National Academies Press: OpenBook

Research Needs Associated with Particulate Emissions at Airports (2008)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Survey and Interview Findings

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Primer on Particulate Matter Emissions From Aviation
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Survey and Interview Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Research Needs Associated with Particulate Emissions at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14160.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Survey and Interview Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Research Needs Associated with Particulate Emissions at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14160.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Survey and Interview Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Research Needs Associated with Particulate Emissions at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14160.
×
Page 14

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

12 Survey The airport PM survey was mailed to 80 airports—34 large hub, commercial airports; 15 medium hub, commercial airports; 10 small hub, commercial airports; and 21 predomi- nantly general aviation airports. Respondents could reply by mail or by using an online survey form. To boost the response rate, we contacted each airport that did not respond by the survey deadline at least once by phone. Of the 80 airports receiving the survey, 38 responded, a 47.5% response rate. The number of responding airports in each category and the response rate by category was: large hub 20 (58.8%), medium hub 5 (33.3%), small hub 5 (50%), and general aviation 8 (38.1%). Together the responses included a good mix of large, medium, and small commercial and general aviation airports. Sixteen airports (42.1%) are located in nonattainment areas while 6 airports (15.8%) did not know their attainment designation. (Note: According to EPA designations, two of these airports were nonattainment for PM2.5 while the others were attainment.) Of the 38 respondents, 18 (47.4%) reported that they have re- ceived complaints about PM emissions from the airport. All of these reported receiving complaints from the community. Half also reported complaints from employees, and six airports re- ported receiving complaints from regulators or elected officials, while one reported receiving a complaint from a customer. The nature of reported complaints includes soot deposits on outdoor surfaces (38.8%) and dust from construction and other activities (27.8%). Airports also reported complaints about odors (22.2%), noise (5.5%), and greenhouse emissions (5.5%). Half of the respondents report having conducted an envi- ronmental study that included an analysis of PM emissions. Of those, 13 of 19 (68.4%) offered a copy of some related material. Sections of environmental impact statements (EIS) that were prepared in support of airport improvement projects were most commonly presented. One risk assessment was provided that primarily addressed hazardous air pollutants. Sources of PM emissions reported in the survey from airport activity included landside vehicles and construction equipment plus a variety of other airside vehicles such as snow removal equipment. 65.8% of respondents reported oil fired boilers and the same number fire training facilities, 63.2% reported having sand and salt piles, and about 60% reported having diesel powered turbines (60.5%) and diesel emergency generators (57.9%). Other unspecified sources were reported by 44.7% of respondents. When asked whether they had any alternatively fueled equipment that reduced PM emissions, 23 (60.5%) replied that they did while 14 (36.8%) replied that they did not. Most of the alternatively fueled equipment used compressed natu- ral gas, with some low emission vehicles, hybrids, and clean diesel vehicles reported. Several mentioned use of biodiesel in some equipment. Six airports (15.8%) reported that they have done PM- specific emissions analyses at their airports. These analyses included annual air emission inventories and permitting for construction and equipment modifications/installations (e.g., new diesel emergency generators). One airport reported plans to initiate a PM/HAPs monitoring study in 2007. These airports were candidates for follow up phone interviews. Most airports (55.3%) report interacting with state or local agencies on air quality. These contacts typically were related to routine reports on criteria pollutants. Five airports reported they are focusing additional attention on PM to develop a bet- ter understanding of the issues and acquire a capability to develop PM inventories. Two airports mentioned PM or PM/HAP specific studies, one of which is complete. When asked whether they were concerned about PM issues, 16 (47.1%) said they were. Their concerns included being able to quantify PM emissions from aircraft, the capa- bilities of EDMS and other air emission methodologies, the need to report PM emissions regularly, and general concerns about dust emissions. C H A P T E R 4 Survey and Interview Findings

A list of airports receiving the survey, a copy of the trans- mittal letter, the survey form, and a summary of survey re- sponses are included in Appendix A. Interviews As noted above, many U.S. airports have prepared envi- ronmental studies in support of expansion programs or for other reasons. Some airports have hosted PM sampling programs for research projects. To capture the knowledge of scientists and other experts involved in these projects, the team conducted 11 interviews, either in person or by phone. These interviews included four PM research scientists (one interviewed twice to discuss two separate projects), four airport environmental managers, and two airport environ- mental consultants. John Froines, Professor of Environmental Health and Head of EPA PM Center at UCLA. Froines conducted a PM research project at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) focusing on ultrafine (<PM1.0) particles. Air quality in the vicinity of the airport was clearly influenced by airport oper- ations generally and aircraft specifically. The scale of the impact is difficult to define and work in this area is needed. Froines speculates that ultrafine particulates affect human health greater than their mass proportion, in part because they can penetrate cell membranes and accumulate in the mitochondria. Froines believes EPA should make ultrafine particles a research priority. John Pehrson, Principal, Camp, Dresser and McKee, Irvine, California. Pehrson believes the significance of PM is- sues will increase in the future as the result of greater empha- sis on PM emissions in airport EISs. Source apportionment is especially important for airports and markers or fingerprints for the various sources are needed. Emission factors for cur- rent advanced engines also are needed. Tom Nissalke, Director of Environmental and Technical Services, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. According to Nissalke, airport PM emissions are drawing greater scrutiny from the Georgia EPA as improvements to automobile emissions are achieved. At the same time, even defining the magnitude of the problem is difficult due to un- certainty in how to measure PM. At this time, PM emissions are not a big community issue. Donald Hagen, Co-Principal Investigator, Delta-Atlanta Hartsfield Study (formerly UNA-UNA), University of Missouri Rolla Center of Excellence for Noise and Emis- sions (UMRCOE). The combination of dedicated engine tests and an airport-wide study was informative, thorough, atmospherically relevant, and novel. The data are shedding light on many issues associated with airport PM emissions but additional data analysis is needed to maximize the bene- fits of the study. Carrol Bryant, KB Environmental Sciences, Inc., consult- ant for Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Particulate matter is not considered a big problem for Atlanta except for the need to comply with air quality regulations and must be analyzed for EISs. There is a great deal of public uncer- tainty about the toxicity of and consequently the significance of airport PM emissions. Brenda Pope, Vice President Environmental Manage- ment Service, Rhode Island Airport Corporation, T.F. Green Airport. Elevated cancer rates found in the vicinity of the airport, both upwind and downwind, prompted the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) to initiate emissions monitoring around the airport. The community has expressed concern over butadiene and formaldehyde in addition to PM. Barbara Morin, Department of Environmental Manage- ment, Rhode Island (RI-DEM), Project Manager for T.F. Green Airport Air Quality Study. The Rhode Island DEM is leading the study monitoring PM2.5 and black carbon at T.F. Green. Total particulate mass was dominated by large parti- cles, which seem to be influenced by prevailing ambient conditions; however, black carbon correlated with ultrafine particulate matter and was airport influenced. The role of PAHs (polycyclic aromatics) is poorly understood and the link between black carbon and ultrafine particles and human health affects needs to be understood. Better understanding of aviation PM is needed to determine what regulations may be required. Donald Hagen, Co-Principal Investigator, JETS APEX2, UMRCOE. This was a two-phase study involving dedicated engine and advected plume measurements. The dedicated engine study involved both old and new technology CFM56 engines representing the most common classes of aircraft tur- bine engines operating in the United States. The study meas- ured emissions of CO, CO2, NOx, and PM number size and mass as well as speciated PM and speciated hydrocarbons at multiple thrust settings. Measurements were taken 1m behind the engines as well as 50 m downstream. The advected plume measurements were made on approximately 300 aircraft during normal operation. There are several major PM-related conclusions from these studies. Size distributions for exit plane were generally lognormal. Strong and some- times nonlinear dependencies were observed with engine power settings. The particle composition includes both sul- fate and organic volatile fractions at downstream distances. The sulfate contribution has little dependence on engine power, while the organic contribution is greatest at low en- gine powers. Plume processing in the exhaust plume results in the production of a large number of small particles not present at the engine exit plane. On average for the 737-700 series, a newer technology engine, EIm is less than half that for the older technology -300 series. 13

Britt Johnson, Airport Environmental Planner, Oakland International Airport (OAK). Currently at OAK, HAPs, no- tably acrolein (C3H4O, a hazardous air pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion), are a more significant concern than PM although PM is likely to receive additional scrutiny as a result of the ultrafine particles identified in air- port studies. Johnson is anticipating that release of the JETS APEX2 data will shed light on the significance of both HAPs and PM. Paul Manasjan, Environmental Affairs Director, San Diego International Airport (SAN). According to Manasjan, PM emissions are an immediate problem at SAN with respect to an emissions inventory being prepared as a component of an expansion-related EIS. This is driving their interest in more and better data on PM emissions. Also, particle deposition on surfaces in the vicinity of the airport is a persistent source of complaints. For SAN, PM is a more prominent concern than HAPs. Nonaviation sources of dust, such as unpaved areas, are also a problem. Markers or fingerprints to apportion PM emissions among various sources (e.g., aircraft, GSE, landside vehicles) are needed. Roger Gardner, Chief Executive, OMEGA, Manchester Metropolitan University Center for Air Transport and the Environment, United Kingdom. Mass estimates for PM from brakes and tires are similar to that for engine-generated PM. Priority PM emission data needs from his perspective are: (1) airside vehicle emission factors, (2) relationship between operations and emissions loadings, (3) environmental impacts of alternative (synthetic) fuels, and (4) gaining a full under- standing of emissions in and around airports. As automobiles get cleaner, environmental impacts from aviation in and around airports takes on greater significance. The overriding message from these interviews is that airports would like assistance in being able to address regula- tory requirements with good, reliable estimates of the airport contribution. The concerns are that there is much uncertainty with current data, yet they will need to live with the current data unless and until better estimates and methods can be developed. Highlights from the interviews are discussed here. Com- plete notes from each of the interviews are included in Appendix B. 14

Next: Chapter 5 - Composition and Physical Properties of Particulate Matter From Aircraft Engines Knowledge and Gaps »
Research Needs Associated with Particulate Emissions at Airports Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 6: Research Needs Associated with Particulate Emissions at Airports examines the state of industry research on aviation-related particulate matter emissions and explores knowledge gaps that existing research has not yet bridged.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!