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 32
32 Quantity of Appropriate Materials Recycled, Fuel-Use Data Emission Factor Landfilled, etc. WARM Calculate GHG Emissions from GHG Emissions Waste Management from a Training Activities Fire Figure 3-14. Overview of GHG Figure 3-13. emissions calculations from Overview of using training fires. USEPA's WARM to calculate GHG emissions. port operations or the fire department. Fuels used in creating live fires are typically reported in gallons. Fire suppressants should also be reviewed to determine the GHG consequence of handle waste (e.g., incineration, disposal, etc.) can be reflected. the materials. The GHG emission factors depend on the fuel The Guidebook does not address upstream and downstream and may be obtained from sources such as EIA (2008); exam- emissions at this time. ples of emission factors for some different types of fuel were in- For airports that are required for local reasons to consider dicated in Section 3.1.1. Alternatively, for fuels specifically the GHG consequence of various waste management strate- geared toward training exercises, such as Tekflame, emission gies, the USEPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM) (USEPAb factors could potentially be obtained from manufacturers. 2007) is recommended as indicated in Figure 3-13. However, The following is an example calculation assuming a hypo- the USEPA's website specifically notes the following re- thetical 10 gal of fuel and 20 lbs/gal emission factor for CO2: garding this model, which reflects a lifecycle approach to considering such emissions: "This lifecycle approach is not CO2 emissions = (10 gal fuel ) × ( 20 lbs CO2 gal fuel ) appropriate for use in inventories because of the diffuse na- = 200 lbs CO2 . This equates to ture of the emissions and emission reductions contained in a 0.09072 metric ton when using a conversion single emission factor." factor of 0.000453 36 metric ton lb. As indicated by USEPA, WARM models source reduction, If the CO2 emission factor is not directly available, but the recycling, combustion, composting, and landfilling. Some ex- fuel composition data are (or can be estimated), the emission amples of materials covered by the model include aluminum factor can be derived using mass balance and assuming com- cans, glass, plastic, and paper. WARM also provides several plete combustion as indicated in Appendix C. options for landfill emissions modeling, including whether or Emissions of fluorinated compounds (e.g., HFC and PFC) not landfill gases are recovered. WARM uses national average from fire extinguishers also need to be taken into account. emission factors. Modeled results are provided in metric tons Volume 3, Chapter 7 of the IPCC guidelines (IPCC 2006) of carbon equivalent (MTCE) and metric tons of CO2 equiv- and Annex 3 of the EPA inventory report (USEPAb 2008) alent (MTCO2E). Because few airport inventories would in- provide methods and data for calculating emissions from fire clude waste management emissions, such users are referred extinguishers. to the USEPA website for information about this model, data Emissions of various other pollutants (e.g., CO, NOx, requirements, and reporting (USEPAb 2007). VOC, etc.) are also generated during combustion of the fuel. These can also be predicted by AEDT/EDMS (FAAa 2007) 3.7 Training Fires using the stationary source definitions within the model. GHG emissions can be calculated from a training fire using 3.8 Construction Activities the fuel usage information and an appropriate emission fac- tor as indicated in Figure 3-14. The calculation of construction activity emissions for cri- The fuel-use data for fire training activities (to the degree teria pollutants is a well-established and understood process. training occurs at an airport) are typically maintained by air- The evaluation of construction emissions for GHG emissions