1. 1 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Modeling for 8-hour Ozone Preliminary 2002 Results For Metrolina and Great Smoky Mountain National Park Stakeholders Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ Laura Boothe, NCDAQ George Bridgers, NCDAQ May 26, 2005

2. 2 Outline Ozone overview SIP Modeling overview Meteorological modeling Emissions modeling Air Quality modeling Future year emissions summary Menu of possible control options Next steps

3. 3 Ozone and SIP Modeling Overview Laura Boothe, NCDAQ Attainment Planning Branch Chief

4. 4

5. 5 Ozone – Public Health Risks When inhaled, even at low levels, ozone can: –Cause inflammation of lung tissue –Cause acute or chronic respiratory problems –Aggravate, possibly trigger asthma –Decrease lung capacity –Repeated exposure in children may lead to reduced lung function as adults

6. 6 Background 8-hour ozone standard –If a monitored design value is > 0.08 ppm (84 ppb), that monitor is violating the standard –The design value is defined as: 3-year average of the annual 4 th highest daily maximum 8-hour average

7. 7 2001-2003 Ozone Design Values (Highest Value Per County)

8. 8 Violating Ozone Monitors Based on 01-03 data Green dots = attaining monitors Red dots = violating monitors

9. 9 NC 8-hr Ozone Nonattainment Areas

10. 10 Metrolina 8-hr Ozone Design Values Monitor County Line Enochville Rockwell Garinger Crouse Arrowood Monroe York County Mecklenburg Rowan Mecklenburg Lincoln Mecklenburg Union York, SC 01-03 98 99 100 96 92 84 88 84 02-04 92 91 94 91 86 81 85 80 2005* 83 87 76 83 91 104 97 110 * 4 th highest 8-hr max in 2005 can be no higher than this value in order to attain by the end of the 2005 ozone season. ** Number of times the 4 th highest has been this value or lower in the last 5 years. # ** 1 of 5 2 of 5 0 of 5 2 of 5 5 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

11. 11 Ozone Nonattainment Timeline Immediate (June 15, 2004) –New source review One year –Transportation conformity Three years –State Implementation Plan (SIP) – attainment demonstration Five years (or as expeditiously as practicable) –Basic areas attain standard (Triangle, RMT, GSMNP) Six years (or as expeditiously as practicable) –Moderate areas attain standard (Metrolina)

12. 12 Ozone Nonattainment Timeline Definitions for Metrolina Area Effective date = June 15, 2004 Transportation conformity date = June 15, 2005 SIP submittal date = June 15, 2007 Attainment date = June 15, 2010* Data used to determine attainment = 2007-2009 (Modeling) Attainment year = 2009 * Or as early as possible

13. 13 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Need a SIP submittal to EPA within three years –Attainment Demonstration that details the States plan to bring the area into attainment of the Federal standard –For Metrolina area…must include: 15% VOC Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Plan VOC & NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance programs (I/M)

14. 14 State Implementation Plan (SIP) 15% VOC RFP Plan –Calculated from the 2002 base year –Cannot substitute other emissions for the first plan –Phase 2 implementation guidance should say what can and cannot be counted towards the 15% plan –Includes reductions from all man-made emissions, i.e. point, area, highway mobile and off-road mobile –May need to implement additional controls to meet this requirement

15. 15 State Implementation Plan (SIP) VOC & NOX RACT –All existing point sources with potential to emit 100 tons/year (TPY) –NC has pre-adopted VOC RACT rules (2D.0900) and NOx RACT rule (2D.1413) Will have to update to include entire Metrolina 8-hour ozone nonattainment area Will have to activate these rules –SC has a statewide VOC rule for new sources with actual emissions 100 TPY and statewide NOx rule for large boilers (>10 MBTU/hour) –Starting to identify potential sources subject to RACT requirements

16. 16 State Implementation Plan (SIP) RACM Requirements –Applies to all source sectors (point, area, highway mobile & off- road mobile sources) –Only what is necessary to attain NAAQS –NC has already adopted some RACM type rules Open burning ban during ozone events Expanded I/M program –SC has adopted some RACM type rules Open burning Degreasers Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance programs (I/M) –NC has already have met this requirement in Metrolina area –SC working on a program for the nonattainment area in York County

17. 17 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Most significant emission controls are already underway –Clean Smokestacks Act –Vehicle emissions testing –Ultra-Low sulfur fuels –Cleaner engines

18. 18 NC/SC SIP Coordination Working together in VISTAS –Making use of VISTAS 2002 meteorological, emissions and air quality modeling –Future year (2009) work will be completed through VISTAS –Control strategies for the Metrolina area will be developed through a consultation process involving NCDAQ, SCDHEC and appropriate stakeholders

19. 19 VISTAS Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast Regional Planning Organization established under the 1999 Regional Haze Rule Collaborative effort of States and Tribes to support management of regional haze and related air quality issues in the Southeastern US No independent regulatory authority and no authority to direct or establish State or Tribal law or policy.

20. 20

21. 21

22. 22 Met, Emissions and AQ Model performance and protocol Emissions Inventories 2002 & 2009

23. 23 Modeling Application Process Select areas or domains of interest Select representative ozone season/episodes Prepare and refine meteorological simulations Prepare and refine emission model inputs Apply air quality modeling system Performance evaluation on episodes Prepare current and future year emissions (Projected and Potential Control Strategies) Re-apply air quality modeling system Analyze the effectiveness of control strategies Apply the attainment test

24. 24 Air Quality Modeling System Meteorological Model Emissions Processor Air Quality Model MM5 SMOKE CMAQ Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Community Multiscale Air Quality System Temporally and Spatially Gridded Air Quality Output predictions

25. 25 Modeling Domains 36 km 12 km

26. 26 Grid Structure Horizontal: 36 km & 12 km Vertical: MM5 = 34 layers SMOKE & CMAQ = 19 layers Layer 1 = 36 m deep Ground ~48,000 ft

27. 27 Modeling Season / Episode Full Year of 2002 selected for VISTAS modeling –Regional Haze / Fine Particulate: Full Year –Ozone: Late May – End Of August The higher portion of the 2002 ozone season selected for the Ozone SIP and Attainment Demonstration modeling.

28. 28 Meteorological Modeling Overview George Bridgers, NCDAQ Meteorologist

29. 29 Meteorological Modeling Penn State / NCAQ MM5 meso-scale meteorological model –Version 3.6.1+ –Widely used in the research and regulatory communities –VISTAS Contracted With Barons Advanced Meteorological Systems (BAMS) –Run at both 36km (Nationwide) and 12km (Southeastern US) resolutions

30. 30 Met Model Performance Model Performance For Key Variables: –Temperature –Moisture (Mixing Ratio & Relative Humidity) –Winds –Cloud Cover –Precipitation Comparisons With Other Met Modeling Studies Summary Of Met Model Performance

31. 31 Model Performance Statistics Meteorology In North Carolina May, June, July, August, and September (MJJAS)

32. 32 Overall diurnal pattern captured very well Slight cool bias in the daytime Slight warm bias overnight Temperature

33. 33 MayJune JulyAugust

34. 34 Moisture (Mixing Ratio) Tracks observed trends fairly well Low bias in the morning through the early afternoon High bias in the late afternoon and at night

35. 35 MayJune JulyAugust

36. 36 High bias in the daytime Low bias at night RH is linked to temperature and moisture biases Moisture (Relative Humidity)

37. 37 ~1 mph high bias day, ~2 mph high bias at night –Partly due to relative inability of winds in the model to go calm (There is always some wind) –Also due to starting thresholds of observation network… network cant measure winds < 3 mph, so winds < 3 mph are reported as calm Wind Speed

38. 38 MayJune JulyAugust

39. 39 MayJune JulyAugust

40. 40 General overestimation of clouds in the met model Greatest bias overnight & smallest bias early afternoon Nighttime cloud observations questionable Bias ~4% in May, peaks at ~15% in July, and declines to ~3% in September Cloud Cover

41. 41 General over prediction of clouds (example – July 18 2PM) Cloud Cover

42. 42 Mixed precipitation performance… typical of any summertime weather pattern / forecast Good performing day (Spatially and magnitude): Precipitation

43. 43 Poorer performing day (Magnitude okay is spots, but significant precip I-95 corridor that is false): Precipitation

44. 44 Observed Precip MAY Observed Precip JUNE Modeled Precip MAY Modeled Precip JUNE

45. 45 Observed Precip JULY Observed Precip AUGUST Modeled Precip JULY Modeled Precip AUGUST

46. 46 Comparisons With Other Met Modeling Studies The next series of slides are adapted from Alpine Geophysics documentation for the VISTAS AQ Modeling project. The bar charts are comparisons of VISTAS Phase I (Sensitivities) MM5 modeling to other national and Southeast regional MM5 simulations The performance characteristics of VISTAS Phase I MM5 modeling is very similar to VISTAS Phase II (Annual) MM5 Modeling

47. 47 National MM5 Comparisons

48. 48 The 3 green bars: - VISTAS 1 = January 2002 episode - VISTAS 2 = July 2001 episode - VISTAS 31 = July 1999 episode The yellow bars: - USEPAs 2001 Annual MM5 simulation

49. 49 The 3 green bars: - VISTAS 1 = January 2002 episode - VISTAS 2 = July 2001 episode - VISTAS 31 = July 1999 episode The yellow bars: - USEPAs 2001 Annual MM5 simulation

50. 50 The 3 green bars: - VISTAS 1 = January 2002 episode - VISTAS 2 = July 2001 episode - VISTAS 31 = July 1999 episode The yellow bars: - USEPAs 2001 Annual MM5 simulation

51. 51 The 3 green bars: - VISTAS 1 = January 2002 episode - VISTAS 2 = July 2001 episode - VISTAS 31 = July 1999 episode The yellow bars: - USEPAs 2001 Annual MM5 simulation

52. 52 The 3 green bars: - VISTAS 1 = January 2002 episode - VISTAS 2 = July 2001 episode - VISTAS 31 = July 1999 episode The yellow bars: - USEPAs 2001 Annual MM5 simulation

53. 53 Southeast Regional MM5 Comparisons

54. 54 North Carolina MJJAS 2002 T Error = 1.55 for all pairs

55. 55 North Carolina MJJAS 2002 WS RMSE = 1.84 for all pairs WS RMSE = 1.54 for no calms

56. 56 Closer to 1.0 indicates better performance North Carolina MJJAS 2002 WS IA = 0.73 for all pairs WS IA = 0.74 for no calms

57. 57 Take Away Messages The 2002 meteorological model performance: –Compares favorably to the performance in similar modeling projects / studies, including that of EPA –Can be considered State Of The Science The daytime biases would tend to contribute to lower ozone concentrations in the AQ model: –Cooler afternoon high temperatures –Higher relative humidity –Rapid atmospheric moisture increase late day –Greater cloud and precipitation coverage –Slightly higher wind speeds –Generally, a little too much atmospheric mixing

58. 58 2002 Emissions Overview Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ Environmental Engineer II

59. 59 Emissions Inventory Definitions ActualActual = the emissions inventory developed to simulate what happened in 2002 TypicalTypical = the emissions inventory developed to characterize the current emissions… It doesnt include specific events, but rather averages or typical conditions (e.g. Electric Generating Units and fires) FutureFuture = the emissions inventory developed to simulate the future (e.g. 2009 for Metrolina modeling) ***Note… Actual is used for model performance evaluation only! Typical and Future are used to determine future attainment status.

60. 60 Emission Source Categories –Point sources: utilities, refineries, industrial sources, etc. –Area sources: gas stations, dry cleaners, farming practices, fires, etc. –Motor vehicles: cars, trucks, buses, etc. –Nonroad mobile sources: agricultural equipment, recreational marine, lawn mowers, construction equipment, etc. –Biogenic: trees, vegetation, crops

61. 61 VISTAS 2002 Inventory Actual inventory developed for model evaluation Utilize June 2004 State Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) submittals –Actual 2002 calendar year inventories (Annual 2002) Augment State data where pollutants missing Process onroad mobile through MOBILE6 module of SMOKE emissions system Generate fires as specific daily events Improved temporal and spatial allocation for modeling –Use of actual Continuous Emissions Monitor (CEM) distributions –New CMU monthly ammonia (NH3) profiles by county/SCC

62. 62 VISTAS 2002 Inventory - Point Annual 2002 –Includes Electric Generating Units (EGUs), non-EGU point source data –Reviewed by stakeholders Hourly EGU data generated to temporally allocate emissions during appropriate episodes –Used United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) CEM and stakeholder provided data

63. 63 VISTAS 2002 Inventory - Fire Annual 2002 –Includes agricultural, prescribed, land clearing and wildfire data Modeling files generated using more specific raw data –Includes acres, dates, and locations of fire activity –Generated elevated fire file for sources with appropriate data elements (large wildfires and prescribed burns) –Non-elevated sources retained in county-level area source file

64. 64 VISTAS 2002 Inventory - Area Annual 2002 CMU NH3 model v.3.6 –Provides NH3 estimates from agricultural practices and other animal waste

65. 65 VISTAS 2002 Inventory – Onroad and Nonroad Onroad –Annual 2002 VMT and MOBILE6 inputs collected from States / Locals Nonroad –Annual 2002

66. 66 Emission Processing GriddingSpeciationTemporalEmission Inventory SMOKE Emission Model Air Quality Model

67. 67 Gridding 36 km 12 km

68. 68 36 km 12 km Speciation Converts emissions inventory VOCs to Carbon Bond IV Species

69. 69 Temporal 36 km 12 km Adjusts the annual emissions/data to the month of the year, day of the week and to the hour of the day Weekday diurnal profile for On-road Mobile

70. 70 Emission Processing GriddingSpeciationTemporalEmission Inventory SMOKE Emission Model Air Quality Model

71. 71 GSMNP Overview Laura Boothe, NCDAQ Attainment Planning Branch Chief

72. 72 GSMNP 8-hr Ozone Design Values Monitor Purchase Knob County Haywood 01-03 85 02-04 82 2005* 102 * 4 th highest 8-hr max in 2005 can be no higher than this value in order to continue to be in attainment by the end of the 2005 ozone season. ** Number of times the 4 th highest has been this value or lower in the last 5 years. # ** 5 of 5

73. 73 Ozone Nonattainment Timeline Definitions for GSMNP Area Effective date = June 15, 2004 Transportation conformity date = June 15, 2005* SIP submittal date = June 15, 2007 Attainment date = June 15, 2009** Data used to determine attainment = 2006-2008 (Modeling) Attainment year = 2008 *Isolated Rural Area **Or as early as possible

74. 74 2002 Air Quality Modeling Overview George Bridgers, NCDAQ Meteorologist

75. 75 Air Quality Modeling Community Multiscale Air Quality Model (CMAQ) –Version 4.4 (With SOA Modifications) –Widely used in the research & regulatory communities –VISTAS Contracted With UC-Riverside, Alpine Geophysics LLC, and ENVIRON International Corp –Run at both 36km (Nationwide) and 12km (Southeastern US) resolutions

76. 76 AQ Model Performance Metrolina Modeled Ozone Performance –1 & 8 Hour Statistical Tables –1 & 8 Hour Time Series And Statistical Plots Great Smoky Mountains Modeled Ozone Performance –1 & 8 Hour Statistical Tables –1 & 8 Hour Time Series And Statistical Plots Ozone Spatial Plots and Animations Summary Of AQ (Ozone) Model Performance

77. 77 Metrolina AQ Monitoring Network Overview Model Performance Statistical Tables –1 Hour Ozone Statistics –8 Hour Ozone Statistics Monitor Time Series And Statistical Plots –Rural Site: Crouse –Urban Site: Garinger –SC Site: York

78. 78 AQ Monitor Network Overview

79. 79 Model Performance Statistics 1 Hour Ozone

80. 80 Model Performance Statistics 8 Hour Ozone

81. 81 Crouse – 1 Hour Time Series

82. 82

83. 83

84. 84

85. 85

86. 86 Crouse – 8 Hour Time Series

87. 87

88. 88

89. 89

90. 90

91. 91 Garinger – 1 Hour Time Series

92. 92

93. 93

94. 94

95. 95

96. 96 Garinger – 8 Hour Time Series

97. 97

98. 98

99. 99

100. 100

101. 101 York, SC – 1 Hour Time Series

102. 102

103. 103

104. 104

105. 105

106. 106 York, SC – 8 Hour Time Series

107. 107

108. 108

109. 109

110. 110

111. 111 Great Smoky Mountains AQ Monitoring Network Overview Model Performance Statistical Tables –1 Hour Ozone Statistics –8 Hour Ozone Statistics Monitor Time Series And Statistical Plots –High Elevation Site: Clingmans Dome –Low Elevation Site: Cades Cove –Annual Time Series Site: Look Rock

112. 112 AQ Monitor Network Overview

113. 113 Model Performance Statistics 1 Hour Ozone

114. 114 Model Performance Statistics 8 Hour Ozone

115. 115 Clingmans Dome – 1 Hour Time Series

116. 116

117. 117

118. 118

119. 119

120. 120 Clingmans Dome – 8 Hour Time Series

121. 121

122. 122

123. 123

124. 124

125. 125 Cades Cove – 1 Hour Time Series

126. 126

127. 127

128. 128

129. 129

130. 130 Cades Cove – 8 Hour Time Series

131. 131

132. 132

133. 133

134. 134

135. 135 Look Rock – 1 Hour Time Series

136. 136

137. 137

138. 138

139. 139

140. 140

141. 141

142. 142

143. 143

144. 144

145. 145

146. 146

147. 147

148. 148 Spatial Plots And Animations Daily 1 Hour Peak Model Ozone Spatial Plots With Observations Overlaid –June 8 – 18 –July 14 – 20 –August 17 – 29

149. 149 June 8 – 18, 2002 Daily 1 Hour Peak Plots

150. 150

151. 151

152. 152

153. 153

154. 154

155. 155

156. 156 July 14 – 20, 2002 Daily 1 Hour Peak Plots

157. 157

158. 158

159. 159

160. 160

161. 161 August 17 – 29, 2002 Daily 1 Hour Peak Plots

162. 162

163. 163

164. 164

165. 165

166. 166

167. 167

168. 168

169. 169 Take Away Messages Under-predictions of the afternoon peak modeled ozone concentrations account for the majority of the negative bias and error. There are not significant spatial or temporal errors with the modeled ozone that held consistently throughout the 2002 Ozone Season. Episodic air quality (ozone) cycles are well captured by the CMAQ air quality model with reasonable buildup and clean-out of ozone concentrations.

170. 170 Take Away Messages Modeled ozone response at the high elevation sites of the Great Smoky Mountains deserves further investigation: –Horizontal and vertical grid resolution in the mountains –Modeled boundary layer dynamics at a ridge top location –Use of model layer 3 or 4 ozone instead of layer 1?

171. 171 Take Away Messages Thinking ahead to Typical and Future year modeling, Relative Reduction Factor (RRF) calculations, and the Modeled Attainment Test: –The relative sense of the modeling will make the afternoon peak under-predictions of ozone less significant and not influence strategy decisions. –There are a sufficient number of modeled days in this Base or Actual year modeling at each monitoring location that exceeds the 70ppb threshold to compute RRFs without the need for additional modeling.

172. 172 2002 typical and 2009 Emissions Overview Mike Abraczinskas, NCDAQ Environmental Engineer II

173. 173 Emissions Inventory Definitions ActualActual = the emissions inventory developed to simulate what happened in 2002 TypicalTypical = the emissions inventory developed to characterize the current (2002) emissions… It doesnt include specific events, but rather averages or typical conditions (e.g. EGUs and fires) FutureFuture = the emissions inventory developed to simulate the future (e.g. 2009 for Metrolina modeling) ***Remember… Actual is used for model performance evaluation only! Typical and Future are used to determine future attainment status.

174. 174 2002 typical & 2009 Emissions Comparison

175. 175 2002 typical & 2009 Emissions Comparison

176. 176 2002 typical and 2009 Point Source Summary Metrolina nonattainment area –NOx and VOC bar charts Plots of emission differences 2009-2002

177. 177

178. 178 * * * * Metrolina nonattainment area

179. 179 Point Source NOx 2009 minus 2002 (daily max difference, all layers) Increases only Scale 0 to 0.1 moles/s

180. 180 Point Source NOx 2009 minus 2002 (daily max difference, all layers) Decreases only Scale 0 to -0.1 moles/s

181. 181

182. 182 Point Source VOC 2009 minus 2002 (daily max difference, all layers) Increases only Scale 0 to 0.1 moles/s

183. 183 Point Source VOC 2009 minus 2002 (daily max difference, all layers) Decreases only Scale 0 to -0.1 moles/s

184. 184 2002 typical and 2009 Area Source Summary Metrolina nonattainment area –NOx and VOC

185. 185

186. 186

187. 187 2002 typical and 2009 Nonroad Source Summary Metrolina nonattainment area –NOx and VOC Plots of emission differences 2009-2002

188. 188

189. 189 NONROAD NOx 2009 minus 2002 (max difference) Reductions only Scale 0 to –0.1 moles/s

190. 190

191. 191 2002 typical and 2009 Onroad Mobile Source Summary Metrolina nonattainment area –NOx and VOC Plots of emission differences 2009-2002 Animation of 2009 NOx Metrolina NOx per county per vehicle type

192. 192

193. 193 Cabarrus County 2002 NOx Emissions 2009 NOx Emissions

194. 194 Gaston County 2002 NOx Emissions 2009 NOx Emissions

195. 195 Iredell County 2002 NOx Emissions2009 NOx Emissions

196. 196 Lincoln County 2002 NOx Emissions2009 NOx Emissions

197. 197 Mecklenburg County 2002 NOx Emissions2009 NOx Emissions

198. 198 Rowan County 2002 NOx Emissions2009 NOx Emissions

199. 199 Union County 2002 NOx Emissions2009 NOx Emissions

200. 200 ONROAD Mobile NOx 2009 minus 2002 (max difference) Reductions only Scale 0 to –0.5 moles/s

201. 201

202. 202 Identification of Potential NOx and VOC Control Measures Laura Boothe, NCDAQ Attainment Planning Branch Chief

203. 203 What is Needed to Meet 15% VOC Plan? –Reviewing preliminary emission values to see how close we are to meeting the 15% VOC requirement Potential point source reductions from meeting RACT & MACT requirements? Will look at reductions from extending lower reid vapor pressure (RVP) requirements in Metrolina area –Currently 7.8 psi in Mecklenburg & Gaston Counties & 9.0 psi for other Metrolina counties.

204. 204 What is Needed to Show Attainment? –Will review preliminary air quality results to see how close we are to meeting the 8-hour ozone NAAQS –If not attaining, will look for additional NOx controls Will have to address RACM requirements Potential point source reductions to meet NOx RACT requirements Will review emission inventories and potential control measures to get greatest reductions for the cost –Need Stakeholders to assist in coming up with potential cost effective control measures

205. 205 Schedule/Next Steps Expect preliminary 2009 air quality modeling results in mid-June June 28, 2005 meeting –Review 02-09 emissions –Present preliminary air quality modeling results Attainment test –2009 Sensitivity modeling (later this summer/fall) –Control Strategy discussion (if needed) 15% VOC plan Controls needed for 8-hr ozone NAAQS –Outline next steps

206. 206 Contributors South Carolina Department of Health and Environment Conservation Pat Brewer, VISTAS Greg Stella, Alpine Geophysics Cyndi Loomis, Alpine Geophysics Don Olerud, Baron Advanced Meteorological Systems Bill Barnard, MACTEC Ed Sabo, MACTEC Kristen Theising, PECHAN Ralph Morris, ENVIRON Gail Tonneson, University of California-Riverside Dennis McNally, Alpine Geophysics Jim Boylan, Georgia Environmental Protection Department Sheila Holman, NCDAQ Bebhinn Do, NCDAQ Nick Witcraft, NCDAQ Phyllis Jones, NCDAQ Vicki Chandler, NCDAQ Pat Bello, NCDAQ Bob Wooten, NCDAQ Matt Mahler, NCDAQ Janice Godfrey, NCDAQ Ming Xie, NCDAQ Mildred Mitchell, NCDAQ VISTAS Stakeholders

207. 207 Questions/Comments http://ncair.org Laura Boothe, Chief of Attainment Planning 919-733-1488 Laura.Boothe@ncmail.net Mike Abraczinskas, Environmental Engineer II 919-715-3743 Michael.Abraczinskas@ncmail.net George Bridgers, Meteorologist 919-715-6287 George.Bridgers@ncmail.net

208. 208 Thank You!