United States Air and Radiation EPA420-R-99-013
Environmental Protection April 1999
Agency
v>EPA Evaluation of Air Pollutant
Emissions from Subsonic
Commercial Jet Aircraft
> Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
EPA420-R-99-013
April 1999
Final Report
Evaluation of Air Pollutant Emissions
from Subsonic Commercial Jet Aircraft
Engine Programs and Compliance Division
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Prepared for EPA by
ICF Consulting Group
EPA Contract No. 68-C-98-170
Work Assignment No. 0-3
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the people who have contributed to the development of
this report. The report was peer reviewed by Dr. Roger Wayson of the University of Central
Florida (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering), who has expertise in
environmental impact and air pollution analyses at airports. Dr. Wayson's comments were
incorporated into the report appropriately.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-l
1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1
Background -United States 1-2
Background - International Perspective 1-3
Public Health and Aircraft Emissions 1-4
Report Organization 1-5
2 - ESTIMATING COMMERCIAL JET AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS 2-1
Methodology for Commercial Jet Aircraft Emissions Estimation 2-1
Selection of Metropolitan Areas 2-2
Airport Activity 2-3
Future Aircraft Activity Projections 2-5
Time-in-Mode (TIM) Estimation 2-7
Fleet Characterization 2-9
Emission Factor Selection 2-10
3 -AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS 3-1
Inventory Limitations and Caveats 3-4
4 - AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS CONTRIBUTION 4-1
5 - CONCLUSIONS 5-1
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDIX A: Health Effects of Aircraft Emissions
APPENDIX B: Emissions Calculation Methodology
APPENDIX C: Ozone Nonattainment Area Maps
APPENDIX D: Airport Activity Projections
APPENDIX E: Time-In-Mode Data and Assumptions
APPENDIX F: Aircraft/Engine Emission Factor Database
APPENDIX G: Facility-Specific and Regional Emissions Summaries
APPENDIX H: EPA Regional Emission Estimates for 1990 and 2010
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Mobile Sources initiated this
study in order to assess the existing and potential impact of aircraft emissions on local air quality
at ten selected cities. Aircraft emissions and airport related emissions have received considerable
attention in recent years, both on national and international agendas.
Recent activities, such as the Clean Airport Summit (held in Denver December 1997), a National
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report, and correspondence from state and local air quality
agencies, reflect increased awareness of ground-level aircraft emissions. State and local air
quality officials are seeking strategies for cost-effective emissions reductions to comply with
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Perhaps most significant on the national agenda, EPA
and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have convened a multi-stakeholder process to seek a
voluntary agreement on ground-level emissions reductions actions for commercial aircraft and
aviation-related emissions.
In order to focus the analysis, EPA made the following decisions regarding the scope of this
study:
Estimate the emissions from commercial jet aircraft only (exclude emissions from on board
auxiliary power units)
Select ten cities with current or potential local air quality problems, as indicated by
compliance with the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Rely on the methodology presented in EPA Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation,
Volume 4 : Mobile Sources, dated 1992
Seek data sources that are national in scope and readily available
Use 1990 as a base year, and 2010 as the projection year due to availability of total regional
emission data for these years, and the desire to identify potential long-term trends in
emissions growth.
In the study, one portion of the airport-related emissions, commercial aircraft, were projected to
the year 2010. After an initial draft of the study was prepared, EPA invited comments on the
draft report from the multi-stakeholder group. The most significant comments are included in
text boxes throughout the report.
The analytical results of the study confirm that commercial aircraft emissions have the potential
to significantly contribute to air pollution in the ten study areas. Study results indicate that in
1990, for NOx, the aircraft component of the regional mobile source emissions ranged from 0.6%
to 3.6%. In the 2010 projection year for all cities studied, the projected ground-level emissions
from commercial aircraft increased in absolute terms. The proportion of total urban emissions
attributable to aircraft also increased for all ten cities (range from 1.9% to 10.4% of the regional
mobile source NOx emissions); these proportions were calculated using aircraft emissions
calculated in this study and total emissions from 1990 and 2010 inventories previously developed
by EPA. While there is uncertainty associated with these estimates for the projection year, they
E-l
-------
generally suggest an increase in ground-level emissions from commercial aircraft as a result of
forecast growth in the aviation sector.
Comments received from reviewers of the draft study indicated that uncertainty may exist in the
national forecasts of growth in aircraft activity, on future composition of the aircraft fleet, and on
the accuracy of a default mixing height. Such uncertainties carry over into proj ections of future
emissions, and resolution of uncertainties may result in higher or lower ground-level emissions
estimates from future aircraft. In order to reduce the uncertainty of the results presented,
additional areas for investigation would be
Improvements in activity forecasts to account for supply-side constraints that could dampen
growth rates (e.g., infrastructure limitations, funding limitations, limited gate availability,
regulatory constraints)
Improvements in forecasts of national level fleet turnover
Addition of sensitivity analyses for the above key parameters and others such as mixing
height
Thus, this study has achieved its initial goals and creates a basic understanding of ground-level
aircraft emissions contribution. It provides an estimation of the contribution of aircraft to air
quality emissions in ten urban areas, confirms that investigation of cost-effective control options
on aircraft emissions is warranted, and highlights the need for improvements in the quality of
national level data as noted by reviewers of the draft study if more certainty is desired. Reliance
upon the study's conclusions should take into account the caveats noted in this report.
E-2
-------
1 - INTRODUCTION
Many U.S. cities face significant air quality problems. New National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone (Cb) and particulates (PM) promulgated in 1997 serve to
highlight the continuing threat to public health posed by air pollution from human activities. In
light of these challenges, air quality officials must evaluate all possible ways to control pollutant
emissions. Consequently, all pollutant sources are being evaluated for potential emissions
reductions. In this context, commercial jet aircraft are under increasing scrutiny because they are
expected to comprise a growing proportion of regional emissions in the coming decades.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Trends report of 1997 estimates
that aircraft1 are responsible for about one percent of the total U.S ground-level emissions from
mobile sources2. Commercial aircraft comprise almost 70 percent of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
emissions from the total aircraft sector (commercial, military, and general aviation). They are
one of the fastest growing segments of the transportation sector's regional pollutant contribution.
As shown in Figure 1-1, between 1970 and 1995, hydrocarbon (HC) and NOx emissions from
aircraft sources have grown 53 percent (EPA, 1997b) despite implementation of HC and NOX
standards for commercial aircraft engines.3
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relative importance of aircraft emissions as an
emissions source that affects local air quality. In order to provide a specific context for the
inquiry, emissions were calculated for a base year, 1990 and a projection year, 2010, for ten
selected urban areas. The ten cities were selected based on their preexisting status as locations
where air quality problems currently exist or are likely to become more significant. Thus, the
study may not provide a comprehensive perspective on emissions and is not necessarily
representative of aircraft emissions in all urban areas.
In conducting the analysis, the methodology outlined by EPA's guidance document for preparing
emission estimates for mobile sources4 was applied. In order to provide consistent estimates
across the ten cities, nationwide data sources were sought. Available data, particularly on the
future composition of the aircraft fleet and on the number of takeoffs and landings in future
years, were limited to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Forecasts developed for
FAA planning and decision making. These forecasts contain the basic information needed for
the 2010 projections. FAA reported that when they have looked back to evaluate previous
forecasts, they found that these forecasts were reasonably accurate. However, because they were
not developed with the expressed purpose of emissions modeling, some additional information
and analysis was needed to better reflect the impacts of changes in fleet composition. Even
1 Including commercial, military and general aviation travel. This report looks at exhaust from main engines only
and does not include auxiliary power unit emissions.
2 The National Trends report is a nationwide emissions study, but it may not be representative of aviation's
contribution in air quality problem areas that have few, if any, rural areas. The contribution varies by area, and in
urban areas it is generally more. When aircraft emissions for CO, NOx, and VOC are summed they equal 1.27% and
1.38% as a percent of the total 1990 and 1996 mobile source inventories, respectively.
3 For commercial aircraft engines greater than 26.7 kilonewtons (6000 Ibs) rated output, the HC standard is 19.6
grams/kilonewton beginning in 1984. For NOX, the standard was ((40+2 rated pressure ratio)g/kN rate output)
beginning in 1986 (due to ICAO standards).
4 Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.
1-1
-------
though adjustments were made to make the FAA projections more useful, as is described later in
the report, some uncertainty remains because the projections did not capture localized
complexities such as each airline's decision-making about fleet composition and potential airport
or airways capacity constraints (e.g., infrastructure, slot-controlled airports, general conformity).
Taken as a whole, the FAA estimates were thought by EPA to be adequate for the purposes of
this initial study.
Figure 1-1. U.S. Aircraft Emission Trends, 1970 - 1995.
Year
EPA's interest is not only the absolute emissions totals, but also in the relative proportion of
regional inventories generated by commercial jet aircraft. Thus, in the final section of this report,
the proportion of the total urban inventories attributable to aircraft are calculated.
Background - United States
In addition to EPA, many other groups have recently voiced their concern over aircraft emissions.
In Flying Off Course., the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) highlighted ground-level
emissions from aircraft as one of the four most important environmental issues connected to
airports.5 The authors assert that there is an inadequate regulatory framework for addressing this
issue, and point out that the projected increases in air travel in the coming decades will only
exacerbate the problem. The results of the NRDC study were one of several key presentations at
the October, 1997 Clean Airport Summit, co-sponsored in part by EPA, the U.S. Department of
Energy's Clean Cities Program, and several other public and private organizations.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), STAPPA/ALAPCO6 and
NESCAUM7 recently sent letters to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
arguing for greater efforts on the part of FAA and EPA to require the aircraft industry to reduce
emissions in a manner consistent with other regulated sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
5 The other significant environmental issues were noise and land use, water pollution, and climate change/energy
efficiency.
6 State and Territorial Air Pollution Program/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
7 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management.
1-2
-------
(Kenny, 1998; Becker, Kodjak, 1998). More specifically, through its stationary source
provisions found primarily in Title V, the CAA requires that new stationary and industrial
sources install state-of-the-art technology and that existing sources retrofit their operations with
reasonable and cost effective controls. For mobile sources, EPA continues to require new
regulations for automobiles, even though these sources have reduced their emissions on a per
vehicle basis by 98 percent over the past 25 years. In what is perhaps a more reasonable
comparison to commercial aviation, locomotive emissions, which are unregulated until 2000 will
be required to achieve a 66 percent reduction in NOx emissions beginning in 2005. The letters
point out the importance of supporting not only the International Civil Aviation Organization's
(ICAO) latest 16 percent reduction in new aircraft engine NOX certification standards (see next
section), but also advocate other aircraft emissions control programs.
Since the preparation of the draft study, EPA and FAA have convened a multi-stakeholder
process to reach a voluntary agreement on measures to reduce the ground-level emissions from
commercial aircraft and other aviation related sources. Participants in this process represent
industry, airports, states, environmental groups and other stakeholders. As one of their initial
tasks, participants reviewed a draft of this report. Considerable concern was voiced over the
appropriateness of the methodology for reaching conclusions on the relative importance of
aircraft emissions to urban area-wide emissions. Indeed, this study has prompted the multi-
stakeholder group to work with EPA and FAA to pursue additional data and identify research
needs for improving such an assessment including, in particular, data required to quantify future
emissions growth with more certainty.
Background - International Perspective
Aircraft emissions are an issue of global concern.8 In addition to the national level developments
described above, ICAO has been evaluating current and projected pollutant contributions of
aircraft and airport operations. In 1994, the Emissions at and around Airports Subgroup (EASG)
of ICAO undertook a series of studies to develop future scenarios for seven representative
airports around the world. The primary focus of the analysis was the assessment of emissions
levels in the immediate vicinity of the airport facility. The results indicate that while overall
emissions from these facilities will remain the same or decrease due to anticipated pollution
controls on ground-support and service vehicles, aircraft-induced NOX pollution will, depending
on the specific scenario, increase by a factor of two to three between 1992 and 2015 (ICAO,
1994). While the EASG conclusions are an important addition to the study of air quality effects
around airports resulting from aircraft operations, they do not address the contribution of aircraft
emissions to regional air quality problems.
In a more recent study the Forecasting and Economic Analysis Subgroup (FESG) of ICAO's
Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) developed long-term (to 2050),
worldwide aircraft emissions scenarios based upon work previously conducted by National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).9 The NASA results indicate an 11 percent
reduction in hydrocarbon emissions from scheduled air traffic (which is primarily commercial jet
In both national and international assessments of aircraft technology options, safety concerns are a primary
evaluation criterion, and any technology alternatives for emission reductions are screened for potential safety
concerns prior to implementation recommendations.
9 The NASA work relied on aviation traffic and activity forecasts made by Boeing for other purposes. See ICAO,
1998a, page 19.
1-3
-------
aircraft) between 1992 and 2015. However, CO emissions show a 226 percent increase and NOX
a 190 percent increase over the same period. The estimated increase in NOX is limited by the
assumption that 70 percent of fuel consumption occurs in engines with NOX certification
standards between 20 and 40 percent below the current international standard (ICAO, 1998a).
The new international NOx standard to be implemented beginning in 2004 is about 16 percent
below the current standard, and thus, at this point it appears that the NASA study may
underestimate future global NOx emissions. It is important to note, however, that the FESG
effort was based upon international forecasts which included regions of the world that are
growing two to three times as fast as the U.S.
The Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection CAEP/2 NOx certification standard
represents a technology limit that is demonstrably achievable today. Regarding the next NOx
standard agreed to at CAEP/4 in April 1998, the Forecasting and Economic Analysis Support
Group (FESG) of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) concludes in its
Working Paper 4 (WP/4) that the proposed increase in NOx stringency for new engines would
have modest impacts on overall aircraft emissions. The CAEP/4 report should be referred to for
a discussion of the stringency proposal (ICAO, 1998c). In fact, the majority of modern engine
types in production and entering service are known to be compliant with the proposed CAEP/4
NOx standard. Some other engines currently in service can be brought to similar performance
standards through modest-cost modifications. The FESG concludes, the benefits of the proposal
in terms of reducing the global emissions burden will be marginal. The proposed standard
merely insures that future engines will not have NOx emissions that are higher than present
technology allows (ICAO, 1998b).
Public Health and Aircraft Emissions
As noted above, the new, more stringent NAAQS for ozone and PM highlight the need for state
and local air quality officials to consider new ways to reduce regional emissions and achieve the
health-based national air quality standards. In particular, they have significant concerns
regarding the effect of NOX on local and regional environments. Tropospheric NOX has multiple
environmental quality impacts including not only contributing to ground-level Os and PM, but
also air toxic concentrations, excess nitrogen loads to sensitive water bodies, and acidification of
sensitive ecosystems (EPA, 1997a).
Ultimately, EPA's principal concern in evaluating and controlling emissions is the preservation
of human health and, secondarily, the protection of public welfare (including protection against
damage to crops, vegetation, animals, and buildings). In this regard, some general observations
about the entire category of mobile sources can be made. Mobile sources emit VOC and NOX
(Os precursors), PM (both PMio and PM2.s), SO2 and CO. Other air pollutant species include
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in the particulate emissions and certain volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). The health effects of these pollutants are summarized in Table
1.110; Table 1.2 summarizes the major environmental effects of the same pollutants. As with the
health effects, these environmental effects will vary considerably with the amount of pollutant
10 This information was compiled from official US EPA sources and is only an overview. More complete
information is available in the appropriate Criteria Documents. See website www.epa. gov/ncea.
1-4
-------
and the duration of its exposure to the environment. Appendix A provides a more detailed
summary of the health effects of emissions from air pollution.
Table 1.1. Representative health effects of air pollutants.
Pollutant
Representative Health Effects
Ozone
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Parti cul ate Matter
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Lung function impairment, effects on exercise performance,
increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to
respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and
emergency room visits, and pulmonary inflammation, lung
structure damage.
Cardiovascular effects, especially in those persons with heart
conditions (e.g., decreased time to onset of exercise-induced
angina).
Lung irritation and lower resistance to respiratory infections
Premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, changes in lung function and
increased respiratory symptoms, changes to lung tissues and
structure, and altered respiratory defense mechanisms.
Eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness,
visual disorders, and memory impairment.
Table 1.2. Representative environmental effects of air pollutants.
Pollutant
Representative Environmental Effects
Ozone
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Parti cul ate Matter
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Crop damage, damage to trees and decreased resistance to
disease for both crops and other plants.
Similar health effects on animals as on humans.
Acid rain, visibility degradation, particle formation,
contribution towards ozone formation.
Visibility degradation and monument and building soiling,
safety effects for aircraft from reduced visibility.
Contribution towards ozone formation, odors and some
direct effect on buildings and plants.
Report Organization
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Section 2 presents the methodology used to calculate commercial jet aircraft emissions for
the selected cities;
Section 3 presents the analysis results for the 1990 base year and 2010 future year;
Section 4 discusses the implications for attainment of the NAAQS based upon the analysis
results, and presents trends in air travel and aircraft emissions in the coming decades;
Section 5 presents the conclusions of the initial study;
Appendix A contains information regarding the health effects of aircraft emissions;
1-5
-------
Appendix B presents the methodology used to calculate aircraft emissions;
Appendix C contains maps of the Ozone Nonattainment Areas selected for this study;
Appendix D presents the airport activity projections;
Appendix E contains time-in-mode data and assumptions;
Appendix F contains the aircraft/engine emission factor database used for this study;
Appendix G presents facility-specific and regional aircraft emissions summaries; and
Appendix H summarizes selected EPA regional emission estimates for 1990 and 2010 for the
ten cities.
1-6
-------
2 - ESTIMATING COMMERCIAL JET AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS
This analysis estimates ground level emissions from aircraft; thus, the landing and takeoff cycle
(LTO) defines the aircraft activity of interest. LTO emissions are all of these emissions which
occur within the mixing layer, as discussed below. Emissions during flight at cruising altitude
are not within the scope of this study. An LTO cycle begins as the aircraft descends from
cruising altitude and approaches and lands at the airport. The second step in the landing portion
of the cycle is taxi to the gate and subsequent idle. The next three steps are the three operating
modes in the takeoff portion of the cycle: taxi-out/idle, takeoff, and climbout. These five LTO
cycle operating modes are defined by the existence of standard power settings for a given aircraft,
so the modes represent an appropriate basis for estimating emissions.
The five major air pollutant species which comprise the most significant emissions from
commercial jet aircraft are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides
of nitrogen (NOx), particulates (PM), and sulfur dioxide (802). VOCs and CO emission rates
are highest when engines are operating at low power, such as when idling or taxiing. Conversely,
NOx emissions rise with increasing power level and combustion temperature. Accordingly, the
highest NOx emissions occur during takeoff and climbout.
PM emissions result from the incomplete combustion of fuel. High power operation, such as
takeoff and climbout, produce the highest PM emission rates due to the high fuel consumption
under those conditions. PM emission test data for aircraft engines are sparse, and engine-specific
PM emission factors are available for only a few engine models.
SO2 emissions are created when sulfur in the fuel combines with oxygen during the combustion
process. Fuels with higher sulfur contents will produce higher amounts of SO2 than low-sulfur
fuels.11 It is generally assumed that during combustion, all sulfur in the fuel reacts to form SO2 or
sulfates.12
Methodology for Commercial Jet Aircraft Emissions Estimation
The EPA's basic methodology for calculating aircraft emissions at any given airport in any given
year can be summarized in six steps:
1) Determine airport activity in terms of the number of landing and takeoffs (LTOs).
2) Determine the mixing height to be used to define an LTO cycle.
3) Define the fleet make-up at the airport.
4) Estimate time-in-mode (TIM).
5) Select emission factors.
6) Calculate emissions based on the airport activity, TIM, and aircraft emission factors.
11 The sulfur content in commercial jet fuel is limited to 0.3 weight (wt) %; however, most in-use fuel has a sulfur
content significantly less than this limit. The 1996 average sulfur concentration of U.S. commercial jet fuels found
in-use was reported in the NIPER survey at 0.062wt % (Dickson and Sturm, 1997).
12 In addition to SO2, a small amount of SOS forms during combustion.
2-1
-------
Steps five and six are repeated for each type of aircraft using a given airport. For the projection
year in this study, 2010, the final step is to adjust the emission to account for fleet turnover
during the 1990 to 2010 period.
Appendix B contains a detailed discussion of each analysis step, consistent with EPA's
Procedures for Emissions Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources (EP A, 1992). The
remainder of this section describes the approaches and data sources used in each of the above
steps to analyze commercial jet aircraft emissions in each often selected U.S. cities.
Selection of Metropolitan Areas
In order to illustrate the contribution of commercial jet aircraft to pollutant emissions levels, ten
cities were selected for evaluation. Nine of these metropolitan areas are currently not in
attainment of NAAQS for ozone; the tenth city has attained the ozone standard and is considered
an ozone "maintenance" area. Areas were chosen based upon the severity of air quality problem,
size and number of regional airports, and data availability. In selecting areas, the severity of the
air quality problem was evaluated primarily based on ozone attainment status. With the
promulgation of more restrictive NAAQS for ozone, states will need to examine new sources for
ozone reduction. NOx, a pollutant of concern from aircraft emissions, is an ozone precursor.
Another criterion, geographic location, was used to select an area from each major region of the
U.S. Table 2-1 presents the ten areas and their EPA-determined attainment status for ozone.
Table 2-1. Regions chosen for evaluation.
Nonattainment Area
Atlanta
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester
Charl otte-Gastoni a
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
New York-New Jersey-Long Island
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Los Angeles Air Basin
Washington, D.C.
Designation
Serious
Serious
Attainment (at risk)
Severe- 17
Severe- 17
Severe- 17
Serious
Serious
Extreme
Serious
Population (000' s)14
2,654
5,506
687
7,886
3,731
17,651
6,010
2,092
13,000
3,921
Appendix C contains maps of the nine areas designated as nonattainment.
13 See www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/define.html#Designations for the existing ozone nonattainment area
designation definitions.
14 Populations are from EPA web site as of July 3, 1998. www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greeenbk/ontc.html. For
Charlotte-Gastonia, the final portion of the address is omtc.html. The populations in Table 2-1 are for the entire
metropolitan area and do not reflect the much smaller populations living near airports.
2-2
-------
As can be seen, the majority of the selected areas are designated as Serious nonattainment or
worse for ozone. Phoenix and Charlotte were also included due to predicted regional growth
over the next 20 years and because of their high-traffic airports. Phoenix was recently re-
designated as a serious ozone nonattainment area, and Charlotte faces potential re-designation as
nonattainment under the new NAAQS for ozone.15
Nineteen airport facilities with significant commercial jet aircraft activity were identified within
the nonattainment (or potential nonattainment) boundaries of the selected areas. Table 2-2 lists
each facility and its corresponding FAA code, as well as its rank nationally in terms of passenger
enplanements.
Each area and airport facility has unique attributes that determine the magnitude of aircraft
emissions. The following presents the analysis assumptions used to estimate jet aircraft
emissions contribution to regional emissions for each of the above regions of interest.
Airport Activity
As noted above, the rate at which an engine emits a particular pollutant is directly related to its
activity. Both the frequency and mode of operation are important components of this activity.16
For the purpose of emissions estimation, commercial aircraft activity is measured in LTO cycles.
For the Los Angeles region, a detailed summary of 1990 airport activity is available in the
technical support document for the California Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) (EPA, 1994).
For other regions, the analysis relied upon the EPA-recommended source for activity data on
commercial aircraft, Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers, which is
published annually by the FAA and provides departures by air carrier for each airport (USDOT,
1990a). The report covers all air carriers that are required to file certain information with the
DOT. These air carriers are those with at least one aircraft that has more than 60 passenger seats
or a maximum cargo capacity above 18,000 pounds. All such US air carriers that meet the
criteria and that use an airport in a given year are included in this report. Because each LTO
cycle includes one departure and one landing, the number of departures in the DOT data were
assumed to equal the number of LTO cycles.
The following aircraft are not included in the FAA statistics: aircraft owned and operated by
foreign air carriers; aircraft owned by U.S. air carriers that perform commuter and on-demand
operations,17; general aviation aircraft; and military aircraft. Of these activities, the most frequent
are those of non-U.S. carriers, so they were accounted for in the analysis. Non-U.S. carriers are
required to report to DOT all non-stop route segments when at least one point is in a U.S. State
or territory, and DOT compiles monthly summaries of this information in its T100 database
15 EPA will designate areas as nonattainment for new NAAQS of ozone by the year 2000. Areas have up to ten years
after the date of designation to attain the revised standards. For areas not meeting the existing ozone NAAQS, the
existing NAAQS remains in effect until EPA determines that an area has air quality meeting the existing standards.
16 For an individual aircraft, the key factors are frequency (i.e., number of takeoffs and landings), mode of operations
(i.e., time in mode), and number of engines. For an individual engine a complex matrix of interrelated factors
influences emissions. These include bypass ratios, combustor technology, pressure ratios, combustor temperature,
thrust, and engine design.
17 By definition, aircraft in this category do not have more than 60 passenger seats or a maximum cargo capacity
above 18,000 pounds.
2-3
-------
(USDOT, 1990b). For all selected areas except Los Angeles, 1990 foreign carrier activity was
extracted from this database. For the Los Angeles air basin, the aircraft activity used in the
California FIP included both U.S. and foreign carriers (EPA, 1994). No readily available data
source was identified for air carriers whose fleets are comprised solely of smaller aircraft or for
general aviation aircraft because such activity was beyond the scope of this study.
Table 2-2. Airport facilities of interest by region
Nonattainment Area
Atlanta
Boston-Lawrence-Worcester* *
Charlotte
Chicago-Gary-Lake County
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria* *
Los Angeles Air Basin**
New York-New Jersey-
Long Island**
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington, D.C.**
Airport Name
Hartsfield
Logan
Douglas*
Midway*
O'Harelntl.*
George Bush Intl.
Hobby
Burbank
John Wayne
Long Beach
Los Angeles Intl.
Ontario
Kennedy
La Guardia
Newark
Philadelphia Intl.
Sky Harbor Intl.*
Dulles
Washington National
FAA Code
ATL
BOS
CLT
MOW
ORD
IAH
HOU
BUR
SNA
LGB
LAX
ONT
JFK
LGA
EWR
PHL
PHX
IAD
DCA
Rank18
2
16
20
39
1
17
41
60
42
156
3
51
8
21
12
24
10
31
26
* Indicates military aircraft are present at airport.
** Military operates aircraft at separate military bases in nonattainment area.
Note: Military air activity at above airports are probably small Air National Guard units, except at Sky
Harbor International, which contains an Air Force base.
18
Rank order by total enplaned passengers for 1996 (USDOT, 1996).
2-4
-------
Future Aircraft Activity Projections
For the years 1990 through 1996, total actual commercial
aircraft operations for each airport were used to calculate an
annual activity growth rate19. For years 1997 through 2010,
forecast operations by facility were obtained from FAA
Aviation Forecasts, 1997-2008 and FAA Aviation Forecasts,
1999-201020. Facility-specific operations forecasts were used
to calculate 1997 through 2010 annual growth rates, which
were then used to estimate total LTOs for each year. Prior to
applying the fleet turnover assumptions (described below), all
airlines and aircraft types at a particular facility were assumed
to experience the same rate of growth. The assumption was
required because only facility-level growth projections were
readily available. It is appropriate because the growth is
distributed across the same range of aircraft sizes as currently
in service at a facility. Table 2-3 summarizes the estimated
growth in LTOs from 1990 to 2010 for each airport of interest
and Figure 2-1 presents the data graphically. Appendix D
provides more detailed tabular and graphical summaries of
assumed yearly LTO growth for each facility. For the 19
airports listed, growth averaged 31 percent for the 20 years
from 1990 to 2010. This corresponds to an annual growth rate
of approximately 1.4 percent.
As can be seen, there is wide variation in the expected activity
change both regionally and for each facility. While some
airports are predicted to have minimal growth, others such as
Charlotte's Douglas, Washington's Dulles, and Houston's
Intercontinental airports are predicted to have significant air
traffic increases over 1990 activity levels. This can be
expected to cause an associated increase in the pollutant
emissions attributable to commercial aircraft in these regions.
^Stakeholder Comments -
Growth Projections
Extensive comments were received
from stakeholders on the
appropriateness of using the FAA
Aviation Forecast as a surrogate
indicator for projecting the number
of future year takeoffs and
landings. In particular, industry
members of the stakeholder group
indicated that the forecast likely
does not account for limitations on
growth due to
(1) regulatory constraints such as
general conformity, federal
and state land use limitations,
and supply-side constraints;
(2) physical constraints on
capacity such as gate and
runway availability; and
(3) funding/cost constraints for
airport capacity enhancements.
These reviewers stated that if
accounted for, the growth rate at
the airports included in this study
could be lower. Other reviewers,
such as state regulators, noted that
advances in air traffic control
could result in higher numbers of
takeoffs and landings, thus,
increasing the growth rate at
airports. There is not an existing
national data source that accounts
for the factors identified.
Moreover, each of these factors will
be airport-specific.
At the time of this analysis, airport operations totals for 1997 were not yet available from FAA.
20 These reports, prepared by FAA's Statistics and Forecasts Branch, are used in that agency's planning and
decision-making processes. The 1997-2008 report can be downloaded from the Internet at the following address:
http://api.hq.faa.gov/apo_pubs.htm.
2-5
-------
Table 2-3. Estimated commercial jet aircraft activity growth, 1990 - 2010.
Airport
Hartsfield
Logan
Douglas
Midway
O'Hare International
George Bush Intercontinental
Hobby
Burbank
John Wayne
Long Beach
Los Angeles International
Ontario
Kennedy
La Guardia
Newark
Philadelphia International
Sky Harbor International
Dulles
Washington National21
FAA Code
ATL
BOS
CLT
MOW
ORD
IAH
HOU
BUR
SNA
LGB
LAX
ONT
JFK
LGA
EWR
PHL
PHX
IAD
DCA
1990 LTOs
287,080
114,282
119,990
65,135
347,653
181,214
55,770
26,129
28,291
12,984
212,041
40,323
94,382
154,700
134,124
107,646
121,024
60,787
96,931
2010 LTOs
388,728
137,137
215,726
66,510
500,767
337,080
61,621
30,607
33,043
14,790
312,976
53,445
111,360
158,209
183,381
123,177
179,265
105,888
97,268
Growth for
20-year
period
35.4%
20.0%
79.8%
2.1%
44.0%
86.0%
10.5%
17.1%
16.8%
13.9%
47.6%
32.5%
18.0%
2.5%
36.7%
14.4%
48.1%
73.9%
0.3%
This facility has been recently renamed to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
2-6
-------
Figure 2-1. 1990 and 2010 LTOs
Atlanta
-
Boston
-
Charlotte
-
Chicago
-
Houston
-
Los Angeles
-
New York
-
Philadelphia
-
Phoenix
Washington DC
^^^^^^^^M
..' .'. . ,> ...... ...... ...... ...... ..
^^
^^^^ .- '" V,y,V:<
. .; '.-.'..' ',, '',
I ..........................
.................
'. :''
I
I .
". " ". .., .. '
'.'' . '. ' '.
' .' V.:' :::::::::, ..
', -"'/ ''.
'.:.'''''''''''''
. . ^ _,,'. V.' ::/:: V
I
' '>' ' . ;
. ' . .-.'.
I................
; . .
'. --'- '.' ;-
.. ./ ' _,,.-
':-.'' '. "''.
' '. .
'. j ' ' '' : .' " ; .'-
2010
^ ; D1990
' ""' .. ' "-.'-.' . " ' '
/- '. ' '
- . .-,- ' .-- ' -.-
':'. ' ' '-
... . ' ' ' .-'-.
100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000
LTOs
Time-in-Mode (TIM) Estimation
An LTO cycle is broken down into five specific components:
1) Approach - measured from moment aircraft enters the pollutant "mixing zone" to when it
lands;
2) Taxi/Idle-in - time spent after landing until aircraft is parked at the gate and engines turned
off;
3) Taxi/Idle-out - period from engine startup to takeoff;
4) Takeoff- characterized primarily by full-throttle operation that lasts until the aircraft reaches
500 to 1,000 feet (152 to 305 meters)
5) Climbout - period following takeoff that concludes when aircraft passes out of mixing zone.
2-7
-------
As stated in EPA's Volume IVguidance for mobile source emission
estimation, engines operate at a fairly standard power setting during
each mode, so emissions are calculated by using emission factors
specific to those settings.22 The emission factors provided in
EPA's Volume IVguidance use engine- and operating mode-specific
fuel flow rates (pounds of fuel per minute), so an emission factor for
the time spent in each mode for each aircraft category must be
determined in order to calculate emissions. Appendix B contains
the emissions calculation methodology.
Taxi/idle time depends on airport-specific operational procedures.
Taxi-in and taxi-out queue statistics for each airport were provided
by the FAA's Office of Aviation Policy Plans, Planning Analysis
Division (USDOT, 1997) and included seasonal estimates for
selected airlines. Because not all airlines at each facility were
represented in the data, facility-average taxi-in and taxi-out values
were calculated. Seasonal average taxi-in/taxi-out times by airline
were calculated, then weighted using actual LTO numbers. The
resulting taxi-in and taxi-out values were then summed and used as
the average idle time for that facility. Appendix E contains the
detailed taxi-in/taxi-out data provided by FAA, the facility-level
time-in-mode values assumed for this study.
The takeoff mode is fairly standard and does not vary much from
place to place or among aircraft categories. The default takeoff time
for commercial aircraft of 0.7 minutes provided in the EPA
guidance was used for our calculations. A four minute default
approach time, also in the EPA guidance, was used for this study
(EPA, 1992). In other studies, when accounting for reverse thrust,
adjustments have been made to the time in mode assumptions (e.g.,
lengthening the default take off time-in-mode) that directly impact
the emissions estimates. No such adjustment was made in this
study.
The assumed time spent in approach and climbout modes is directly
related to the height of the "mixing zone." The mixing zone is the
layer of the earth's atmosphere where chemical reactions of
pollutants can ultimately affect ground level pollutant
concentrations. The height of the mixing zone for a given location
typically varies significantly by season and time of day; the higher
the assumed mixing height, the greater the total emissions from an
LTO. Although EPA and CARS guidance (EPA, 1992; CARS,
1994) indicate that a default mixing height of 3,000 feet is
*) Stakeholder Comments -
Mixing Heights
Many comments were received
from stakeholders on the selection
of mixing heights. Commenters
representing state air quality
agencies indicated that because
their major air quality concern
was ozone events in the summer,
use of a summer afternoon mixing
height would be appropriate.
Under stagnant conditions,
emissions from the morning stay
aloft during the day, and become
apart of the afternoon mixing
zone as the zone rises during the
day. In addition, summertime
mixing heights are higher than
wintertime mixing heights and
ozone formation is confined to the
summer months in most areas of
the country. State air quality
commenters indicated that
summertime, afternoon mixing
zones range from 3,600 to 7,200
feet in the ten cities studied, and
thus they believe a default value oj
3,000 feet underestimates aircraft
emissions contributions during the
summer ozone season.
Commenters from industry
disputed these assumptions and
pointed out that mixing heights
present at the time emissions
occur would more accurately
represent the quantity of ozone
precursors present during the
formation of ozone (i.e., the
presence of a higher mixing height
during the ozone exceedance does
not warrant the use of that mixing
height, because the pollutants
accumulate throughout the day).
Therefore, industry commenters
recommend using a flight
operations weighted average of
mixing heights throughout the
day.
Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.
2-8
-------
acceptable for preparing aircraft emissions inventories, for many areas of the U.S. the mean
mixing zone is significantly lower. Generally, in the summer season the mixing zone is higher
for a given time of day than in winter. The 3,000-foot default mixing height is assumed to
approximate summertime conditions. Accordingly, in this analysis emissions were calculated for
specific airports using both the 3,000 foot default and the mean annual mixing height (CARB,
1994). Table 2-4 summarizes the latter (rounded to nearest 50 feet/meters) for each area selected
for this study.
Table 2-4. Annual mean mixing heights for selected regions.
Region
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington, D.C.
Mean Annual Mixing Height
(Feet)
1,300
2,100
1,300
1,650
2,000
1,650
2,600
2,300
1,000
2,000
Mean Annual Mixing Height
(Meters)
400
650
400
500
600
500
800
700
300
600
The procedures used to adjust EPA's default
climbout and approach times using alternative
mixing heights are included in Appendix B.
Fleet Characterization
In order to assign appropriate emission rates to
aircraft activity, the fleet mix must be defined for
each category of aircraft in use at a given airport.
For commercial, subsonic jet aircraft (defined as
those used for scheduled service transporting
passengers and/or freight), the source of fleet mix
data recommended in the EPA guidance is Airport
Activity Statistics of Certified Route Air Carriers,
which is published annually by FAA. As noted
above, these data do not include activity
information for non-U.S. airlines. For foreign
airlines, the T100 segment data were used to
develop the 1990 base fleet for these carriers.
^Stakeholder Comments - Fleet Turnover
Comments were received from stakeholders on
the appropriateness of the selected fleet turnover
methodology. The basic adjustment used for fleet
turnover does not account for many variables. A
more specific determination of fleet composition
in future years could be made by compiling
information from each airline. In general, a
specific airport can perform this level of data
collection and analysis (to the extent that it is not
confidential), however, as a nationwide exercise,
it would be quite extensive. It is not intuitively
clear whether a more accurate adjustment for
fleet turnover would lead to an increase or
decrease in the projection year emissions
estimates. The airlines believe, however, that
revised estimates of fleet composition would yield
lower emissions forecasts. Using the average
emission factor for 20 year-old engines to
represent the entire new portion of the 2010 fleet
is problematic. Due to emission standards,
airlines assert that aircraft coming into the fleet
will be significantly cleaner than those already in
service in 1990.
2-9
-------
Neither of these databases contained detailed information regarding the future composition of the
commercial jet aircraft fleet. Consequently, fleet turnover between 1990 and 2010 was addressed
by the following steps:
1. Using FAA' s Aviation Forecasts., identify the aircraft types in the 1990 inventory that will
not be in service in 2010.23
2. For each airport facility, subtract the activity for the "removed" aircraft types. This activity
will be assigned to an "average future" aircraft.
3. For the remaining aircraft types at the facility, calculate total emissions and LTOs.
4. Using the emissions and activity numbers from Step 3, calculate an average future emission
rate by dividing total emissions by total activity (for the remaining aircraft only). This
emission rate represents an "average future" aircraft for the facility.
5. Multiply the average emission rate calculated in Step 4 by the LTOs from the "removed"
aircraft in Step 2 to get total emissions from the "average future" aircraft.
6. Sum emissions and activity from actual and "average future" aircraft to get 2010 totals.
This basic adjustment retired all of the oldest aircraft in the 1990 fleet and replaced them with the
newest portion of the 1990 fleet. In all likelihood, fewer aircraft will be retired between 1990
and 2010, and some of those retired will be replaced with aircraft that are cleaner than the
"unretired" portion of the 1990 fleet.
Emission Factor Selection
The emissions characteristics of aircraft vary by number and type of engine used. The primary
source for the VOC, NOx, and CO emission factors used in this analysis is FAA's Engine
Emission Factor Database (FAEED) (USDOT, 1995). 24 This database lists each aircraft body
type, the type of engines used, and the operating mode-specific pollutant emission rates for those
engines. Aircraft with the same body type can have different engine models. In these cases, the
FAEED lists all known engine types used for that model and the estimated proportion of the fleet
using that engine. These percentages are used to create one weighted-average emission rate for
each pollutant and operating mode for that aircraft type.
The activity for some of the selected airport facilities contained data for some aircraft types not
included in the FAEED. In the majority of cases, these models were variations of aircraft that
were included in FAEED. Most of these "missing" models and their corresponding engine types
were extracted from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) report, Air Pollution Mitigation
Measures for Airports and Associated Activities (CARB, 1994). This document also provided
9S
supplemental information regarding appropriate aircraft/engine assumptions and equivalents .
23 These were all Stage II aircraft that are phased out by 1999, and are referred to as "removed" aircraft in
subsequent steps.
24 The initial analysis for this report was completed in the fall of 1997. The most recent version of the FAEED
available at the time was used, supplemented by the ICAO database. A preliminary comparison of the 1998 FAEED,
available at the time this report was finalized, indicates that few significant updates have been made.
25 An example is the DC-9-80, the assumed equivalent of the MD-80, which is not included in FAEED.
2-10
-------
In cases where neither data source provided information for a specific aircraft type, the activity
was assigned to its nearest equivalent. Appendix F contains a summary of these assumptions and
the final table of aircraft/engine types used for this analysis.
The data sources discussed above provided VOC, NOx, and CO emission factors. Modal 862
emission rates for civil aircraft engines were obtained from Procedures for Emission Inventory
Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources.26 As noted previously, aircraft also produce particulate
emissions, primarily PM2.5. Because of extremely limited engine- and mode-specific PM rates,
however, these emissions were not calculated in this analysis.
Section 3 presents the emissions calculated for the 19 airport facilities in the 10 areas of interest.
26 The FAEED SO2 emission factors were not used since the data appeared to be several orders of magnitude lower
than the EPA values based on fuel sulfur content. For VOC, NOx, and CO, the FAEED emission factors were
compared to the values given in the EPA guidance and found to agree.
2-11
-------
3 - AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS
This section presents the results of the commercial jet aircraft emissions analysis described in
Section 2.0 and Appendix B. Tables 3-1 summarizes 1990 and 2010 VOC, NOx, CO, and SO2
emissions for the ten selected areas using the 3,000-foot default mixing height. Figure 3-1
presents this information graphically for NOx. Table 3-2 provides similar information for 1990
and 2010 emissions estimates based on area-average mixing height assumptions. All emissions
estimates in this section are provided in short tons per year.27 Appendix G presents facility-
specific and regional emissions totals in both short and metric tons per year.28
It is clear from comparing Tables 3-1 and 3-2 that mixing height has a significant impact on
emissions estimates, most notably NOx, which decreases overall by 29 percent when using the
area-specific rather than default mixing heights. SO2 totals decrease 23 percent, VOCs by 3
percent, and CO emissions decrease 4 percent when the non-default mixing heights are applied.
The annual mean mixing heights used in this analysis represent only one general step towards a
more-detailed, area-specific inventory. Additional improvement could be made by using
seasonal- and time of-day-specific mixing height assumptions, available from EPA or other
regional meteorological databases. This more rigorous approach would likely result in increases
in estimated emissions for some areas, and decreases in others. Even using the default mixing
height, the estimated tons of pollutants per LTO cycle varies widely among regions. This can be
attributed primarily to differences in the aircraft fleet serving each airport facility, and variations
in the time-in-mode assumed. This again underscores the need to focus on airport-specific
parameters to project future emissions totals if more certainty is desired.
Regardless of the mixing heights used, the expected growth in activity in each area corresponds
to increases in aircraft emissions that are often quite substantial (> 50 percent) over the period
1990 to 2010. Overall, VOC emissions in the ten areas increase by more than 7600 tons (6900
metric tons or 65 percent); NOx increases by more than 21,500 tons (19,500 metric tons or 73
percent); and SO2 increase by more than 580 tons (530 metric tons or 43 percent).
27 A short ton is 2000 pounds.
28
We have provided the emissions estimates in different units because U.S. inventories are generally compiled in
short tons while the international community tends to use metric tons.
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. 1990 and 2010 commercial
default (3,000 ft.
jet aircraft emissions (short tons/year)
) mixing height.
Region
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington, D.C.
Year
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
LTOs
287,080
388,728
114,282
137,137
119,990
215,726
412,788
567,277
236,993
398,701
306,784
444,860
383,206
452,950
107,646
123,177
121,024
179,265
162,245
203,156
voc
1,555.13
3,180.47
894.28
1,461.75
748.56
2,123.93
1,653.23
2,232.64
669.68
1,007.71
2,099.38
3,088.35
3,050.22
4,872.19
354.67
439.86
226.14
305.27
516.57
712.30
NOx
3,570.26
7,397.42
1,752.92
2,897.56
956.74
1,702.28
5,036.72
8,710.79
2,552.27
5,129.52
5,274.95
7,871.08
6,351.61
10,650.50
1,098.41
1,678.46
1,130.01
1,954.14
1,807.56
3,113.36
S02
165.78
262.18
77.07
104.64
52.01
83.83
235.20
329.01
122.83
207.91
216.57
296.89
291.41
394.01
53.11
64.66
53.71
81.24
85.39
117.18
CO
4,136.43
6,858.94
2,295.22
3,417.41
1,385.67
2,907.53
5,583.73
7,756.83
2,484.80
3,940.03
6,125.31
8,828.05
8,816.72
12,935.80
1,127.38
1,293.80
1,014.73
1,667.14
1,798.72
2,467.23
3-2
-------
Table 3-2. 1990 and 2010 commercial jet aircraft
annual average mixing height (see
emissions (short tons/year)
Table 2-4).
Region
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington, D.C.
Year
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
LTOs
287,080
388,728
114,282
137,137
119,990
215,726
412,788
567,277
236,993
398,701
306,784
444,860
383,206
452,950
107,646
123,177
121,024
179,265
162,245
203,156
voc
1,468.13
3,026.52
875.81
1,436.86
720.88
2,070.46
1,580.10
2,149.64
640.80
962.71
2,037.87
3,003.86
3,025.30
4,838.54
345.33
430.34
208.35
289.28
497.34
691.86
NOx
2,058.41
4,189.04
1,359.73
2,234.13
549.60
962.20
3,337.09
5,710.94
1,910.23
3,819.72
3,476.72
5,159.73
5,728.50
9,573.78
904.55
1,375.21
555.32
944.02
1,355.32
2,317.00
S02
111.16
171.53
63.91
86.12
34.41
55.16
173.31
239.60
97.93
164.68
158.51
216.24
270.40
364.35
45.58
55.14
31.12
46.22
68.53
93.30
CO
3,791.43
6,318.79
2,216.65
3,318.84
1,273.40
2,715.44
5,249.79
7,386.88
2,358.99
3,771.70
5,852.28
8,450.37
8,712.39
12,808.10
1,085.66
1,254.54
914.35
1,533.12
1,713.17
2,377.53
Figure 3-1. 1990 and 2010 Commercial Jet Aircraft NOx Emissions
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
\Afeshington DC
^^
^^
^
^^m
2010
Q1990
H 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Tons/Year
3-3
-------
Inventory Limitations and Caveats
Emissions inventories are, by nature, an approximation of actual pollutant quantities. The
appropriateness of the methodology, the technical judgements, and associated assumptions used
to create these estimates will affect the accuracy of estimates calculated for a given pollutant
species. For future year inventories, the robustness of forecast methodology has a significant
influence on the associated certainty of the emissions estimates. Although the quantification of
ranges of error relative to the assumptions used to produce the inventory estimate was beyond the
scope of this report; this section provides a qualitative discussion.
The commercial jet aircraft emissions estimates contained in this report were prepared using the
EPA-approved methodology for preparing inventories of this type. Further, the FAEED database
of emission factors (USDOT, 1995) was updated to include some additional aircraft types for
which there were activity data29. While this approach produced relatively robust inventories for
each of the ten areas, room remains for additional refinements, particularly in the 2010 estimates.
Future Year Fleet Composition. As noted in Section 2, some of the newer aircraft in today's
commercial fleet were not explicitly included in the analysis, because these aircraft types were
not in service in 1990. However, the projections prepared for 2010 do include a simplified set of
assumptions regarding fleet turnover and aircraft replacement that implicitly account for the
retirement of older aircraft and the introduction of newer aircraft engines available as of 1990
(see Section 2). In the stakeholder comment box on this issue, the complexity of the fleet
turnover issue is detailed. A more robust future year inventory would incorporate a more
detailed understanding of the future year fleet. This could produce different ground-level
emissions forecasts for 2010, as discussed in the stakeholder box on fleet turnover.
Greater implementation of clean engine technology (i.e., fuel efficient/low NOx) is another area
that could change the future-year emissions estimated for this study. On the other hand, most
existing aircraft that remain in the 2010 projection already comply with the most recent ICAO
standards. Further, there has been little market indication that cleaner engines will be pursued in
future purchase decisions. Addressing the future fleet composition as described above would be
one step towards an improved representation of the emissions benefits of newer aircraft
complying with present ICAO NOx certification standards. Engines that significantly reduce
NOx below the current and future standard already exist, and wider use of these engines or the
implementation of larger compliance margins on other engines could result in greater aircraft
emissions reductions.
Future Year Aircraft Activity. F AA future year forecasts of operations by facility were used to
project aircraft activity. These forecasts were only available at the facility level, not for
individual aircraft types. Consequently, for a given airport, the same change in activity between
1990 and 2010 was assumed for all aircraft types. This does not account for any shifts in activity
between aircraft types that may occur (e.g., an airline might increase its number of shuttle flights
29 FAEED emission rates were supplemented by the ICAO engine emission factor database (ICAO, 1995). These
emission rates were used for all areas. Note that for Los Angeles, only activity data was extracted from the
California FIP (EPA, 1994); emission rates and growth projections were from consistent sources for all airport
facilities (see Section 2).
3-4
-------
to a nearby city while keeping the same level of activity for longer flights using larger aircraft).
Additionally, as detailed in the stakeholder comment box, the FAA forecasts do not incorporate
the effects of regulatory constraints, physical capacity constraints, or funding constraints for
airport capacity enhancements. However, FAA reported that when they have looked back to
evaluate previous forecasts, they found that these forecasts were reasonably accurate.
In addition, the 2010 activity forecast was not adjusted to account for the introduction of
communication, navigation, surveillance/ air traffic management (CNS/ATM), which if
implemented could allow more flights without additional infrastructure.
Operational Practices that Affect Emissions. Existing aircraft operational practices that affect
emissions were not considered when preparing the emissions estimates for the ten cities of
interest. Operational practices such as single-engine taxi, reduced reverse thrust, and de-rated
takeoffs that may reduce emissions were not included because these practices are not uniform
across all facilities or even within the same airport. Determining the precise application of these
measures and their impact on emissions was beyond the scope of this project. Instead, this study
relied on standard power operations assumptions in EPA's Volume IV guidance.
CNS/ATM potential improvements to operations, which for example, could reduce the amount
of taxi time, were also not considered. Further study could refine the emissions estimates
presented above to account for these operational differences.
Other Issues. Seasonal and time-of-day variations were not considered in this study. LTO rates
and aircraft time-in-mode often vary over the course of a day and throughout the year. For
example, in peak traffic hours the amount of time in the "taxi/idle-out" mode can increase due to
congestion. Variations in the mixing height also affect the time-in-mode for approach and
climbout. Seasonal inventories reflecting activity and mixing height variability are thus likely to
differ in the pounds per LTO cycle and total emissions estimates as compared to annual average
emissions inventories for the same facility. Other operational differences, such as the use of
auxiliary power units or longer time-in-mode due to weather conditions or air traffic control
holds, were also not addressed.
Sensitivity Tests. Because no sensitivity tests were conducted on the assumptions supporting
the emissions estimates, confidence intervals have not been established for these estimates.
Although sensitivity analyses to determine the effects of key assumptions were beyond the scope
of this initial study, they would be an appropriate area for further investigation given their
importance in assessing the effect of those assumptions, particularly as they relate to projections
of future emissions activity. For example, the sensitivity of the emission estimates to assumed
growth rates for different aircraft types at a given airport would likely prove to be a valuable
exercise. The comments from stakeholders, included in boxes throughout Section 2, indicate
additional areas for further study and clarification.
3-5
-------
4 - AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS CONTRIBUTION
While emissions from most transportation sources such as NOx from automobiles are predicted
to stabilize and, in many cases, decrease from 1990 through 2010, ground-level emissions from
commercial jet aircraft are expected to continue rising. In nonattainment areas with large airport
facilities, commercial aircraft emissions represent a growing percentage of regional area source
inventories as other area sources decrease due to implemented controls. Emissions for a given
source category are the product of activity (e.g., vehicle miles traveled, LTO cycles) and
technology based emissions factors. For many source categories (e.g., automobiles) lower total
emissions are achieved in 2010 by the use of cleaner technology, even though activity levels
increase.
Two national inventories provide county-level emissions estimates by source category: the
Regional Interim Emission Inventories (EPA, 1993a/b)for 1990 and the Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the Proposed Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (EPA, 1996a) for 2010.
Using the aircraft emissions estimates presented for the default mixing height in Section 3.0
(Table 3-1)30, the percent contribution of aircraft to total nonroad31 mobile, total mobile, and total
emissions inventories can be calculated. Table 4-132 summarizes the estimated commercial
aircraft portion of total regional inventories for the ten selected study areas in 1990 and 2010.
Tables 4-2 and 4-3 show the commercial aircraft portions of regional mobile source (the sum of
onroad and nonroad) and nonroad mobile source emissions, respectively. Figure 4-1 graphs the
data from Table 4-2. Appendix H presents excerpts from the regional inventories used to
calculate the percentages.
In each of the ten cities, commercial jet aircraft are a larger percentage of the inventory in 2010
than in 1990. In areas such as Charlotte, which has few large utilities or other industrial sources,
aircraft are predicted to comprise over 7.5 percent of the total regional NOx in 2010. Even
regions such as Los Angeles and New York, where aircraft are less than 5 percent of the total
1990 mobile source emissions, the percent contribution of aircraft to regional NOx more than
doubles by 2010. The percent contributions of aircraft to the total regional inventory were
calculated based on the default mixing height. However, as detailed in the stakeholder comment
box on mixing heights, the selection of an appropriate mixing height for estimation of ozone
production is a complex decision.
Overall, as the growth in air travel pushes up aircraft emissions totals, existing regulatory
programs such as new heavy-duty truck engine, nonroad diesel engine, locomotive, and
passenger vehicle standards will diminish the relative contribution of other mobile sources to
30 The commercial jet aircraft emissions calculated for this study were used in place of the non-military, non-air taxi
emissions contained in the national inventories. The subtracted aircraft emissions (ASC Code 2275020000)
probably include some turboprop planes, but this is likely to be a very small percentage of the total emissions.
31 Nonroad emissions include all mobile sources that are not on-road vehicles, such as construction equipment,
locomotives, marine watercraft, etc.
32 As noted, Tables 4-1 through 4-3 represent percent contributions based on the default mixing height of 3000 feet.
Since the annual average mixing heights are lower for each of the ten areas, using the default mixing height may
result in a higher estimate of the percent contribution than would be obtained using the annual average mixing height.
4-1
-------
regional emissions inventories. The following examples indicate the types of regulatory
programs in process:
For heavy-duty diesel trucks, new NOx emission standards that represent a 50 percent
reduction from the earlier standards were promulgated in 1997 for implementation beginning
in 2004 (Federal Register Volume 62, page 54694, October 21, 1997).
Two-thirds more stringent standards starting in 1999 for nonroad diesel equipment were
promulgated in 1998 (Federal Register Volume 63, page 56968, October 23, 1998).
Passenger vehicles in the new National Low Emission Vehicle Program will be 70 percent
cleaner than today's models beginning in 1999 (Federal Register Volume 62, page 31192,
June 6, 1997). Currently, the state of California has even more stringent emission
requirements for motor vehicles. Another set of national level passenger vehicle standards
for the 2004 timeframe is also under consideration (Tier 2 standards per section 202(i) of the
Clean Air Act).
A two-thirds reduction in NOx emissions from locomotives is expected from the first
locomotive engine standards promulgated in a rulemaking completed in 1998 (Federal
Register Volume 63, page 18978, April 16, 1998).
The new NAAQS for ozone and PM present even greater challenges to existing and potential
nonattainment areas. As more CAA-mandated controls reach full implementation, air quality
planners will need to look at all emissions sources for additional reductions. In most regions,
overall mobile source emissions are projected to decrease significantly; however, emissions from
aircraft do not follow this trend. While noise regulations and more fuel-efficient engines will
reduce aircraft hydrocarbon emission rates, controlling NOx emissions is a much greater
challenge.
4-2
-------
Table 4-1. Aircraft component of total regional emissions, 1990 and 2010.
Resion
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington, DC
Year
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
voc
0.7%
2.5%
0.2%
0.7%
1.2%
5.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.9%
0.3%
1.7%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.3%
0.8%
NOx
2.1%
8.1%
0.6%
2.3%
2.3%
7.6%
1.1%
3.4%
0.5%
1.9%
0.9%
2.4%
0.9%
3.3%
0.4%
1.8%
0.9%
1.8%
0.9%
3.7%
S02
0.1%
1.9%
<0.1%
0.7%
0.1%
0.6%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.4%
0.6%
0.1%
0.4%
<0.1%
0.1%
0.7%
0.9%
<0.1%
0.4%
Table 4-2. Aircraft component of regional
mobile source emissions, 1990 and 2010.
Resion
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington, DC
Year
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
VOC
1.3%
6.2%
0.5%
2.3%
2.8%
14.9%
0.7%
2.8%
0.4%
1.4%
0.6%
3.0%
0.8%
3.8%
0.2%
0.7%
0.3%
0.8%
0.4%
1.6%
NOx
2.9%
9.5%
0.9%
3.1%
3.6%
10.4%
1.8%
6.4%
1.4%
4.6%
1.2%
3.2%
1.5%
5.2%
0.6%
1.9%
1.4%
3.4%
1.4%
4.4%
S02
2.2%
4.1%
0.6%
1.2%
3.4%
6.8%
1.6%
2.9%
0.5%
0.8%
0.5%
0.8%
0.8%
1.3%
0.4%
0.7%
1.2%
1.9%
0.9%
1.6%
4-3
-------
Table 4-3. Aircraft
mobile source
component
emissions,
of regional nonroad
1990 and 2010.
Resion
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington, DC
Year
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
1990
2010
voc
6.5%
14.4%
2.0%
4.2%
11.8%
31.4%
2.1%
6.2%
1.4%
2.5%
4.2%
5.6%
3.7%
7.8%
0.8%
1.3%
1.1%
1.5%
1.9%
3.3%
NOx
11.3%
28.5%
4.2%
11.0%
13.6%
28.3%
4.3%
16.7%
3.4%
9.0%
3.7%
6.9%
6.5%
16.7%
2.4%
5.7%
3.7%
8.0%
5.1%
13.7%
S02
20.1%
31.5%
6.4%
9.8%
37.8%
53.7%
7.9%
12.7%
0.7%
1.1%
1.3%
1.7%
1.9%
2.7%
2.2%
2.9%
7.2%
10.6%
3.9%
6.2%
Figure 4-1. 1990 and 2010 Aircraft Component of
Regional Mobile Source NOx Emissions
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington DC
i
^^
=-
^^m
^^^m
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.
Percent of Total
4-4
-------
5 - CONCLUSIONS
This study has achieved its goals and creates a basic understanding of aircraft emissions
contribution. As detailed in Section 3, in 1990 commercial jet aircraft emitted a significant
amount of pollutants into the air around the ten urban areas studied. The 2010 regional
emissions inventory, which relies on forecasts developed for other purposes, projects growth in
both absolute aircraft emissions and in the percent of the inventory attributable to aircraft.
State and local air quality officials must develop plans to bring their jurisdictions into compliance
with new NAAQS. Section 233 of the Clean Air Act mandates that aircraft engine emissions
standards are to be set only on a national level. Due to the need for a national policy, EPA and
FAA have convened a multi-stakeholder group (including representatives from industry, state
and local air quality agencies, airports and environmental groups) to seek a voluntary agreement
on ground-level emissions reductions actions for commercial aircraft and aviation-related
emissions.
Overall, this report provides an estimation of the contribution of aircraft to air quality emissions
in ten urban areas, confirms that investigation of cost-effective control options on ground-level
aircraft emissions is warranted, and highlights the need for improvements in the quality of
national level data as noted by reviewers of the draft study if more certainty is desired.
5-1
-------
REFERENCES
Becker, Kodjak, 1998. Letter from S. William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO and Drew Kodjak,
NESCUAM to Rodney Slater, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. 10 March
1998.
C ARB, 1994. Air Pollution Mitigation Measures for Airports and Associated Activities - Final
Report. Prepared for the California Air Resources Board by Energy and Environmental
Analysis, Inc., Arlington Virginia, and K.T. Analytics, Inc., Frederick, Maryland. May,
1994. PB94-207610.
Dickson, C.L. and Sturm, G.P., "Aviation Turbine Fuels, 1996," NIPER-199 PPS, BDM
Petroleum Technologies, Bartlesville, OK, April 1997.
EPA, 1997'a. Nitrogen Oxides: Impacts on Public Health and the Environment. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. August, 1997.
EPA, 1997b. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1990 - 1996. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. December, 1997. EPA-454/R-97-011.
EPA, 1996a. Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard. Prepared by Innovative Strategies and Economics Group, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C. December 1996. Additional
related information can be found in the EPA publication 2010 Clean Air Act Amendment
Baseline Emissions Projections for the Integrated Ozone, Paniculate Matter, and
Regional Haze Cost Analysis. July 18, 1997.
EPA, 1996b. Ozone Air Quality Criteria Document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. June, 1996.
EPA, 1994. Technical Support Document, Civil and Military Aviation, California FIP NPRM.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Energy and Environmental
Analysis, Inc. March 24, 1994.
EPA, 1993a. Regional Interim Emission Inventories (1987' - 1991), Volume I: Development
Methodologies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. May, 1993.
EPA-454/R-93-021a.
EPA, 1993b. Regional Interim Emission Inventories (198 7 - 1991), Volume II: Emissions
Summaries. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. May, 1993. EPA-
454/R-93-021a.
EPA, 1992. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1992. EPA-450/4-81-026d
(Revised).
R-l
-------
EPA, 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 2: Mobile Sources (4 th
Edition). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan. September,
1985. PB87-205266.
ICAO, 1998a. "Report of the Forecasting and Economic Analysis Sub-Group (FESG) - CAEP
Steering Group Meeting, Canberra, Australia," Tables 5.3, 5.5, and 5.7, January, 1998
ICAO, 1998b. "FESG Report on EPGNOx Stringency Proposal," Prepared by the Forecasting
and Economic Analysis Sub-Group for the Committee on Aviation Environmental
Protection - Fourth Meeting, 12 March 1998.
ICAO, 1998c. "Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection - Fourth Meeting - Report,"
Doc 9720, CAEP/4, Montreal, 6-8 April 1998.
ICAO, 1995. "Aircraft Engine Exhaust Emissions Databank - Addendum." Committee on
Aviation and Environmental Protection, ICAO. December, 1995.
ICAO, 1994. "Report to Working Group 2 from the Emissions at and around Airports
Subgroup." Prepared by the Emissions at and around Airports Subgroup for the
Committee on Aviation and Environmental Protection. 18 July 1994.
Kenny, 1998. Letter from Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, Cal/EPA to Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. 13 March 1998.
NRDC, 1996. Flying Off Course: Environmental Impacts of America's Airports. Natural
Resources Defense Council. October, 1996.
USDOT. FAA Aviation Forecasts, electronically obtained from USDOT via World Wide Web.
USDOT, 1997. Information from FAA's Office of Aviation Policy, Plans, and Analysis.
September, 1997.
USDOT, 1996. Statistical Handbook of Aviation, 1996. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, D.C. 1996.
USDOT, 1995. FAA Aircraft Engine Emissions Database. U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, D.C. 1995.
USDOT, 1990a. Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers. U.S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 1990.
USDOT, 1990b. "T-100 & T-lOO(f) International Segment Data." U.S. Department of
Transportation, Office of Airline Statistics. December, 1990.
R-2
-------
APPENDIX A
HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION
-------
APPENDIX A
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
FROM AIR POLLUTION
Health effects due to pollutants may be divided into two major classes: those due to acute
exposures and those due to chronic exposure. Acute health effects are experienced
immediately or within a few hours of the exposure. Health effects due to chronic
exposure may only become apparent after an extended period of time, typically months or
years. Cancer is an example of a health effect generally resulting from chronic exposure.
Some pollutants can cause both acute and chronic health effects. For a given air
pollutant, the chances of an person experiencing a health effect generally increase as the
exposure concentration and duration increase. The exposure component of the health
effects is discussed below. Determining the source of a pollutant involved in an exposure
can be complicated, given the multiplicity of emission sources in most urban areas.
Furthermore, the varying individual sensitivity to specific pollutants make the health
effects of any individual pollutant exposure difficult to quantify, although for many
pollutants the risk to the general population can be characterized. Epidemiological
studies and clinical studies to estimate health effects have been performed for a number
of pollutants, many of which are associated with aircraft and airport operations.
Environmental effects can also be divided into three broad categories: ecological effects
(effects on plants and animals other than humans), damage to materials (soiling, etc.) and
visibility (effects on transmission of light through the atmosphere).
A brief highlight of the health effects of chemicals associated with airports follows. A
summary of some of the environmental effects for each identified chemical follow each
health effects discussion.
SPECIFIC AIR POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH AIRPORTS
A number of air pollutants are associated with emissions from airports. These include the
major criteria pollutants that one would expect from any combustion source: ozone or Os
(not directly emitted, but formed from other precursor compounds that are emitted),
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
particulate matter (both PMio and PlV^.s). Other pollutants include polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in the particulate emissions and certain VOCs. The health
and other environmental effects of these chemicals are briefly outlined below. This
information was compiled from official US EPA sources and is only an overview. More
complete information is available in the appropriate Criteria Documents (e.g., EPA,
1996b).
Ozone (O3)
Ozone health effects are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hours) exposures to Os1, generally
while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion, and by prolonged exposures
Observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 ppm.
A-l
-------
r\
(6 to 8 hours) to Os , typically while individuals are engaged in moderate exertion.
Individuals experience moderate exertion levels more frequently than heavy exertion
levels.
Acute health effects of 63 are defined as those effects induced by short-term and
prolonged exposures to Os. Examples of these effects are functional, symptomatic,
biochemical, and physiologic changes. The acute health effects include transient
pulmonary function responses, transient respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise
performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory
infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and transient
pulmonary inflammation.
Acute health effects have been observed following prolonged exposures during moderate
exertion at concentrations of 63 as low as 0.08 ppm. Groups at increased risk of
experiencing such effects include active children and outdoor workers who regularly
engage in outdoor activities and individuals with preexisting respiratory disease (e.g.,
asthma or chronic obstructive lung disease). Furthermore, it is recognized that some
individuals are unusually responsive to 63 and may experience much greater functional
and symptomatic effects from exposure to Os than the average individual.
Chronic health effects of 63 are defined as those effects induced by repeated, long-term
exposures to Os. Examples of these effects are chronic inflammation and structural
damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung function. With regard to
chronic health effects, the collective data from studies of laboratory animals and human
populations have many ambiguities and provide only suggestive evidence of such effects
in humans. It is clear from toxicological data that Os-induced lung injury is roughly
similar across species (including monkeys, rats, and mice) with responses that are
concentration dependent. Currently available information provides, at a minimum, a
biologically plausible basis for the possibility that the repeated lung inflammation
associated with Os exposure may, over a lifetime, result in sufficient damage to
respiratory tissue to result in a reduced quality of life, although such relationships remain
uncertain.
Ground-level ozone interferes with the ability of plants to produce and store food so that
growth, reproduction and overall plant health are compromised. By weakening trees and
other plants, ozone can make plants more susceptible to disease, insect attacks, and harsh
weather. Agricultural yields for many economically important crops (e.g., soybean,
kidney bean, wheat, cotton) may be reduced, and the quality of some crops may be
damaged, thereby reducing their market value. Ground-level ozone can also kill or
damage leaves so that they fall off the plants too soon or become spotted or brown. These
effects can significantly decrease the natural beauty of an area, such as in national parks
and recreation areas.
2 Observed at concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm.
A-2
-------
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas that is a by-product of the
incomplete burning of fuels. CO reduces oxygen carrying capacity of blood and weakens
the contractions of the heart, thus reducing the amount of blood pumped to various parts
of the body and, therefore, the oxygen available to the muscles and various organs. In a
healthy person, this effect can significantly reduce the ability to perform physical
exercises. In persons with chronic heart disease, these effects can threaten the overall
quality of life, since their systems are unable to compensate for the decrease in oxygen.
CO pollution is also likely to cause such individuals to experience angina during exercise.
Adverse effects have also been observed in individuals with heart conditions who are
exposed to CO pollution in heavy freeway traffic for 1 to 2 hours or more.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOi)
Healthy individuals experience respiratory problems when exposed to high levels of NO2
for short duration (less than three hours). Asthmatics are especially sensitive and changes
in airway responsiveness have been observed in some studies of exercising asthmatics
exposed to relatively low levels of NO2. Studies also indicate a relationship between
indoor NO2 exposures and increased respiratory illness rates in young children, but
definitive results are still lacking. Many animal studies suggest that NO2 impairs
respiratory defense mechanisms and increases susceptibility to infection.
Several studies also show that chronic exposure to relatively low NO2 pollution levels
may cause structural changes in the lungs of animals. These studies suggest that chronic
exposure to NO2 could lead to adverse health effects in humans, but specific levels and
the exposure duration likely to cause such effects have not yet been determined.
NO2 is an important precursor to both ozone and acidic precipitation, which harms both
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Emitted from hydrocarbon combustion at high
temperatures, NO and NO2 (collectively called NOX) react with gaseous hydrocarbons to
form ozone. The mixture of NOx and ozone in urban air is commonly called "smog".
NOX also plays a role in the formation of acid rain. Acid rain causes surface water
acidification and damages trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees over
2,000 feet in elevation). In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials
and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our
nation's cultural heritage.
NOX contributes to the formation of particles in the atmosphere, with the resulting health
and visibility effects discussed in the "PM" section, below. Nationally, about 5 percent of
NOX is transformed into particle nitrate in the atmosphere. Even when it does not form
particles, NOX itself is a brown gas that largely contributes to the visible smog effect
evident in the major metropolitan areas of the U.S.
A-3
-------
Particulate Matter (PM)
PM is the generic term for a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances
that exist as discrete particles (either liquid droplets or solids) over a wide range of sizes.
PM originates from a variety of anthropogenic stationary and mobile sources as well as
from natural sources. PM may either be emitted directly or formed in the atmosphere by
the transformations of gaseous emissions of compounds including NOX, VOCs, and sulfur
oxides (SOX). The chemical and physical properties of PM vary greatly with time, region,
meteorology, and source category, thus complicating the assessment of health and welfare
effects.
refers to particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers. Technical details further specifying the measurement of PMio are contained
in 40 CFR part 50, Appendices J and M. PMio is a measure of both fine particles (less
than 2.5 microns (|im)) and the coarse particle fraction (particles between 2.5 and 10
|im)3. In addition to the evidence found for health effects associated with fine particles,
research indicates that exposure to coarse fraction particles is associated with aggravation
of asthma and increased respiratory illness, and that there may be chronic health effects
associated with long-term exposure to high concentrations of coarse particles (FR, July
18, 1997). A more complete history of the PM NAAQS is presented in section U.B of the
OAQPS staff paper, "Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information."
PM2.5 is comprised of parti culate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 jim.
The new PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in July, 1997 and new monitoring
requirements for PM2.5 are included in Appendix L of 40 CFR Part 50. A discussion of
PM2.5 health effects is presented in the Criteria Document for Particulate Matter, which
describes:
the nature of the effects that have been reported to be associated with ambient PM,
including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease
(as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school
absences, work loss days, and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and
increased respiratory symptoms, changes to lung tissues and structure, and altered
respiratory defense mechanisms; and
sensitive sub-populations that appear to be at greater risk to such effects, specifically
individuals with respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease and the elderly
(premature mortality and hospitalization), children (increased respiratory symptoms
and decreased lung function), and asthmatic children and adults (aggravation of
symptoms).
The environmental effects of particles center principally on two areas: visibility and
soiling. The visibility impacts are immediately apparent to anyone who has seen a major
3 Coarse particles are larger than 2.5 micrometers, and the PMIO standard does not apply to coarse particles
above 10 micrometers.
A-4
-------
metropolitan area on a hazy day. Visibility impairment can result from either the direct
emission of particles or the formation of particles from the nitrogen oxides and VOCs.
The soiling effect of particles is observable on both buildings and vehicles. The soiling
can also contribute to the degradation of monuments and artwork. In addition to the
"quality of life" effects of visibility reduction there is an additional safety problem for
aircraft operating in areas of reduced visibility, in the terms of landing and avoidance of
other aircraft.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Organic chemicals emitted into the atmosphere are typically described as VOCs (or
"hydrocarbons")4. They can arise from evaporation or incomplete fuel combustion. As a
class, VOCs react with NOx in the atmosphere to form ozone, but individual VOCs may
have additional health effects. Some VOCs have little or no known direct health effect,
while other VOCs, such as benzene, are carcinogens. As with other pollutants, the extent
and nature of the health effect will depend on many factors, including level of exposure
and length of time exposed. Eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness,
visual disorders, and memory impairment are among the immediate symptoms that some
people have experienced soon after exposure to some organics.
VOCs can cause a variety of environmental effects depending on their chemical nature
and the quantity present. At high levels, VOCs can have a damaging effect on plants,
crops, buildings and materials. Of course, the principal environmental effect of VOCs is
their contribution to the formation of ozone with its concomitant environmental effects.
Likewise VOCs can contribute to the formation of particles (either directly through
cooling down of hot engine exhaust or indirectly through chemical conversion and
condensation) which have the environmental effects listed above. VOCs that contain
chlorine can also contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion.
4 See Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 part 5/Section 100 for complete definition.
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
EMISSIONS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
-------
APPENDIX B
EMISSIONS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
EPA's recommended emissions calculation methodology for a given airport in any given
year*can be summarized in six steps:
1) Determine the mixing height to be used to define a landing and takeoff (LTO)
cycle.
2) Determine airport activity in terms of the number of LTOs.
3) Define the fleet make-up at the airport.
4) Select emission factors.
5) Estimate time-in-mode (TIM).
6) Calculate emissions based on the airport activity, TIM, and aircraft emission
factors.
Steps two through five are repeated for each type of aircraft using a given airport. This
methodology is essentially the same as that used in the FAA Aircraft Engine Emissions
Database (FAEED) model (USDOT, 1995).
Section 2 contains a detailed discussion of the activity and fleet information used for this
analysis.
Time in Mode Calculations
The duration of the approach and climbout modes depends largely on the mixing height
selected. EPA guidance provides approach and climbout times for a default mixing
height of 3000 feet, and a procedure for adjusting these times for different mixing
heights. The adjustments are calculated using the following equations:
Climbout:
TIM d = TIMdflt * \^ngHeight-5QO
1 fl [_ 3000-500
Approach:
MixingHeight
= TIMdflt
1 The analysis presented in this appendix is consistent with EPA's Procedures for Emissions
Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources (EPA, 1992).
B-l
-------
where TIMadj is the adjusted time-in-mode for approach or climbout, and TIMd/it is the
default time-in-mode. Mixing height is by default given in feet. The equation for
climbout assumes that 500 feet is the demarcation between the takeoff and climbout
modes. Expressed in metric units, the approach and climbout adjustment equations are as
follows:
Climbout:
MixingHeight -152
TIMad] = TIMdflt *
Approach:
TIM a^ =
915-152
MixingHeight
915
Default mixing height is 915 meters, with the demarcation between approach and
climbout modes at 152 meters.
Consistent with EPA guidance (EPA, 1992), a four-minute default approach time was
assumed for this study.
Section 2 provides a discussion of the mixing heights assumed for this analysis2.
Emissions Calculation
The weighted-average emission factor represents the average emission factor per LTO
cycle for all engine models used on a particular type of aircraft. The weighted-average
emission factor per 1000 pounds of fuel is calculated as follows:
NMj
EFijk = y^ (Xmj EFimk)
m=\
where
EFtmk = the emission factor for pollutant /', in pounds of pollutant per 1000 pounds of
fuel (or kilograms pollutant per 1000 kilograms fuel), for engine model m and
operating mode &;
xmj = the fraction of aircraft typey with engine model m; and
NMj = the total number of engine models associated with aircraft typey.
Note that, for a given aircraft typey, the sum ofXmj for all engine models associated with
aircraft y' is 1.
Total emissions per LTO cycle for a given aircraft type are calculated using the following
equation:
2 As described in EPA's Procedures for Emissions Inventory Preparation, Volume IV (EPA, 1992),
morning (a.m.) mixing heights were used in this study.
B-2
-------
where
= time in mode k (min) for aircraft typey;
= fuel flow for mode k (Ibs/min or kg/min) for each engine used on aircraft type
j;
= weighted-average emission factor for pollutant /', in pounds of pollutant per
1000 pounds of fuel (kilograms pollutant per 1000 kilograms fuel), for aircraft
typey in operating mode k; and
= number of engines on aircraft typey.
Once the preceding calculations are performed for each aircraft type, total emissions for
that aircraft type are computed by multiplying the emissions for one LTO cycle by the
number of LTO cycles at a given location:
where
EtJ= the total emissions for pollutant / from aircraft typey;
LTOj = the number of LTOs for aircraft typey.
Total emissions for each aircraft type are then summed to yield total commercial exhaust
emissions for the facility as shown below:
LTOj)
1=1
where
ETj = the total emissions for pollutant / from all aircraft types;
EJJ = the emissions of pollutant / from aircraft typey;
LTOj = the number of LTOs for aircraft typey; and
N = the total number of aircraft types.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA MAPS1
1 Maps obtained from the U.S. EPA's "Green Book" World Wide Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/).
-------
ATLANTA, GA
SERIOUS OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
Nonattainment | | Nonattainment New (After Nov 91)
Unclassifiable/Attainment (Remainder of 1990 Metro. Statistical Area)
Dashed Line is Urban Area
BOSTON-LAWRENCE-WORCESTER, MA-NH
SERIOUS OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
RQCKINGHAM
Rem ainder of county in
Manchester & Portsmouth NA /teas
NEW HAMPSHIRE
HILLSBOROUOH
Rem alnder of county In
Manchester N A Area
NAN TUCKET
(file=taostono)
Nonattainment [ | Nonattainment New (After Nov 91)
Unclassifiable/Attainment (Remainder of 1990 Metro. Statistical Area)
Dashed Line is Urban Area
C-l
-------
CHICAGO-GARY-LAKE COUNTY, IL-IN
SEVERE-17 OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
Wisconsin
-PftRJ OF MILW^JKEE-RACINE
NONATTAINMENT AREA
(SEVERE-17)
Illinois
(file=chicago)
L '
Nonattainment | | Nonattainment New (After Nov 91)
Unclassifiable/Attainment (Remainder of 1990 Metro. Statistical Area)
Dashed Line is Urban Area
HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA, TX
SEVERE-17 OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
(1ile=hQustoo)
Nonattainment | | Nonattainment New (After Nov 91)
Unclassifiable/Attainment (Remainder of 1990 Metro. Statistical Area)
Dashed Line is Urban Area
C-2
-------
LOS ANGELES SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN, CA
EXTREME OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
Ventura Co
Sevene-15
SE. Desert AQMA
Severe-17
South Coast ~~"~
Extreme
S.E. Desert Non-AQMA
Unclassified/Attainment
Nonattainment [ | Nonattainment New (After NOT 91)
Unclassifiable/Attainment (Remainderof 1990 Metro. Statistical Area)
Dashed Line is Urban Area (fite=iEhscabo)
NEW YORK-NORTHERN JERSEY-LONG ISLAND, NY-NJ-CT
SEVERE-17 OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
Portions of CT in NY NA Area:
Ail Farfieid Co except Shelter) City
2 Towns in Utchfleld Co:
Bridgewater & New Miltord
A Few CT Towns
In the CMSAAre In the
Greater CT NA Area
(Serious)
New
Jersey
(file=newyoro)
Nonattainment | | Nonattainment New (After NOT 91)
Unclassifiable/Attainment (Remainderof 1990 Metro. Statistical Area)
Dashed Line is Urban
C-3
-------
PHILADELPHIA-WILMINGTON-TRENTON, PA-NJ-DE-MD
SEVERE-15 OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
Pennsylvania
Maryland
New Jersey
J
\ 1
\AdjacenttjrMSA
\ f^ (file=phllado)
Nonattainment | | Nonattainment New (After NOT 91)
Unclassifiable/Attainment (Remainder of 1990 Metro. Area)
Dashed Line is Urban
PHOENIX, AZ
MODERATE OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
(fi!e=phoenio)
Nonattainment | [ Nonattainment New (After Nov 91)
Unclassifiable/Attainment (Remainder of 1990 Metro. Statistical Area)
Dashed Line is Urban Area
C-4
-------
WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA
SERIOUS OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
Maryland
Virginia
Nonattainment Nonattainment New (After Nov 91)
Unclassifiable/Attainment (Remainder of 1990 Metro. Statistical Area)
Dashed Line is Urban Area
C-5
-------
APPENDIX D
AIRPORT ACTIVITY PROJECTIONS1
1 All projections based upon FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (USDOT, 1997a). Annual average growth rates are also
summarized in Table D-l.
-------
Table D-l. Commercial aircraft activity growth rates* for selected airports, 1990 through 2010.
YEAR
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
1994-1995
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
ATL
-17.9%
-4.4%
7.6%
6.2%
6.8%
14.5%
0.0%
.8%
.8%
.7%
.7%
.7%
.7%
.6%
.6%
.6%
.6%
.5%
.5%
.5%
BOS
-1.7%
9.5%
2.7%
-3.4%
-0.1%
0.4%
1.3%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
BUR
-2.2%
-6.6%
-3.2%
-6.4%
-5.1%
2.4%
3.1%
3.4%
3.2%
3.2%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.5%
2.5%
CLT
-2.5%
5.8%
-4.3%
5.6%
0.7%
-0.2%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
.7%
.7%
.7%
.7%
.8%
DCA
-7.1%
4.9%
1.5%
0.0%
-0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
EWR
-0.6%
5.8%
6.9%
2.3%
-3.0%
4.1%
1.3%
1.3%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
HOU
0.0%
-9.1%
-1.4%
-1.2%
3.8%
1.6%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
IAD
11.3%
7.5%
-3.4%
6.7%
5.1%
1.8%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
IAH
0.0%
3.2%
10.0%
0.0%
6.5%
4.4%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
JFK
-11.1%
8.0%
6.9%
0.4%
-2.1%
0.8%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
.1%
.1%
.1%
.1%
.1%
.2%
.2%
.2%
.2%
.2%
Table D-l. Commercial travel
(concluded)
activity growth rates for selected airports, 1990 through 2010
YEAR
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
1994-1995
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
LAX
-1.2%
2.7%
0.5%
0.8%
4.2%
4.4%
2.3%
2.2%
2.2%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.0%
2.0%
.9%
.9%
.9%
.8%
.8%
.8%
LGA
-8.8%
1.3%
-0.6%
0.1%
3.4%
0.8%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
LGB
-4.4%
-6.4%
-1.4%
11.5%
3.5%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
MDW
-6.4%
-39.0%
3.1%
34.2%
5.5%
1.1%
11.2%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
ONT
3.5%
-2.2%
0.0%
3.7%
-0.2%
1.6%
1.8%
1.9%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.5%
1.4%
ORD
-0.3%
3.6%
1.6%
3.7%
1.0%
2.4%
2.1%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
ORH
-34.9%
-22.4%
1.7%
-18.8%
4.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
PHL
-5.5%
-1.5%
3.6%
3.1%
1.6%
-0.2%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
PHX
0.4%
-2.3%
6.7%
-2.4%
2.9%
5.5%
3.9%
3.3%
2.6%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.6%
SNA
5.3%
1.2%
-11.3%
3.0%
-3.1%
.3%
.7%
.9%
.3%
.5%
.4%
.4%
.5%
.5%
.4%
.3%
.3%
.3%
.4%
.4%
* Annual average growth rates.
-------
APPENDIX E
TIME-IN-MODE DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS1
1 Information provided as hardcopy from FAA's Office of Aviation Policy, Plans and Analysis. Some of
these pages also contain information on airports that are not evaluated in this report. Bryan Manning, US
EPA, (734) 214-4832, can provide further details about the potential availability of this report upon request.
-------
APPENDIX F
AIRCRAFT/ENGINE EMISSION FACTOR DATABASE
The following tables present the aircraft emission rates used for this study. Table F-l
presents the aircraft/engine type cross-reference list obtained from the FAEED model
(FAA, 1995)1. Many aircraft models have multiple possible engine configurations; the
"%" column next to each engine type is the estimated percentage of a given aircraft body
type using that engine. These distributions were used as weighting factors to create the
emission rates presented in Tables F-2 and F-3. Table F-2 provides rates in pounds per
LTO cycle; Tables F-3 presents rates in kilograms per LTO cycle. For selected
aircraft/engine combinations, an emission factor was not located at the time of the
analysis. In Table F-4, we present the equivalencies that were assumed for a limited
number of aircraft/engine combinations.
1 Supplemented by the ICAO engine emission factor database (ICAO, 1995).
-------
Table F-l. Aircraft/engine type cross-reference
Manufacturer [Body Type | #Eng
AIRBUS [A300-600 f 2
AIRBUS 1A300-B4 { 2
AIRBUS [A310-200 j 2
AIRBUS 1A310-300 [ 2
AIRBUS [A320-200 | 2
BEECH 118 CARG) { 2
BEECH IB. 99A | 2
BOEING [B707-300B [ 4
BOEING IB707-300C | 4
BOEING [B727-100 { 3
BOEING !B727-100(CARG) i 3
BOEING [B727-200 [ 3
§2^5iG_________^_JBJlZ^2L I 2
?^^^ZZZZZZZZZZZZjMZ^z^^£^ '* ~
BOEE^^ i 2
^^^^ZZZZZZZZZZZZjMZ^z^^s-1 * ~
?2^^ZIIIIIIIIIIZ]MZ?^M.. '' 2
52^^SIIIIIIIIIIIIlMLlIi5L '* 2
^^^ZIIIIIIIIIIZjMLlI^M.. * 2
§2^ZZZZZZZZZjiiZZZI '! 4
?2^^ZIIIIIIIIIIZ]MLli?^-G) ^ 4
^^^ZIIIIIIIIIIZjMZII2^ * 4
^^^ZIIIIIIIIIIZjMLlIiM.. '' 4
§2^ZZZZZZZZZjiiII?Ll j 4
?2^^ZIIIIIIIIIIZ]ML.^2ARG' ^ 4
^^^ZIIIIIIIIIIZjMZII2^ * 2
BOEE^^ i 2
^^^^ZZZZZZZZZZZZjMzZI2^! '* 2
?5^^ZZZZZZZZZZZZjMzZZ?£^ * 2
^^^^^^KZIIIIIIIj^IIlik200 '* 2
s^^^^KZZZZZlJ^IlMZ1 j 4
c^^^ZZZZZZZIj^JioZI j 2
M^^^^^ZZZZZl5M?:iZI '' 2
^^^^ZZZZZZZj:22!!^ '! 2
Fo^^ZZZZZZZZZE:2!!^?8 '' 2
Fo^^ZZZZZZZZjF^ZZZ '! 2
F2^^ZZZZZZZZZM°ZZZ '' 2
^^^^^IIIIIIIIIIII^^^^0 '! 3
Loc^^^ZZZZZZZj^oM:2^0 '' 3
^^^^^IIIIIIIIIIII^^^^0 '! 3
MCD^^^iDOTG^JDcIoT^ i 3
MCD^^^iDOTG^jDcIo^3^ i 3
MCD^^^iDOTG^JDcIo^O^ i 3
M?D^^^Z5ZZ45£LZZ '! 4
MCD^^^iDOTG^JDCS^^ i 4
MCD^^^iDOTG^jDC8^5|3 i 4
MCD^^^iDOTG^JDCS^F^ i 4
MCD^^^iDOTG^jDCS^T^ '; 4
MCD^^^iDOTG^JDCS^^ i 4
MCD^^^iDOTG^jDCS^^ i 4
M?£^^^^.5^ZIZ]5£?I.1£ARG) * 4
M?D^^^Z5ZZ45£ZIZ j 4
M?£^^^^.5^ZIZ]5£?Z.2£ARG) '' 4
M?D^^^Z5ZZIj5£ZZZ j 4
MCTX^^ i 4
MCD^^^iDOTG^jDCS^^ i 4
MCD^^^iDOTG^JDCS^^ i 4
MCI^ i 4
MCD^^^iDOTG^JDC9^^ i 2
MCD^^^iDOTG^jDC9^5^ i 2
MCD^^^iDOTG^JDC9^^ i 2
MCD^^^iDOTG^jDC940^ i 2
MCD^^^iDOTG^JDC9^50^ i 2
MCD^^^iDOTG^jDC9JO^ i 2
M^^^Z5MZZIjM5:liZI i 3
^^j:r~~~~~~~~~~-~^^ i 2
Engine 1
CF6-80C2A5
CF6-50
JT9D-7R4E1
PW4152
CFM56-5-A1
R-985-AN
PT6A-27
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
JT8D-7(OLD COMB.)
JT8D-7A
JT8D-17(REV.)
JT8D-15
JT8D-15
JT8D-15
JT8D-7A
CFM56-3B-2
CFM56-3B-2
CFM56-3C-1
JT9D-7F
JT9D-7F (MOD V)
CF6-50E2
PW4056
JT9D-7F (MOD V)
JT9D-70A
RB211-535E4
PW2040
CF6-80A2
CF6-80C2B6
ALF502R-5
ALF502R-5
DART 5424
PT6A-27
DART 532-7
DART 5 14-7
SPEYMK555
TAY MK 620-15
RB211-22B
RB211-22B
RB211-524B4
CF6-6D
CF6-50C
JT9D-20
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
JT3D-3B
CFM56-2-C1
CFM56-2
CFM56-2-C1
JT8D-7
JT8D-7
JT8D-15
JT8D-15
JT8D-17
JT8D-209
CF6-80C2D1F
DART542-10J
% JEnginel J% [Engine 3
ooj j 1
ooj j 1
ooj j 1
ooj j 1
JJ>JJT8D-7.7A & 7B (REC) j 7JJT8D-7A
~TJJT8D-7B 1 91JJT8D-9
1JJT8D-17A J 1JJT8D-7
101JT8D-15A i 24JJT8D-17
10JJT8D-15A J 24JJT8D-17
51JT8D-17 i 32JJT8D-17A
10JJT8D-9/9A J 5JJT8D-9A
00 i i 1
00 i i i
oo i i i
00 i i i
OOi | i
3IJT9D-59A i 7IJT9D-7 (ORIG.)
100 i i i
85JJT9D-7F (MOD VI) J 15 i
39iJT9D-7F(MOD V) i 33]jT9D-7Q
1JPW2037 J 92JPW2Q40
261RB211-535E4 i 741
59JCF6-80C2B2 J 12JJT9D-7R4D
100 i i ]
100 i i i
100 i i i
100 i i i
74 1PT6A-20 i 26J
100 i i i
15 IDART 528-7E i IO|DART 532-7
100 i i i
100 i i ]
99JRB211-524B4 J li
991RB211-524B4 i li
100 i i i
100 i i ]
100 i i i
166 1 I i
57JJT3D-7 J43i
100 i i ]
100 i i i
100 i i i
100 i i i
571JT3D-7 i43i
100 i i i
100 i i i
100 i i i
15 1JT3D-7 i 64JJT3D-3BDL
100 i i i
24 1JT3D-7 i 42|jT8D-7,7A & 7B (REC)
100 i i i
100 i i ]
100 i i i
166 1 I i
15JJT8D-7A J 6JJT8D-7B
31JT8D-17 i 1JJT8D-7A
100 i i i
87JJT8D-17A i 131
5JJT8D-217 J 12JJT8D-217A
lOOi | i
25 IDART 542-ioK i 751
lib iEngjne4 i% lEngineS lib lEngjne6 i% lEngine 7 io.d iEngineS !%!Engjne9 i% lEngine 10 lib lEngine 11 io0lTotal1
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~i 1 1 i i i 1 oo
1 ! i i i ! i i i i l~l i i i ! ! i oo
1 i ! i i i ! i i I l~l ! i i i i i oo
1 1 i i i ! i i i i l~l i i i I ! i oo
i 1 ! i 1 1 ! i 1 1 |~l ! i i 1 1 1 oo
1 ! i i i ! i i i i l~l i i i ! ! i oo
1 i ! i i i ! i i I l~l ! i i i i i oo
1 1 i i i ! i i i i l~l i i i I ! i oo
jZ^^^^Q^^^^Z^^^^^ZQ^^^^C^^^^^^^^L^^^^CL^Z^Z^U^Z oo
i____4JJT8D-JB j_73j i i j j j i j__j j j i i i j 00
| 1JJT8D-9A i 2| i [ i | i i i j i | | I j i 00
f lijT8D-15 j 26JJT8D-15A f2l|JT8D-17A j 1JJT8D-17R | 3 [JT8D-7.7A & 7B (REC) j 1 iJT8D-7B j 16JJT8D-9 f20ijT8D-9A \ 9\ 00
i 7[JT8D-17A 1 1JJT8D-7B [l9[jT8D-9A ] 39J_' 1 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 ] 00
i 71JT8D-17A J 1JJT8D-7B J191JT8D-9A J39J i i j i i i i i i i 00
i 32JJT8D-7A i 10JJT8D-9 ( 3 [JT8D-9A i 181 i i i j [I i i i i 00
i 16 JJT8D-15 J 5 JJT8D-17 | 32 1JT8D-17A J 32 i i i i i i i i i i i 00
II ! i II ! i i ! II ! i i i M oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
II 1 ] II 1 ] II II 1 ] II 1 i oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
i ! ! i II ! i i ! 1 1 ! i i i M oo
i 11JT9D-70A J 13JJT9D-7A | 55 |JT9D-7F (MOD V) i 5JJT9D-7Q (l3 JJT9D-7R4G2 J3i i i i i i i 00
II I ] II 1 ] II II I ] II I i oo
II II II II i i II II II 1 i oo
i 17|JT9D-7R4G2 i 111 i i i i i i M i i i i i 1 00
1 7| |j j| |j || || |j j| I | 00
II 1 ] II 1 ] II II 1 ] II 1 i oo
U9| II || II i ! II II || M oo
i ! ! i II ! i i ! 1 1 ! i i i M oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
II 1 ] II 1 ] II II 1 ] II 1 i oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
i ! ! i II ! i i ! 1 1 ! i i i M oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
i 5JDART532-7N i 3JDART 532-7P i 24|DART 535-7R i 3JDART 535-7R f 9JDART536-7E i 2JDART 552-7R i 29J i i i i 00
II II II II i i II II II 1 i oo
i ! ! i II ! i i ! 1 1 ! i i i M oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
II 1 ] II 1 ] II II 1 ] II 1 i oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
i ! ! i II ! i i ! 1 1 ! i i i M oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
II 1 ] II 1 ] II II 1 ] II 1 i oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
i ! ! i II ! i i ! 1 1 ! i i i M oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
II 1 ] II 1 ] II II 1 ] II 1 i oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
i ! ! i II ! i i ! 1 1 ! i i i M oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
II 1 ] II 1 ] II II 1 ] II 1 i oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
121! || II || j| || || II M oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
i 27JJT3D-735E4 i 7] i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 00
II II II II i i II II II 1 i oo
i ! ! i II ! i i ! 1 1 ! i i i M oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
II 1 ] II 1 ] II II 1 ] II 1 i oo
|79| l| || l| i ! l| l| || M oo
i 5 IJTSD-TB i 68 JJT8D-9A [23 i i i i i i i i i i i i i oo
i ! II i ! II i i II II i ! ! i oo
II 1 ] II 1 ] II II 1 ] II 1 i oo
i 36iJT8D-217C i 25 IJT8D-219 j 22i i j i i i i i j j i i j 00
II ! i II ! i i ! II ! i i i M oo
i i i i i i i i i i II i i i i i i oo
-------
Wt Avg EFs (Ibs per min)
Table F-2. Engine Modal EFs (Ibs/min)
Body Type
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
BEECH
BEECH
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BRITAIRCOR
BRITAIRCOR
CONVAIR
DE HAVILLAND
FAIRCHILD
FOKKER
A300-600
A300-B4
A3 10-200
A3 10-300
A320-200
18(CARG)
B. 99A
B707-300B
B707-300C
B727-100
B727-100(CARG)
B727-200
B737-100
B737-200
B737-200(CARG)
B737-200C
B737-300
B737-400
B737-500
B747
B747(CARG)
B747-200
B747-400
B747-SP
B747F(CARG)
B757-200
B757-200(CARG)
B767-200
B767-300
BAE-1 11-200
BAE-146-1
CV640
DHC-6
FH-227
F-27 SERIES
TK
THCef
0.04780
0.38112
0.08965
0.07487
0.06395
0.00000
0.00000
2.48470
2.48470
0.15290
0.15549
0.12645
0.07816
0.07816
0.12322
0.12498
0.01006
0.01006
0.00916
0.25841
0.34401
0.27517
0.02423
0.33117
0.27944
0.01976
0.01771
0.13461
0.04776
0.00568
0.01137
0.00000
0.01435
0.04709
0.04709
TK
COef
0.35506
0.27223
0.31939
0.06911
0.25024
0.00000
0.01415
0.93176
0.93176
0.57233
0.58469
0.41644
0.30391
0.30391
0.29161
0.29249
0.25143
0.25143
0.27477
0.25841
0.45867
0.29706
0.37270
0.42863
0.39503
0.16775
0.41623
0.46921
0.35479
0.02842
0.05684
0.12397
0.05234
0.15069
0.15069
TK
NOXef
23.47520
16.87806
23.30959
15.49267
6.83996
0.00000
0.11054
7.51621
7.51621
6.71529
6.74443
7.39783
5.29978
5.29978
5.76921
5.76161
5.41977
5.41977
6.31963
40.82822
52.74756
42.00930
31.95942
50.95966
46.10919
13.01970
23.34454
18.10006
21.02125
1.28179
2.56358
0.24231
4.50758
0.26371
0.26371
TK
S02ef
0.36872
0.29400
0.30258
0.31101
0.15015
0.00001
0.00764
0.33543
0.33543
0.21198
0.21230
0.21534
0.15398
0.15398
0.16429
0.16429
0.15086
0.15086
0.16486
0.69770
0.61921
0.69302
0.50315
0.63098
0.67139
0.22241
0.26204
0.31165
0.36843
0.05116
0.10232
0.03043
0.07025
0.02543
0.02543
CB
THCef
0.04406
0.31778
0.05929
0.07556
0.05245
0.00000
0.00000
0.98626
0.98626
0.15534
0.15893
0.11476
0.07644
0.07644
0.11467
0.11597
0.01092
0.01092
0.01010
0.21160
0.28000
0.22722
0.02682
0.26974
0.22615
0.01947
0.00644
0.12990
0.04404
0.00414
0.00829
0.00000
0.01181
0.04569
0.04569
CB
COef
0.28642
0.22699
0.24173
0.08028
0.20524
0.00000
0.01600
1.38076
1.38076
0.62362
0.63774
0.43778
0.29301
0.29301
0.28772
0.29036
0.20905
0.20905
0.22715
0.21160
0.37334
0.23841
0.30646
0.34908
0.30729
0.13889
0.40344
0.41876
0.28628
0.01954
0.03909
0.13492
0.05121
0.14537
0.14537
CB
NOXef
12.59135
11.89417
15.59836
10.71963
4.46971
0.00000
0.09334
4.88199
4.88199
4.35759
4.36100
4.63878
3.29808
3.29808
3.57347
3.57218
3.87906
3.87906
4.49246
27.08498
32.10720
27.58135
20.91591
31.35387
29.26705
8.51834
13.42027
12.98862
12.62935
0.82554
1.65108
0.17540
3.16962
0.18691
0.18691
CB
S02ef
0.29743
0.24515
0.24629
0.25500
0.12314
0.00001
0.00720
0.26629
0.26629
0.17385
0.17408
0.17373
0.12467
0.12467
0.13201
0.13201
0.12543
0.12543
0.13629
0.57132
0.50401
0.56592
0.41372
0.51411
0.54518
0.18303
0.21342
0.25859
0.29729
0.04222
0.08443
0.02429
0.05848
0.02243
0.02243
TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout
AP = Approach; ID = Idle
F-2
-------
Wt Avg EFs (Ibs per min)
Table F-2. Engine Modal EFs (Ibs/min)
Body Type
FOKKER
FOKKER
LOCKHEED
LOCKHEED
LOCKHEED
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
NAMC
F-28
F100
L-1011-100
L-101 1-200
L-1011-500
DC10-10
DC10-30
DC10-40
DCS
DC8-51
DC8-52
DC8-53
DC8-55
DC8-60
DC8-61
DC8-61(CARG)
DC8-62
DC8-62(CARG)
DC8-63
DC8-63F(CARG)
DC8-70
DC8-71
DC8-73F(CARG)
DC9-10
DC9-15F
DC9-30
DC9-40
DC9-50
DC9-80
MD-11
YS-11
TK
THCef
0.16769
0.16085
0.26733
0.26733
0.34203
0.20667
0.56644
0.08330
1.55898
2.48470
2.48470
2.48470
2.48470
1.55898
2.48470
2.48470
2.48470
1.10688
2.48470
0.79427
0.02085
0.02085
0.02085
0.06542
0.09879
0.09052
0.07791
0.20781
0.09817
0.07211
0.00000
TK
COef
0.08385
0.14074
1.82419
1.82419
0.61390
0.34445
0.47203
0.00000
0.78796
0.93176
0.93176
0.93176
0.93176
0.78796
0.93176
0.93176
0.93176
0.71773
0.93176
0.64351
0.46906
0.46906
0.46906
0.23553
0.36899
0.36122
0.21815
0.24375
0.27722
0.53569
0.12397
TK
NOXef
3.60537
4.24240
25.61810
25.61810
45.86703
27.55602
33.04222
32.23519
7.90879
7.51621
7.51621
7.51621
7.51621
7.90879
7.51621
7.51621
7.51621
8.10051
7.51621
8.36483
9.64170
9.64170
9.64170
4.50120
4.47895
4.72992
5.95243
6.27234
9.03852
33.63525
0.24231
TK
S02ef
0.10290
0.10857
0.40060
0.40060
0.47358
0.37201
0.50979
0.44979
0.34531
0.33543
0.33543
0.33543
0.33543
0.34531
0.33543
0.33543
0.33543
0.35014
0.33543
0.33243
0.28143
0.28143
0.28143
0.14132
0.14132
0.14416
0.16829
0.17652
0.18872
0.55630
0.03043
CB
THCef
0.02493
0.05000
0.23811
0.23811
0.18469
0.17036
0.53195
0.07099
0.65606
0.98626
0.98626
0.98626
0.98626
0.65606
0.98626
0.98626
0.98626
0.49480
0.98626
0.37267
0.02167
0.02167
0.02167
0.05366
0.09927
0.09157
0.06250
0.19092
0.12254
0.06556
0.00000
CB
COef
0.00000
0.13334
2.51013
2.51013
0.21310
0.28393
0.37997
0.00000
.23302
.38076
.38076
.38076
.38076
.23302
.38076
.38076
.38076
.16087
.38076
0.96709
0.39001
0.39001
0.39001
0.23610
0.40029
0.38064
0.25000
0.26675
0.35005
0.42612
0.13492
CB
NOXef
2.28125
2.80005
15.79790
15.79790
27.13459
18.51245
22.03807
20.23308
5.03613
4.88199
4.88199
4.88199
4.88199
5.03613
4.88199
4.88199
4.88199
5.11141
4.88199
5.36213
6.93345
6.93345
6.93345
3.00486
2.91365
3.01430
3.75006
3.95440
5.84919
19.68338
0.17540
CB
S02ef
0.08414
0.09000
0.33097
0.33097
0.38358
0.30665
0.41036
0.38336
0.27854
0.26629
0.26629
0.26629
0.26629
0.27854
0.26629
0.26629
0.26629
0.28452
0.26629
0.27094
0.23400
0.23400
0.23400
0.11590
0.11590
0.11788
0.13500
0.14127
0.15354
0.44251
0.02429
TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout
AP = Approach; ID = Idle
F-3
-------
Wt Avg EFs (Ibs per min)
Table F-2. Engine Modal EFs (Ibs/min)
Body Type
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
BEECH
BEECH
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BRITAIRCOR
BRITAIRCOR
CONVAIR
DE HAVILLAND
FAIRCHILD
FOKKER
A300-600
A300-B4
A3 10-200
A3 10-300
A320-200
18(CARG)
B. 99A
B707-300B
B707-300C
B727-100
B727-100(CARG)
B727-200
B737-100
B737-200
B737-200(CARG)
B737-200C
B737-300
B737-400
B737-500
B747
B747(CARG)
B747-200
B747-400
B747-SP
B747F(CARG)
B757-200
B757-200(CARG)
B767-200
B767-300
BAE-1 11-200
BAE-146-1
CV640
DHC-6
FH-227
F-27 SERIES
AP
THCef
0.03635
0.16966
0.02245
0.02353
0.03079
0.00000
0.01570
0.73229
0.73229
0.17212
0.17967
0.15050
0.08260
0.08260
0.10878
0.11057
0.00606
0.00606
0.00622
0.10800
0.16500
0.11984
0.04695
0.15645
0.12184
0.02210
0.01057
0.05663
0.03630
0.00594
0.01187
0.00000
0.01835
0.00006
0.00006
AP
COef
0.35078
1.15677
0.21246
0.17100
0.19246
0.00000
0.16705
4.48526
4.48526
1.12614
1.17252
0.85318
0.41891
0.41891
0.51058
0.52203
0.28244
0.28244
0.27556
0.61201
0.95702
0.67125
0.52170
0.90527
0.71224
0.24420
0.25864
0.41024
0.35027
0.19422
0.38844
0.48426
0.15389
0.71711
0.71711
AP
NOXef
1.65573
1.29558
1.79637
1.74138
0.61588
0.00000
0.06001
0.87875
0.87875
0.63079
0.62656
0.69272
0.49328
0.49328
0.53688
0.53632
0.72271
0.72271
0.80890
2.80805
2.57404
2.81585
2.76502
2.60914
2.75947
1.10835
1.19637
1.81210
1.65332
0.18054
0.36109
0.04592
0.44130
0.01938
0.01938
AP
S02ef
0.09814
0.08329
0.09327
0.08472
0.04157
0.00001
0.00387
0.09886
0.09886
0.06131
0.06138
0.06140
0.04394
0.04394
0.04675
0.04675
0.04486
0.04486
0.04800
0.19440
0.17820
0.19303
0.14086
0.18063
0.18838
0.05819
0.07857
0.09538
0.09800
0.01477
0.02954
0.01127
0.02103
0.01163
0.01163
ID
THCef
0.49232
1.37569
0.06490
0.03465
0.03744
0.00000
1.92452
8.00012
8.00012
0.51866
0.53526
0.39427
0.20068
0.20068
0.29300
0.29780
0.05509
0.05509
0.04658
1.50479
3.01274
1.59531
0.18453
2.78655
1.85708
0.08452
0.06118
0.23482
0.49232
0.05818
0.11636
0.12385
0.14609
0.32689
0.32689
ID
COef
2.28087
3.49213
0.48352
0.59750
0.47074
0.00000
0.24550
7.00010
7.00010
1.74267
1.79702
1.39480
0.76370
0.76370
0.84939
0.86361
0.94761
0.94761
0.87917
6.64614
6.25724
6.50782
2.05850
6.31557
5.94076
0.87255
0.84192
1.09225
2.28142
0.44179
0.88358
0.57611
0.26615
1.25011
1.25011
ID
NOXef
0.20755
0.17461
0.23971
0.22945
0.10699
0.00000
0.00932
1.78574
1.78574
0.13994
0.13873
0.14842
0.10591
0.10591
0.11537
0.11537
0.12908
0.12908
0.14106
0.37620
0.35921
0.37825
0.34445
0.36176
0.37873
0.16522
0.20472
0.16677
0.20755
0.04080
0.08160
0.02226
0.07791
0.00957
0.00957
ID
S02ef
0.02957
0.02857
0.03157
0.02529
0.01444
0.00001
0.00207
0.03857
0.03857
0.02766
0.02768
0.02695
0.01934
0.01934
0.01998
0.01998
0.01700
0.01700
0.01771
0.06772
0.06257
0.06708
0.04429
0.06334
0.06561
0.02035
0.02584
0.02444
0.02957
0.00583
0.01166
0.00751
0.00814
0.00739
0.00739
TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout
AP = Approach; ID = Idle
F-4
-------
Wt Avg EFs (Ibs per min)
Table F-2. Engine Modal EFs (Ibs/min)
Body Type
FOKKER
FOKKER
LOCKHEED
LOCKHEED
LOCKHEED
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
NAMC
F-28
F100
L-1011-100
L-101 1-200
L-1011-500
DC10-10
DC10-30
DC10-40
DCS
DC8-51
DC8-52
DC8-53
DC8-55
DC8-60
DC8-61
DC8-61(CARG)
DC8-62
DC8-62(CARG)
DC8-63
DC8-63F(CARG)
DC8-70
DC8-71
DC8-73F(CARG)
DC9-10
DC9-15F
DC9-30
DC9-40
DC9-50
DC9-80
MD-11
YS-11
AP
THCef
0.40936
0.05476
1.68112
1.68112
0.17500
0.13442
0.25516
0.31933
0.60307
0.73229
0.73229
0.73229
0.73229
0.60307
0.73229
0.73229
0.73229
0.53997
0.73229
0.40367
0.01316
0.01316
0.01316
0.03028
0.10748
0.10558
0.14855
0.16697
0.16179
0.05214
0.00000
AP
COef
1.30501
0.23731
5.73505
5.73505
0.39001
1.24818
1.32685
1.86686
4.28066
4.48526
4.48526
4.48526
4.48526
4.28066
4.48526
4.48526
4.48526
4.18073
4.48526
3.13100
0.69112
0.69112
0.69112
0.16652
0.70050
0.65285
0.86427
0.72529
0.42001
0.50579
0.48426
AP
NOXef
0.34769
0.34683
1.77339
1.77339
2.45004
2.18911
2.39853
1.86686
0.96947
0.87875
0.87875
0.87875
0.87875
0.96947
0.87875
0.87875
0.87875
1.01378
0.87875
1.00237
1.34934
1.34934
1.34934
0.47684
0.42537
0.43434
0.53117
0.57315
0.91827
2.38818
0.04592
AP
S02ef
0.03171
0.03286
0.11867
0.11867
0.13500
0.10369
0.13779
0.13265
0.10409
0.09886
0.09886
0.09886
0.09886
0.10409
0.09886
0.09886
0.09886
0.10665
0.09886
0.10020
0.08886
0.08886
0.08886
0.04087
0.04087
0.04159
0.04862
0.05013
0.05454
0.14079
0.01127
ID
THCef
2.82150
0.09894
5.83157
5.83157
0.18572
1.44002
1.93495
3.02271
8.13090
8.00012
8.00012
8.00012
8.00012
8.13090
8.00012
8.00012
8.00012
8.19478
8.00012
6.05920
0.12394
0.12394
0.12394
0.12979
0.32720
0.30620
0.42982
0.37691
0.12240
0.70235
0.12385
ID
COef
2.68429
0.70133
8.32072
8.32072
1.18002
3.71663
5.24120
6.99995
8.02539
7.00010
7.00010
7.00010
7.00010
8.02539
7.00010
7.00010
7.00010
8.52612
7.00010
6.54217
2.07919
2.07919
2.07919
0.48840
1.10386
1.05246
1.39106
1.10889
0.44821
3.24961
0.57611
ID
NOXef
0.05568
0.07275
0.24479
0.24479
0.40001
0.30858
0.29445
0.25957
.08174
.78574
.78574
.78574
.78574
.08174
.78574
.78574
.78574
0.73793
1.78574
0.55945
0.27090
0.27090
0.27090
0.10759
0.09452
0.09541
0.11722
0.12707
0.13223
0.29556
0.02226
ID
S02ef
0.01643
0.01571
0.04867
0.04867
0.05143
0.03703
0.04543
0.04522
0.03766
0.03857
0.03857
0.03857
0.03857
0.03766
0.03857
0.03857
0.03857
0.03722
0.03857
0.03708
0.03657
0.03657
0.03657
0.01844
0.01844
0.01864
0.02110
0.02087
0.01946
0.04200
0.00751
TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout
AP = Approach; ID = Idle
F-5
-------
WtAvgEFs(kg/min)
Table F-3. Engine Modal Efs (kgs/min)
Body Type
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
BEECH
BEECH
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BRITAIRCOR
BRITAIRCOR
CONVAIR
DE HAVILLAND
FAIRCHILD
FOKKER
A300-600
A300-B4
A3 10-200
A3 10-300
A320-200
18(CARG)
B. 99A
B707-300B
B707-300C
B727-100
B727-100(CARG)
B727-200
B737-100
B737-200
B737-200(CARG)
B737-200C
B737-300
B737-400
B737-500
B747
B747(CARG)
B747-200
B747-400
B747-SP
B747F(CARG)
B757-200
B757-200(CARG)
B767-200
B767-300
BAE-1 11-200
BAE-146-1
CV640
DHC-6
FH-227
F-27 SERIES
TK
THCef
0.02168
0.17287
0.04067
0.03396
0.02901
0.00000
0.00000
1.12705
1.12705
0.06935
0.07053
0.05736
0.03545
0.03545
0.05589
0.05669
0.00456
0.00456
0.00415
0.11721
0.15604
0.12482
0.01099
0.15022
0.12675
0.00896
0.00804
0.06106
0.02166
0.00258
0.00516
0.00000
0.00651
0.02136
0.02136
TK
COef
0.16106
0.12348
0.14487
0.03135
0.11351
0.00000
0.00642
0.42264
0.42264
0.25961
0.26521
0.18889
0.13785
0.13785
0.13227
0.13267
0.11405
0.11405
0.12463
0.11721
0.20805
0.13475
0.16906
0.19443
0.17918
0.07609
0.18880
0.21283
0.16093
0.01289
0.02578
0.05623
0.02374
0.06835
0.06835
TK
NOXef
10.64828
7.65584
10.57316
7.02743
3.10258
0.00000
0.05014
3.40933
3.40933
3.04604
3.05925
3.35563
2.40397
2.40397
2.61690
2.61345
2.45839
2.45839
2.86657
18.51956
23.92613
19.05529
14.49670
23.11515
20.91499
5.90570
10.58901
8.21013
9.53518
0.58142
1.16283
0.10991
2.04463
0.11962
0.11962
TK
S02ef
0.16725
0.13336
0.13725
0.14107
0.06811
0.00001
0.00347
0.15215
0.15215
0.09615
0.09630
0.09768
0.06984
0.06984
0.07452
0.07452
0.06843
0.06843
0.07478
0.31647
0.28087
0.31435
0.22823
0.28621
0.30454
0.10088
0.11886
0.14136
0.16712
0.02321
0.04641
0.01380
0.03186
0.01153
0.01153
CB
THCef
0.01999
0.14415
0.02689
0.03427
0.02379
0.00000
0.00000
0.44736
0.44736
0.07046
0.07209
0.05206
0.03467
0.03467
0.05202
0.05260
0.00495
0.00495
0.00458
0.09598
0.12701
0.10306
0.01216
0.12236
0.10258
0.00883
0.00292
0.05892
0.01998
0.00188
0.00376
0.00000
0.00536
0.02072
0.02072
CB
COef
0.12992
0.10296
0.10965
0.03641
0.09310
0.00000
0.00726
0.62631
0.62631
0.28287
0.28928
0.19858
0.13291
0.13291
0.13051
0.13171
0.09482
0.09482
0.10303
0.09598
0.16935
0.10814
0.13901
0.15834
0.13938
0.06300
0.18300
0.18995
0.12986
0.00887
0.01773
0.06120
0.02323
0.06594
0.06594
CB
NOXef
5.71140
5.39516
7.07537
4.86239
2.02745
0.00000
0.04234
2.21445
2.21445
.97659
.97814
2.10413
.49600
.49600
.62092
.62033
.75953
.75953
2.03776
12.28567
14.56373
12.51082
9.48739
14.22202
13.27545
3.86390
6.08740
5.89160
5.72864
0.37446
0.74892
0.07956
1.43773
0.08478
0.08478
CB
S02ef
0.13491
0.11120
0.11172
0.11567
0.05586
0.00001
0.00327
0.12079
0.12079
0.07886
0.07896
0.07880
0.05655
0.05655
0.05988
0.05988
0.05689
0.05689
0.06182
0.25915
0.22862
0.25670
0.18766
0.23320
0.24729
0.08302
0.09680
0.11730
0.13485
0.01915
0.03830
0.01102
0.02653
0.01017
0.01017
TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout
AP = Approach; ID = Idle
F-6
-------
WtAvgEFs(kg/min)
Table F-3. Engine Modal Efs (kgs/min)
Body Type
FOKKER
FOKKER
LOCKHEED
LOCKHEED
LOCKHEED
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
NAMC
F-28
F100
L-1011-100
L-101 1-200
L-1011-500
DC10-10
DC10-30
DC10-40
DCS
DC8-51
DC8-52
DC8-53
DC8-55
DC8-60
DC8-61
DC8-61(CARG)
DC8-62
DC8-62(CARG)
DC8-63
DC8-63F(CARG)
DC8-70
DC8-71
DC8-73F(CARG)
DC9-10
DC9-15F
DC9-30
DC9-40
DC9-50
DC9-80
MD-11
YS-11
TK
THCef
0.07606
0.07296
0.12126
0.12126
0.15514
0.09374
0.25693
0.03778
0.70715
1.12705
1.12705
1.12705
1.12705
0.70715
1.12705
1.12705
1.12705
0.50208
1.12705
0.36028
0.00946
0.00946
0.00946
0.02968
0.04481
0.04106
0.03534
0.09426
0.04453
0.03271
0.00000
TK
COef
0.03803
0.06384
0.82745
0.82745
0.27846
0.15624
0.21411
0.00000
0.35742
0.42264
0.42264
0.42264
0.42264
0.35742
0.42264
0.42264
0.42264
0.32556
0.42264
0.29189
0.21276
0.21276
0.21276
0.10683
0.16737
0.16385
0.09895
0.11057
0.12575
0.24299
0.05623
TK
NOXef
1.63539
1.92434
11.62029
11.62029
20.80515
12.49933
14.98785
14.62178
3.58740
3.40933
3.40933
3.40933
3.40933
3.58740
3.40933
3.40933
3.40933
3.67437
3.40933
3.79426
4.37344
4.37344
4.37344
2.04173
2.03164
2.14548
2.70000
2.84511
4.09984
15.25685
0.10991
TK
S02ef
0.04668
0.04925
0.18171
0.18171
0.21481
0.16874
0.23124
0.20402
0.15663
0.15215
0.15215
0.15215
0.15215
0.15663
0.15215
0.15215
0.15215
0.15882
0.15215
0.15079
0.12766
0.12766
0.12766
0.06410
0.06410
0.06539
0.07634
0.08007
0.08560
0.25233
0.01380
CB
THCef
0.01131
0.02268
0.10800
0.10800
0.08377
0.07727
0.24129
0.03220
0.29759
0.44736
0.44736
0.44736
0.44736
0.29759
0.44736
0.44736
0.44736
0.22444
0.44736
0.16904
0.00983
0.00983
0.00983
0.02434
0.04503
0.04153
0.02835
0.08660
0.05559
0.02974
0.00000
CB
COef
0.00000
0.06048
1.13859
1.13859
0.09666
0.12879
0.17235
0.00000
0.55929
0.62631
0.62631
0.62631
0.62631
0.55929
0.62631
0.62631
0.62631
0.52657
0.62631
0.43867
0.17691
0.17691
0.17691
0.10709
0.18157
0.17266
0.11340
0.12100
0.15878
0.19329
0.06120
CB
NOXef
1.03477
1.27009
7.16588
7.16588
12.30817
8.39719
9.99640
9.17766
2.28438
2.21445
2.21445
2.21445
2.21445
2.28438
2.21445
2.21445
2.21445
2.31852
2.21445
2.43225
3.14499
3.14499
3.14499
.36300
.32162
.36728
.70102
.79371
2.65318
8.92832
0.07956
CB
S02ef
0.03817
0.04082
0.15012
0.15012
0.17399
0.13909
0.18614
0.17389
0.12634
0.12079
0.12079
0.12079
0.12079
0.12634
0.12079
0.12079
0.12079
0.12906
0.12079
0.12290
0.10614
0.10614
0.10614
0.05257
0.05257
0.05347
0.06124
0.06408
0.06965
0.20072
0.01102
TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout
AP = Approach; ID = Idle
F-7
-------
WtAvgEFs(kg/min)
Table F-3. Engine Modal Efs (kgs/min)
Body Type
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
AIRBUS
BEECH
BEECH
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BOEING
BRITAIRCOR
BRITAIRCOR
CONVAIR
DE HAVILLAND
FAIRCHILD
FOKKER
A300-600
A300-B4
A3 10-200
A3 10-300
A320-200
18(CARG)
B. 99A
B707-300B
B707-300C
B727-100
B727-100(CARG)
B727-200
B737-100
B737-200
B737-200(CARG)
B737-200C
B737-300
B737-400
B737-500
B747
B747(CARG)
B747-200
B747-400
B747-SP
B747F(CARG)
B757-200
B757-200(CARG)
B767-200
B767-300
BAE-1 11-200
BAE-146-1
CV640
DHC-6
FH-227
F-27 SERIES
AP
THCef
0.01649
0.07696
0.01019
0.01067
0.01397
0.00000
0.00712
0.33216
0.33216
0.07807
0.08150
0.06827
0.03747
0.03747
0.04934
0.05015
0.00275
0.00275
0.00282
0.04899
0.07484
0.05436
0.02130
0.07097
0.05526
0.01002
0.00479
0.02569
0.01646
0.00269
0.00539
0.00000
0.00832
0.00003
0.00003
AP
COef
0.15911
0.52471
0.09637
0.07757
0.08730
0.00000
0.07577
2.03450
2.03450
0.51081
0.53185
0.38700
0.19002
0.19002
0.23160
0.23679
0.12811
0.12811
0.12499
0.27761
0.43410
0.30448
0.23664
0.41063
0.32307
0.11077
0.11732
0.18609
0.15888
0.08810
0.17620
0.21966
0.06980
0.32528
0.32528
AP
NOXef
0.75104
0.58767
0.81483
0.78988
0.27936
0.00000
0.02722
0.39860
0.39860
0.28613
0.28421
0.31422
0.22375
0.22375
0.24353
0.24327
0.32782
0.32782
0.36692
.27372
.16758
.27726
.25420
.18350
.25169
0.50274
0.54267
0.82196
0.74994
0.08189
0.16379
0.02083
0.20017
0.00879
0.00879
AP
S02ef
0.04452
0.03778
0.04231
0.03843
0.01886
0.00001
0.00176
0.04484
0.04484
0.02781
0.02784
0.02785
0.01993
0.01993
0.02120
0.02120
0.02035
0.02035
0.02177
0.08818
0.08083
0.08756
0.06389
0.08193
0.08545
0.02639
0.03564
0.04326
0.04445
0.00670
0.01340
0.00511
0.00954
0.00527
0.00527
ID
THCef
0.22331
0.62401
0.02944
0.01572
0.01698
0.00000
0.87296
3.62883
3.62883
0.23526
0.24279
0.17884
0.09103
0.09103
0.13290
0.13508
0.02499
0.02499
0.02113
0.68257
1.36657
0.72363
0.08370
1.26397
0.84237
0.03834
0.02775
0.10651
0.22331
0.02639
0.05278
0.05618
0.06626
0.14828
0.14828
ID
COef
1.03460
1.58402
0.21932
0.27103
0.21352
0.00000
0.11136
3.17522
3.17522
0.79047
0.81513
0.63268
0.34641
0.34641
0.38528
0.39173
0.42983
0.42983
0.39879
3.01467
2.83826
2.95193
0.93373
2.86473
2.69471
0.39579
0.38189
0.49544
1.03484
0.20039
0.40079
0.26132
0.12073
0.56705
0.56705
ID
NOXef
0.09414
0.07920
0.10873
0.10408
0.04853
0.00000
0.00423
0.81001
0.81001
0.06348
0.06293
0.06732
0.04804
0.04804
0.05233
0.05233
0.05855
0.05855
0.06398
0.17064
0.16294
0.17157
0.15624
0.16409
0.17179
0.07494
0.09286
0.07565
0.09414
0.01851
0.03701
0.01010
0.03534
0.00434
0.00434
ID
S02ef
0.01341
0.01296
0.01432
0.01147
0.00655
0.00001
0.00094
0.01750
0.01750
0.01255
0.01256
0.01223
0.00877
0.00877
0.00906
0.00906
0.00771
0.00771
0.00804
0.03072
0.02838
0.03043
0.02009
0.02873
0.02976
0.00923
0.01172
0.01109
0.01341
0.00264
0.00529
0.00341
0.00369
0.00335
0.00335
TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout
AP = Approach; ID = Idle
F-8
-------
WtAvgEFs(kg/min)
Table F-3. Engine Modal Efs (kgs/min)
Body Type
FOKKER
FOKKER
LOCKHEED
LOCKHEED
LOCKHEED
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
MCDONNELL DOUG
NAMC
F-28
F100
L-1011-100
L-101 1-200
L-1011-500
DC10-10
DC10-30
DC10-40
DCS
DC8-51
DC8-52
DC8-53
DC8-55
DC8-60
DC8-61
DC8-61(CARG)
DC8-62
DC8-62(CARG)
DC8-63
DC8-63F(CARG)
DC8-70
DC8-71
DC8-73F(CARG)
DC9-10
DC9-15F
DC9-30
DC9-40
DC9-50
DC9-80
MD-11
YS-11
AP
THCef
0.18568
0.02484
0.76255
0.76255
0.07938
0.06097
0.11574
0.14485
0.27355
0.33216
0.33216
0.33216
0.33216
0.27355
0.33216
0.33216
0.33216
0.24493
0.33216
0.18310
0.00597
0.00597
0.00597
0.01373
0.04875
0.04789
0.06738
0.07574
0.07339
0.02365
0.00000
AP
COef
0.59195
0.10764
2.60140
2.60140
0.17691
0.56617
0.60185
0.84680
1.94169
2.03450
2.03450
2.03450
2.03450
1.94169
2.03450
2.03450
2.03450
1.89637
2.03450
1.42021
0.31349
0.31349
0.31349
0.07553
0.31775
0.29613
0.39203
0.32899
0.19051
0.22943
0.21966
AP
NOXef
0.15771
0.15732
0.80441
0.80441
1.11133
0.99297
1.08797
0.84680
0.43975
0.39860
0.39860
0.39860
0.39860
0.43975
0.39860
0.39860
0.39860
0.45985
0.39860
0.45467
0.61205
0.61205
0.61205
0.21629
0.19295
0.19701
0.24093
0.25998
0.41652
1.08327
0.02083
AP
S02ef
0.01439
0.01490
0.05383
0.05383
0.06124
0.04704
0.06250
0.06017
0.04722
0.04484
0.04484
0.04484
0.04484
0.04722
0.04484
0.04484
0.04484
0.04838
0.04484
0.04545
0.04031
0.04031
0.04031
0.01854
0.01854
0.01887
0.02205
0.02274
0.02474
0.06386
0.00511
ID
THCef
1.27983
0.04488
2.64518
2.64518
0.08424
0.65319
0.87769
1.37109
3.68815
3.62883
3.62883
3.62883
3.62883
3.68815
3.62883
3.62883
3.62883
3.71713
3.62883
2.74844
0.05622
0.05622
0.05622
0.05887
0.14841
0.13889
0.19497
0.17096
0.05552
0.31858
0.05618
ID
COef
1.21759
0.31812
3.77425
3.77425
0.53525
1.68585
2.37739
3.17516
3.64029
3.17522
3.17522
3.17522
3.17522
3.64029
3.17522
3.17522
3.17522
3.86742
3.17522
2.96751
0.94311
0.94311
0.94311
0.22154
0.50071
0.47739
0.63098
0.50299
0.20331
1.47402
0.26132
ID
NOXef
0.02525
0.03300
0.11103
0.11103
0.18144
0.13997
0.13356
0.11774
0.49067
0.81001
0.81001
0.81001
0.81001
0.49067
0.81001
0.81001
0.81001
0.33472
0.81001
0.25377
0.12288
0.12288
0.12288
0.04880
0.04287
0.04328
0.05317
0.05764
0.05998
0.13407
0.01010
ID
S02ef
0.00745
0.00713
0.02208
0.02208
0.02333
0.01680
0.02061
0.02051
0.01708
0.01750
0.01750
0.01750
0.01750
0.01708
0.01750
0.01750
0.01750
0.01688
0.01750
0.01682
0.01659
0.01659
0.01659
0.00837
0.00837
0.00846
0.00957
0.00947
0.00883
0.01905
0.00341
TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout
AP = Approach; ID = Idle
F-9
-------
Appendix F
Table F-4. Assumed aircraft body type equivalencies.*
LTO Data Aircraft Type
Assumed Aircraft Type
A-300B
A-320-100
B-707-300B/C
B-727-200 (CARGO)
B-727-200C
B-737-100 (CARGO)
B-737-100/200
B-767-200ER
BAE-146-100/200
DC-10-10 (CARGO)
DC-10-30 (CARGO)
DC-8-50F
DC-8-73F (CARGO)
DC-8-73
L-1011-100/200
L-1011-500TR
MD-8-63F
A-300B4
A-320-200
B-707-300
B-727-200
B-727-200
B-737-100
B-737-100 (50%), B-737-200 (50%)
B-767-200
BAE-146-1 (same as BAE-146-2)
DC-10-10
DC-10-30
DC-8-50
DC-8-73F
DC-8-73F
L-1011-100 (same as L-1011-200)
L-1011-500
DC-8-63F
* Equivalencies based upon available databases and literature (e.g., FAEED,
1995; ICAO, 1995; CARB, 1994) and engineering judgement. For three of these
equivalencies, emission factors were located for the aircraft type during the final
review of the document. Comparison of the actual to the assumed equivalent
confirmed that minimal changes would occur in the emissions estimates.
F-10
-------
APPENDIX G
FACILITY-SPECIFIC AND REGIONAL
EMISSIONS SUMMARIES
-------
Table G-l. 1990 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (short tons/year), Default Mixing Height
Hartsfield (ATL)
Atlanta Total
Logan (BOS)
Boston Total
Douglas (CLT)
Charlotte Total
Midway (MOW)
O'Hare (ORD)
Chicago Total
Hobby (HOU)
Intercontinental (IAH)
Houston Total
Burbank (BUR)
Los Angeles Intl. (LAX)
Long Beach (LGB)
Ontario (ONT)
John Wayne (SNA)
Los Angeles Total
Newark (EWR)
John F. Kennedy (JFK)
La Guardia (LGA)
New York Total
Philadelphia Intl. (PHL)
Philadelphia Total
Sky Harbor (PHX)
Phoenix Total
National (DCA)
Dulles (IAD)
Washington, DC Total
Grand Total
LTOS
287,080
287,080
114,282
114,282
119,990
119,990
65,135
347,653
412,788
55,779
181,214
236,993
26,129
212,041
12,984
40,323
28,291
319,768
134,124
94,382
154,700
383,206
107,646
107,646
121,024
121,024
96,931
60,787
157,718
2,260,495
voc
1555.13
1555.13
894.28
894.28
748.56
748.56
119.11
1534.13
1653.23
72.80
596.88
669.68
16.55
1958.73
13.38
78.59
32.13
2099.38
773.48
1398.94
877.80
3050.22
354.67
354.67
226.14
226.14
249.45
267.12
516.57
11,767.86
CO
4136.43
4136.43
2295.22
2295.22
1385.67
1385.67
446.16
5137.57
5583.73
352.25
2132.56
2484.80
160.76
5321.53
81.65
347.42
213.94
6125.31
2241.86
4082.31
2492.55
8816.72
1127.38
1127.38
1014.73
1014.73
930.37
868.35
1798.72
34,768.71
NOx
3570.26
3570.26
1752.92
1752.92
956.74
956.74
483.95
4552.77
5036.72
441.03
2111.24
2552.27
213.79
4202.68
134.65
452.82
271.01
5274.95
1722.35
2806.06
1823.20
6351.61
1098.41
1098.41
1130.01
1130.01
1007.71
800.15
1807.86
29,531.76
SO2
165.78
165.78
77.07
77.07
52.01
52.01
25.37
209.84
235.20
22.07
100.76
122.83
9.77
168.69
5.76
20.33
12.02
216.57
84.38
113.34
93.68
291.41
53.11
53.11
53.71
53.71
49.37
36.03
85.39
1,353.08
-------
Table G-2. 2010 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (short tons/year), Default Mixing Height
Hartsfield (ATL)
Atlanta Total
Logan (BOS)
Boston Total
Douglas (CLT)
Charlotte Total
Midway (MOW)
O'Hare (ORD)
Chicago Total
Hobby (HOU)
Intercontinental (IAH)
Houston Total
Burbank (BUR)
Los Angeles Intl. (LAX)
Long Beach (LGB)
Ontario (ONT)
John Wayne (SNA)
Los Angeles Total
Newark (EWR)
John F. Kennedy (JFK)
La Guardia (LGA)
New York Total
Philadelphia Intl. (PHL)
Philadelphia Total
Sky Harbor (PHX)
Phoenix Total
National (DCA)
Dulles (IAD)
Washington, DC Total
Grand Total
LTOs
388,728
388,728
137,137
137,137
215,726
215,726
66,510
500,767
567,277
61,621
337,080
398,701
30,607
312,976
14,790
53,445
33,043
444,860
183,381
111,360
158,209
452,950
123,177
123,177
179,265
179,265
97,268
105,888
203,156
3,110,977
voc
3,180.47
3,180.47
1,461.75
1,461.75
2,123.93
2,123.93
121.62
2,111.02
2,232.64
80.39
927.31
1,007.71
18.68
2,956.98
13.70
72.94
26.05
3,088.35
1,377.01
1,690.74
1,804.44
4,872.19
439.86
439.86
305.27
305.27
132.18
580.12
712.30
19,424.48
CO
6,858.94
6,858.94
3,417.41
3,417.41
2,907.53
2,907.53
455.59
7,301.24
7,756.83
389.06
3,550.96
3,940.03
187.52
7,870.28
89.26
442.26
238.73
8,828.05
3,642.37
5,548.37
3,745.06
12,935.80
1,293.80
1,293.80
1,667. 14
1,667.14
643.28
1,823.95
2,467.23
52,072.75
NOx
7,397.42
7,397.42
2,897.56
2,897.56
1,702.28
1,702.28
494.16
8,216.63
8,710.79
487.13
4,642.39
5,129.52
250.41
6,454.80
153.72
694.10
318.06
7,871.08
3,317.04
4,169.16
3,164.30
10,650.50
1,678.46
1,678.46
1,954.14
1,954.14
1,180.26
1,933.10
3,113.36
51,105.12
SO2
262.18
262.18
104.64
104.64
83.83
83.83
25.90
303.11
329.01
24.37
183.53
207.91
11.41
237.37
6.49
27.89
13.73
296.89
127.39
154.16
112.46
394.01
64.66
64.66
81.24
81.24
46.49
70.69
117.18
1,941.56
-------
Table G-3. 1990 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (short tons/year), Variable Mixing Height
Hartsfield (ATL)
Atlanta Total
Logan (BOS)
Boston Total
Douglas (CLT)
Charlotte Total
Midway (MOW)
O'Hare (ORD)
Chicago Total
Hobby (HOU)
Intercontinental (IAH)
Houston Total
Burbank (BUR)
Los Angeles Intl. (LAX)
Long Beach (LGB)
Ontario (ONT)
John Wayne (SNA)
Los Angeles Total
Newark (EWR)
John F. Kennedy (JFK)
La Guardia (LGA)
New York Total
Philadelphia Intl. (PHL)
Philadelphia Total
Sky Harbor (PHX)
Phoenix Total
National (DCA)
Dulles (IAD)
Washington, DC Total
Grand Total
LTOS
287,080
287,080
114,282
114,282
119,990
119,990
65,135
347,653
412,788
55,779
181,214
236,993
26,129
212,041
12,984
40,323
28,291
319,768
134,124
94,382
154,700
383,206
107,646
107,646
121,024
121,024
96,931
60,787
157,718
2,260,495
voc
1468.13
1468.13
875.81
875.81
720.88
720.88
109.67
1470.43
1580.10
68.40
572.40
640.80
15.26
1907.90
11.77
72.92
30.01
2037.87
765.89
1392.04
867.37
3025.30
345.33
345.33
208.35
208.35
237.33
260.01
497.34
11,399.92
CO
3791.43
3791.43
2216.65
2216.65
1273.40
1273.40
403.30
4846.49
5249.79
328.86
2030.13
2358.99
149.96
5104.69
75.07
321.79
200.77
5852.28
2209.60
4056.67
2446.12
8712.39
1085.66
1085.66
914.35
914.35
878.59
834.57
1713.17
33,168.11
NOx
2058.41
2058.41
1359.73
1359.73
549.60
549.60
317.76
3019.34
3337.09
327.49
1582.74
1910.23
138.92
2776.14
87.79
296.30
177.57
3476.72
1553.81
2530.61
1644.08
5728.50
904.55
904.55
555.32
555.32
755.69
599.63
1355.32
21,235.47
SO2
111.16
111.16
63.91
63.91
34.41
34.41
18.01
155.29
173.31
17.17
80.76
97.93
6.84
124.63
4.08
14.45
8.52
158.51
78.28
105.44
86.68
270.40
45.58
45.58
31.12
31.12
39.47
29.07
68.53
1,054.87
-------
Table G-4. 2010 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (short tons/year), Variable Mixing Height
Hartsfield (ATL)
Atlanta Total
Logan (BOS)
Boston Total
Douglas (CLT)
Charlotte Total
Midway (MOW)
O'Hare (ORD)
Chicago Total
Hobby (HOU)
Intercontinental (IAH)
Houston Total
Burbank (BUR)
Los Angeles Intl. (LAX)
Long Beach (LGB)
Ontario (ONT)
John Wayne (SNA)
Los Angeles Total
Newark (EWR)
John F. Kennedy (JFK)
La Guardia (LGA)
New York Total
Philadelphia Intl. (PHL)
Philadelphia Total
Sky Harbor (PHX)
Phoenix Total
National (DCA)
Dulles (IAD)
Washington, DC Total
Grand Total
LTOs
388,728
388,728
137,137
137,137
215,726
215,726
66,510
500,767
567,277
61,621
337,080
398,701
30,607
312,976
14,790
53,445
33,043
444,860
183,381
111,360
158,209
452,950
123,177
123,177
179,265
179,265
97,268
105,888
203,156
3,110,977
voc
3,026.52
3,026.52
1,436.86
1,436.86
2,070.46
2,070.46
111.98
2,037.66
2,149.64
75.56
887.15
962.71
17.22
2883.37
11.92
66.72
24.62
3,003.86
1,366.78
1,683.33
1,788.44
4,838.54
430.34
430.34
289.28
289.28
122.99
568.87
691.86
18,900.07
CO
6,318.79
6,318.79
3,318.84
3,318.84
2,715.44
2,715.44
411.82
6,975.06
7,386.88
363.30
3,408.40
3,771.70
175.02
7553.99
82.13
414.08
225.14
8,450.37
3,603.28
5,523.48
3,681.34
12,808.10
1,254.54
1,254.54
1,533.12
1,533.12
610.10
1,767.43
2,377.53
49,935.31
NOx
4,189.04
4,189.04
2,234.13
2,234.13
962.20
962.20
324.47
5,386.47
5,710.94
361.79
3,457.94
3,819.72
162.67
4237.86
100.17
451.04
207.99
5,159.73
2,982.78
3,750.82
2,840.18
9,573.78
1,375.21
1,375.21
944.02
944.02
878.86
1,438.13
2,317.00
36,285.77
SO2
171.53
171.53
86.12
86.12
55.16
55.16
18.39
221.21
239.60
18.97
145.72
164.68
7.98
174.29
4.59
19.67
9.71
216.24
117.75
143.13
103.47
364.35
55.14
55.14
46.22
46.22
36.79
56.51
93.30
1,492.32
-------
Table G-5. 1990 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (metric tons/year), Default Mixing Heij
Hartsfield (ATL)
Atlanta Total
Logan (BOS)
Boston Total
Douglas (CLT)
Charlotte Total
Midway (MOW)
O'Hare (ORD)
Chicago Total
Hobby (HOU)
Intercontinental (IAH)
Houston Total
Burbank (BUR)
Los Angeles Intl. (LAX)
Long Beach (LGB)
Ontario (ONT)
John Wayne (SNA)
Los Angeles Total
Newark (EWR)
John F.Kennedy (JFK)
La Guardia (LGA)
New York Total
Philadelphia Intl. (PHL)
Philadelphia Total
Sky Harbor (PHX)
Phoenix Total
National (DCA)
Dulles (IAD)
Washington, DC Total
Grand Total
LTOS
287,080
287,080
114,282
114,282
119,990
119,990
65,135
347,653
412,788
55,779
181,214
236,993
26,129
212,041
12,984
40,323
28,291
319,768
134,124
94,382
154,700
383,206
107,646
107,646
121,024
121,024
96,931
60,787
157,718
2,260,495
voc
1410.80
1410.80
811.29
811.29
679.09
679.09
108.05
1391.75
1499.80
66.05
541.48
607.53
15.01
1776.95
12.14
71.29
29.14
1904.54
701.69
1269.11
796.34
2,767.14
321.76
321.76
205.15
205.15
226.30
242.33
468.63
10,675.73
CO
3752.55
3752.55
2082.21
2082.21
1257.07
1257.07
404.76
4660.77
5065.53
319.56
1934.64
2254.20
145.84
4827.66
74.08
315.18
194.08
5556.84
2033.80
3703.45
2261.22
7,998.48
1022.75
1022.75
920.56
920.56
844.03
787.76
1631.79
31,541.97
NOx
3238.92
3238.92
1590.24
1590.24
867.95
867.95
439.03
4130.25
4569.28
400.10
1915.30
2315.40
193.95
3812.64
122.15
410.79
245.86
4785.41
1562.51
2545.64
1653.99
5,762.15
996.47
996.47
1025.14
1025.14
914.19
725.89
1640.08
26,791.03
?ht
S02
150.39
150.39
69.92
69.92
47.18
47.18
23.01
190.36
213.37
20.02
91.41
111.43
8.86
153.04
5.22
18.44
10.90
196.47
76.55
102.82
84.99
264.36
48.18
48.18
48.73
48.73
44.79
32.68
77.47
1,227.50
-------
Table G-6. 2010 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (metric tons/year), Default Mixing Height
Hartsfield (ATL)
Atlanta Total
Logan (BOS)
Boston Total
Douglas (CLT)
Charlotte Total
Midway (MOW)
O'Hare (ORD)
Chicago Total
Hobby (HOU)
Intercontinental (IAH)
Houston Total
Burbank (BUR)
Los Angeles Intl. (LAX)
Long Beach (LGB)
Ontario (ONT)
John Wayne (SNA)
Los Angeles Total
Newark (EWR)
John F.Kennedy (JFK)
La Guardia (LGA)
New York Total
Philadelphia Intl. (PHL)
Philadelphia Total
Sky Harbor (PHX)
Phoenix Total
National (DCA)
Dulles (IAD)
Washington, DC Total
Grand Total
LTOs
388,728
388,728
137,137
137,137
215,726
215,726
66,510
500,767
567,277
61,621
337,080
398,701
30,607
312,976
14,790
53,445
33,043
444,860
183,381
111,360
158,209
452,950
123,177
123,177
179,265
179,265
97,268
105,888
203,156
3,110,977
voc
2,885.33
2,885.33
1,326.10
1,326.10
1,926.83
1,926.83
110.33
1,915.12
2,025.45
72.93
841.26
914.19
16.94
2,682.57
12.43
66.17
23.64
2,801.75
1,249.22
1,533.84
1,636.98
4,420.05
399.05
399.05
276.94
276.94
119.92
526.28
646.20
17,621.88
CO
6,222.43
6,222.43
3,100.27
3,100.27
2,637.71
2,637.71
413.31
6,623.68
7,036.99
352.96
3,221.43
3,574.39
170.11
7,139.92
80.98
401.22
216.57
8,008.81
3,304.36
5,033.48
3,397.52
11,735.35
1,173.74
1,173.74
1,512.43
1,512.43
583.58
1,654.69
2,238.27
47,240.40
NOx
6,710.94
6,710.94
2,628.67
2,628.67
1,544.31
1,544.31
448.31
7,454.13
7,902.43
441.92
4,211.58
4,653.50
227.17
5,855.79
139.45
629.68
288.54
7,140.65
3,009.22
3,782.26
2,870.65
9,662.13
1,522.70
1,522.70
1,772.79
1,772.79
1,070.73
1,753.71
2,824.44
46,362.56
S02
237.85
237.85
94.93
94.93
76.05
76.05
23.50
274.98
298.48
22.11
166.50
188.61
10.35
215.34
5.89
25.30
12.45
269.34
115.57
139.85
102.02
357.45
58.66
58.66
73.70
73.70
42.18
64.13
106.31
1,761.38
-------
Table G-7. 1990 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (metric tons/year), Variable Mixing Height
Hartsfield (ATL)
Atlanta Total
Logan (BOS)
Boston Total
Douglas (CLT)
Charlotte Total
Midway (MOW)
O'Hare (ORD)
Chicago Total
Hobby (HOU)
Intercontinental (IAH)
Houston Total
Burbank (BUR)
Los Angeles Intl. (LAX)
Long Beach (LGB)
Ontario (ONT)
John Wayne (SNA)
Los Angeles Total
Newark (EWR)
John F.Kennedy (JFK)
La Guardia (LGA)
New York Total
Philadelphia Intl. (PHL)
Philadelphia Total
Sky Harbor (PHX)
Phoenix Total
National (DCA)
Dulles (IAD)
Washington, DC Total
Grand Total
LTOS
287,080
287,080
114,282
114,282
119,990
119,990
65,135
347,653
412,788
55,779
181,214
236,993
28,291
26,129
212,041
40,323
12,984
319,768
134,124
94,382
154,700
383,206
107,646
107,646
121,024
121,024
96,931
60,787
157,718
2,260,495
voc
1331.88
1331.88
794.53
794.53
653.98
653.98
99.49
1333.97
1433.46
62.05
519.28
581.33
27.23
13.85
1730.84
66.16
10.68
1848.74
694.81
1262.85
786.87
2744.53
313.28
313.28
189.02
189.02
215.31
235.88
451.19
10341.94
CO
3439.57
3439.57
2010.93
2010.93
1155.22
1155.22
365.87
4396.70
4762.58
298.34
1841.72
2140.06
182.14
136.04
4630.94
291.93
68.10
5309.16
2004.54
3680.18
2219.11
7903.83
984.91
984.91
829.49
829.49
797.06
757.12
1554.17
30089.91
NOx
1867.38
1867.38
1233.54
1233.54
498.59
498.59
288.27
2739.13
3027.39
297.09
1435.85
1732.95
161.09
126.03
2518.50
268.80
79.65
3154.06
1409.61
2295.75
1491.50
5196.86
820.60
820.60
503.78
503.78
685.56
543.98
1229.54
19264.69
S02
100.84
100.84
57.98
57.98
31.22
31.22
16.34
140.88
157.22
15.57
73.27
88.84
7.73
6.20
113.07
13.11
3.70
143.80
71.02
95.65
78.64
245.31
41.35
41.35
28.23
28.23
35.80
26.37
62.17
956.97
-------
Table G-8. 2010 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (metric tons/year), Variable Mixing Height
Hartsfield (ATL)
Atlanta Total
Logan (BOS)
Boston Total
Douglas (CLT)
Charlotte Total
Midway (MOW)
O'Hare (ORD)
Chicago Total
Hobby (HOU)
Intercontinental (IAH)
Houston Total
Burbank (BUR)
Los Angeles Intl. (LAX)
Long Beach (LGB)
Ontario (ONT)
John Wayne (SNA)
Los Angeles Total
Newark (EWR)
John F.Kennedy (JFK)
La Guardia (LGA)
New York Total
Philadelphia Intl. (PHL)
Philadelphia Total
Sky Harbor (PHX)
Phoenix Total
National (DCA)
Dulles (IAD)
Washington, DC Total
Grand Total
LTOs
388,728
388,728
137,137
137,137
215,726
215,726
66,510
500,767
567,277
61,621
337,080
398,701
30,607
312,976
14,790
53,445
33,043
444,860
183,381
111,360
158,209
452,950
123,177
123,177
179,265
179,265
97,268
105,888
203,156
3,110,977
voc
2745.66
2745.66
1303.52
1303.52
1878.32
1878.32
101.59
1848.56
1950.15
68.55
804.82
873.37
15.63
2615.79
10.81
60.53
22.33
2725.10
1239.94
1527.11
1622.47
4389.53
390.41
390.41
262.44
262.44
111.57
516.08
627.66
17,146.14
CO
5732.40
5732.40
3010.85
3010.85
2463.45
2463.45
373.60
6327.78
6701.38
329.59
3092.10
3421.69
158.78
6852.98
74.51
375.65
204.25
7666.17
3268.89
5010.90
3339.71
11619.51
1138.12
1138.12
1390.84
1390.84
553.49
1603.41
2156.89
45,301.31
NOx
3800.30
3800.30
2026.80
2026.80
872.91
872.91
294.36
4886.61
5180.96
328.21
3137.04
3465.25
147.58
3844.58
90.87
409.19
188.69
4680.91
2705.98
3402.74
2576.61
8685.33
1247.59
1247.59
856.41
856.41
797.30
1304.67
2101.98
32,918.45
S02
155.61
155.61
78.12
78.12
50.04
50.04
16.69
200.68
217.36
17.21
132.19
149.40
7.24
158.11
4.17
17.84
8.81
196.17
106.82
129.84
93.87
330.54
50.02
50.02
41.93
41.93
33.37
51.27
84.64
1,353.83
-------
APPENDIX H
EPA REGIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
FOR 1990 AND 20101
1 Sources: EPA 1993b; EPA 1996a
-------
APPENDIX H
EPA REGIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
FOR 1990 AND 2010
Table H-l. Total regional emissions (short tons/year) from all sources.
Region
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington DC
voc
224748
377304
63066
539292
1159232
694080
918914
522672
133710
195562
1990
NOx
167080
284640
41391
458495
565690
564901
697440
290781
120251
205038
SO2
174090
229486
36069
339631
269067
56578
376663
148648
8068
242901
VOC
128042
217451
41483
334749
337886
357299
454301
229269
86542
94514
2010
NOx
91732
126178
23237
259702
271033
322695
308530
145326
112346
83792
SO2
14336
63966
13908
264691
188596
53735
140533
113657
9614
29775
Table H-2. Total mobile source emissions (short tons/year).
Region
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington DC
VOC
124967
178146
27381
245150
162671
379604
387005
175189
76525
117036
1990
NOx
124551
195213
26736
284120
183341
445087
412802
180575
81246
130674
SO2
7610
11947
1556
14415
25359
40804
37793
12169
4644
9021
VOC
54149
66478
14141
86198
72169
103619
131625
63558
41854
44929
2010
NOx
78718
96947
17360
137996
111856
243259
204286
91511
57860
70569
SO2
6580
9034
1283
11634
24763
38649
31327
9294
4370
7539
Table H-3. Total nonroad mobile source emissions (short tons/year).
Region
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington DC
VOC
25410
45849
6625
82315
49285
49766
82947
45263
21409
28471
1990
NOx
32245
42548
7453
116102
74067
140936
97157
46484
31070
35418
SO2
862
1240
152
2977
17319
16447
15639
2455
770
2193
VOC
25041
37867
6692
41797
43575
56997
65267
35474
22100
23273
2010
NOx
26467
28944
6955
53852
56383
114210
63190
30996
25722
22716
SO2
962
1229
203
2771
18691
17421
14680
2299
838
1917
H-l
-------
Table H-4. Total regional emissions (metric tons/year) from all sources.
Region
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington DC
voc
203890
342288
57213
489242
1051648
629665
833633
474165
121301
177413
1990
NOx
151574
258224
37550
415944
513191
512475
632713
263795
109091
186009
S02
157933
208188
32722
308111
244096
51327
341706
134853
7319
220358
VOC
116159
197270
37633
303682
306528
324140
412139
207991
78510
85743
2010
NOx
83219
114468
21080
235600
245880
292747
279897
131839
101920
76016
S02
13006
58030
12617
240126
171093
48748
127491
103109
8722
27012
Table H-5. Total mobile source emissions (metric tons/year).
Region
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington DC
VOC
113369
161613
24840
222399
147574
344374
351089
158930
69423
106174
1990
NOx
112992
177096
24255
257752
166326
403780
374492
163817
73706
118547
S02
6904
10838
1412
13077
23006
37017
34286
11040
4213
8184
VOC
49124
60308
12829
78198
65471
94003
119409
57659
37970
40759
2010
NOx
71413
87950
15749
125189
101475
220683
185327
83018
52490
64020
S02
5969
8196
1164
10554
22465
35062
28420
8431
3964
6839
Table H-6. Total nonroad mobile source emissions (metric tons/year).
Region
Atlanta
Boston
Charlotte
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Washington DC
VOC
23052
41594
6010
74676
44711
45147
75249
41062
19422
25829
1990
NOx
29252
38599
6761
105327
67193
127856
88140
42170
28187
32131
SO2
782
1125
138
2701
15712
14921
14188
2227
699
1989
VOC
22717
34353
6071
37918
39531
51707
59210
32182
20049
21113
2010
NOx
24011
26258
6310
48854
51150
103611
57326
28119
23335
20608
SO2
873
1115
184
2514
16956
15804
13318
2086
760
1739
H-2
------- |