Alternative Fuels as a Means to Reduce PM2.5 Emissions at Airports (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Airport Cooperative Research Program Project ACRP 02-23: Alternative Fuels as a Means to Reduce PM2.5 Emissions at Airports 22 CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY AIRPORTS The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the methodology used to identify the case study airports for which the local air quality impacts of airport-related PM2.5 EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS have been quantified in Chapter 6 and Appendix E. Selected from a pool of the FAA’s 388 primary airports, 138 candidate airports were subjected to further evaluation based on their activity levels. The evaluation criteria used in identifying, evaluating and selecting the case study airports were initially identified in the original ACRP 02- 23 project proposal. The final evaluation criteria, case study airport justification and recommended airport selection were presented to the ACRP 02-23 project panel and agreed upon. Importantly, the principal evaluation criteria were the availability and appropriateness of data for those airports that were most likely to participate in the ACRP 02-23 project. Factors that affect PM2.5 formation, dispersion, and reduction at airports were also considered to be important. These include fuel types (e.g., jet fuel, AvGas, biodiesel), emission sources and performance characteristics (e.g., aircraft, GSE, road vehicles), particulate matter size and composition (PM10, PM2.5 and PM0.1), climatological and meteorological conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, wind speed), and various spatial (distances from source to receptor) and temporal (travel and residence times) factors. The techniques by which airport-related PM2.5 • Activity levels conducive to conducting a PM emissions and the effects of alternative fuels are assessed (e.g., emission factors, dispersion models, air quality monitoring methods) are similarly viewed as important. Therefore, the following evaluation criteria (listed in alphabetical order) were considered: 2.5 • NAAQS attainment status for PM assessment • Existing emissions inventory, atmospheric dispersion, air quality monitoring, and airport activity data 2.5 • Existing or planned alternative fuels programs • Meteorology, climate, geography and demographics • Willingness to participate in the ACRP 02-23 project Based on the screening process, discussed further in Appendix B, a total of 16 airports were viewed as good representatives of the criteria considered necessary to assess the effects of alternative fuels on PM2.5 SELECTED CASE STUDY AIRPORTS emissions and concentrations. From the 16 potential case study airports identified in the screening process, the following five airports were identified as being the best representatives of all of the candidate airports considered based on data availability, willingness to participate, PM2.5 • Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) – ATL is the busiest airport in the U.S. and is located in a mid-latitude warm climate. Emissions inventories have non-attainment designations, alternative fuel programs and the other evaluation criteria.

Airport Cooperative Research Program Project ACRP 02-23: Alternative Fuels as a Means to Reduce PM2.5 Emissions at Airports 23 been conducted recently at this airport, although up-to-date atmospheric dispersion modeling is absent. The City of Atlanta (the airport operator) and its airline tenants are planning alternative fuel programs. • Las Vegas McCarran International Airport (LAS) – Although the area surrounding LAS currently attains all PM2.5 NAAQS, it is located within a “serious” PM10 non- attainment area. It represents a large-hub, commercial service airport (ranked seventh in the U.S.) in a mid-latitude, warm and arid climate. A PM2.5 air monitoring network exists in the area, and a recently prepared airport emissions inventory and dispersion modeling analysis of PM2.5 • Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (MHT) – MHT is representative of a small-hub, commercial service airport (ranked 66 is available. Moreover, this assessment was conducted using the Total Airspace and Airport Modeler (TAAM) airfield simulation. Extensive GSE survey data on an airline-by-airline basis were available, as were operating time data, and detailed traffic and stationary source data. th • Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) – PHL represents a large-hub, commercial service airport (ranked 18 in the U.S., evenly mixed between commercial, air taxi, and General Aviation (GA)). It is located in a mid-latitude, cold-weather climate. An airport emissions inventory was recently completed for MHT, but dispersion modeling is absent. th in the U.S., evenly mixed between commercial, commuter, and air taxi). It is located in a mid-latitude temperate climate on the east coast. The airport is in a non-attainment area for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 • San Diego International Airport (SAN) – SAN represents a large-hub, commercial service airport (ranked 26 NAAQS, and has an existing and expanding alternative fuel program. As part of the 2010 PHL Capacity Enhancement Program environmental impact statement (EIS), extensive emissions inventory and dispersion modeling data exist for this airport. The assessment was conducted with the use of TAAM airfield simulation, extensive GSE survey data, operating time data, and detailed traffic and stationary source data. th Appendix B presents detailed information on the evaluation process, documentation of the representativeness of the case study airports to the overall U.S. airport system and documentation of other airports that were considered to be case studies. in the U.S.). It is located in a mid-latitude, warm, west-coast climate. Emissions inventory and dispersion modeling analyses were prepared for SAN as part of the 2009 Master Plan Airport Improvement Program and 2010 Air Quality Management Plan. The assessments were conducted using the Airport and Airspace Simulation Model (SIMMOD) airfield simulation and included GSE survey data, operating time data, and detailed traffic and stationary source data.