Click for next page ( 13

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

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