County in North Carolina and Horry County in South Carolina. The principal cities are Myrtle Beach, Conway and North Myrtle Beach. The MSA has an estimated population as of July 2021 of 509,794 people, which requires it to have an ozone monitor, a fine particle monitor and a PM10 monitor.6 As shown in Figure G24, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, or DHEC, started operating the Coastal Carolina ozone monitoring station on July 27, 2016. Figure G24. Monitoring sites in the Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSA The green dot shows the locations of the Coastal Carolina ozone monitoring station. 6 Source: Annual and Cumulative Estimates of Resident Population Change for Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States and Puerto Rico and Metropolitan Statistical Area Rankings: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Released March 24, 2022, available online https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press- kits/2022/pop-estimates-county-metro.html. G16 (a) Coastal Carolina Ozone Monitor The Coastal Carolina ozone monitor in the Myrtle Beach area collected its first complete ozone design value in 2019. Its design value for 2017-2019 was at 86 percent of the NAAQS, requiring the MSA to have a second ozone monitor according to Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 58. Since this design value was the first complete design value for the monitor and the 2019 design value is so close to the 85 percent threshold, the EPA requested DAQ and DHEC work with EPA Region 4 to determine the appropriate ozone monitoring for this MSA. The 2018-2020 ozone design value was less than the 85 percent threshold but did not meet the three-year completeness requirement of 90 percent. The 2019-2021 design value meets the three-year completeness value and is at 84 percent of the standard, below the 85 percent threshold that would require a second ozone monitor. The estimated population in the MSA on July 1, 2021, is 509,794, which is over the 500,000-population threshold for requiring additional PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring. DAQ delayed the analysis requested by the EPA in the 2021-2022 network plan until this year when a valid design value could be obtained. Since the design value is valid and below the 85 percent threshold, DAQ is again delaying the analysis requested by the EPA. Currently, DAQ and DHEC have signed an official agreement regarding the monitoring responsibilities for the MSA.7 Section 4.1 of Appendix D to 40 CFR Part 58 allows the EPA flexibility in addressing ozone monitoring requirements as stated in paragraph b) below: “b) Within an O3 network, at least one O3 site for each MSA, or CSA 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. Table D-2 of this appendix does not account for the full breadth of additional factors that would be considered in designing a complete O3 monitoring program for an area. Some of these additional factors include geographic size, population density, complexity of terrain and meteorology, adjacent O3 monitoring programs, air pollution transport from neighboring areas, and measured air quality in comparison to all forms of the O3 NAAQS (i.e., 8-hour and 1-hour forms). Networks must be designed to account for all these area characteristics. Network designs must be re-examined in periodic network assessments. Deviations from the above O3 requirements are allowed if approved by the EPA Regional Administrator.” (b) Southport Sulfur Dioxide Monitor Besides the ozone monitoring site operated by DHEC, DAQ operated an industrial sulfur dioxide monitoring site, Southport DRR, in this MSA. In 2016, DAQ began working with CPI USA North Carolina Southport to establish a sulfur dioxide monitoring station in Southport, North Carolina, to characterize the ambient sulfur dioxide concentrations near the CPI facility as required by Special Order by Consent 2016-001.8 The area chosen for placement of the monitor was selected using the results of modeling 7 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on Criteria Monitoring Between SCDHEC and NCDENR DAQ, July 1, 2015, Available on the worldwide web at http://xapps.ncdenr.org/aq/documents/DocsSearch.do?dispatch=download&documentId=6786. 8 Special Order by Consent CPI USA North Carolina, LLC, SOC 2016-001, June 24, 2016, available on the worldwide web at https://www.deq.nc.gov/air-quality/ambient/misc/cpiusancsouthportsoc2016-001/open. G17 done as described in the technical assistance document for source-oriented monitoring9 and was reported in an addendum to the 2016-2017 network plan.10 DAQ assigned this monitor the Air Quality System, AQS, identification number 37-019-0005-42401-1. DAQ operated this monitor in collaboration with CPI Southport to ensure the air in the Southport area complies with the national ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide. The division operated the monitor following the DAQ Sulfur Dioxide DRR quality-assurance project plan and the monitor was part of the DAQ primary quality assurance organization. As stated in Appendix D to Volume 1 of the 2021-2022 network plan,11 DAQ shut this monitoring station down on Sept. 28, 2021, after the area was re-designated as attainment/unclassifiable, because the CPI Southport facility ceased operations on March 31, 2021. With the facility no longer operating, there was no longer a need to continue operating this monitoring site. (c) Other Monitoring Requirements Changes to the lead monitoring network requirements in 2010,12 as revised in 2016,13 did not result in additional monitoring in this MSA. Changes to the ozone monitoring requirements in 2015 did not require additional monitoring in the Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSA other than the ozone monitor that is already required and the extension of the ozone season by one month. This MSA is also not required to do nitrogen dioxide monitoring by the 2010 nitrogen dioxide monitoring requirements. It is too small to require area-wide monitors or near-roadway monitoring. The 2010 sulfur dioxide monitoring requirements did not require the Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach MSA to monitor for sulfur dioxide. However, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission required the CPI USA North Carolina LLC to conduct monitoring downwind of their Southport facility. DAQ performed modeling demonstrating that the facility operating at its allowable emission limits would exceed the standard. The 2016-2017 Network Plan Volume 1, Appendix L. CPI Southport Siting Analysis and Additional Site Information provides more information on this facility and 9 SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented Monitoring Technical Assistance Document, U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, December 2013, Draft. 10 Appendix L. CPI Southport Siting Analysis and Additional Site Information, North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Sep. 1, 2016. Available on the worldwide web at http://xapps.ncdenr.org/aq/documents/DocsSearch.do?dispatch=download&documentId=9275. 11 2021-2022 Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Volume 1, Network Descriptions, July 1, 2021, available on the worldwide-web at https://xapps.ncdenr.org/aq/documents/DocsSearch.do?dispatch=download&documentId=14391. 12 Revisions to Lead Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements, Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 247, Monday, Dec. 27, 2010, p. 81126, available on the worldwide web at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-27/pdf/2010- 32153.pdf#page=1. 13 Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Quality Assurance and Other Requirements, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 59, Monday, March 28, 2016, p. 17248, available on the worldwide web at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016- 03-28/pdf/2016-06226.pdf. G18 monitor.14 The changes to the carbon monoxide monitoring requirements will not require this MSA to monitor for carbon monoxide because the population is less than 1,000,000. (3) The Jacksonville MSA The Jacksonville MSA consists of Onslow County. The principal city is Jacksonville. DAQ does not operate any monitoring stations in the Jacksonville MSA. DAQ shut down the Jacksonville particle-monitoring site on Dec. 31, 2007, because the measured concentrations were less than 80 percent of the NAAQS. Changes to the lead monitoring network requirements in 2010,15 as revised in 2016,16 did not result in adding lead monitors to the MSA. Jacksonville had a permitted facility that emitted 0.5 tons or more per year of lead in 2009. 17 However, lead emissions at Camp Lejeune in 2010 were below the 0.5-ton threshold. 18 The EPA concurred that actual emissions were less than 0.5 ton and did not require monitoring at the facility fence-line.19 As shown in Figure G25 the lead emissions in 2020 are still below 0.5 ton.20 14 Appendix L. CPI Southport Siting Analysis and Additional Site Information, North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Sep. 1, 2016. Available on the worldwide web at http://xapps.ncdenr.org/aq/documents/DocsSearch.do?dispatch=download&documentId=9275. 15 Revisions to Lead Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements, Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 247, Monday, Dec. 27, 2010, p. 81126, available on the worldwide web at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-27/pdf/2010- 32153.pdf#page=1. 16 Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Quality Assurance and Other Requirements, Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 59, Monday, March 28, 2016, p. 17248, available on the worldwide web at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016- 03-28/pdf/2016-06226.pdf. 17 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2009 Toxic Release Inventory, released March 2010, available on the worldwide web at https://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_release.chemical. 18 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010 Toxic Release Inventory, released March 2011, available on the worldwide web at https://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_release.chemical. 19 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). FY 2011 State of North Carolina Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, U.S. EPA Region 4 Comments and Recommendations (Oct. 20, 2011). Available on the worldwide web at http://xapps.ncdenr.org/aq/documents/DocsSearch.do?dispatch=download&documentId=7843 20 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Data obtained from the 2020 EPA Toxics Release Inventory Tracker available at https://edap.epa.gov/public/extensions/TRIToxicsTracker/TRIToxicsTracker.html#. G19 Figure G25. Lead and lead compound emissions to the air in the Jacksonville MSA from 2009 to 2020 Changes to the ozone monitoring requirements did not result in additional monitoring in the Jacksonville MSA. Its population is above the threshold for requiring population exposure monitoring in urban areas, but monitoring is not required because it does not have an ozone design value. Currently, DAQ does not monitor for ozone in Jacksonville because the ozone levels measured by the Castle Hayne monitor in New Hanover County indicate that the ozone concentrations on the coast are at 84 percent of the 2015 standard of 70 parts per billion. As shown in Figure G26, models consistently show low ozone levels in the Jacksonville MSA and that the probability of exceeding the standard in Jacksonville is less than 20 percent. G20 Figure G26. Probability of ozone exceeding the 2015 standard at least once in the Jacksonville MSA The Jacksonville MSA did not add nitrogen dioxide monitors to comply with the 2010 nitrogen dioxide monitoring requirements. It is too small to require area-wide monitors or near-roadway monitoring. The Jacksonville MSA also did not need to add monitors to comply with the 2010 sulfur dioxide monitoring requirements because there are no large sources of sulfur dioxide in the MSA, and the population is not large enough to require a PWEI monitor. This MSA is also not required to do carbon monoxide monitoring by the changes to the carbon monoxide monitoring requirements because the population is less than 1,000,000. (4) The Non-MSA Portion of the Wilmington Monitoring Region The non-MSA portion of the Wilmington monitoring region consists of three counties: Carteret, Columbus and Duplin. This area has no MSAs. DAQ currently operates one monitoring site here and the EPA operates a clean air status and trends network, CASTNET, site in Beaufort in Carteret County. The CASTNET network plan discusses the CASTNET sites. The CASTNET network plan is available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022- 07/CASTNET_Annual_Network_Plan_2022_FINAL_post.pdf . This section discusses the one DAQ site, a G21 Mercury Deposition Network, MDN, site at Lake Waccamaw State Park. The division shut down the Kenansville particle monitoring station Dec. 31, 2015. Figure G27. Monitoring site locations At the Lake Waccamaw MDN site in Columbus County, DAQ operates a weekly mercury deposition monitor to measure total mercury, Hg, concentration and deposition in precipitation. DAQ upgraded the site to more modern equipment in 2014. Currently, DAQ is looking for an alternate location for the site because of the growth of the nearby trees. Although the division wanted to collocate the MDN site at Castle Hayne, the Castle Hayne site did not meet the MDN siting criteria for a background site because it is too close to industrial sources. Figure G28 through Figure G36 provide a picture of the site as well as views looking north, northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west and northwest. Figure G28. The Lake Waccamaw (NC08) MDN site G22 Figure G29. Looking north from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site Figure G30. Looking northwest from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site Figure G31. Looking northeast from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site Figure G32. Looking east from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site G23 Figure G33. Looking west from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site Figure G34. Looking southwest from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site Figure G35. Looking southeast from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site Figure G36. Looking south from the Lake Waccamaw MDN site G24 The 2010 lead monitoring requirements did not result in lead monitoring in these counties. No permitted facilities emitting 0.5 ton or more of lead per year are in this area.21 The new ozone monitoring requirements did not require additional monitoring in these counties. There is no MSA so population exposure monitoring requirements for urban areas do not apply. The 2010 nitrogen dioxide monitoring requirements also did not add monitors to these counties. These counties are too small to require area-wide monitors or near road monitoring. These counties did not need to add monitors to meet the 2010 sulfur dioxide monitoring requirements because there are no large sources of sulfur dioxide in them, and their populations are too small to require a PWEI monitor. The changes to the carbon monoxide monitoring requirements did not require monitoring in these counties because their populations are under 1,000,000. 21 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Data obtained from the 2020 EPA Toxics Release Inventory Tracker available at https://edap.epa.gov/public/extensions/TRIToxicsTracker/TRIToxicsTracker.html# G25 Appendix G.1 Annual Network Site Review Forms for 2022 Castle Hayne Eagles Island in Wilmington Lake Waccamaw MDN G26 G27 G28 G29 G30 G31