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 6
6 Table 1-2. Sample climate action plan emissions be contrasted with the emissions associated with aircraft con- inventory--registry reporting format. tinuing to use their auxiliary power units (APUs). Table 1-3 provides an example of the results of a sustainability project. 2006 Emissions Emission Source (CO2e in metric tons) Direct/Scope 1 Stationary/facilities--natural gas 10,000 Projects in a sustainability program aim to reduce Ground support equipment/airport fleet 3,000 the environmental footprint of the airport, and Subtotal, Direct/Scope 1 13,000 the resulting inventory may be a subset of that Indirect/Scope 2 which would be prepared for a Climate Action Purchased electricity (airport owned/controlled) 30,000 Inventory. Subtotal, Indirect/Scope 2 30,000 Optional/Scope 3 Aircraft/APU 2,237,000 Tenant ground support equipment 6,540 It is anticipated that as planning progresses at airports and Tenant ground access vehicles 1,270 more sustainability plans are developed and implemented, air- Tenant stationary sources/facility power 3,000 port operators are likely to include the quantification of GHGs Public vehicles (off-airport travel) 175,000 as part of their plans from the tactical perspective (the emis- Taxis (off-airport travel) 34,000 sion changes associated with actions) and also in a strategic Vans/shuttles (off-airport travel) 23,000 Light rail (off-airport travel) unknown sense (how future plans and policies may affect climate action Cargo trucks (off-airport travel) 12,000 goals as well as the effects of climate change on airports). Ground access vehicles (public vehicles on In quantifying emissions associated with a sustainability airport roads) 15,000 Subtotal, Optional/Scope 3 2,506,810 plan, the airport operator would have flexibility in how GHGs Total 2,549,810 are presented. For those plans that include more than CO2, Waste Recycling (852) this Guidebook recommends developing CO2 equivalencies Grand Total 2,548,958 using the same approach as is used for climate action plans. 1.4.2 Environmental Management 1.4.3 Disclosure of Project/Action Effects and Sustainability Programs Airport operators that have adopted sustainability practices Inventories developed under the project disclo- may wish to quantify GHG emission reduction benefits associ- sure umbrella are mainly related to the NEPA (or ated with their sustainability practices. For these inventories, the state NEPA-like) process where an agency ap- Guidebook strives to suggest the greatest flexibility in presenting proval is involved, and--as a result--the inventory data. A sustainability plan typically identifies individual actions reflects only the changes in emissions due to the that an airport operator is taking and/or plans to take to reduce project and is a subset of the Climate Action In- its environmental footprint. In this case, the focus may be on ventory. Only a subset of the sources (i.e., those the airport as a whole or it may be on individual projects. affected by the project) are included in a project For the case where the desire is to inventory the airport in its en- disclosure inventory. tirety, the previously defined approach for climate change ini- tiatives may be used. In the case of individual sustainability projects, only the sources that are affected by the action might Inventories may also be required to support actions involv- be inventoried. For example, if an airport installed precondi- ing state and, possibly, federal approvals of airport improve- tioned air and 400-hz power at the gates, the emission reduc- ments. In the United States, this project/action disclosure tion benefits associated with aircraft using these systems might could occur in the form of documents prepared under NEPA Table 1-3. Example emissions quantification of a sustainability project. Annual Metric Tons of CO2 With Sustainability Effect of the Source No Action Action Sustainability Action APU 15,000 7,000 (8,000) Facility power 30,000 35,000 5,000 emissions (3,000) Total 45,000 42,000 (Emissions Reduced)
OCR for page 6
7 or based on state requirements that are similar to NEPA (called Using this example, assuming that the runway extension state NEPA-like laws or mini-NEPAs). As noted in Appendix A, would not induce activity relative to the no-action alterna- there is currently no requirement to consider GHGs in NEPA, tive, the project could affect energy use relative to sources but several state NEPA-like processes are now requiring such owned and controlled by the airport operator, as well as its evaluations. airport tenants. Each source and each owner should be con- A NEPA or state NEPA-like evaluation focuses on the sidered. For instance, a slight increase in a subset of facilities/ project-related effects of an agency action. As has been the stationary sources could occur due to additional runway case of air quality assessments for criteria pollutants (CO, lights, and the construction process would consume energy N2O, etc.), consideration is limited to the air quality emission and generate GHGs. Once the project is complete, it is likely inventories associated with the sources that are affected by the that the runway extension would alter taxi-related aircraft action. For example, if the proposed action is a development emissions (reflected in the aircraft-ground category). Sum- project that would extend a runway, only the sources that ming together the sources of emissions under various owner- would be affected by that action (the runway extension) ship and control would result in a net emission change and be would be inventoried. The primary analysis function of reflected as a reduction, as shown in Table 1-4. NEPA is to identify and disclose the effect of the project rela- As noted in Appendix A, no specific guidance has been de- tive to what would happen if the project was not undertaken. veloped for NEPA-related GHGs. The inventories prepared to In the runway extension example, the analysis might only date for airports in California, subject to California's NEPA- focus on aircraft taxi movements and construction emissions. like law (CEQA), have reflected three primary gases (CO2, To support that analysis, documentation would be necessary N2O, and CH4). In Massachusetts, the state NEPA-like law only to show how the project would affect existing and future air- requires the consideration of CO2, except in specific circum- craft operations levels (e.g., additional flights that may be stances where other pollutants are known to be substantial. For induced). If additional flights would be induced, then addi- project disclosure airport inventories, the three primary GHG tional support activity might occur, requiring the considera- pollutants should be presented, and the GWPs as discussed for tion of other sources. climate change initiatives/action plans should be used. Table 1-4. Example inventory--disclosure of project effects. Annual CO2 Emissions (metric tons) Runway Net Post Extension Project- No Preferred Related User/Source Category Action Alternative Emissions Airport Operator Owned/Controlled Sources Affected Facilities/stationary sources (airfield lighting for the runway) 40 41 1 Ground support equipment (vehicles needed to support construction of the runway) 0 220 220 Total Airport Operator Owned/Controlled Affected 40 261 221 Airline, Aircraft Operator, or Tenant Owned/Controlled Aircraft Ground 140,000 138,700 -1,300 Ground to 3,000 ft NA NA 0 Above 3,000 ft NA NA 0 Aircraft Total 140,000 138,700 -1,300 APU NA NA 0 Ground support equipment NA NA 0 Ground access vehicles NA NA 0 Stationary sources NA NA 0 Total Airline, Aircraft Operator, or Tenant Owned/Controlled 140,000 138,700 -1,300 Public Owned/Controlled Public vehicles NA NA 0 Shuttles and private vehicles NA NA 0 Total Public Owned/Controlled NA NA 0 Total Metric Tons Project Affected Sources 140,040 138,961 -1,079 Notes: For some sources, only the sources of emissions that would be affected by the project are quantified. NA = Project would not affect emissions from this source and thus emissions are not assessed.