Click for next page ( R2


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 R1
ACRP AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 46 Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration Handbook for Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Alternative Aviation Turbine Engine Fuels at Airports

OCR for page R1
ACRP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* CHAIR OFFICERS James Wilding CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (re- Governments, Arlington tired) VICE CHAIR: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore VICE CHAIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board Jeff Hamiel MEMBERS MinneapolisSt. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg MEMBERS Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson James Crites Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, DallasFort Worth International Airport Norfolk, VA Richard de Neufville William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kevin C. Dolliole Eugene A. Conti, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh Unison Consulting Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, and Director, John K. Duval Center for Transportation Studies, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Austin Commercial, LP Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Kitty Freidheim Paula J. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia Freidheim Consulting Steve Grossman Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC Jacksonville Aviation Authority Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Tom Jensen Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City National Safe Skies Alliance Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka Catherine M. Lang Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Federal Aviation Administration Gina Marie Lindsey Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA Los Angeles World Airports Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA Carolyn Motz Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO Hagerstown Regional Airport Beverly A. Scott, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Richard Tucker Authority, Atlanta, GA Huntsville International Airport David Seltzer, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis Paula P. Hochstetler Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing Airport Consultants Council Sabrina Johnson Douglas W. Stotlar, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI U.S. Environmental Protection Agency C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Richard Marchi Airports Council International--North America EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Laura McKee Air Transport Association of America Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT Henry Ogrodzinski J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT National Association of State Aviation Officials Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA Melissa Sabatine George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York American Association of Airport Executives Robert E. Skinner, Jr. University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC Transportation Research Board Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the SECRETARY Interior, Washington, DC Christopher W. Jenks Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC Transportation Research Board John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC David T. Matsuda, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Tara O'Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC Robert J. Papp (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC *Membership as of October 2010. *Membership as of October 2010.

OCR for page R1
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP REPORT 46 Handbook for Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Alternative Aviation Turbine Engine Fuels at Airports Fred Morser Philip Soucacos CSSI, INC. Washington, D.C. IN ASSOCIATION WITH James Hileman Pearl Donohoo MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Cambridge, MA Sandy Webb ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Annapolis, MD Subscriber Categories Energy Environment Aviation Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2011 www.TRB.org

OCR for page R1
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP REPORT 46 Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- Project 02-07 portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and inter- ISSN 1935-9802 national commerce. They are where the nation's aviation system ISBN 978-0-309-15540-3 connects with other modes of transportation and where federal respon- Library of Congress Control Number 2011921470 sibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most 2011 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. airports. Research is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Coopera- COPYRIGHT INFORMATION tive Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining which the airport industry can develop innovative near-term solutions written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously to meet demands placed on it. published or copyrighted material used herein. The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The ACRP carries understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate research programs. It is modeled after the successful National Coopera- acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of tive Highway Research Program and Transit Cooperative Research Pro- the material, request permission from CRP. gram. The ACRP undertakes research and other technical activities in a variety of airport subject areas, including design, construction, mainte- nance, operations, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, NOTICE and administration. The ACRP provides a forum where airport opera- tors can cooperatively address common operational problems. The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport Cooperative Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision Governing Board of the National Research Council. 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary partici- pants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to Department of Transportation with representation from airport oper- procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved ating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. such as the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), and the Air Transport Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. Association (ATA) as vital links to the airport community; (2) the TRB The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and Council, and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because contract with the National Academies formally initiating the program. they are considered essential to the object of the report. The ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials, equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research orga- nizations. Each of these participants has different interests and respon- sibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by iden- tifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport pro- fessionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels pre- pare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and Published reports of the selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooper- AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP are available from: project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Transportation Research Board Business Office intended end-users of the research: airport operating agencies, service 500 Fifth Street, NW providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research Washington, DC 20001 reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for work- and can be ordered through the Internet at shops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore results are implemented by airport-industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board's varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS CRP STAFF FOR ACRP REPORT 46 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Michael R. Salamone, ACRP Manager Lawrence D. Goldstein, Senior Program Officer Tiana Barnes, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Doug English, Editor ACRP PROJECT 02-07 PANEL Field of Environment Bryan C. Wagoner, Wayne County (MI) Airport Authority, Detroit, MI (Chair) Richard Altman, Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, Wethersfield, CT Roger A. Johnson, Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles, CA Darrin L. Morgan, Boeing Company, Seattle, WA Virgil M. Regoli, Jr., US Air Force, Wright Patterson AFB, OH Russ Simonson, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA Steve Sletten, PBS&J, Madison, WI Lourdes Maurice, FAA Liaison Jessica Steinhilber, Airports Council InternationalNorth America Liaison Christine Gerencher, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under ACRP Project 02-07 by CSSI, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Environmental Consulting Group, Inc. CSSI served as the prime contractor. Mr. Frederick Morser of CSSI was the Principal Investigator. The other authors of this report were Phillip Soucacos, CSSI, Dr. James Hileman, Principal Research Engineer, MIT, and Associate Director, Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction, Pearl Donohoo, S.M. Candidate at MIT, and Sandy Webb, Managing Director, Environmental Consulting Group. Many researchers and experts in alternative fuel production, fuel combustion, aircraft and vehicle engines, fuel distribution, airport operations, and emissions modeling provided essential assistance with the work presented in this report. The authors would especially like to thank Dr. Saravanan Arunachalam, Center for Environmental Modeling for Policy Development, University of North CarolinaChapel Hill, for his contribution on the analysis of ambient particulate matter concentrations around Atlanta Harts- field International Airport.

OCR for page R1
FOREWORD By Lawrence D. Goldstein Staff Officer Transportation Research Board ACRP Report 46 provides a handbook and analytical model that airport operators and fuel suppliers can use to evaluate the costs associated with introducing "drop-in" alternative tur- bine engine fuel at airports and the benefits as measured by reduced emissions. The analyti- cal model also includes evaluation tools that take into account options for using alternative fuel for other airside equipment, including diesel-powered ground support equipment. Alternative fuels considered are an ultralow sulfur (ULS) jet fuel and synthetic paraffinic kerosenes (SPKs). SPKs include Fischer-Tropsch fuels and hydroprocessed renewable jet fuel created from feedstocks such as algae and palm oils. The analytical model, which is contained on an accompanying CD-ROM, is the Alternative Fuel Investigation Tool (AFIT). An accom- panying research report covers background analysis used in the formulation of the AFIT model, addresses characteristics of current fuel usage and distribution, and describes what is required to switch to alternatives. Also addressed in the report and incorporated in AFIT are critical environmental factors to be considered when calculating costs and environmental benefits. Environmental benefits are measured based on the degree to which use of alterna- tive fuels can improve air quality within the airport boundaries. The handbook also includes a discussion of data requirements and sources of data required for use in the model. Jet A kerosene is a petroleum-based fuel that is presently used to power turbine engines on aircraft. Certification of two or more substitutes for Jet A fuel is anticipated in the near future, and this research was designed to provide guidance to airport operators on the steps necessary to evaluate costs and environmental benefits for implementing a fuel substitution program. The objective of the research was to prepare a handbook for use by airport oper- ators to measure the associated costs and environmental benefits. This handbook was also to provide guidance on possible uses of alternative fuels as substitutes for diesel-powered ground support equipment to maximize the return on the required investment. To accomplish this objective, the research team headed by CSSI, Inc., in association with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Environmental Consulting Group, Inc., evaluated current airport fuel supply systems; reviewed current research on development and suitability of alternative fuels; evaluated certification and implementation require- ments; interviewed airports on current fuel acquisition, supply, and delivery procedures; and assessed potential environmental benefits associated with use of alternative fuels. Based on this review and analysis, the research team formulated an evaluation model to facilitate the decision-making process with sufficient flexibility to incorporate individual airport characteristics. The report that accompanies the handbook includes an assessment of steps involved in bringing alternative fuels to airports, what airports need to know to accommodate these

OCR for page R1
fuels, how the cost of using alternative fuels compares to that of current fuel, what the envi- ronmental benefits are, and how to measure those benefits. It also describes the underlying analysis that is incorporated in the computational tool. The decision to switch in part or in whole to an alternative fuel is the responsibility of and peculiar to an individual airport. Specific conditions will guide airport management decisions, and any model or decision- making tool must be flexible enough to recognize unique characteristics of a specific airport community. This report is the result of extensive research into the key issues affecting the aviation industry's efforts to pursue cleaner fuels, and the decision-making factors that emerge are built into the model. As a result, members of the airport community can use the report, handbook, and AFIT to make their own determination of the costs and environmen- tal benefits of various alternative fuels and implementation strategies. The handbook guides the AFIT user in evaluating the cost of acquiring, transporting, distributing, and using an alternative jet fuel as well as evaluating environmental benefits. Although designed with airports in mind, it is also useful to others interested in using alter- native fuel at airports. For example, an alternative jet fuel producer can use AFIT to develop a marketing approach for working with an airport. A fuel service company could use it to better understand the process and costs involved in acquiring and transporting an alternative jet fuel from a production site to an airport. An environmental analyst could use it to evaluate the degree to which emissions could be mitigated though the use of alter- native jet fuel. The science and engineering of alternative fuels development is dynamic. Assumptions and results can become obsolete as a result of political, technological, and economic change. Therefore, alternative fuels research in general and a measure of its applicability to airport planning and aviation in particular are in constant need of updating. For example, with respect to the modeling side, the environmental input to the benefit analysis, which relies on the FAA's preferred air quality model, the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) will soon be replaced or augmented by other more sophisticated environmental models as tools and techniques improve. The structure of the decision-making process for use of alternative fuels must remain flexible, and that is the approach incorporated into the AFIT and its application.

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 1 Summary 3 Chapter 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Summary 3 1.2 Handbook Purpose 4 1.3 Economic Considerations 4 1.4 Environmental Considerations 4 1.5 System Boundary 6 Chapter 2 Key Project Findings 6 2.1 Potentially Viable Alternative Turbine Engine Fuels 6 2.1.1 Composition of Current Jet Fuel 6 2.1.2 Source of Current Jet Fuel 7 2.1.3 Sulfur Content of Current Jet Fuel 7 2.2 Potentially Viable Fuels and Their Benefits 7 2.2.1 Fuels Not Viable for Use in Gas Turbine-Powered Aircraft 7 2.2.2 GSE Use of Alternative Turbine Engine Fuels 8 2.2.3 Single Battlefield Fuel (Jet Fuel Use in Diesel Engines) 8 2.2.4 Limits of Jet Fuel Use in Diesel Engines 9 2.2.5 Engine Modifications and Maintenance Changes 10 2.3 Outcomes from Airport Surveys 10 2.3.1 Airport Fuel Management Practices 10 2.3.2 Airport Fuel Infrastructure 11 2.3.3 Airports Selected for Analysis 11 2.3.4 Airport Readiness to Switch to an Alternative Fuel 13 Chapter 3 Key Environmental Factors 13 3.1 Fuel Consumption 13 3.1.1 Changes in Jet Fuel Use in Jet Engines 13 3.1.2 Changes in Fuel Use in Diesel Engines 14 3.2 Aircraft Emissions Affecting Air Quality 14 3.2.1 Nitrogen Oxides 14 3.2.2 Sulfur Dioxide 14 3.2.3 Primary Particulate Matter 16 3.2.4 Carbon Monoxide 16 3.3 Diesel GSE Emissions Affecting Air Quality 16 3.3.1 Unburned Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen Oxide, and Carbon Monoxide 17 3.3.2 Sulfur Dioxide 17 3.3.3 Particulate Matter 18 3.4 Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

OCR for page R1
21 Chapter 4 Air Quality Assessment for a Selected Airport 21 4.1 Methodology 21 4.2 GSE Vehicle Inventory 23 4.3 Emissions Inventory 23 4.4 Ambient Particulate Matter Concentration 27 Chapter 5 About the Handbook 27 5.1 AFIT Use 28 5.2 Data References 28 5.2.1 Fuel 30 Chapter 6 Issues and Challenges 30 6.1 Available Data for Estimating Emissions 30 6.2 Maturity of Alternative Fuels for Aviation 31 6.3 Implementation Realities 32 References 34 Appendix A Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations 36 Appendix B Stanadyne Fuel Pump Repair Bulletins 45 Appendix C Airport Fueling System Interview Guide 49 Appendix D Summary of Emission Factors and Emission Indices Handbook for Using AFIT, the Alternative Fuels Investigation Tool H-1 Contents H-2 Chapter 1 Introduction H-5 Chapter 2 Conducting a CostBenefit Analysis of Alternative Jet Fuel Use H-10 Chapter 3 Evaluating the Results of an Alternative Jet Fuel CostBenefit Analysis H-12 Appendix A CostBenefit Computations H-13 Appendix B Sources of Data H-14 Appendix C Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations H-15 Appendix D Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions H-17 References

OCR for page R1
1 SUMMARY Handbook for Analyzing the Costs and Benefits of Alternative Aviation Turbine Engine Fuels at Airports Aviation has a long and successful record of improving fuel efficiency over time; however, it is still facing significant pressure to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and offset emissions that may result from growing demand for air travel. Industry stakeholders have committed to a wide range of measures for reducing GHG emissions, such as further fuel effi- ciency improvements, advanced air traffic management techniques to shorten routes, more efficient operations, and market-based and regulatory measures to further reduce emissions. Perhaps the most promising approach for reducing aviation GHG emissions is the use of alternative fuels. These fuels can also reduce surface emissions, which could also be a barrier to the growth of aviation. Environmentally beneficial alternatives to current Jet A fuel are in the early stages of com- mercialization, although rapid progress is being made in their development. It is important for stakeholders to understand how these new fuels will fit into the current system, how they will move from fuel production sites to airports, and what is involved on the part of the airports to accommodate the fuels and deliver them to aircraft. This project has assessed what is involved in getting alternative fuels to airports, what air- ports need to know to accommodate them, how the costs of using these fuels compares to current fuel, what the environmental benefits are, and what practical considerations are involved at the airport. In addition to this technical report, which provides the detailed infor- mation and analysis needed to understand alternative fuel use at airports, there are two other products from this project: a computational tool for evaluating the costs and benefits of air- port alternative fuel use and an accompanying handbook that guides the user through the application of the tool. This report describes how alternative fuels may be used to supplement and eventually replace conventional fuels and what is important for airports to consider. It also describes the underlying analysis that is incorporated in the computational tool. The following key accomplishments of the project are described in the report: An extensive search of the scientific literature on alternative fuel production and use was con- ducted to assess viable alternative fuels, environmental impacts of using alternative fuels in aircraft and ground support equipment, and how these fuels might be deployed at airports. Detailed interviews and surveys of fueling equipment were conducted at seven airports to assess airports' readiness for using alternative fuels and to better understand what fueling equipment may be involved in the transition to these new fuels. Key environmental factors for aircraft and GSE emissions affecting surface air quality were assessed in detail to evaluate potential environmental benefits of alternative fuel use. The life-cycle GHG emissions from alternative fuel production and use were also evaluated and compared among different fuel sources.

OCR for page R1
42

OCR for page R1
43

OCR for page R1
44

OCR for page R1
45 APPENDIX C Airport Fueling System Interview Guide

OCR for page R1
46 Airport___________________________ Date_____________________________ Contact Name_____________________ Phone____________________________ Email ____________________________ Airport Fueling System Interview Guide 1. How are fuels currently delivered to the airport (e.g., pipeline, truck, barge)? If pipeline, is it multi-product or dedicated jet? a. Jet fuel b. Diesel fuel for airside vehicles c. Gasoline for airside vehicles d. Avgas for general aviation aircraft e. Other fuels for airside vehicles (e.g., compressed natural gas, propane, biodiesel) f. What is the volume of each fuel type distributed on a maximum day? Annually? g. What is the typical daily consumption of each fuel type? h. How many suppliers for each fuel type? 2. How are fuels distributed to airside equipment? a. Jet and turboprop aircraft--hydrant or refueler vehicles b. GSE--pumping station or refueler vehicles i. Diesel ii. Gasoline iii. Other c. Other vehicles 3. How old is the oldest part of the fuel distribution system? When was the most recent substantial upgrade of the fuel distribution system? 4. Who operates the fuel distribution system(s)? How many companies dispense fuel to aircraft/GSE? Who can store fuel in tanks? Who owns each facility? Who controls each facility? What is length of lease and expiration date for each operator? 5. List number and volume of fuel storage tanks for each fuel at each fueling facility. a. Describe any equipment associated with fuel tanks like special gauging equipment, tank vent controls, etc. b. Size or capacity of filters and other equipment associated with fuel storage tanks (note filter type: pre-filters, clay treaters, micronic filters, filter/separators, other) 6. What is the average fuel inventory on hand for each fuel type? 7. How many gates are serviced at the airport? a. By the hydrant system? b. By the refueler vehicles? c. Total gates and hard stands serviced? 8. Approximately how many other vehicles (other than aircraft) or pieces of equipment are serviced at the airport? 9. How many vehicles are used in the fuel delivery process? a. Refueling vehicles b. Hydrant vehicles

OCR for page R1
47 Airport___________________________ Date_____________________________ Contact Name___ __________________ Phone____________________________ Email ____________________________ c. Other vehicles 10. How many fueling operations are performed on an average day by type of equipment (e.g., aircraft/GSE)? 11. How many airlines are serviced by the jet fueling system? 12. How many companies other than airlines (e.g., service companies, FBOs) are serviced by the fueling system? 13. How many aircraft operations (i.e., flights) are conducted at the airport on an average day? Annually? 14. What are the materials of construction of a hydrant system's wetted parts for check valves, control valves, and piping? 15. What are the materials of construction for refueling trucks, tanks, valves, and piping? 16. What leak detection monitoring is employed for each fuel type? 17. What is the opinion of the primary jet fuel system operator on the use of alternative fuels and especially on replacing the current fuel with a drop-in alternative? Also explore concerns about safety, issues with fuel desegregation, defueling considerations, and other practical operating considerations. 18. What is the opinion of the station manager for one of the airlines with the greatest number of operations at the airport on replacing the current fuel with a drop-in alternative? 19. Is consumption subtracted from inventory and/or billed to customers in gross or net gallons? How is fuel consumption tracked? How do you control for taxation considerations? 20. Would you consider a single fuel for all airport uses? 21. Would you be able to (or be interested in) blending alternative fuel and jet fuel onsite? Do you have adequate tankage? What else needs to be considered? 22. Request PFD (process flow diagram), P&ID (piping and instrumentation diagram), schematic, and/or other facility drawing that includes tank size, material spec or materials takeoff, filter description, etc. Otherwise sketch diagram below of each fuel system showing approximate line length and pipe size (from fuel delivery, to storage tanks, to refueler vehicle/hydrant system, to aircraft). Note type of cathodic protection used for underground piping, tanks, and equipment. General Notes ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

OCR for page R1
Summary of Airport Fuel Distribution and Consumption Airport___________________________ Date_____________________________ Contact Name_____________________ Phone____________________________ Email ____________________________ Fuel Fuel Fuel System Operator Number Storage Distribution Number Filter Cathodic Leak Daily Average No. Gates, No. Daily Number Type Receipt Distribution Age Name of Capacity Capacity and Type Protection Detection System Inventory Vehicles, Vehicles Fueling of Method Method (years) Tanks (gal) (gal/day) Size Type Type Consumption (gallons) or Used Ops Airlines (in.) of (gal/day) Equipment or Transfer Serviced Clients Pipes Served Vehicles Fueled: For each type of fuel listed in the table, list a representative set of vehicles by type and engine/motor size and manufacturer. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OCR for page R1
49 APPENDIX D Summary of Emission Factors and Emission Indices D.1 Sulfur Properties Relating to Diesel Fuel Combustion Table D-1. EPA-estimated sulfur content of NONROAD diesel fuel, which is assumed in EDMS. Study Year Sulfur Content in Weight Percent (Soxbas) (48 States) 2006 0.2249 2007 0.1140 2008 0.0348 2009 0.0348 2010 0.0163 2011 0.0031 2012 0.0031 2013 0.0031 2014 0.0019 2015 0.0011 Table D-2. Assumed fraction of diesel fuel sulfur that is converted to particulate matter. Years Sulfur Conversion Efficiency (Soxcnv) Through 2010 0.02247 After 2010 0.131 Sources: U.S. EPA. Diesel Fuel Sulfur Inputs for the Draft NONROAD2004 Model. April 27, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/OMS/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2004/sulfur.txt. Accessed January 30, 2009. U.S. EPA. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling--Compression-Ignition NR-009c. April 2004.

OCR for page R1
50 D.2 Ground Support Equipment Emissions Scaling Factors Table D-3: Emissions scaling relationships for nitrogen oxides, unburned hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide. Source: Donohoo (2010). Fuel Type NOx HC CO SPK EGSE SPK NOx EGSE diesel NOx 0.87 EGSE SPK HC EGSE diesel HC 0.55 EGSE SPK CO EGSE diesel CO 0.61 ULSJ EGSE ULSJ NOx EGSE diesel NOx 0.84 EGSE ULSJ HC EGSE diesel HC 0.90 EGSE ULSJ CO EGSE diesel CO 0.66 Blend (ULSJ with EGSE ALT NOx EGSE diesel NOx EGSE ALT HC EGSE diesel HC EGSE ALT CO EGSE diesel CO %/100 SPK) 0.87 0.84 1 0.55 0.90 1 0.61 0.66 1 Table D-4. Emissions scaling relationships for sulfur oxides. Source: Donohoo (2010). Fuel Type SOx Through 2010 SOx Post 2011 (soxbas from Table D.1) SPK 0.0015 EGSE SPK SO EGSE diesel SO EGSE SPK SO2 EGSE diesel SO2 2 2 soxbas ULSJ 0.0015 EGSE ULSJ SO EGSE diesel SO EGSE ULSJ SO2 EGSE diesel SO2 2 2 soxbas Blend (ULSJ with 0.0015 EGSE ALT SO EGSE diesel SO %/100 SPK) EGSE ALT SO2 EGSE diesel SO2 2 2 soxbas Table D-5. Emissions scaling relationships for total PM. Source: Donohoo (2010). Fuel Type PM Through 2010 PM Post 2010 SPK EGSE SPK PM 0.48 EGSE diesel PM EGSE SPK PM 0.48 EGSE diesel PM ULSJ EGSE ULSJ PM 0.48 EGSE diesel PM EGSE ULSJ PM 0.48 EGSE diesel PM Blend (ULSJ with EGSE ALT PM EGSE diesel PM 0.48 1 EGSE ALT PM 0.48 EGSE diesel PM % /100 SPK) Table D-6. Combustion CO2 emissions. Source: Donohoo (2010). Fuel Type COMBUSTION CO2 (Fuel in Kg, CO2 in Kg) SPK EGSE SPK CO2 Fuel burn diesel 0.85 44 12 ULSJ EGSE ULSJ CO2 Fuel burn diesel 0.86 44 12 D.3 Ground Support Equipment Fuel Use The diesel fuel use was back-calculated from the estimated sulfur oxide emissions according to Equation D.1. Soxcnv is given in Table D.2. Soxbas is a function of the year of the study as given in Table D.1. grams( SO2 ) FuelBurndiesel Equation D.1 1 soxcnv 0.01 soxbas 2 D.4 Main Gas Turbine Emissions Scaling Factors Table D-7. Fuel burn ratios. Source: Hileman et al. (2010). Fuel Type Fuel Burn Change Ratio to Jet A, (relative to Jet A) Jet A 0.5% to 0.5% 1.000 ULSJ 0.8% to 0.2% 0.997 SPK 1.6% to 2.3% 0.978

OCR for page R1
51 Table D-8. Fuel burn scaling relationships. Source: Donohoo (2010). Fuel Type Fuel Burn SPK EAC - SPK - FuelBurn = SPK EAC - Jet - FuelBurn ULSJ EAC - ULSJ - C FuelBurn = ULSJ EAC - Jet - FuelBurn Blend (ULSJ with %/100 SPK) EAC - ALT - FuelBurn = EAC - Jet - FuelBurn [ SPK + (1 - ) ULSJ] Blend (Jet A with %/100 SPK) EAC - ALT - FuelBurn = EAC - Jet - FuelBurn [ SPK + (1 - )] Table D-9. Emissions scaling relationships for sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and unburned hydrocarbons. Source: Donohoo (2010). Fuel Type SOx NOx HC SPK EAC - SPK - SOx = SPK EAC - Jet - EAC - SPK - NOx = SPK EAC - Jet - NOx EAC - SPK - HC = SPK EAC - Jet - HC SOx 0.022 ULSJ EAC - ULSJ - SOx = ULSJ EAC - Jet EAC - ULSJ - NOx = ULSJ EAC - Jet - NOx EAC - ULSJ - HC = ULSJ EAC - Jet - HC - SOx 0.022 Blend (ULSJ with EAC - ALT - SOx = EAC - Jet - SOx EAC - ALT - NOx = EAC - Jet - NOx [ EAC - ALT - HC = EAC - Jet - HC [ SPK %/100 SPK) 0.022 [ SPK + (1 - ) SPK + (1 - ) ULSJ] + (1 - ) ULSJ] ULSJ] Blend (Jet A with EAC - ALT - SOx = EAC - Jet - SOx EAC - ALT - NOx = EAC - Jet - NOx [ EAC - ALT - HC = EAC - Jet - HC [ %/100 SPK) [0.022 SPK + (1 - )] SPK + (1 - )] SPK + (1- )] Table D-10. Emissions scaling relationships for carbon monoxide. Source: Donohoo (2010). Fuel Type CO SPK EAC - SPK - CO = SPK EAC - Jet - CO ULSJ EAC - ULSJ - CO = ULSJ EAC - Jet - CO Blend (ULSJ with %/100 SPK) EAC - ALT - CO = EAC - Jet - CO [ SPK + (1 - ) ULSJ] Blend (Jet A with %/100 SPK) EAC - ALT - CO = EAC - Jet - CO [ SPK + (1 - )] Table D-11. Emissions scaling relationships for PMNV, PMS, and PMFO. Source: Donohoo (2010). Fuel Type PMNV (43%) PMS (41%) PMFO (16%) SPK EAC - SPK - PMNV = SPK EAC - Jet - PMNV EAC - SPK - PMSO = SPK EAC - Jet - EAC - SPK - PMFO = SPK EAC - Jet - 0.24 PMSO 0.022 PMFO ULSJ EAC - ULSJ - PMNV = ULSJ EAC - Jet - PMNV EAC - ULSJ - PMSO = ULSJ EAC - Jet - EAC - ULSJ - PMFO = ULS EAC - Jet - PMSO 0.022 PMFO Blend (ULSJ with EAC - ALT - PMNV = EAC - Jet - PMNV EAC - ALT - PMSO = ( EAC - Jet - PMSO EAC - ALT - PMFO = EAC - Jet - PMFO up to 50% SPK) [0.58 SPK + (1 - ) ULSJ ] 0.022) [ SPK + (1 - ) ULSJ] [ SPK + (1 - ) ULSJ] Blend (Jet A with EAC - ALT - PMNV = EAC - Jet - PMNV EAC - ALT - PMSO = ( EAC - Jet - PMSO EAC - ALT - PMFO = EAC - Jet - PMFO up to 50% SPK) [0.58 SPK +(1 - ) ] 0.022) [ SPK + (1- )] [ SPK + (1 - )] Table D-12. Emissions scaling relationships for total PM. Source: Donohoo (2010). Fuel Type PM-TOTAL PM-TOTAL SPK EAC - SPK - PM = SPK EAC - Jet - PM (0.24 0.43 + 0.022 0.41 EAC - SPK - PM = SPK EAC - Jet - PM 0.27222 + 0.16) ULSJ EAC - ULSJ - PM = ULSJ EAC - Jet - PM (0.43 + 0.022 0.41 + EAC - ULSJ - PM = ULSJ EAC - Jet - PM 0.59902 0.16) Blend (ULSJ with EAC - ALT - PM = EAC - Jet - PM {[( SPK) (0.58 0.43 + 0.022 EAC - ALT - PM = EAC - Jet - PM {[( SPK) up to 50% SPK) 0.41 + 0.16)] + [((1 - ) ULSJ ) (0.43 + 0.022 0.41 0.41842] + [((1 - ) ULSJ ) 0.59902]} + 0.16)]} Blend (Jet A with EAC - ALT - PM = EAC - Jet - PM {[( SPK) (0.58 0.43 + 0.022 EAC - ALT - PM = EAC - Jet - PM {[( SPK) up to 50% SPK) 0.41 + 0.16)] + [(1 - ) (0.43 + 0.022 0.41 + 0.16)]} 0.41842] + [(1 - ) 0.59902]} Table D-13. Combustion CO2 emissions indices. Source: Hileman et al. (2010). Combustion CO2 Specific Energy Fuel Type (g CO2/MJ) (MJ/Kg) Jet A 73.2 43.2 ULSJ 72.9 43.3 Diesel 72.6 41.8 SPK 70.4 44.1

OCR for page R1
Handbook for Using AFIT, the Alternative Fuels Investigation Tool Companion to ACRP Report 46 A I R P O RT C O O P E R AT I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M 2011