United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Air and Radiation EPA420-R-99-013

April 1999

Evaluation of Air Pollutant

Emissions from Subsonic

Commercial Jet Aircraft

 Printed on Recycled Paper
EPA420-R-99-013

April 1999

Final Report

	



	
	



	







Engine Programs and Compliance Division

Office of Mobile Sources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Prepared for EPA by

ICF Consulting Group

EPA Contract No. 68-C-98-170

Work Assignment No. 0-3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the people who have contributed to the development of

this report. The report was peer reviewed by Dr. Roger Wayson of the University of Central

Florida (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering), who has expertise in

environmental impact and air pollution analyses at airports. Dr. Wayson's comments were

incorporated into the report appropriately.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... E-1

1 − INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1-1

Background – United States......................................................................................................1-2

Background – International Perspective ...................................................................................1-3

Public Health and Aircraft Emissions.......................................................................................1-4

Report Organization..................................................................................................................1-5

2 − ESTIMATING COMMERCIAL JET AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS..................................2-1

Methodology for Commercial Jet Aircraft Emissions Estimation............................................2-1

Selection of Metropolitan Areas ...............................................................................................2-2

Airport Activity.........................................................................................................................2-3

Future Aircraft Activity Projections...................................................................................2-5

Time-in-Mode (TIM) Estimation..............................................................................................2-7

Fleet Characterization ...............................................................................................................2-9

Emission Factor Selection.......................................................................................................2-10

3 − AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS...........................................................3-1

Inventory Limitations and Caveats ...........................................................................................3-4

4 − AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS CONTRIBUTION...................................................................4-1

5 − CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................5-1

REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................R-1

APPENDIX A: Health Effects of Aircraft Emissions

APPENDIX B: Emissions Calculation Methodology

APPENDIX C: Ozone Nonattainment Area Maps

APPENDIX D: Airport Activity Projections

APPENDIX E: Time-In-Mode Data and Assumptions

APPENDIX F: Aircraft/Engine Emission Factor Database

APPENDIX G: Facility-Specific and Regional Emissions Summaries

APPENDIX H: EPA Regional Emission Estimates for 1990 and 2010
E-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Mobile Sources initiated this

study in order to assess the existing and potential impact of aircraft emissions on local air quality

at ten selected cities. Aircraft emissions and airport related emissions have received considerable

attention in recent years, both on national and international agendas.

Recent activities, such as the Clean Airport Summit (held in Denver December 1997), a National

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report, and correspondence from state and local air quality

agencies, reflect increased awareness of ground-level aircraft emissions. State and local air

quality officials are seeking strategies for cost-effective emissions reductions to comply with

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Perhaps most significant on the national agenda, EPA

and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have convened a multi-stakeholder process to seek a

voluntary agreement on ground-level emissions reductions actions for commercial aircraft and

aviation-related emissions.

In order to focus the analysis, EPA made the following decisions regarding the scope of this

study:

• Estimate the emissions from commercial jet aircraft only (exclude emissions from on board

auxiliary power units)

• Select ten cities with current or potential local air quality problems, as indicated by

compliance with the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

• Rely on the methodology presented in EPA Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation,

Volume 4 : Mobile Sources, dated 1992

• Seek data sources that are national in scope and readily available

• Use 1990 as a base year, and 2010 as the projection year due to availability of total regional

emission data for these years, and the desire to identify potential long-term trends in

emissions growth.

In the study, one portion of the airport-related emissions, commercial aircraft, were projected to

the year 2010. After an initial draft of the study was prepared, EPA invited comments on the

draft report from the multi-stakeholder group. The most significant comments are included in

text boxes throughout the report.

The analytical results of the study confirm that commercial aircraft emissions have the potential

to significantly contribute to air pollution in the ten study areas. Study results indicate that in

1990, for NOx, the aircraft component of the regional mobile source emissions ranged from 0.6%

to 3.6%. In the 2010 projection year for all cities studied, the projected ground-level emissions

from commercial aircraft increased in absolute terms. The proportion of total urban emissions

attributable to aircraft also increased for all ten cities (range from 1.9% to 10.4% of the regional

mobile source NOx emissions); these proportions were calculated using aircraft emissions

calculated in this study and total emissions from 1990 and 2010 inventories previously developed

by EPA. While there is uncertainty associated with these estimates for the projection year, they
E-2

generally suggest an increase in ground-level emissions from commercial aircraft as a result of

forecast growth in the aviation sector.

Comments received from reviewers of the draft study indicated that uncertainty may exist in the

national forecasts of growth in aircraft activity, on future composition of the aircraft fleet, and on

the accuracy of a default mixing height. Such uncertainties carry over into projections of future

emissions, and resolution of uncertainties may result in higher or lower ground-level emissions

estimates from future aircraft. In order to reduce the uncertainty of the results presented,

additional areas for investigation would be

• Improvements in activity forecasts to account for supply-side constraints that could dampen

growth rates (e.g., infrastructure limitations, funding limitations, limited gate availability,

regulatory constraints)

• Improvements in forecasts of national level fleet turnover

• Addition of sensitivity analyses for the above key parameters and others such as mixing

height

Thus, this study has achieved its initial goals and creates a basic understanding of ground-level

aircraft emissions contribution. It provides an estimation of the contribution of aircraft to air

quality emissions in ten urban areas, confirms that investigation of cost-effective control options

on aircraft emissions is warranted, and highlights the need for improvements in the quality of

national level data as noted by reviewers of the draft study if more certainty is desired. Reliance

upon the study’s conclusions should take into account the caveats noted in this report.
1-1

1 − INTRODUCTION

Many U.S. cities face significant air quality problems. New National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for ozone (O3) and particulates (PM) promulgated in 1997 serve to

highlight the continuing threat to public health posed by air pollution from human activities. In

light of these challenges, air quality officials must evaluate all possible ways to control pollutant

emissions. Consequently, all pollutant sources are being evaluated for potential emissions

reductions. In this context, commercial jet aircraft are under increasing scrutiny because they are

expected to comprise a growing proportion of regional emissions in the coming decades.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s National Trends report of 1997 estimates

that aircraft1 are responsible for about one percent of the total U.S ground-level emissions from

mobile sources2

. Commercial aircraft comprise almost 70 percent of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)

emissions from the total aircraft sector (commercial, military, and general aviation). They are

one of the fastest growing segments of the transportation sector’s regional pollutant contribution.

As shown in Figure 1-1, between 1970 and 1995, hydrocarbon (HC) and NOx emissions from

aircraft sources have grown 53 percent (EPA, 1997b) despite implementation of HC and NOx

standards for commercial aircraft engines.3

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relative importance of aircraft emissions as an

emissions source that affects local air quality. In order to provide a specific context for the

inquiry, emissions were calculated for a base year, 1990 and a projection year, 2010, for ten

selected urban areas. The ten cities were selected based on their preexisting status as locations

where air quality problems currently exist or are likely to become more significant. Thus, the

study may not provide a comprehensive perspective on emissions and is not necessarily

representative of aircraft emissions in all urban areas.

In conducting the analysis, the methodology outlined by EPA’s guidance document for preparing

emission estimates for mobile sources4 was applied. In order to provide consistent estimates

across the ten cities, nationwide data sources were sought. Available data, particularly on the

future composition of the aircraft fleet and on the number of takeoffs and landings in future

years, were limited to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Forecasts developed for

FAA planning and decision making. These forecasts contain the basic information needed for

the 2010 projections. FAA reported that when they have looked back to evaluate previous

forecasts, they found that these forecasts were reasonably accurate. However, because they were

not developed with the expressed purpose of emissions modeling, some additional information

and analysis was needed to better reflect the impacts of changes in fleet composition. Even

 

1

 Including commercial, military and general aviation travel. This report looks at exhaust from main engines only

and does not include auxiliary power unit emissions.

2

 The National Trends report is a nationwide emissions study, but it may not be representative of aviation’s

contribution in air quality problem areas that have few, if any, rural areas. The contribution varies by area, and in

urban areas it is generally more. When aircraft emissions for CO, NOx, and VOC are summed they equal 1.27% and

1.38% as a percent of the total 1990 and 1996 mobile source inventories, respectively.

3

 For commercial aircraft engines greater than 26.7 kilonewtons (6000 lbs) rated output, the HC standard is 19.6

grams/kilonewton beginning in 1984. For NOx, the standard was ((40+2 rated pressure ratio)g/kN rate output)

beginning in 1986 (due to ICAO standards).

4 Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.
1-2

though adjustments were made to make the FAA projections more useful, as is described later in

the report, some uncertainty remains because the projections did not capture localized

complexities such as each airline's decision-making about fleet composition and potential airport

or airways capacity constraints (e.g., infrastructure, slot-controlled airports, general conformity).

Taken as a whole, the FAA estimates were thought by EPA to be adequate for the purposes of

this initial study.

F igure 1-1. U .S. A ircraft E m ission Trends, 1970 - 1995.













	

Year

Emissions (1,000 Short Tons)



	

EPA’s interest is not only the absolute emissions totals, but also in the relative proportion of

regional inventories generated by commercial jet aircraft. Thus, in the final section of this report,

the proportion of the total urban inventories attributable to aircraft are calculated.

Background – United States

In addition to EPA, many other groups have recently voiced their concern over aircraft emissions.

In Flying Off Course, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) highlighted ground-level

emissions from aircraft as one of the four most important environmental issues connected to

airports.5

 The authors assert that there is an inadequate regulatory framework for addressing this

issue, and point out that the projected increases in air travel in the coming decades will only

exacerbate the problem. The results of the NRDC study were one of several key presentations at

the October, 1997 Clean Airport Summit, co-sponsored in part by EPA, the U.S. Department of

Energy’s Clean Cities Program, and several other public and private organizations.

The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), STAPPA/ALAPCO6 and

NESCAUM7

 recently sent letters to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)

arguing for greater efforts on the part of FAA and EPA to require the aircraft industry to reduce

emissions in a manner consistent with other regulated sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA)

 

5

 The other significant environmental issues were noise and land use, water pollution, and climate change/energy

efficiency.

6

 State and Territorial Air Pollution Program/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials

7

 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management.
1-3

(Kenny, 1998; Becker, Kodjak, 1998). More specifically, through its stationary source

provisions found primarily in Title V, the CAA requires that new stationary and industrial

sources install state-of-the-art technology and that existing sources retrofit their operations with

reasonable and cost effective controls. For mobile sources, EPA continues to require new

regulations for automobiles, even though these sources have reduced their emissions on a per

vehicle basis by 98 percent over the past 25 years. In what is perhaps a more reasonable

comparison to commercial aviation, locomotive emissions, which are unregulated until 2000 will

be required to achieve a 66 percent reduction in NOx emissions beginning in 2005. The letters

point out the importance of supporting not only the International Civil Aviation Organization’s

(ICAO) latest 16 percent reduction in new aircraft engine NOx certification standards (see next

section), but also advocate other aircraft emissions control programs.

Since the preparation of the draft study, EPA and FAA have convened a multi-stakeholder

process to reach a voluntary agreement on measures to reduce the ground-level emissions from

commercial aircraft and other aviation related sources. Participants in this process represent

industry, airports, states, environmental groups and other stakeholders. As one of their initial

tasks, participants reviewed a draft of this report. Considerable concern was voiced over the

appropriateness of the methodology for reaching conclusions on the relative importance of

aircraft emissions to urban area-wide emissions. Indeed, this study has prompted the multistakeholder group to work with EPA and FAA to pursue additional data and identify research

needs for improving such an assessment including, in particular, data required to quantify future

emissions growth with more certainty.

Background – International Perspective

Aircraft emissions are an issue of global concern.8

 In addition to the national level developments

described above, ICAO has been evaluating current and projected pollutant contributions of

aircraft and airport operations. In 1994, the Emissions at and around Airports Subgroup (EASG)

of ICAO undertook a series of studies to develop future scenarios for seven representative

airports around the world. The primary focus of the analysis was the assessment of emissions

levels in the immediate vicinity of the airport facility. The results indicate that while overall

emissions from these facilities will remain the same or decrease due to anticipated pollution

controls on ground-support and service vehicles, aircraft-induced NOx pollution will, depending

on the specific scenario, increase by a factor of two to three between 1992 and 2015 (ICAO,

1994). While the EASG conclusions are an important addition to the study of air quality effects

around airports resulting from aircraft operations, they do not address the contribution of aircraft

emissions to regional air quality problems.

In a more recent study the Forecasting and Economic Analysis Subgroup (FESG) of ICAO’s

Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) developed long-term (to 2050),

worldwide aircraft emissions scenarios based upon work previously conducted by National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).9 The NASA results indicate an 11 percent

reduction in hydrocarbon emissions from scheduled air traffic (which is primarily commercial jet

 

8

 In both national and international assessments of aircraft technology options, safety concerns are a primary

evaluation criterion, and any technology alternatives for emission reductions are screened for potential safety

concerns prior to implementation recommendations.

9

 The NASA work relied on aviation traffic and activity forecasts made by Boeing for other purposes. See ICAO,

1998a, page 19.
1-4

aircraft) between 1992 and 2015. However, CO emissions show a 226 percent increase and NOx

a 190 percent increase over the same period. The estimated increase in NOx is limited by the

assumption that 70 percent of fuel consumption occurs in engines with NOx certification

standards between 20 and 40 percent below the current international standard (ICAO, 1998a).

The new international NOx standard to be implemented beginning in 2004 is about 16 percent

below the current standard, and thus, at this point it appears that the NASA study may

underestimate future global NOx emissions. It is important to note, however, that the FESG

effort was based upon international forecasts which included regions of the world that are

growing two to three times as fast as the U.S.

The Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection CAEP/2 NOx certification standard

represents a technology limit that is demonstrably achievable today. Regarding the next NOx

standard agreed to at CAEP/4 in April 1998, the Forecasting and Economic Analysis Support

Group (FESG) of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) concludes in its

Working Paper 4 (WP/4) that the proposed increase in NOx stringency for new engines would

have modest impacts on overall aircraft emissions. The CAEP/4 report should be referred to for

a discussion of the stringency proposal (ICAO, 1998c). In fact, the majority of modern engine

types in production and entering service are known to be compliant with the proposed CAEP/4

NOx standard. Some other engines currently in service can be brought to similar performance

standards through modest-cost modifications. The FESG concludes, the benefits of the proposal

in terms of reducing the global emissions burden will be marginal. The proposed standard

merely insures that future engines will not have NOx emissions that are higher than present

technology allows (ICAO, 1998b).

Public Health and Aircraft Emissions

As noted above, the new, more stringent NAAQS for ozone and PM highlight the need for state

and local air quality officials to consider new ways to reduce regional emissions and achieve the

health-based national air quality standards. In particular, they have significant concerns

regarding the effect of NOx on local and regional environments. Tropospheric NOx has multiple

environmental quality impacts including not only contributing to ground-level O3 and PM, but

also air toxic concentrations, excess nitrogen loads to sensitive water bodies, and acidification of

sensitive ecosystems (EPA, 1997a).

Ultimately, EPA’s principal concern in evaluating and controlling emissions is the preservation

of human health and, secondarily, the protection of public welfare (including protection against

damage to crops, vegetation, animals, and buildings). In this regard, some general observations

about the entire category of mobile sources can be made. Mobile sources emit VOC and NOx

(O3 precursors), PM (both PM10 and PM2.5), SO2 and CO. Other air pollutant species include

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in the particulate emissions and certain volatile

organic compounds (VOCs). The health effects of these pollutants are summarized in Table

1.110; Table 1.2 summarizes the major environmental effects of the same pollutants. As with the

health effects, these environmental effects will vary considerably with the amount of pollutant

 

10 This information was compiled from official US EPA sources and is only an overview. More complete

information is available in the appropriate Criteria Documents. See website www.epa.gov/ncea.
1-5

and the duration of its exposure to the environment. Appendix A provides a more detailed

summary of the health effects of emissions from air pollution.

Table 1.1. Representative health effects of air pollutants.

Pollutant Representative Health Effects

Ozone Lung function impairment, effects on exercise performance,

increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to

respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and

emergency room visits, and pulmonary inflammation, lung

structure damage.

Carbon Monoxide Cardiovascular effects, especially in those persons with heart

conditions (e.g., decreased time to onset of exercise-induced

angina).

Nitrogen Oxides Lung irritation and lower resistance to respiratory infections

Particulate Matter Premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and

cardiovascular disease, changes in lung function and

increased respiratory symptoms, changes to lung tissues and

structure, and altered respiratory defense mechanisms.

Volatile Organic

Compounds

Eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness,

visual disorders, and memory impairment.

Table 1.2. Representative environmental effects of air pollutants.

Pollutant Representative Environmental Effects

Ozone Crop damage, damage to trees and decreased resistance to

disease for both crops and other plants.

Carbon Monoxide Similar health effects on animals as on humans.

Nitrogen Oxides Acid rain, visibility degradation, particle formation,

contribution towards ozone formation.

Particulate Matter Visibility degradation and monument and building soiling,

safety effects for aircraft from reduced visibility.

Volatile Organic

Compounds

Contribution towards ozone formation, odors and some

direct effect on buildings and plants.

Report Organization

The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

• Section 2 presents the methodology used to calculate commercial jet aircraft emissions for

the selected cities;

• Section 3 presents the analysis results for the 1990 base year and 2010 future year;

• Section 4 discusses the implications for attainment of the NAAQS based upon the analysis

results, and presents trends in air travel and aircraft emissions in the coming decades;

• Section 5 presents the conclusions of the initial study;

• Appendix A contains information regarding the health effects of aircraft emissions;
1-6

• Appendix B presents the methodology used to calculate aircraft emissions;

• Appendix C contains maps of the Ozone Nonattainment Areas selected for this study;

• Appendix D presents the airport activity projections;

• Appendix E contains time-in-mode data and assumptions;

• Appendix F contains the aircraft/engine emission factor database used for this study;

• Appendix G presents facility-specific and regional aircraft emissions summaries; and

• Appendix H summarizes selected EPA regional emission estimates for 1990 and 2010 for the

ten cities.
2-1

2 − ESTIMATING COMMERCIAL JET AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS

This analysis estimates ground level emissions from aircraft; thus, the landing and takeoff cycle

(LTO) defines the aircraft activity of interest. LTO emissions are all of these emissions which

occur within the mixing layer, as discussed below. Emissions during flight at cruising altitude

are not within the scope of this study. An LTO cycle begins as the aircraft descends from

cruising altitude and approaches and lands at the airport. The second step in the landing portion

of the cycle is taxi to the gate and subsequent idle. The next three steps are the three operating

modes in the takeoff portion of the cycle: taxi-out/idle, takeoff, and climbout. These five LTO

cycle operating modes are defined by the existence of standard power settings for a given aircraft,

so the modes represent an appropriate basis for estimating emissions.

The five major air pollutant species which comprise the most significant emissions from

commercial jet aircraft are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides

of nitrogen (NOx), particulates (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). VOCs and CO emission rates

are highest when engines are operating at low power, such as when idling or taxiing. Conversely,

NOx emissions rise with increasing power level and combustion temperature. Accordingly, the

highest NOx emissions occur during takeoff and climbout.

PM emissions result from the incomplete combustion of fuel. High power operation, such as

takeoff and climbout, produce the highest PM emission rates due to the high fuel consumption

under those conditions. PM emission test data for aircraft engines are sparse, and engine-specific

PM emission factors are available for only a few engine models.

SO2 emissions are created when sulfur in the fuel combines with oxygen during the combustion

process. Fuels with higher sulfur contents will produce higher amounts of SO2 than low-sulfur

fuels.11 It is generally assumed that during combustion, all sulfur in the fuel reacts to form SO2 or

sulfates.12

Methodology for Commercial Jet Aircraft Emissions Estimation

The EPA’s basic methodology for calculating aircraft emissions at any given airport in any given

year can be summarized in six steps:

1) Determine airport activity in terms of the number of landing and takeoffs (LTOs).

2) Determine the mixing height to be used to define an LTO cycle.

3) Define the fleet make-up at the airport.

4) Estimate time-in-mode (TIM).

5) Select emission factors.

6) Calculate emissions based on the airport activity, TIM, and aircraft emission factors.

 

11 The sulfur content in commercial jet fuel is limited to 0.3 weight (wt) %; however, most in-use fuel has a sulfur

content significantly less than this limit. The 1996 average sulfur concentration of U.S. commercial jet fuels found

in-use was reported in the NIPER survey at 0.062wt % (Dickson and Sturm, 1997).

12 In addition to SO2, a small amount of SO3 forms during combustion.
2-2

Steps five and six are repeated for each type of aircraft using a given airport. For the projection

year in this study, 2010, the final step is to adjust the emission to account for fleet turnover

during the 1990 to 2010 period.

Appendix B contains a detailed discussion of each analysis step, consistent with EPA’s

Procedures for Emissions Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources (EPA, 1992). The

remainder of this section describes the approaches and data sources used in each of the above

steps to analyze commercial jet aircraft emissions in each of ten selected U.S. cities.

Selection of Metropolitan Areas

In order to illustrate the contribution of commercial jet aircraft to pollutant emissions levels, ten

cities were selected for evaluation. Nine of these metropolitan areas are currently not in

attainment of NAAQS for ozone; the tenth city has attained the ozone standard and is considered

an ozone “maintenance” area. Areas were chosen based upon the severity of air quality problem,

size and number of regional airports, and data availability. In selecting areas, the severity of the

air quality problem was evaluated primarily based on ozone attainment status. With the

promulgation of more restrictive NAAQS for ozone, states will need to examine new sources for

ozone reduction. NOX, a pollutant of concern from aircraft emissions, is an ozone precursor.

Another criterion, geographic location, was used to select an area from each major region of the

U.S. Table 2-1 presents the ten areas and their EPA-determined attainment status for ozone.

Table 2-1. Regions chosen for evaluation.

Nonattainment Area Designation13 Population (000’s)14

Atlanta Serious 2,654

Boston-Lawrence-Worcester Serious 5,506

Charlotte-Gastonia Attainment (at risk) 687

Chicago-Gary-Lake County Severe-17 7,886

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Severe-17 3,731

New York-New Jersey-Long Island Severe-17 17,651

Philadelphia Serious 6,010

Phoenix Serious 2,092

Los Angeles Air Basin Extreme 13,000

Washington, D.C. Serious 3,921

Appendix C contains maps of the nine areas designated as nonattainment.

 

13 See www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/define.html#Designations for the existing ozone nonattainment area

designation definitions.

14 Populations are from EPA web site as of July 3, 1998. www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greeenbk/ontc.html. For

Charlotte-Gastonia, the final portion of the address is omtc.html. The populations in Table 2-1 are for the entire

metropolitan area and do not reflect the much smaller populations living near airports.
2-3

As can be seen, the majority of the selected areas are designated as Serious nonattainment or

worse for ozone. Phoenix and Charlotte were also included due to predicted regional growth

over the next 20 years and because of their high-traffic airports. Phoenix was recently redesignated as a serious ozone nonattainment area, and Charlotte faces potential re-designation as

nonattainment under the new NAAQS for ozone.15

Nineteen airport facilities with significant commercial jet aircraft activity were identified within

the nonattainment (or potential nonattainment) boundaries of the selected areas. Table 2-2 lists

each facility and its corresponding FAA code, as well as its rank nationally in terms of passenger

enplanements.

Each area and airport facility has unique attributes that determine the magnitude of aircraft

emissions. The following presents the analysis assumptions used to estimate jet aircraft

emissions contribution to regional emissions for each of the above regions of interest.

Airport Activity

As noted above, the rate at which an engine emits a particular pollutant is directly related to its

activity. Both the frequency and mode of operation are important components of this activity.16

For the purpose of emissions estimation, commercial aircraft activity is measured in LTO cycles.

For the Los Angeles region, a detailed summary of 1990 airport activity is available in the

technical support document for the California Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) (EPA, 1994).

For other regions, the analysis relied upon the EPA-recommended source for activity data on

commercial aircraft, Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers, which is

published annually by the FAA and provides departures by air carrier for each airport (USDOT,

1990a). The report covers all air carriers that are required to file certain information with the

DOT. These air carriers are those with at least one aircraft that has more than 60 passenger seats

or a maximum cargo capacity above 18,000 pounds. All such US air carriers that meet the

criteria and that use an airport in a given year are included in this report. Because each LTO

cycle includes one departure and one landing, the number of departures in the DOT data were

assumed to equal the number of LTO cycles.

The following aircraft are not included in the FAA statistics: aircraft owned and operated by

foreign air carriers; aircraft owned by U.S. air carriers that perform commuter and on-demand

operations,17; general aviation aircraft; and military aircraft. Of these activities, the most frequent

are those of non-U.S. carriers, so they were accounted for in the analysis. Non-U.S. carriers are

required to report to DOT all non-stop route segments when at least one point is in a U.S. State

or territory, and DOT compiles monthly summaries of this information in its T100 database

 

15 EPA will designate areas as nonattainment for new NAAQS of ozone by the year 2000. Areas have up to ten years

after the date of designation to attain the revised standards. For areas not meeting the existing ozone NAAQS, the

existing NAAQS remains in effect until EPA determines that an area has air quality meeting the existing standards.

16 For an individual aircraft, the key factors are frequency (i.e., number of takeoffs and landings), mode of operations

(i.e., time in mode), and number of engines. For an individual engine a complex matrix of interrelated factors

influences emissions. These include bypass ratios, combustor technology, pressure ratios, combustor temperature,

thrust, and engine design.

17 By definition, aircraft in this category do not have more than 60 passenger seats or a maximum cargo capacity

above 18,000 pounds.
2-4

(USDOT, 1990b). For all selected areas except Los Angeles, 1990 foreign carrier activity was

extracted from this database. For the Los Angeles air basin, the aircraft activity used in the

California FIP included both U.S. and foreign carriers (EPA, 1994). No readily available data

source was identified for air carriers whose fleets are comprised solely of smaller aircraft or for

general aviation aircraft because such activity was beyond the scope of this study.

Table 2-2. Airport facilities of interest by region

Nonattainment Area Airport Name FAA Code Rank18

Atlanta Hartsfield ATL 2

Boston-Lawrence-Worcester** Logan BOS 16

Charlotte Douglas* CLT 20

Chicago-Gary-Lake County Midway*

O’Hare Intl.*

MDW

ORD

39

1

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria** George Bush Intl.

Hobby

IAH

HOU

17

41

Los Angeles Air Basin** Burbank

John Wayne

Long Beach

Los Angeles Intl.

Ontario

BUR

SNA

LGB

LAX

ONT

60

42

156

3

51

New York-New JerseyLong Island**Kennedy

La Guardia

Newark

JFK

LGA

EWR

8

21

12

Philadelphia Philadelphia Intl. PHL 24

Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl.* PHX 10

Washington, D.C.** Dulles

Washington National

IAD

DCA

31

26

* Indicates military aircraft are present at airport.

** Military operates aircraft at separate military bases in nonattainment area.

Note: Military air activity at above airports are probably small Air National Guard units, except at Sky

Harbor International, which contains an Air Force base.

 

18 Rank order by total enplaned passengers for 1996 (USDOT, 1996).
2-5

Future Aircraft Activity Projections

For the years 1990 through 1996, total actual commercial

aircraft operations for each airport were used to calculate an

annual activity growth rate19. For years 1997 through 2010,

forecast operations by facility were obtained from FAA

Aviation Forecasts, 1997-2008 and FAA Aviation Forecasts,

1999-201020. Facility-specific operations forecasts were used

to calculate 1997 through 2010 annual growth rates, which

were then used to estimate total LTOs for each year. Prior to

applying the fleet turnover assumptions (described below), all

airlines and aircraft types at a particular facility were assumed

to experience the same rate of growth. The assumption was

required because only facility-level growth projections were

readily available. It is appropriate because the growth is

distributed across the same range of aircraft sizes as currently

in service at a facility. Table 2-3 summarizes the estimated

growth in LTOs from 1990 to 2010 for each airport of interest

and Figure 2-1 presents the data graphically. Appendix D

provides more detailed tabular and graphical summaries of

assumed yearly LTO growth for each facility. For the 19

airports listed, growth averaged 31 percent for the 20 years

from 1990 to 2010. This corresponds to an annual growth rate

of approximately 1.4 percent.

As can be seen, there is wide variation in the expected activity

change both regionally and for each facility. While some

airports are predicted to have minimal growth, others such as

Charlotte’s Douglas, Washington’s Dulles, and Houston’s

Intercontinental airports are predicted to have significant air

traffic increases over 1990 activity levels. This can be

expected to cause an associated increase in the pollutant

emissions attributable to commercial aircraft in these regions.

 

19 At the time of this analysis, airport operations totals for 1997 were not yet available from FAA.

20 These reports, prepared by FAA’s Statistics and Forecasts Branch, are used in that agency’s planning and

decision-making processes. The 1997-2008 report can be downloaded from the Internet at the following address:

http://api.hq.faa.gov/apo_pubs.htm.

 Stakeholder Comments –

Growth Projections

Extensive comments were received

from stakeholders on the

appropriateness of using the FAA

Aviation Forecast as a surrogate

indicator for projecting the number

of future year takeoffs and

landings. In particular, industry

members of the stakeholder group

indicated that the forecast likely

does not account for limitations on

growth due to

(1) regulatory constraints such as

general conformity, federal

and state land use limitations,

and supply-side constraints;

(2) physical constraints on

capacity such as gate and

runway availability; and

(3) funding/cost constraints for

airport capacity enhancements.

These reviewers stated that if

accounted for, the growth rate at

the airports included in this study

could be lower. Other reviewers,

such as state regulators, noted that

advances in air traffic control

could result in higher numbers of

takeoffs and landings, thus,

increasing the growth rate at

airports. There is not an existing

national data source that accounts

for the factors identified.

Moreover, each of these factors will

be airport-specific.
2-6

Table 2-3. Estimated commercial jet aircraft activity growth, 1990 – 2010.

Airport FAA Code 1990 LTOs 2010 LTOs

Growth for

20-year

period

Hartsfield ATL 287,080 388,728 35.4%

Logan BOS 114,282 137,137 20.0%

Douglas CLT 119,990 215,726 79.8%

Midway

O’Hare International

MDW

ORD

65,135

347,653

66,510

500,767

2.1%

44.0%

George Bush Intercontinental

Hobby

IAH

HOU

181,214

55,770

337,080

61,621

86.0%

10.5%

Burbank

John Wayne

Long Beach

Los Angeles International

Ontario

BUR

SNA

LGB

LAX

ONT

26,129

28,291

12,984

212,041

40,323

30,607

33,043

14,790

312,976

53,445

17.1%

16.8%

13.9%

47.6%

32.5%

Kennedy

La Guardia

Newark

JFK

LGA

EWR

94,382

154,700

134,124

111,360

158,209

183,381

18.0%

2.5%

36.7%

Philadelphia International PHL 107,646 123,177 14.4%

Sky Harbor International PHX 121,024 179,265 48.1%

Dulles

Washington National21

IAD

DCA

60,787

96,931

105,888

97,268

73.9%

0.3%

 

21 This facility has been recently renamed to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
2-7

Time-in-Mode (TIM) Estimation

An LTO cycle is broken down into five specific components:

1) Approach – measured from moment aircraft enters the pollutant “mixing zone” to when it

lands;

2) Taxi/Idle-in – time spent after landing until aircraft is parked at the gate and engines turned

off;

3) Taxi/Idle-out – period from engine startup to takeoff;

4) Takeoff – characterized primarily by full-throttle operation that lasts until the aircraft reaches

500 to 1,000 feet (152 to 305 meters)

5) Climbout – period following takeoff that concludes when aircraft passes out of mixing zone.

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000

Washington DC

Phoenix

Philadelphia

New York

Los Angeles

Houston

Chicago

Charlotte

Boston

Atlanta

LTOs

2010

1990

Figure 2-1. 1990 and 2010 LTOs
2-8

As stated in EPA’s Volume IV guidance for mobile source emission

estimation, engines operate at a fairly standard power setting during

each mode, so emissions are calculated by using emission factors

specific to those settings. 22 The emission factors provided in

EPA’s Volume IV guidance use engine- and operating mode-specific

fuel flow rates (pounds of fuel per minute), so an emission factor for

the time spent in each mode for each aircraft category must be

determined in order to calculate emissions. Appendix B contains

the emissions calculation methodology.

Taxi/idle time depends on airport-specific operational procedures.

Taxi-in and taxi-out queue statistics for each airport were provided

by the FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy Plans, Planning Analysis

Division (USDOT, 1997) and included seasonal estimates for

selected airlines. Because not all airlines at each facility were

represented in the data, facility-average taxi-in and taxi-out values

were calculated. Seasonal average taxi-in/taxi-out times by airline

were calculated, then weighted using actual LTO numbers. The

resulting taxi-in and taxi-out values were then summed and used as

the average idle time for that facility. Appendix E contains the

detailed taxi-in/taxi-out data provided by FAA, the facility-level

time-in-mode values assumed for this study.

The takeoff mode is fairly standard and does not vary much from

place to place or among aircraft categories. The default takeoff time

for commercial aircraft of 0.7 minutes provided in the EPA

guidance was used for our calculations. A four minute default

approach time, also in the EPA guidance, was used for this study

(EPA, 1992). In other studies, when accounting for reverse thrust,

adjustments have been made to the time in mode assumptions (e.g.,

lengthening the default take off time-in-mode) that directly impact

the emissions estimates. No such adjustment was made in this

study.

The assumed time spent in approach and climbout modes is directly

related to the height of the “mixing zone.” The mixing zone is the

layer of the earth’s atmosphere where chemical reactions of

pollutants can ultimately affect ground level pollutant

concentrations. The height of the mixing zone for a given location

typically varies significantly by season and time of day; the higher

the assumed mixing height, the greater the total emissions from an

LTO. Although EPA and CARB guidance (EPA, 1992; CARB,

1994) indicate that a default mixing height of 3,000 feet is

 

22 Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.

 Stakeholder Comments –

 Mixing Heights

Many comments were received

from stakeholders on the selection

of mixing heights. Commenters

representing state air quality

agencies indicated that because

their major air quality concern

was ozone events in the summer,

use of a summer afternoon mixing

height would be appropriate.

Under stagnant conditions,

emissions from the morning stay

aloft during the day, and become

a part of the afternoon mixing

zone as the zone rises during the

day. In addition, summertime

mixing heights are higher than

wintertime mixing heights and

ozone formation is confined to the

summer months in most areas of

the country. State air quality

commenters indicated that

summertime, afternoon mixing

zones range from 3,600 to 7,200

feet in the ten cities studied, and

thus they believe a default value of

3,000 feet underestimates aircraft

emissions contributions during the

summer ozone season.

Commenters from industry

disputed these assumptions and

pointed out that mixing heights

present at the time emissions

occur would more accurately

represent the quantity of ozone

precursors present during the

formation of ozone (i.e., the

presence of a higher mixing height

during the ozone exceedance does

not warrant the use of that mixing

height, because the pollutants

accumulate throughout the day).

Therefore, industry commenters

recommend using a flight

operations weighted average of

mixing heights throughout the

day.
2-9

acceptable for preparing aircraft emissions inventories, for many areas of the U.S. the mean

mixing zone is significantly lower. Generally, in the summer season the mixing zone is higher

for a given time of day than in winter. The 3,000-foot default mixing height is assumed to

approximate summertime conditions. Accordingly, in this analysis emissions were calculated for

specific airports using both the 3,000 foot default and the mean annual mixing height (CARB,

1994). Table 2-4 summarizes the latter (rounded to nearest 50 feet/meters) for each area selected

for this study.

Table 2-4. Annual mean mixing heights for selected regions.

Region

Mean Annual Mixing Height

(Feet)

Mean Annual Mixing Height

(Meters)

Atlanta 1,300 400

Boston 2,100 650

Charlotte 1,300 400

Chicago 1,650 500

Houston 2,000 600

Los Angeles 1,650 500

New York 2,600 800

Philadelphia 2,300 700

Phoenix 1,000 300

Washington, D.C. 2,000 600

The procedures used to adjust EPA’s default

climbout and approach times using alternative

mixing heights are included in Appendix B.

Fleet Characterization

In order to assign appropriate emission rates to

aircraft activity, the fleet mix must be defined for

each category of aircraft in use at a given airport.

For commercial, subsonic jet aircraft (defined as

those used for scheduled service transporting

passengers and/or freight), the source of fleet mix

data recommended in the EPA guidance is Airport

Activity Statistics of Certified Route Air Carriers,

which is published annually by FAA. As noted

above, these data do not include activity

information for non-U.S. airlines. For foreign

airlines, the T100 segment data were used to

develop the 1990 base fleet for these carriers.

 Stakeholder Comments – Fleet Turnover

Comments were received from stakeholders on

the appropriateness of the selected fleet turnover

methodology. The basic adjustment used for fleet

turnover does not account for many variables. A

more specific determination of fleet composition

in future years could be made by compiling

information from each airline. In general, a

specific airport can perform this level of data

collection and analysis (to the extent that it is not

confidential), however, as a nationwide exercise,

it would be quite extensive. It is not intuitively

clear whether a more accurate adjustment for

fleet turnover would lead to an increase or

decrease in the projection year emissions

estimates. The airlines believe, however, that

revised estimates of fleet composition would yield

lower emissions forecasts. Using the average

emission factor for 20 year-old engines to

represent the entire new portion of the 2010 fleet

is problematic. Due to emission standards,

airlines assert that aircraft coming into the fleet

will be significantly cleaner than those already in

service in 1990.
2-10

Neither of these databases contained detailed information regarding the future composition of the

commercial jet aircraft fleet. Consequently, fleet turnover between 1990 and 2010 was addressed

by the following steps:

1. Using FAA’s Aviation Forecasts, identify the aircraft types in the 1990 inventory that will

not be in service in 2010.23

2. For each airport facility, subtract the activity for the “removed” aircraft types. This activity

will be assigned to an “average future” aircraft.

3. For the remaining aircraft types at the facility, calculate total emissions and LTOs.

4. Using the emissions and activity numbers from Step 3, calculate an average future emission

rate by dividing total emissions by total activity (for the remaining aircraft only). This

emission rate represents an “average future” aircraft for the facility.

5. Multiply the average emission rate calculated in Step 4 by the LTOs from the “removed”

aircraft in Step 2 to get total emissions from the “average future” aircraft.

6. Sum emissions and activity from actual and “average future” aircraft to get 2010 totals.

This basic adjustment retired all of the oldest aircraft in the 1990 fleet and replaced them with the

newest portion of the 1990 fleet. In all likelihood, fewer aircraft will be retired between 1990

and 2010, and some of those retired will be replaced with aircraft that are cleaner than the

“unretired” portion of the 1990 fleet.

Emission Factor Selection

The emissions characteristics of aircraft vary by number and type of engine used. The primary

source for the VOC, NOx, and CO emission factors used in this analysis is FAA’s Engine

Emission Factor Database (FAEED) (USDOT, 1995). 24 This database lists each aircraft body

type, the type of engines used, and the operating mode-specific pollutant emission rates for those

engines. Aircraft with the same body type can have different engine models. In these cases, the

FAEED lists all known engine types used for that model and the estimated proportion of the fleet

using that engine. These percentages are used to create one weighted-average emission rate for

each pollutant and operating mode for that aircraft type.

The activity for some of the selected airport facilities contained data for some aircraft types not

included in the FAEED. In the majority of cases, these models were variations of aircraft that

were included in FAEED. Most of these “missing” models and their corresponding engine types

were extracted from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) report, Air Pollution Mitigation

Measures for Airports and Associated Activities (CARB, 1994). This document also provided

supplemental information regarding appropriate aircraft/engine assumptions and equivalents25.

 

23 These were all Stage II aircraft that are phased out by 1999, and are referred to as “removed” aircraft in

subsequent steps.

24 The initial analysis for this report was completed in the fall of 1997. The most recent version of the FAEED

available at the time was used, supplemented by the ICAO database. A preliminary comparison of the 1998 FAEED,

available at the time this report was finalized, indicates that few significant updates have been made.

25 An example is the DC-9-80, the assumed equivalent of the MD-80, which is not included in FAEED.
2-11

In cases where neither data source provided information for a specific aircraft type, the activity

was assigned to its nearest equivalent. Appendix F contains a summary of these assumptions and

the final table of aircraft/engine types used for this analysis.

The data sources discussed above provided VOC, NOx, and CO emission factors. Modal SO2

emission rates for civil aircraft engines were obtained from Procedures for Emission Inventory

Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources.26 As noted previously, aircraft also produce particulate

emissions, primarily PM2.5. Because of extremely limited engine- and mode-specific PM rates,

however, these emissions were not calculated in this analysis.

Section 3 presents the emissions calculated for the 19 airport facilities in the 10 areas of interest.

 

26 The FAEED SO2 emission factors were not used since the data appeared to be several orders of magnitude lower

than the EPA values based on fuel sulfur content. For VOC, NOx, and CO, the FAEED emission factors were

compared to the values given in the EPA guidance and found to agree.
3-1

3 − AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS

This section presents the results of the commercial jet aircraft emissions analysis described in

Section 2.0 and Appendix B. Tables 3-1 summarizes 1990 and 2010 VOC, NOx, CO, and SO2

emissions for the ten selected areas using the 3,000-foot default mixing height. Figure 3-1

presents this information graphically for NOx. Table 3-2 provides similar information for 1990

and 2010 emissions estimates based on area-average mixing height assumptions. All emissions

estimates in this section are provided in short tons per year.27 Appendix G presents facilityspecific and regional emissions totals in both short and metric tons per year.28

It is clear from comparing Tables 3-1 and 3-2 that mixing height has a significant impact on

emissions estimates, most notably NOx, which decreases overall by 29 percent when using the

area-specific rather than default mixing heights. SO2 totals decrease 23 percent, VOCs by 3

percent, and CO emissions decrease 4 percent when the non-default mixing heights are applied.

The annual mean mixing heights used in this analysis represent only one general step towards a

more-detailed, area-specific inventory. Additional improvement could be made by using

seasonal- and time of-day-specific mixing height assumptions, available from EPA or other

regional meteorological databases. This more rigorous approach would likely result in increases

in estimated emissions for some areas, and decreases in others. Even using the default mixing

height, the estimated tons of pollutants per LTO cycle varies widely among regions. This can be

attributed primarily to differences in the aircraft fleet serving each airport facility, and variations

in the time-in-mode assumed. This again underscores the need to focus on airport-specific

parameters to project future emissions totals if more certainty is desired.

Regardless of the mixing heights used, the expected growth in activity in each area corresponds

to increases in aircraft emissions that are often quite substantial (> 50 percent) over the period

1990 to 2010. Overall, VOC emissions in the ten areas increase by more than 7600 tons (6900

metric tons or 65 percent); NOx increases by more than 21,500 tons (19,500 metric tons or 73

percent); and SO2 increase by more than 580 tons (530 metric tons or 43 percent).

 

27 A short ton is 2000 pounds.

28 We have provided the emissions estimates in different units because U.S. inventories are generally compiled in

short tons while the international community tends to use metric tons.
3-2

Table 3-1. 1990 and 2010 commercial jet aircraft emissions (short tons/year)

default (3,000 ft.) mixing height.

Region Year LTOs VOC NOx SO2 CO

Atlanta 1990

2010

287,080

388,728

1,555.13

3,180.47

3,570.26

7,397.42

165.78

262.18

4,136.43

6,858.94

Boston 1990

2010

114,282

137,137

894.28

1,461.75

1,752.92

2,897.56

77.07

104.64

2,295.22

3,417.41

Charlotte 1990

2010

119,990

215,726

748.56

2,123.93

956.74

1,702.28

52.01

83.83

1,385.67

2,907.53

Chicago 1990

2010

412,788

567,277

1,653.23

2,232.64

5,036.72

8,710.79

235.20

329.01

5,583.73

7,756.83

Houston 1990

2010

236,993

398,701

669.68

1,007.71

2,552.27

5,129.52

122.83

207.91

2,484.80

3,940.03

Los Angeles 1990

2010

306,784

444,860

2,099.38

3,088.35

5,274.95

7,871.08

216.57

296.89

6,125.31

8,828.05

New York 1990

2010

383,206

452,950

3,050.22

4,872.19

6,351.61

10,650.50

291.41

394.01

8,816.72

12,935.80

Philadelphia 1990

2010

107,646

123,177

354.67

439.86

1,098.41

1,678.46

53.11

64.66

1,127.38

1,293.80

Phoenix 1990

2010

121,024

179,265

226.14

305.27

1,130.01

1,954.14

53.71

81.24

1,014.73

1,667.14

Washington, D.C. 1990

2010

162,245

203,156

516.57

712.30

1,807.56

3,113.36

85.39

117.18

1,798.72

2,467.23
3-3

Table 3-2. 1990 and 2010 commercial jet aircraft emissions (short tons/year)

annual average mixing height (see Table 2-4).

Region Year LTOs VOC NOx SO2 CO

Atlanta 1990

2010

287,080

388,728

1,468.13

3,026.52

2,058.41

4,189.04

111.16

171.53

3,791.43

6,318.79

Boston 1990

2010

114,282

137,137

875.81

1,436.86

1,359.73

2,234.13

63.91

86.12

2,216.65

3,318.84

Charlotte 1990

2010

119,990

215,726

720.88

2,070.46

549.60

962.20

34.41

55.16

1,273.40

2,715.44

Chicago 1990

2010

412,788

567,277

1,580.10

2,149.64

3,337.09

5,710.94

173.31

239.60

5,249.79

7,386.88

Houston 1990

2010

236,993

398,701

640.80

962.71

1,910.23

3,819.72

97.93

164.68

2,358.99

3,771.70

Los Angeles 1990

2010

306,784

444,860

2,037.87

3,003.86

3,476.72

5,159.73

158.51

216.24

5,852.28

8,450.37

New York 1990

2010

383,206

452,950

3,025.30

4,838.54

5,728.50

9,573.78

270.40

364.35

8,712.39

12,808.10

Philadelphia 1990

2010

107,646

123,177

345.33

430.34

904.55

1,375.21

45.58

55.14

1,085.66

1,254.54

Phoenix 1990

2010

121,024

179,265

208.35

289.28

555.32

944.02

31.12

46.22

914.35

1,533.12

Washington, D.C. 1990

2010

162,245

203,156

497.34

691.86

1,355.32

2,317.00

68.53

93.30

1,713.17

2,377.53

Figure 3-1. 1990 and 2010 Commercial Jet Aircraft NOx Emissions

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Washington DC

Phoenix

Philadelphia

New York

Los Angeles

Houston

Chicago

Charlotte

Boston

Atlanta

Tons/Year

2010

1990
3-4

Inventory Limitations and Caveats

Emissions inventories are, by nature, an approximation of actual pollutant quantities. The

appropriateness of the methodology, the technical judgements, and associated assumptions used

to create these estimates will affect the accuracy of estimates calculated for a given pollutant

species. For future year inventories, the robustness of forecast methodology has a significant

influence on the associated certainty of the emissions estimates. Although the quantification of

ranges of error relative to the assumptions used to produce the inventory estimate was beyond the

scope of this report; this section provides a qualitative discussion.

The commercial jet aircraft emissions estimates contained in this report were prepared using the

EPA-approved methodology for preparing inventories of this type. Further, the FAEED database

of emission factors (USDOT, 1995) was updated to include some additional aircraft types for

which there were activity data29. While this approach produced relatively robust inventories for

each of the ten areas, room remains for additional refinements, particularly in the 2010 estimates.

Future Year Fleet Composition. As noted in Section 2, some of the newer aircraft in today’s

commercial fleet were not explicitly included in the analysis, because these aircraft types were

not in service in 1990. However, the projections prepared for 2010 do include a simplified set of

assumptions regarding fleet turnover and aircraft replacement that implicitly account for the

retirement of older aircraft and the introduction of newer aircraft engines available as of 1990

(see Section 2). In the stakeholder comment box on this issue, the complexity of the fleet

turnover issue is detailed. A more robust future year inventory would incorporate a more

detailed understanding of the future year fleet. This could produce different ground-level

emissions forecasts for 2010, as discussed in the stakeholder box on fleet turnover.

Greater implementation of clean engine technology (i.e., fuel efficient/low NOx) is another area

that could change the future-year emissions estimated for this study. On the other hand, most

existing aircraft that remain in the 2010 projection already comply with the most recent ICAO

standards. Further, there has been little market indication that cleaner engines will be pursued in

future purchase decisions. Addressing the future fleet composition as described above would be

one step towards an improved representation of the emissions benefits of newer aircraft

complying with present ICAO NOx certification standards. Engines that significantly reduce

NOx below the current and future standard already exist, and wider use of these engines or the

implementation of larger compliance margins on other engines could result in greater aircraft

emissions reductions.

Future Year Aircraft Activity. FAA future year forecasts of operations by facility were used to

project aircraft activity. These forecasts were only available at the facility level, not for

individual aircraft types. Consequently, for a given airport, the same change in activity between

1990 and 2010 was assumed for all aircraft types. This does not account for any shifts in activity

between aircraft types that may occur (e.g., an airline might increase its number of shuttle flights

 

29 FAEED emission rates were supplemented by the ICAO engine emission factor database (ICAO, 1995). These

emission rates were used for all areas. Note that for Los Angeles, only activity data was extracted from the

California FIP (EPA, 1994); emission rates and growth projections were from consistent sources for all airport

facilities (see Section 2).
3-5

to a nearby city while keeping the same level of activity for longer flights using larger aircraft).

Additionally, as detailed in the stakeholder comment box, the FAA forecasts do not incorporate

the effects of regulatory constraints, physical capacity constraints, or funding constraints for

airport capacity enhancements. However, FAA reported that when they have looked back to

evaluate previous forecasts, they found that these forecasts were reasonably accurate.

In addition, the 2010 activity forecast was not adjusted to account for the introduction of

communication, navigation, surveillance/ air traffic management (CNS/ATM), which if

implemented could allow more flights without additional infrastructure.

Operational Practices that Affect Emissions. Existing aircraft operational practices that affect

emissions were not considered when preparing the emissions estimates for the ten cities of

interest. Operational practices such as single-engine taxi, reduced reverse thrust, and de-rated

takeoffs that may reduce emissions were not included because these practices are not uniform

across all facilities or even within the same airport. Determining the precise application of these

measures and their impact on emissions was beyond the scope of this project. Instead, this study

relied on standard power operations assumptions in EPA’s Volume IV guidance.

CNS/ATM potential improvements to operations, which for example, could reduce the amount

of taxi time, were also not considered. Further study could refine the emissions estimates

presented above to account for these operational differences.

Other Issues. Seasonal and time-of-day variations were not considered in this study. LTO rates

and aircraft time-in-mode often vary over the course of a day and throughout the year. For

example, in peak traffic hours the amount of time in the “taxi/idle-out” mode can increase due to

congestion. Variations in the mixing height also affect the time-in-mode for approach and

climbout. Seasonal inventories reflecting activity and mixing height variability are thus likely to

differ in the pounds per LTO cycle and total emissions estimates as compared to annual average

emissions inventories for the same facility. Other operational differences, such as the use of

auxiliary power units or longer time-in-mode due to weather conditions or air traffic control

holds, were also not addressed.

Sensitivity Tests. Because no sensitivity tests were conducted on the assumptions supporting

the emissions estimates, confidence intervals have not been established for these estimates.

Although sensitivity analyses to determine the effects of key assumptions were beyond the scope

of this initial study, they would be an appropriate area for further investigation given their

importance in assessing the effect of those assumptions, particularly as they relate to projections

of future emissions activity. For example, the sensitivity of the emission estimates to assumed

growth rates for different aircraft types at a given airport would likely prove to be a valuable

exercise. The comments from stakeholders, included in boxes throughout Section 2, indicate

additional areas for further study and clarification.
4-1

4 − AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS CONTRIBUTION

While emissions from most transportation sources such as NOx from automobiles are predicted

to stabilize and, in many cases, decrease from 1990 through 2010, ground-level emissions from

commercial jet aircraft are expected to continue rising. In nonattainment areas with large airport

facilities, commercial aircraft emissions represent a growing percentage of regional area source

inventories as other area sources decrease due to implemented controls. Emissions for a given

source category are the product of activity (e.g., vehicle miles traveled, LTO cycles) and

technology based emissions factors. For many source categories (e.g., automobiles) lower total

emissions are achieved in 2010 by the use of cleaner technology, even though activity levels

increase.

Two national inventories provide county-level emissions estimates by source category: the

Regional Interim Emission Inventories (EPA, 1993a/b) for 1990 and the Regulatory Impact

Analysis of the Proposed Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (EPA, 1996a) for 2010.

Using the aircraft emissions estimates presented for the default mixing height in Section 3.0

(Table 3-1)30, the percent contribution of aircraft to total nonroad31 mobile, total mobile, and total

emissions inventories can be calculated. Table 4-132 summarizes the estimated commercial

aircraft portion of total regional inventories for the ten selected study areas in 1990 and 2010.

Tables 4-2 and 4-3 show the commercial aircraft portions of regional mobile source (the sum of

onroad and nonroad) and nonroad mobile source emissions, respectively. Figure 4-1 graphs the

data from Table 4-2. Appendix H presents excerpts from the regional inventories used to

calculate the percentages.

In each of the ten cities, commercial jet aircraft are a larger percentage of the inventory in 2010

than in 1990. In areas such as Charlotte, which has few large utilities or other industrial sources,

aircraft are predicted to comprise over 7.5 percent of the total regional NOx in 2010. Even

regions such as Los Angeles and New York, where aircraft are less than 5 percent of the total

1990 mobile source emissions, the percent contribution of aircraft to regional NOx more than

doubles by 2010. The percent contributions of aircraft to the total regional inventory were

calculated based on the default mixing height. However, as detailed in the stakeholder comment

box on mixing heights, the selection of an appropriate mixing height for estimation of ozone

production is a complex decision.

Overall, as the growth in air travel pushes up aircraft emissions totals, existing regulatory

programs such as new heavy-duty truck engine, nonroad diesel engine, locomotive, and

passenger vehicle standards will diminish the relative contribution of other mobile sources to

 

30 The commercial jet aircraft emissions calculated for this study were used in place of the non-military, non-air taxi

emissions contained in the national inventories. The subtracted aircraft emissions (ASC Code 2275020000)

probably include some turboprop planes, but this is likely to be a very small percentage of the total emissions.

31 Nonroad emissions include all mobile sources that are not on-road vehicles, such as construction equipment,

locomotives, marine watercraft, etc.

32 As noted, Tables 4-1 through 4-3 represent percent contributions based on the default mixing height of 3000 feet.

Since the annual average mixing heights are lower for each of the ten areas, using the default mixing height may

result in a higher estimate of the percent contribution than would be obtained using the annual average mixing height.
4-2

regional emissions inventories. The following examples indicate the types of regulatory

programs in process:

• For heavy-duty diesel trucks, new NOx emission standards that represent a 50 percent

reduction from the earlier standards were promulgated in 1997 for implementation beginning

in 2004 (Federal Register Volume 62, page 54694, October 21, 1997).

• Two-thirds more stringent standards starting in 1999 for nonroad diesel equipment were

promulgated in 1998 (Federal Register Volume 63, page 56968, October 23, 1998).

• Passenger vehicles in the new National Low Emission Vehicle Program will be 70 percent

cleaner than today’s models beginning in 1999 (Federal Register Volume 62, page 31192,

June 6, 1997). Currently, the state of California has even more stringent emission

requirements for motor vehicles. Another set of national level passenger vehicle standards

for the 2004 timeframe is also under consideration (Tier 2 standards per section 202(i) of the

Clean Air Act).

• A two-thirds reduction in NOx emissions from locomotives is expected from the first

locomotive engine standards promulgated in a rulemaking completed in 1998 (Federal

Register Volume 63, page 18978, April 16, 1998).

The new NAAQS for ozone and PM present even greater challenges to existing and potential

nonattainment areas. As more CAA-mandated controls reach full implementation, air quality

planners will need to look at all emissions sources for additional reductions. In most regions,

overall mobile source emissions are projected to decrease significantly; however, emissions from

aircraft do not follow this trend. While noise regulations and more fuel-efficient engines will

reduce aircraft hydrocarbon emission rates, controlling NOx emissions is a much greater

challenge.
4-3

Table 4-1. Aircraft component of total regional emissions, 1990 and 2010.

Region Year VOC NOx SO2

Atlanta 1990 0.7% 2.1% 0.1%

2010 2.5% 8.1% 1.9%

Boston 1990 0.2% 0.6% < 0.1%

2010 0.7% 2.3% 0.7%

Charlotte 1990 1.2% 2.3% 0.1%

2010 5.1% 7.6% 0.6%

Chicago 1990 0.3% 1.1% 0.1%

2010 0.7% 3.4% 0.1%

Houston 1990 0.1% 0.5% 0.1%

2010 0.3% 1.9% 0.1%

Los Angeles 1990 0.3% 0.9% 0.4%

2010 0.9% 2.4% 0.6%

New York 1990 0.3% 0.9% 0.1%

2010 1.7% 3.3% 0.4%

Philadelphia 1990 0.1% 0.4% < 0.1%

2010 0.2% 1.8% 0.1%

Phoenix 1990 0.2% 0.9% 0.7%

2010 0.4% 1.8% 0.9%

Washington, DC 1990 0.3% 0.9% < 0.1%

2010 0.8% 3.7% 0.4%

Table 4-2. Aircraft component of regional

mobile source emissions, 1990 and 2010.

Region Year VOC NOx SO2

Atlanta 1990 1.3% 2.9% 2.2%

2010 6.2% 9.5% 4.1%

Boston 1990 0.5% 0.9% 0.6%

2010 2.3% 3.1% 1.2%

Charlotte 1990 2.8% 3.6% 3.4%

2010 14.9% 10.4% 6.8%

Chicago 1990 0.7% 1.8% 1.6%

2010 2.8% 6.4% 2.9%

Houston 1990 0.4% 1.4% 0.5%

2010 1.4% 4.6% 0.8%

Los Angeles 1990 0.6% 1.2% 0.5%

2010 3.0% 3.2% 0.8%

New York 1990 0.8% 1.5% 0.8%

2010 3.8% 5.2% 1.3%

Philadelphia 1990 0.2% 0.6% 0.4%

2010 0.7% 1.9% 0.7%

Phoenix 1990 0.3% 1.4% 1.2%

2010 0.8% 3.4% 1.9%

Washington, DC 1990 0.4% 1.4% 0.9%

2010 1.6% 4.4% 1.6%
4-4

Table 4-3. Aircraft component of regional nonroad

mobile source emissions, 1990 and 2010.

Region Year VOC NOx SO2

Atlanta 1990 6.5% 11.3% 20.1%

2010 14.4% 28.5% 31.5%

Boston 1990 2.0% 4.2% 6.4%

2010 4.2% 11.0% 9.8%

Charlotte 1990 11.8% 13.6% 37.8%

2010 31.4% 28.3% 53.7%

Chicago 1990 2.1% 4.3% 7.9%

2010 6.2% 16.7% 12.7%

Houston 1990 1.4% 3.4% 0.7%

2010 2.5% 9.0% 1.1%

Los Angeles 1990 4.2% 3.7% 1.3%

2010 5.6% 6.9% 1.7%

New York 1990 3.7% 6.5% 1.9%

2010 7.8% 16.7% 2.7%

Philadelphia 1990 0.8% 2.4% 2.2%

2010 1.3% 5.7% 2.9%

Phoenix 1990 1.1% 3.7% 7.2%

2010 1.5% 8.0% 10.6%

Washington, DC 1990 1.9% 5.1% 3.9%

2010 3.3% 13.7% 6.2%

Figure 4-1. 1990 and 2010 Aircraft Component of 

Regional Mobile Source NOx Emissions

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0%

Washington DC

Phoenix

Philadelphia

New York

Los Angeles

Houston

Chicago

Charlotte

Boston

Atlanta

Percent of Total

2010

1990
5-1

5 − CONCLUSIONS

This study has achieved its goals and creates a basic understanding of aircraft emissions

contribution. As detailed in Section 3, in 1990 commercial jet aircraft emitted a significant

amount of pollutants into the air around the ten urban areas studied. The 2010 regional

emissions inventory, which relies on forecasts developed for other purposes, projects growth in

both absolute aircraft emissions and in the percent of the inventory attributable to aircraft.

State and local air quality officials must develop plans to bring their jurisdictions into compliance

with new NAAQS. Section 233 of the Clean Air Act mandates that aircraft engine emissions

standards are to be set only on a national level. Due to the need for a national policy, EPA and

FAA have convened a multi-stakeholder group (including representatives from industry, state

and local air quality agencies, airports and environmental groups) to seek a voluntary agreement

on ground-level emissions reductions actions for commercial aircraft and aviation-related

emissions.

Overall, this report provides an estimation of the contribution of aircraft to air quality emissions

in ten urban areas, confirms that investigation of cost-effective control options on ground-level

aircraft emissions is warranted, and highlights the need for improvements in the quality of

national level data as noted by reviewers of the draft study if more certainty is desired.
R-1

REFERENCES

Becker, Kodjak, 1998. Letter from S. William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO and Drew Kodjak,

NESCUAM to Rodney Slater, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. 10 March

1998.

CARB, 1994. Air Pollution Mitigation Measures for Airports and Associated Activities – Final

Report. Prepared for the California Air Resources Board by Energy and Environmental

Analysis, Inc., Arlington Virginia, and K.T. Analytics, Inc., Frederick, Maryland. May,

1994. PB94-207610.

Dickson, C.L. and Sturm, G.P., “Aviation Turbine Fuels, 1996,” NIPER-199 PPS, BDM

Petroleum Technologies, Bartlesville, OK, April 1997.

EPA, 1997a. Nitrogen Oxides: Impacts on Public Health and the Environment. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. August, 1997.

EPA, 1997b. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1990 - 1996. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. December, 1997. EPA-454/R-97-011.

EPA, 1996a. Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed Ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard. Prepared by Innovative Strategies and Economics Group, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, N.C. December 1996. Additional

related information can be found in the EPA publication 2010 Clean Air Act Amendment

Baseline Emissions Projections for the Integrated Ozone, Particulate Matter, and

Regional Haze Cost Analysis. July 18, 1997.

EPA, 1996b. Ozone Air Quality Criteria Document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C. June, 1996.

EPA, 1994. Technical Support Document, Civil and Military Aviation, California FIP NPRM.

Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Energy and Environmental

Analysis, Inc. March 24, 1994.

EPA, 1993a. Regional Interim Emission Inventories (1987 – 1991), Volume I: Development

Methodologies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. May, 1993.

EPA-454/R-93-021a.

EPA, 1993b. Regional Interim Emission Inventories (1987 – 1991), Volume II: Emissions

Summaries. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. May, 1993. EPA454/R-93-021a.

EPA, 1992. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1992. EPA-450/4-81-026d

(Revised).
R-2

EPA, 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 2: Mobile Sources (4 th

Edition). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan. September,

1985. PB87-205266.

ICAO, 1998a. "Report of the Forecasting and Economic Analysis Sub-Group (FESG) - CAEP

Steering Group Meeting, Canberra, Australia," Tables 5.3, 5.5, and 5.7, January, 1998

ICAO, 1998b. "FESG Report on EPG NOx Stringency Proposal," Prepared by the Forecasting

and Economic Analysis Sub-Group for the Committee on Aviation Environmental

Protection - Fourth Meeting, 12 March 1998.

ICAO, 1998c. "Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection – Fourth Meeting - Report,"

Doc 9720, CAEP/4, Montreal, 6-8 April 1998.

ICAO, 1995. “Aircraft Engine Exhaust Emissions Databank – Addendum.” Committee on

Aviation and Environmental Protection, ICAO. December, 1995.

ICAO, 1994. “Report to Working Group 2 from the Emissions at and around Airports

Subgroup.” Prepared by the Emissions at and around Airports Subgroup for the

Committee on Aviation and Environmental Protection. 18 July 1994.

Kenny, 1998. Letter from Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, Cal/EPA to Rodney E. Slater,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. 13 March 1998.

NRDC, 1996. Flying Off Course: Environmental Impacts of America’s Airports. Natural

Resources Defense Council. October, 1996.

USDOT. FAA Aviation Forecasts, electronically obtained from USDOT via World Wide Web.

USDOT, 1997. Information from FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy, Plans, and Analysis.

September, 1997.

USDOT, 1996. Statistical Handbook of Aviation, 1996. U.S. Department of Transportation,

Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, D.C. 1996.

USDOT, 1995. FAA Aircraft Engine Emissions Database. U.S. Department of Transportation,

Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, D.C. 1995.

USDOT, 1990a. Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers. U.S. Department

of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 1990.

USDOT, 1990b. “T-100 & T-100(f) International Segment Data.” U.S. Department of

Transportation, Office of Airline Statistics. December, 1990.
APPENDIX A

HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION
A-1

APPENDIX A

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

FROM AIR POLLUTION

Health effects due to pollutants may be divided into two major classes: those due to acute

exposures and those due to chronic exposure. Acute health effects are experienced

immediately or within a few hours of the exposure. Health effects due to chronic

exposure may only become apparent after an extended period of time, typically months or

years. Cancer is an example of a health effect generally resulting from chronic exposure.

Some pollutants can cause both acute and chronic health effects. For a given air

pollutant, the chances of an person experiencing a health effect generally increase as the

exposure concentration and duration increase. The exposure component of the health

effects is discussed below. Determining the source of a pollutant involved in an exposure

can be complicated, given the multiplicity of emission sources in most urban areas.

Furthermore, the varying individual sensitivity to specific pollutants make the health

effects of any individual pollutant exposure difficult to quantify, although for many

pollutants the risk to the general population can be characterized. Epidemiological

studies and clinical studies to estimate health effects have been performed for a number

of pollutants, many of which are associated with aircraft and airport operations.

Environmental effects can also be divided into three broad categories: ecological effects

(effects on plants and animals other than humans), damage to materials (soiling, etc.) and

visibility (effects on transmission of light through the atmosphere).

A brief highlight of the health effects of chemicals associated with airports follows. A

summary of some of the environmental effects for each identified chemical follow each

health effects discussion.

SPECIFIC AIR POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH AIRPORTS

A number of air pollutants are associated with emissions from airports. These include the

major criteria pollutants that one would expect from any combustion source: ozone or O3

(not directly emitted, but formed from other precursor compounds that are emitted),

carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and

particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5). Other pollutants include polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) found in the particulate emissions and certain VOCs. The health

and other environmental effects of these chemicals are briefly outlined below. This

information was compiled from official US EPA sources and is only an overview. More

complete information is available in the appropriate Criteria Documents (e.g., EPA,

1996b).

Ozone (O3)

Ozone health effects are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hours) exposures to O3

1

, generally

while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion, and by prolonged exposures

 

1

 Observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 ppm.
A-2

(6 to 8 hours) to O3

2

, typically while individuals are engaged in moderate exertion.

Individuals experience moderate exertion levels more frequently than heavy exertion

levels.

Acute health effects of O3 are defined as those effects induced by short-term and

prolonged exposures to O3. Examples of these effects are functional, symptomatic,

biochemical, and physiologic changes. The acute health effects include transient

pulmonary function responses, transient respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise

performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory

infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and transient

pulmonary inflammation.

Acute health effects have been observed following prolonged exposures during moderate

exertion at concentrations of O3 as low as 0.08 ppm. Groups at increased risk of

experiencing such effects include active children and outdoor workers who regularly

engage in outdoor activities and individuals with preexisting respiratory disease (e.g.,

asthma or chronic obstructive lung disease). Furthermore, it is recognized that some

individuals are unusually responsive to O3 and may experience much greater functional

and symptomatic effects from exposure to O3 than the average individual.

Chronic health effects of O3 are defined as those effects induced by repeated, long-term

exposures to O3. Examples of these effects are chronic inflammation and structural

damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung function. With regard to

chronic health effects, the collective data from studies of laboratory animals and human

populations have many ambiguities and provide only suggestive evidence of such effects

in humans. It is clear from toxicological data that O3-induced lung injury is roughly

similar across species (including monkeys, rats, and mice) with responses that are

concentration dependent. Currently available information provides, at a minimum, a

biologically plausible basis for the possibility that the repeated lung inflammation

associated with O3 exposure may, over a lifetime, result in sufficient damage to

respiratory tissue to result in a reduced quality of life, although such relationships remain

uncertain.

Ground-level ozone interferes with the ability of plants to produce and store food so that

growth, reproduction and overall plant health are compromised. By weakening trees and

other plants, ozone can make plants more susceptible to disease, insect attacks, and harsh

weather. Agricultural yields for many economically important crops (e.g., soybean,

kidney bean, wheat, cotton) may be reduced, and the quality of some crops may be

damaged, thereby reducing their market value. Ground-level ozone can also kill or

damage leaves so that they fall off the plants too soon or become spotted or brown. These

effects can significantly decrease the natural beauty of an area, such as in national parks

and recreation areas.

 

2

 Observed at concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm.
A-3

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas that is a by-product of the

incomplete burning of fuels. CO reduces oxygen carrying capacity of blood and weakens

the contractions of the heart, thus reducing the amount of blood pumped to various parts

of the body and, therefore, the oxygen available to the muscles and various organs. In a

healthy person, this effect can significantly reduce the ability to perform physical

exercises. In persons with chronic heart disease, these effects can threaten the overall

quality of life, since their systems are unable to compensate for the decrease in oxygen.

CO pollution is also likely to cause such individuals to experience angina during exercise.

Adverse effects have also been observed in individuals with heart conditions who are

exposed to CO pollution in heavy freeway traffic for 1 to 2 hours or more.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Healthy individuals experience respiratory problems when exposed to high levels of NO2

for short duration (less than three hours). Asthmatics are especially sensitive and changes

in airway responsiveness have been observed in some studies of exercising asthmatics

exposed to relatively low levels of NO2. Studies also indicate a relationship between

indoor NO2 exposures and increased respiratory illness rates in young children, but

definitive results are still lacking. Many animal studies suggest that NO2 impairs

respiratory defense mechanisms and increases susceptibility to infection.

Several studies also show that chronic exposure to relatively low NO2 pollution levels

may cause structural changes in the lungs of animals. These studies suggest that chronic

exposure to NO2 could lead to adverse health effects in humans, but specific levels and

the exposure duration likely to cause such effects have not yet been determined.

NO2 is an important precursor to both ozone and acidic precipitation, which harms both

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Emitted from hydrocarbon combustion at high

temperatures, NO and NO2 (collectively called NOx) react with gaseous hydrocarbons to

form ozone. The mixture of NOX and ozone in urban air is commonly called “smog”.

NOx also plays a role in the formation of acid rain. Acid rain causes surface water

acidification and damages trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees over

2,000 feet in elevation). In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials

and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our

nation's cultural heritage.

NOx contributes to the formation of particles in the atmosphere, with the resulting health

and visibility effects discussed in the “PM” section, below. Nationally, about 5 percent of

NOx is transformed into particle nitrate in the atmosphere. Even when it does not form

particles, NOx itself is a brown gas that largely contributes to the visible smog effect

evident in the major metropolitan areas of the U.S.
A-4

Particulate Matter (PM)

PM is the generic term for a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances

that exist as discrete particles (either liquid droplets or solids) over a wide range of sizes.

PM originates from a variety of anthropogenic stationary and mobile sources as well as

from natural sources. PM may either be emitted directly or formed in the atmosphere by

the transformations of gaseous emissions of compounds including NOx, VOCs, and sulfur

oxides (SOx). The chemical and physical properties of PM vary greatly with time, region,

meteorology, and source category, thus complicating the assessment of health and welfare

effects.

PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers. Technical details further specifying the measurement of PM10 are contained

in 40 CFR part 50, Appendices J and M. PM10 is a measure of both fine particles (less

than 2.5 microns (μm)) and the coarse particle fraction (particles between 2.5 and 10

μm)3

. In addition to the evidence found for health effects associated with fine particles,

research indicates that exposure to coarse fraction particles is associated with aggravation

of asthma and increased respiratory illness, and that there may be chronic health effects

associated with long-term exposure to high concentrations of coarse particles (FR, July

18, 1997). A more complete history of the PM NAAQS is presented in section II.B of the

OAQPS staff paper, “Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate

Matter: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information.”

PM2.5 is comprised of particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 μm.

The new PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in July, 1997 and new monitoring

requirements for PM2.5 are included in Appendix L of 40 CFR Part 50. A discussion of

PM2.5 health effects is presented in the Criteria Document for Particulate Matter, which

describes:

• the nature of the effects that have been reported to be associated with ambient PM,

including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease

(as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school

absences, work loss days, and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and

increased respiratory symptoms, changes to lung tissues and structure, and altered

respiratory defense mechanisms; and

• sensitive sub-populations that appear to be at greater risk to such effects, specifically

individuals with respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease and the elderly

(premature mortality and hospitalization), children (increased respiratory symptoms

and decreased lung function), and asthmatic children and adults (aggravation of

symptoms).

The environmental effects of particles center principally on two areas: visibility and

soiling. The visibility impacts are immediately apparent to anyone who has seen a major

 

3

 Coarse particles are larger than 2.5 micrometers, and the PM10 standard does not apply to coarse particles

above 10 micrometers.
A-5

metropolitan area on a hazy day. Visibility impairment can result from either the direct

emission of particles or the formation of particles from the nitrogen oxides and VOCs.

The soiling effect of particles is observable on both buildings and vehicles. The soiling

can also contribute to the degradation of monuments and artwork. In addition to the

“quality of life” effects of visibility reduction there is an additional safety problem for

aircraft operating in areas of reduced visibility, in the terms of landing and avoidance of

other aircraft.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Organic chemicals emitted into the atmosphere are typically described as VOCs (or

“hydrocarbons”)4. They can arise from evaporation or incomplete fuel combustion. As a

class, VOCs react with NOX in the atmosphere to form ozone, but individual VOCs may

have additional health effects. Some VOCs have little or no known direct health effect,

while other VOCs, such as benzene, are carcinogens. As with other pollutants, the extent

and nature of the health effect will depend on many factors, including level of exposure

and length of time exposed. Eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness,

visual disorders, and memory impairment are among the immediate symptoms that some

people have experienced soon after exposure to some organics.

VOCs can cause a variety of environmental effects depending on their chemical nature

and the quantity present. At high levels, VOCs can have a damaging effect on plants,

crops, buildings and materials. Of course, the principal environmental effect of VOCs is

their contribution to the formation of ozone with its concomitant environmental effects.

Likewise VOCs can contribute to the formation of particles (either directly through

cooling down of hot engine exhaust or indirectly through chemical conversion and

condensation) which have the environmental effects listed above. VOCs that contain

chlorine can also contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion.

 

4

 See Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 part 5/Section 100 for complete definition.
APPENDIX B

EMISSIONS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
B-1

APPENDIX B

EMISSIONS CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

EPA’s recommended emissions calculation methodology for a given airport in any given

year

1

can be summarized in six steps:

1) Determine the mixing height to be used to define a landing and takeoff (LTO)

cycle.

2) Determine airport activity in terms of the number of LTOs.

3) Define the fleet make-up at the airport.

4) Select emission factors.

5) Estimate time-in-mode (TIM).

6) Calculate emissions based on the airport activity, TIM, and aircraft emission

factors.

Steps two through five are repeated for each type of aircraft using a given airport. This

methodology is essentially the same as that used in the FAA Aircraft Engine Emissions

Database (FAEED) model (USDOT, 1995).

Section 2 contains a detailed discussion of the activity and fleet information used for this

analysis.

Time in Mode Calculations

The duration of the approach and climbout modes depends largely on the mixing height

selected. EPA guidance provides approach and climbout times for a default mixing

height of 3000 feet, and a procedure for adjusting these times for different mixing

heights. The adjustments are calculated using the following equations:

Climbout:

Approach:

TIMadj = TIM dflt

MixingHeight

3000

⋅













 

1 The analysis presented in this appendix is consistent with EPA’s Procedures for Emissions

Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources (EPA, 1992).













−

−

= ∗

3000 500

MixingHeight 500 TIMadj TIMdflt
B-2

where TIMadj is the adjusted time-in-mode for approach or climbout, and TIMdflt is the

default time-in-mode. Mixing height is by default given in feet. The equation for

climbout assumes that 500 feet is the demarcation between the takeoff and climbout

modes. Expressed in metric units, the approach and climbout adjustment equations are as

follows:

Climbout:

Approach:













⋅

915

MixingHeight

TIM adj=TIM dflt

Default mixing height is 915 meters, with the demarcation between approach and

climbout modes at 152 meters.

Consistent with EPA guidance (EPA, 1992), a four-minute default approach time was

assumed for this study.

Section 2 provides a discussion of the mixing heights assumed for this analysis2.

Emissions Calculation

The weighted-average emission factor represents the average emission factor per LTO

cycle for all engine models used on a particular type of aircraft. The weighted-average

emission factor per 1000 pounds of fuel is calculated as follows:

EF ijk ( Xmj EFimk )

m

NMj

= ⋅

=

∑1

where

EFimk = the emission factor for pollutant i, in pounds of pollutant per 1000 pounds of

fuel (or kilograms pollutant per 1000 kilograms fuel), for engine model m and

operating mode k;

Xmj = the fraction of aircraft type j with engine model m; and

NMj = the total number of engine models associated with aircraft type j.

Note that, for a given aircraft type j, the sum of Xmj for all engine models associated with

aircraft j is 1.

Total emissions per LTO cycle for a given aircraft type are calculated using the following

equation:

EF NE 1000

FF

E =TIM ijk j

jk

ij jk • • •

 

2 As described in EPA’s Procedures for Emissions Inventory Preparation, Volume IV (EPA, 1992),

morning (a.m.) mixing heights were used in this study.













−

−

= ∗

915 152

MixingHeight 152 TIMadj TIMdflt
B-3

where

TIMjk = time in mode k (min) for aircraft type j;

FFjk = fuel flow for mode k (lbs/min or kg/min) for each engine used on aircraft type

j;

EF ijk = weighted-average emission factor for pollutant i, in pounds of pollutant per

1000 pounds of fuel (kilograms pollutant per 1000 kilograms fuel), for aircraft

type j in operating mode k; and

NEj = number of engines on aircraft type j.

Once the preceding calculations are performed for each aircraft type, total emissions for

that aircraft type are computed by multiplying the emissions for one LTO cycle by the

number of LTO cycles at a given location:

where

Eij= the total emissions for pollutant i from aircraft type j;

LTOj = the number of LTOs for aircraft type j.

Total emissions for each aircraft type are then summed to yield total commercial exhaust

emissions for the facility as shown below:

ETi = ( E LTO )

j=1

N

∑ ij j

⋅

where

ETi = the total emissions for pollutant i from all aircraft types;

Eij = the emissions of pollutant i from aircraft type j;

LTOj = the number of LTOs for aircraft type j; and

N = the total number of aircraft types.

( ) Ei Eij LTOj = ⋅
APPENDIX C

OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA MAPS1

 

1

 Maps obtained from the U.S. EPA’s “Green Book” World Wide Web site

(http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/).
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
APPENDIX D

AIRPORT ACTIVITY PROJECTIONS1

 

1

 All projections based upon FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (USDOT, 1997a). Annual average growth rates are also

summarized in Table D-1.
Table D-1. Commercial aircraft activity growth rates* for selected airports, 1990 through 2010.

YEAR ATL BOS BUR CLT DCA EWR HOU IAD IAH JFK

1990-1991 -17.9% -1.7% -2.2% -2.5% -7.1% -0.6% 0.0% 11.3% 0.0% -11.1%

1991-1992 -4.4% 9.5% -6.6% 5.8% 4.9% 5.8% -9.1% 7.5% 3.2% 8.0%

1992-1993 7.6% 2.7% -3.2% -4.3% 1.5% 6.9% -1.4% -3.4% 10.0% 6.9%

1993-1994 6.2% -3.4% -6.4% 5.6% 0.0% 2.3% -1.2% 6.7% 0.0% 0.4%

1994-1995 6.8% -0.1% -5.1% 0.7% -0.1% -3.0% 3.8% 5.1% 6.5% -2.1%

1995-1996 14.5% 0.4% 2.4% -0.2% 0.2% 4.1% 1.6% 1.8% 4.4% 0.8%

1996-1997 0.0% 1.3% 3.1% 2.0% 0.1% 1.3% 1.5% 2.1% 3.6% 0.9%

1997-1998 1.8% 0.8% 3.4% 2.0% 0.1% 1.3% 1.4% 2.1% 3.6% 0.9%

1998-1999 1.8% 0.8% 3.2% 2.0% 0.1% 1.2% 1.4% 2.1% 3.6% 0.9%

1999-2000 1.7% 0.8% 3.2% 2.0% 0.1% 1.2% 1.4% 2.1% 3.6% 0.9%

2000-2001 1.7% 0.8% 2.6% 2.0% 0.1% 1.2% 1.2% 2.0% 2.5% 1.1%

2001-2002 1.7% 0.8% 2.6% 2.0% 0.1% 1.2% 1.2% 2.0% 2.5% 1.1%

2002-2003 1.7% 0.8% 2.6% 2.0% 0.1% 1.2% 1.2% 2.0% 2.5% 1.1%

2003-2004 1.6% 0.8% 2.6% 2.0% 0.1% 1.2% 1.2% 2.0% 2.5% 1.1%

2004-2005 1.6% 0.8% 2.6% 2.0% 0.1% 1.2% 1.2% 2.0% 2.5% 1.1%

2005-2006 1.6% 0.8% 2.4% 1.7% 0.1% 1.1% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5% 1.2%

2006-2007 1.6% 0.8% 2.4% 1.7% 0.1% 1.1% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5% 1.2%

2007-2008 1.5% 0.8% 2.4% 1.7% 0.1% 1.1% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5% 1.2%

2008-2009 1.5% 0.8% 2.5% 1.7% 0.1% 1.1% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5% 1.2%

2009-2010 1.5% 0.8% 2.5% 1.8% 0.1% 1.1% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5% 1.2%

Table D-1. Commercial travel activity growth rates for selected airports, 1990 through 2010

(concluded).

YEAR LAX LGA LGB MDW ONT ORD ORH PHL PHX SNA

1990-1991 -1.2% -8.8% -4.4% -6.4% 3.5% -0.3% -34.9% -5.5% 0.4% 5.3%

1991-1992 2.7% 1.3% -6.4% -39.0% -2.2% 3.6% -22.4% -1.5% -2.3% 1.2%

1992-1993 0.5% -0.6% -1.4% 3.1% 0.0% 1.6% 1.7% 3.6% 6.7% -11.3%

1993-1994 0.8% 0.1% 11.5% 34.2% 3.7% 3.7% -18.8% 3.1% -2.4% 3.0%

1994-1995 4.2% 3.4% 3.5% 5.5% -0.2% 1.0% 4.5% 1.6% 2.9% -3.1%

1995-1996 4.4% 0.8% 0.6% 1.1% 1.6% 2.4% 0.2% -0.2% 5.5% 1.3%

1996-1997 2.3% 0.5% 0.8% 11.2% 1.8% 2.1% 0.2% 0.9% 3.9% 1.7%

1997-1998 2.2% 0.5% 1.0% 0.9% 1.9% 1.9% 0.2% 0.9% 3.3% 1.9%

1998-1999 2.2% 0.5% 0.8% 0.9% 1.7% 1.9% 0.2% 0.9% 2.6% 1.3%

1999-2000 2.1% 0.5% 0.8% 0.9% 1.7% 1.9% 0.2% 0.9% 2.0% 1.5%

2000-2001 2.1% 0.5% 0.8% 0.6% 1.6% 1.8% 0.2% 0.9% 1.9% 1.4%

2001-2002 2.1% 0.5% 0.8% 0.6% 1.6% 1.8% 0.2% 0.9% 1.9% 1.4%

2002-2003 2.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 1.6% 1.8% 0.2% 0.9% 1.8% 1.5%

2003-2004 2.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 1.6% 1.7% 0.2% 0.9% 1.8% 1.5%

2004-2005 1.9% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 1.5% 1.7% 0.2% 0.9% 1.8% 1.4%

2005-2006 1.9% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 1.5% 1.7% 0.2% 0.9% 1.7% 1.3%

2006-2007 1.9% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 1.5% 1.7% 0.2% 0.9% 1.7% 1.3%

2007-2008 1.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 1.4% 1.6% 0.2% 0.9% 1.7% 1.3%

2008-2009 1.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 1.5% 1.6% 0.2% 0.9% 1.7% 1.4%

2009-2010 1.8% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 1.4% 1.6% 0.2% 0.9% 1.6% 1.4%

* Annual average growth rates.
APPENDIX E

TIME-IN-MODE DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS1

 

1

 Information provided as hardcopy from FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy, Plans and Analysis. Some of

these pages also contain information on airports that are not evaluated in this report. Bryan Manning, US

EPA, (734) 214-4832, can provide further details about the potential availability of this report upon request.
APPENDIX F

AIRCRAFT/ENGINE EMISSION FACTOR DATABASE

The following tables present the aircraft emission rates used for this study. Table F-1

presents the aircraft/engine type cross-reference list obtained from the FAEED model

(FAA, 1995)1. Many aircraft models have multiple possible engine configurations; the

“%” column next to each engine type is the estimated percentage of a given aircraft body

type using that engine. These distributions were used as weighting factors to create the

emission rates presented in Tables F-2 and F-3. Table F-2 provides rates in pounds per

LTO cycle; Tables F-3 presents rates in kilograms per LTO cycle. For selected

aircraft/engine combinations, an emission factor was not located at the time of the

analysis. In Table F-4, we present the equivalencies that were assumed for a limited

number of aircraft/engine combinations.

 

1

 Supplemented by the ICAO engine emission factor database (ICAO, 1995).
Table F-1. Aircraft/engine type cross-reference.

Manufacturer Body Type #Eng Engine 1 % Engine 2 % Engine 3 % Engine 4 % Engine 5 % Engine 6 % Engine 7 % Engine 8 %Engine 9 % Engine 10 % Engine 11 % Total %

AIRBUS A300-600 2 CF6-80C2A5 100 100

AIRBUS A300-B4 2 CF6-50 100 100

AIRBUS A310-200 2 JT9D-7R4E1 100 100

AIRBUS A310-300 2 PW4152 100 100

AIRBUS A320-200 2 CFM56-5-A1 100 100

BEECH 18(CARG) 2 R-985-AN 100 100

BEECH B. 99A 2 PT6A-27 100 100

BOEING B707-300B 4 JT3D-3B 100 100

BOEING B707-300C 4 JT3D-3B 100 100

BOEING B727-100 3 JT8D-7 (OLD COMB.) 16 JT8D-7,7A & 7B (REC) 7 JT8D-7A 4 JT8D-7B 73 100

BOEING B727-100(CARG) 3 JT8D-7A 6 JT8D-7B 91 JT8D-9 1 JT8D-9A 2 100

BOEING B727-200 3 JT8D-17 (REV.) 1 JT8D-17A 1 JT8D-7 1 JT8D-15 26 JT8D-15A 21 JT8D-17A 1 JT8D-17R 3 JT8D-7,7A & 7B (REC) 1 JT8D-7B 16 JT8D-9 20 JT8D-9A 9 100

BOEING B737-100 2 JT8D-15 10 JT8D-15A 24 JT8D-17 7 JT8D-17A 1 JT8D-7B 19 JT8D-9A 39 100

BOEING B737-200 2 JT8D-15 10 JT8D-15A 24 JT8D-17 7 JT8D-17A 1 JT8D-7B 19 JT8D-9A 39 100

BOEING B737-200(CARG) 2 JT8D-15 5 JT8D-17 32 JT8D-17A 32 JT8D-7A 10 JT8D-9 3 JT8D-9A 18 100

BOEING B737-200C 2 JT8D-7A 10 JT8D-9/9A 5 JT8D-9A 16 JT8D-15 5 JT8D-17 32 JT8D-17A 32 100

BOEING B737-300 2 CFM56-3B-2 100 100

BOEING B737-400 2 CFM56-3B-2 100 100

BOEING B737-500 2 CFM56-3C-1 100 100

BOEING B747 4 JT9D-7F 100 100

BOEING B747(CARG) 4 JT9D-7F (MOD V) 100 100

BOEING B747-200 4 CF6-50E2 3 JT9D-59A 7 JT9D-7 (ORIG.) 1 JT9D-70A 13 JT9D-7A 55 JT9D-7F (MOD V) 5 JT9D-7Q 13 JT9D-7R4G2 3 100

BOEING B747-400 4 PW4056 100 100

BOEING B747-SP 4 JT9D-7F (MOD V) 85 JT9D-7F (MOD VI) 15 100

BOEING B747F(CARG) 4 JT9D-70A 39 JT9D-7F (MOD V) 33 JT9D-7Q 17 JT9D-7R4G2 11 100

BOEING B757-200 2 RB211-535E4 1 PW2037 92 PW2040 7 100

BOEING B757-200(CARG) 2 PW2040 26 RB211-535E4 74 100

BOEING B767-200 2 CF6-80A2 59 CF6-80C2B2 12 JT9D-7R4D 29 100

BOEING B767-300 2 CF6-80C2B6 100 100

BRITAIRCOR BAE-111-200 2 ALF502R-5 100 100

BRITAIRCOR BAE-146-1 4 ALF502R-5 100 100

CONVAIR CV 640 2 DART 542-4 100 100

DE HAVILLAND DHC-6 2 PT6A-27 74 PT6A-20 26 100

FAIRCHILD FH-227 2 DART 532-7 100 100

FOKKER F-27 SERIES 2 DART 514-7 15 DART 528-7E 10 DART 532-7 5 DART 532-7N 3 DART 532-7P 24 DART 535-7R 3 DART 535-7R 9 DART 536-7E 2 DART 552-7R 29 100

FOKKER F-28 2 SPEY MK555 100 100

FOKKER F100 2 TAY MK 620-15 100 100

LOCKHEED L-1011-100 3 RB211-22B 99 RB211-524B4 1 100

LOCKHEED L-1011-200 3 RB211-22B 99 RB211-524B4 1 100

LOCKHEED L-1011-500 3 RB211-524B4 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-10 3 CF6-6D 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-30 3 CF6-50C 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-40 3 JT9D-20 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8 4 JT3D-3B 57 JT3D-7 43 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-51 4 JT3D-3B 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-52 4 JT3D-3B 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-53 4 JT3D-3B 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-55 4 JT3D-3B 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-60 4 JT3D-3B 57 JT3D-7 43 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-61 4 JT3D-3B 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-61(CARG) 4 JT3D-3B 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-62 4 JT3D-3B 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-62(CARG) 4 JT3D-3B 15 JT3D-7 64 JT3D-3BDL 21 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-63 4 JT3D-3B 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-63F(CARG) 4 JT3D-3B 24 JT3D-7 42 JT8D-7,7A & 7B (REC) 27 JT3D-735E4 7 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-70 4 CFM56-2-C1 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-71 4 CFM56-2 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-73F(CARG) 4 CFM56-2-C1 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-10 2 JT8D-7 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-15F 2 JT8D-7 15 JT8D-7A 6 JT8D-7B 79 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-30 2 JT8D-15 3 JT8D-17 1 JT8D-7A 5 JT8D-7B 68 JT8D-9A 23 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-40 2 JT8D-15 100 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-50 2 JT8D-17 87 JT8D-17A 13 100

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-80 2 JT8D-209 5 JT8D-217 12 JT8D-217A 36 JT8D-217C 25 JT8D-219 22 100

MCDONNELL DOUG MD-11 3 CF6-80C2D1F 100 100

NAMC YS-11 2 DART 542-10J 25 DART 542-10K 75 100

F-1
Wt Avg EFs (lbs per min)

Table F-2. Engine Modal EFs (lbs/min) TK TK TK TK CB CB CB CB

Body Type THCef COef NOXef SO2ef THCef COef NOXef SO2ef

AIRBUS A300-600 0.04780 0.35506 23.47520 0.36872 0.04406 0.28642 12.59135 0.29743

AIRBUS A300-B4 0.38112 0.27223 16.87806 0.29400 0.31778 0.22699 11.89417 0.24515

AIRBUS A310-200 0.08965 0.31939 23.30959 0.30258 0.05929 0.24173 15.59836 0.24629

AIRBUS A310-300 0.07487 0.06911 15.49267 0.31101 0.07556 0.08028 10.71963 0.25500

AIRBUS A320-200 0.06395 0.25024 6.83996 0.15015 0.05245 0.20524 4.46971 0.12314

BEECH 18(CARG) 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001

BEECH B. 99A 0.00000 0.01415 0.11054 0.00764 0.00000 0.01600 0.09334 0.00720

BOEING B707-300B 2.48470 0.93176 7.51621 0.33543 0.98626 1.38076 4.88199 0.26629

BOEING B707-300C 2.48470 0.93176 7.51621 0.33543 0.98626 1.38076 4.88199 0.26629

BOEING B727-100 0.15290 0.57233 6.71529 0.21198 0.15534 0.62362 4.35759 0.17385

BOEING B727-100(CARG) 0.15549 0.58469 6.74443 0.21230 0.15893 0.63774 4.36100 0.17408

BOEING B727-200 0.12645 0.41644 7.39783 0.21534 0.11476 0.43778 4.63878 0.17373

BOEING B737-100 0.07816 0.30391 5.29978 0.15398 0.07644 0.29301 3.29808 0.12467

BOEING B737-200 0.07816 0.30391 5.29978 0.15398 0.07644 0.29301 3.29808 0.12467

BOEING B737-200(CARG) 0.12322 0.29161 5.76921 0.16429 0.11467 0.28772 3.57347 0.13201

BOEING B737-200C 0.12498 0.29249 5.76161 0.16429 0.11597 0.29036 3.57218 0.13201

BOEING B737-300 0.01006 0.25143 5.41977 0.15086 0.01092 0.20905 3.87906 0.12543

BOEING B737-400 0.01006 0.25143 5.41977 0.15086 0.01092 0.20905 3.87906 0.12543

BOEING B737-500 0.00916 0.27477 6.31963 0.16486 0.01010 0.22715 4.49246 0.13629

BOEING B747 0.25841 0.25841 40.82822 0.69770 0.21160 0.21160 27.08498 0.57132

BOEING B747(CARG) 0.34401 0.45867 52.74756 0.61921 0.28000 0.37334 32.10720 0.50401

BOEING B747-200 0.27517 0.29706 42.00930 0.69302 0.22722 0.23841 27.58135 0.56592

BOEING B747-400 0.02423 0.37270 31.95942 0.50315 0.02682 0.30646 20.91591 0.41372

BOEING B747-SP 0.33117 0.42863 50.95966 0.63098 0.26974 0.34908 31.35387 0.51411

BOEING B747F(CARG) 0.27944 0.39503 46.10919 0.67139 0.22615 0.30729 29.26705 0.54518

BOEING B757-200 0.01976 0.16775 13.01970 0.22241 0.01947 0.13889 8.51834 0.18303

BOEING B757-200(CARG) 0.01771 0.41623 23.34454 0.26204 0.00644 0.40344 13.42027 0.21342

BOEING B767-200 0.13461 0.46921 18.10006 0.31165 0.12990 0.41876 12.98862 0.25859

BOEING B767-300 0.04776 0.35479 21.02125 0.36843 0.04404 0.28628 12.62935 0.29729

BRITAIRCOR BAE-111-200 0.00568 0.02842 1.28179 0.05116 0.00414 0.01954 0.82554 0.04222

BRITAIRCOR BAE-146-1 0.01137 0.05684 2.56358 0.10232 0.00829 0.03909 1.65108 0.08443

CONVAIR CV 640 0.00000 0.12397 0.24231 0.03043 0.00000 0.13492 0.17540 0.02429

DE HAVILLAND DHC-6 0.01435 0.05234 4.50758 0.07025 0.01181 0.05121 3.16962 0.05848

FAIRCHILD FH-227 0.04709 0.15069 0.26371 0.02543 0.04569 0.14537 0.18691 0.02243

FOKKER F-27 SERIES 0.04709 0.15069 0.26371 0.02543 0.04569 0.14537 0.18691 0.02243

TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout

AP = Approach; ID = Idle F-2
Wt Avg EFs (lbs per min)

Table F-2. Engine Modal EFs (lbs/min) TK TK TK TK CB CB CB CB

Body Type THCef COef NOXef SO2ef THCef COef NOXef SO2ef

FOKKER F-28 0.16769 0.08385 3.60537 0.10290 0.02493 0.00000 2.28125 0.08414

FOKKER F100 0.16085 0.14074 4.24240 0.10857 0.05000 0.13334 2.80005 0.09000

LOCKHEED L-1011-100 0.26733 1.82419 25.61810 0.40060 0.23811 2.51013 15.79790 0.33097

LOCKHEED L-1011-200 0.26733 1.82419 25.61810 0.40060 0.23811 2.51013 15.79790 0.33097

LOCKHEED L-1011-500 0.34203 0.61390 45.86703 0.47358 0.18469 0.21310 27.13459 0.38358

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-10 0.20667 0.34445 27.55602 0.37201 0.17036 0.28393 18.51245 0.30665

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-30 0.56644 0.47203 33.04222 0.50979 0.53195 0.37997 22.03807 0.41036

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-40 0.08330 0.00000 32.23519 0.44979 0.07099 0.00000 20.23308 0.38336

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8 1.55898 0.78796 7.90879 0.34531 0.65606 1.23302 5.03613 0.27854

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-51 2.48470 0.93176 7.51621 0.33543 0.98626 1.38076 4.88199 0.26629

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-52 2.48470 0.93176 7.51621 0.33543 0.98626 1.38076 4.88199 0.26629

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-53 2.48470 0.93176 7.51621 0.33543 0.98626 1.38076 4.88199 0.26629

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-55 2.48470 0.93176 7.51621 0.33543 0.98626 1.38076 4.88199 0.26629

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-60 1.55898 0.78796 7.90879 0.34531 0.65606 1.23302 5.03613 0.27854

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-61 2.48470 0.93176 7.51621 0.33543 0.98626 1.38076 4.88199 0.26629

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-61(CARG) 2.48470 0.93176 7.51621 0.33543 0.98626 1.38076 4.88199 0.26629

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-62 2.48470 0.93176 7.51621 0.33543 0.98626 1.38076 4.88199 0.26629

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-62(CARG) 1.10688 0.71773 8.10051 0.35014 0.49480 1.16087 5.11141 0.28452

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-63 2.48470 0.93176 7.51621 0.33543 0.98626 1.38076 4.88199 0.26629

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-63F(CARG) 0.79427 0.64351 8.36483 0.33243 0.37267 0.96709 5.36213 0.27094

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-70 0.02085 0.46906 9.64170 0.28143 0.02167 0.39001 6.93345 0.23400

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-71 0.02085 0.46906 9.64170 0.28143 0.02167 0.39001 6.93345 0.23400

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-73F(CARG) 0.02085 0.46906 9.64170 0.28143 0.02167 0.39001 6.93345 0.23400

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-10 0.06542 0.23553 4.50120 0.14132 0.05366 0.23610 3.00486 0.11590

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-15F 0.09879 0.36899 4.47895 0.14132 0.09927 0.40029 2.91365 0.11590

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-30 0.09052 0.36122 4.72992 0.14416 0.09157 0.38064 3.01430 0.11788

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-40 0.07791 0.21815 5.95243 0.16829 0.06250 0.25000 3.75006 0.13500

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-50 0.20781 0.24375 6.27234 0.17652 0.19092 0.26675 3.95440 0.14127

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-80 0.09817 0.27722 9.03852 0.18872 0.12254 0.35005 5.84919 0.15354

MCDONNELL DOUG MD-11 0.07211 0.53569 33.63525 0.55630 0.06556 0.42612 19.68338 0.44251

NAMC YS-11 0.00000 0.12397 0.24231 0.03043 0.00000 0.13492 0.17540 0.02429

TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout

AP = Approach; ID = Idle F-3
Wt Avg EFs (lbs per min)

Table F-2. Engine Modal EFs (lbs/min)

Body Type

AIRBUS A300-600

AIRBUS A300-B4

AIRBUS A310-200

AIRBUS A310-300

AIRBUS A320-200

BEECH 18(CARG)

BEECH B. 99A

BOEING B707-300B

BOEING B707-300C

BOEING B727-100

BOEING B727-100(CARG)

BOEING B727-200

BOEING B737-100

BOEING B737-200

BOEING B737-200(CARG)

BOEING B737-200C

BOEING B737-300

BOEING B737-400

BOEING B737-500

BOEING B747

BOEING B747(CARG)

BOEING B747-200

BOEING B747-400

BOEING B747-SP

BOEING B747F(CARG)

BOEING B757-200

BOEING B757-200(CARG)

BOEING B767-200

BOEING B767-300

BRITAIRCOR BAE-111-200

BRITAIRCOR BAE-146-1

CONVAIR CV 640

DE HAVILLAND DHC-6

FAIRCHILD FH-227

FOKKER F-27 SERIES

AP AP AP AP ID ID ID ID

THCef COef NOXef SO2ef THCef COef NOXef SO2ef

0.03635 0.35078 1.65573 0.09814 0.49232 2.28087 0.20755 0.02957

0.16966 1.15677 1.29558 0.08329 1.37569 3.49213 0.17461 0.02857

0.02245 0.21246 1.79637 0.09327 0.06490 0.48352 0.23971 0.03157

0.02353 0.17100 1.74138 0.08472 0.03465 0.59750 0.22945 0.02529

0.03079 0.19246 0.61588 0.04157 0.03744 0.47074 0.10699 0.01444

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001

0.01570 0.16705 0.06001 0.00387 1.92452 0.24550 0.00932 0.00207

0.73229 4.48526 0.87875 0.09886 8.00012 7.00010 1.78574 0.03857

0.73229 4.48526 0.87875 0.09886 8.00012 7.00010 1.78574 0.03857

0.17212 1.12614 0.63079 0.06131 0.51866 1.74267 0.13994 0.02766

0.17967 1.17252 0.62656 0.06138 0.53526 1.79702 0.13873 0.02768

0.15050 0.85318 0.69272 0.06140 0.39427 1.39480 0.14842 0.02695

0.08260 0.41891 0.49328 0.04394 0.20068 0.76370 0.10591 0.01934

0.08260 0.41891 0.49328 0.04394 0.20068 0.76370 0.10591 0.01934

0.10878 0.51058 0.53688 0.04675 0.29300 0.84939 0.11537 0.01998

0.11057 0.52203 0.53632 0.04675 0.29780 0.86361 0.11537 0.01998

0.00606 0.28244 0.72271 0.04486 0.05509 0.94761 0.12908 0.01700

0.00606 0.28244 0.72271 0.04486 0.05509 0.94761 0.12908 0.01700

0.00622 0.27556 0.80890 0.04800 0.04658 0.87917 0.14106 0.01771

0.10800 0.61201 2.80805 0.19440 1.50479 6.64614 0.37620 0.06772

0.16500 0.95702 2.57404 0.17820 3.01274 6.25724 0.35921 0.06257

0.11984 0.67125 2.81585 0.19303 1.59531 6.50782 0.37825 0.06708

0.04695 0.52170 2.76502 0.14086 0.18453 2.05850 0.34445 0.04429

0.15645 0.90527 2.60914 0.18063 2.78655 6.31557 0.36176 0.06334

0.12184 0.71224 2.75947 0.18838 1.85708 5.94076 0.37873 0.06561

0.02210 0.24420 1.10835 0.05819 0.08452 0.87255 0.16522 0.02035

0.01057 0.25864 1.19637 0.07857 0.06118 0.84192 0.20472 0.02584

0.05663 0.41024 1.81210 0.09538 0.23482 1.09225 0.16677 0.02444

0.03630 0.35027 1.65332 0.09800 0.49232 2.28142 0.20755 0.02957

0.00594 0.19422 0.18054 0.01477 0.05818 0.44179 0.04080 0.00583

0.01187 0.38844 0.36109 0.02954 0.11636 0.88358 0.08160 0.01166

0.00000 0.48426 0.04592 0.01127 0.12385 0.57611 0.02226 0.00751

0.01835 0.15389 0.44130 0.02103 0.14609 0.26615 0.07791 0.00814

0.00006 0.71711 0.01938 0.01163 0.32689 1.25011 0.00957 0.00739

0.00006 0.71711 0.01938 0.01163 0.32689 1.25011 0.00957 0.00739

TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout

AP = Approach; ID = Idle F-4
Wt Avg EFs (lbs per min)

Table F-2. Engine Modal EFs (lbs/min)

Body Type

FOKKER F-28

FOKKER F100

LOCKHEED L-1011-100

LOCKHEED L-1011-200

LOCKHEED L-1011-500

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-10

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-30

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-40

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-51

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-52

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-53

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-55

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-60

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-61

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-61(CARG)

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-62

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-62(CARG)

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-63

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-63F(CARG)

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-70

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-71

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-73F(CARG)

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-10

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-15F

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-30

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-40

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-50

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-80

MCDONNELL DOUG MD-11

NAMC YS-11

AP AP AP AP ID ID ID ID

THCef COef NOXef SO2ef THCef COef NOXef SO2ef

0.40936 1.30501 0.34769 0.03171 2.82150 2.68429 0.05568 0.01643

0.05476 0.23731 0.34683 0.03286 0.09894 0.70133 0.07275 0.01571

1.68112 5.73505 1.77339 0.11867 5.83157 8.32072 0.24479 0.04867

1.68112 5.73505 1.77339 0.11867 5.83157 8.32072 0.24479 0.04867

0.17500 0.39001 2.45004 0.13500 0.18572 1.18002 0.40001 0.05143

0.13442 1.24818 2.18911 0.10369 1.44002 3.71663 0.30858 0.03703

0.25516 1.32685 2.39853 0.13779 1.93495 5.24120 0.29445 0.04543

0.31933 1.86686 1.86686 0.13265 3.02271 6.99995 0.25957 0.04522

0.60307 4.28066 0.96947 0.10409 8.13090 8.02539 1.08174 0.03766

0.73229 4.48526 0.87875 0.09886 8.00012 7.00010 1.78574 0.03857

0.73229 4.48526 0.87875 0.09886 8.00012 7.00010 1.78574 0.03857

0.73229 4.48526 0.87875 0.09886 8.00012 7.00010 1.78574 0.03857

0.73229 4.48526 0.87875 0.09886 8.00012 7.00010 1.78574 0.03857

0.60307 4.28066 0.96947 0.10409 8.13090 8.02539 1.08174 0.03766

0.73229 4.48526 0.87875 0.09886 8.00012 7.00010 1.78574 0.03857

0.73229 4.48526 0.87875 0.09886 8.00012 7.00010 1.78574 0.03857

0.73229 4.48526 0.87875 0.09886 8.00012 7.00010 1.78574 0.03857

0.53997 4.18073 1.01378 0.10665 8.19478 8.52612 0.73793 0.03722

0.73229 4.48526 0.87875 0.09886 8.00012 7.00010 1.78574 0.03857

0.40367 3.13100 1.00237 0.10020 6.05920 6.54217 0.55945 0.03708

0.01316 0.69112 1.34934 0.08886 0.12394 2.07919 0.27090 0.03657

0.01316 0.69112 1.34934 0.08886 0.12394 2.07919 0.27090 0.03657

0.01316 0.69112 1.34934 0.08886 0.12394 2.07919 0.27090 0.03657

0.03028 0.16652 0.47684 0.04087 0.12979 0.48840 0.10759 0.01844

0.10748 0.70050 0.42537 0.04087 0.32720 1.10386 0.09452 0.01844

0.10558 0.65285 0.43434 0.04159 0.30620 1.05246 0.09541 0.01864

0.14855 0.86427 0.53117 0.04862 0.42982 1.39106 0.11722 0.02110

0.16697 0.72529 0.57315 0.05013 0.37691 1.10889 0.12707 0.02087

0.16179 0.42001 0.91827 0.05454 0.12240 0.44821 0.13223 0.01946

0.05214 0.50579 2.38818 0.14079 0.70235 3.24961 0.29556 0.04200

0.00000 0.48426 0.04592 0.01127 0.12385 0.57611 0.02226 0.00751

TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout

AP = Approach; ID = Idle F-5
Wt Avg EFs (kg/min)

Table F-3. Engine Modal Efs (kgs/min) TK TK TK TK CB CB CB CB

Body Type THCef COef NOXef SO2ef THCef COef NOXef SO2ef

AIRBUS A300-600 0.02168 0.16106 10.64828 0.16725 0.01999 0.12992 5.71140 0.13491

AIRBUS A300-B4 0.17287 0.12348 7.65584 0.13336 0.14415 0.10296 5.39516 0.11120

AIRBUS A310-200 0.04067 0.14487 10.57316 0.13725 0.02689 0.10965 7.07537 0.11172

AIRBUS A310-300 0.03396 0.03135 7.02743 0.14107 0.03427 0.03641 4.86239 0.11567

AIRBUS A320-200 0.02901 0.11351 3.10258 0.06811 0.02379 0.09310 2.02745 0.05586

BEECH 18(CARG) 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001

BEECH B. 99A 0.00000 0.00642 0.05014 0.00347 0.00000 0.00726 0.04234 0.00327

BOEING B707-300B 1.12705 0.42264 3.40933 0.15215 0.44736 0.62631 2.21445 0.12079

BOEING B707-300C 1.12705 0.42264 3.40933 0.15215 0.44736 0.62631 2.21445 0.12079

BOEING B727-100 0.06935 0.25961 3.04604 0.09615 0.07046 0.28287 1.97659 0.07886

BOEING B727-100(CARG) 0.07053 0.26521 3.05925 0.09630 0.07209 0.28928 1.97814 0.07896

BOEING B727-200 0.05736 0.18889 3.35563 0.09768 0.05206 0.19858 2.10413 0.07880

BOEING B737-100 0.03545 0.13785 2.40397 0.06984 0.03467 0.13291 1.49600 0.05655

BOEING B737-200 0.03545 0.13785 2.40397 0.06984 0.03467 0.13291 1.49600 0.05655

BOEING B737-200(CARG) 0.05589 0.13227 2.61690 0.07452 0.05202 0.13051 1.62092 0.05988

BOEING B737-200C 0.05669 0.13267 2.61345 0.07452 0.05260 0.13171 1.62033 0.05988

BOEING B737-300 0.00456 0.11405 2.45839 0.06843 0.00495 0.09482 1.75953 0.05689

BOEING B737-400 0.00456 0.11405 2.45839 0.06843 0.00495 0.09482 1.75953 0.05689

BOEING B737-500 0.00415 0.12463 2.86657 0.07478 0.00458 0.10303 2.03776 0.06182

BOEING B747 0.11721 0.11721 18.51956 0.31647 0.09598 0.09598 12.28567 0.25915

BOEING B747(CARG) 0.15604 0.20805 23.92613 0.28087 0.12701 0.16935 14.56373 0.22862

BOEING B747-200 0.12482 0.13475 19.05529 0.31435 0.10306 0.10814 12.51082 0.25670

BOEING B747-400 0.01099 0.16906 14.49670 0.22823 0.01216 0.13901 9.48739 0.18766

BOEING B747-SP 0.15022 0.19443 23.11515 0.28621 0.12236 0.15834 14.22202 0.23320

BOEING B747F(CARG) 0.12675 0.17918 20.91499 0.30454 0.10258 0.13938 13.27545 0.24729

BOEING B757-200 0.00896 0.07609 5.90570 0.10088 0.00883 0.06300 3.86390 0.08302

BOEING B757-200(CARG) 0.00804 0.18880 10.58901 0.11886 0.00292 0.18300 6.08740 0.09680

BOEING B767-200 0.06106 0.21283 8.21013 0.14136 0.05892 0.18995 5.89160 0.11730

BOEING B767-300 0.02166 0.16093 9.53518 0.16712 0.01998 0.12986 5.72864 0.13485

BRITAIRCOR BAE-111-200 0.00258 0.01289 0.58142 0.02321 0.00188 0.00887 0.37446 0.01915

BRITAIRCOR BAE-146-1 0.00516 0.02578 1.16283 0.04641 0.00376 0.01773 0.74892 0.03830

CONVAIR CV 640 0.00000 0.05623 0.10991 0.01380 0.00000 0.06120 0.07956 0.01102

DE HAVILLAND DHC-6 0.00651 0.02374 2.04463 0.03186 0.00536 0.02323 1.43773 0.02653

FAIRCHILD FH-227 0.02136 0.06835 0.11962 0.01153 0.02072 0.06594 0.08478 0.01017

FOKKER F-27 SERIES 0.02136 0.06835 0.11962 0.01153 0.02072 0.06594 0.08478 0.01017

TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout

AP = Approach; ID = Idle F-6
Wt Avg EFs (kg/min)

Table F-3. Engine Modal Efs (kgs/min) TK TK TK TK CB CB CB CB

Body Type THCef COef NOXef SO2ef THCef COef NOXef SO2ef

FOKKER F-28 0.07606 0.03803 1.63539 0.04668 0.01131 0.00000 1.03477 0.03817

FOKKER F100 0.07296 0.06384 1.92434 0.04925 0.02268 0.06048 1.27009 0.04082

LOCKHEED L-1011-100 0.12126 0.82745 11.62029 0.18171 0.10800 1.13859 7.16588 0.15012

LOCKHEED L-1011-200 0.12126 0.82745 11.62029 0.18171 0.10800 1.13859 7.16588 0.15012

LOCKHEED L-1011-500 0.15514 0.27846 20.80515 0.21481 0.08377 0.09666 12.30817 0.17399

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-10 0.09374 0.15624 12.49933 0.16874 0.07727 0.12879 8.39719 0.13909

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-30 0.25693 0.21411 14.98785 0.23124 0.24129 0.17235 9.99640 0.18614

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-40 0.03778 0.00000 14.62178 0.20402 0.03220 0.00000 9.17766 0.17389

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8 0.70715 0.35742 3.58740 0.15663 0.29759 0.55929 2.28438 0.12634

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-51 1.12705 0.42264 3.40933 0.15215 0.44736 0.62631 2.21445 0.12079

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-52 1.12705 0.42264 3.40933 0.15215 0.44736 0.62631 2.21445 0.12079

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-53 1.12705 0.42264 3.40933 0.15215 0.44736 0.62631 2.21445 0.12079

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-55 1.12705 0.42264 3.40933 0.15215 0.44736 0.62631 2.21445 0.12079

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-60 0.70715 0.35742 3.58740 0.15663 0.29759 0.55929 2.28438 0.12634

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-61 1.12705 0.42264 3.40933 0.15215 0.44736 0.62631 2.21445 0.12079

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-61(CARG) 1.12705 0.42264 3.40933 0.15215 0.44736 0.62631 2.21445 0.12079

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-62 1.12705 0.42264 3.40933 0.15215 0.44736 0.62631 2.21445 0.12079

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-62(CARG) 0.50208 0.32556 3.67437 0.15882 0.22444 0.52657 2.31852 0.12906

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-63 1.12705 0.42264 3.40933 0.15215 0.44736 0.62631 2.21445 0.12079

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-63F(CARG) 0.36028 0.29189 3.79426 0.15079 0.16904 0.43867 2.43225 0.12290

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-70 0.00946 0.21276 4.37344 0.12766 0.00983 0.17691 3.14499 0.10614

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-71 0.00946 0.21276 4.37344 0.12766 0.00983 0.17691 3.14499 0.10614

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-73F(CARG) 0.00946 0.21276 4.37344 0.12766 0.00983 0.17691 3.14499 0.10614

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-10 0.02968 0.10683 2.04173 0.06410 0.02434 0.10709 1.36300 0.05257

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-15F 0.04481 0.16737 2.03164 0.06410 0.04503 0.18157 1.32162 0.05257

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-30 0.04106 0.16385 2.14548 0.06539 0.04153 0.17266 1.36728 0.05347

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-40 0.03534 0.09895 2.70000 0.07634 0.02835 0.11340 1.70102 0.06124

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-50 0.09426 0.11057 2.84511 0.08007 0.08660 0.12100 1.79371 0.06408

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-80 0.04453 0.12575 4.09984 0.08560 0.05559 0.15878 2.65318 0.06965

MCDONNELL DOUG MD-11 0.03271 0.24299 15.25685 0.25233 0.02974 0.19329 8.92832 0.20072

NAMC YS-11 0.00000 0.05623 0.10991 0.01380 0.00000 0.06120 0.07956 0.01102

TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout

AP = Approach; ID = Idle F-7
Wt Avg EFs (kg/min)

Table F-3. Engine Modal Efs (kgs/min)

Body Type

AIRBUS A300-600

AIRBUS A300-B4

AIRBUS A310-200

AIRBUS A310-300

AIRBUS A320-200

BEECH 18(CARG)

BEECH B. 99A

BOEING B707-300B

BOEING B707-300C

BOEING B727-100

BOEING B727-100(CARG)

BOEING B727-200

BOEING B737-100

BOEING B737-200

BOEING B737-200(CARG)

BOEING B737-200C

BOEING B737-300

BOEING B737-400

BOEING B737-500

BOEING B747

BOEING B747(CARG)

BOEING B747-200

BOEING B747-400

BOEING B747-SP

BOEING B747F(CARG)

BOEING B757-200

BOEING B757-200(CARG)

BOEING B767-200

BOEING B767-300

BRITAIRCOR BAE-111-200

BRITAIRCOR BAE-146-1

CONVAIR CV 640

DE HAVILLAND DHC-6

FAIRCHILD FH-227

FOKKER F-27 SERIES

AP AP AP AP ID ID ID ID

THCef COef NOXef SO2ef THCef COef NOXef SO2ef

0.01649 0.15911 0.75104 0.04452 0.22331 1.03460 0.09414 0.01341

0.07696 0.52471 0.58767 0.03778 0.62401 1.58402 0.07920 0.01296

0.01019 0.09637 0.81483 0.04231 0.02944 0.21932 0.10873 0.01432

0.01067 0.07757 0.78988 0.03843 0.01572 0.27103 0.10408 0.01147

0.01397 0.08730 0.27936 0.01886 0.01698 0.21352 0.04853 0.00655

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001

0.00712 0.07577 0.02722 0.00176 0.87296 0.11136 0.00423 0.00094

0.33216 2.03450 0.39860 0.04484 3.62883 3.17522 0.81001 0.01750

0.33216 2.03450 0.39860 0.04484 3.62883 3.17522 0.81001 0.01750

0.07807 0.51081 0.28613 0.02781 0.23526 0.79047 0.06348 0.01255

0.08150 0.53185 0.28421 0.02784 0.24279 0.81513 0.06293 0.01256

0.06827 0.38700 0.31422 0.02785 0.17884 0.63268 0.06732 0.01223

0.03747 0.19002 0.22375 0.01993 0.09103 0.34641 0.04804 0.00877

0.03747 0.19002 0.22375 0.01993 0.09103 0.34641 0.04804 0.00877

0.04934 0.23160 0.24353 0.02120 0.13290 0.38528 0.05233 0.00906

0.05015 0.23679 0.24327 0.02120 0.13508 0.39173 0.05233 0.00906

0.00275 0.12811 0.32782 0.02035 0.02499 0.42983 0.05855 0.00771

0.00275 0.12811 0.32782 0.02035 0.02499 0.42983 0.05855 0.00771

0.00282 0.12499 0.36692 0.02177 0.02113 0.39879 0.06398 0.00804

0.04899 0.27761 1.27372 0.08818 0.68257 3.01467 0.17064 0.03072

0.07484 0.43410 1.16758 0.08083 1.36657 2.83826 0.16294 0.02838

0.05436 0.30448 1.27726 0.08756 0.72363 2.95193 0.17157 0.03043

0.02130 0.23664 1.25420 0.06389 0.08370 0.93373 0.15624 0.02009

0.07097 0.41063 1.18350 0.08193 1.26397 2.86473 0.16409 0.02873

0.05526 0.32307 1.25169 0.08545 0.84237 2.69471 0.17179 0.02976

0.01002 0.11077 0.50274 0.02639 0.03834 0.39579 0.07494 0.00923

0.00479 0.11732 0.54267 0.03564 0.02775 0.38189 0.09286 0.01172

0.02569 0.18609 0.82196 0.04326 0.10651 0.49544 0.07565 0.01109

0.01646 0.15888 0.74994 0.04445 0.22331 1.03484 0.09414 0.01341

0.00269 0.08810 0.08189 0.00670 0.02639 0.20039 0.01851 0.00264

0.00539 0.17620 0.16379 0.01340 0.05278 0.40079 0.03701 0.00529

0.00000 0.21966 0.02083 0.00511 0.05618 0.26132 0.01010 0.00341

0.00832 0.06980 0.20017 0.00954 0.06626 0.12073 0.03534 0.00369

0.00003 0.32528 0.00879 0.00527 0.14828 0.56705 0.00434 0.00335

0.00003 0.32528 0.00879 0.00527 0.14828 0.56705 0.00434 0.00335

TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout

AP = Approach; ID = Idle F-8
Wt Avg EFs (kg/min)

Table F-3. Engine Modal Efs (kgs/min)

Body Type

FOKKER F-28

FOKKER F100

LOCKHEED L-1011-100

LOCKHEED L-1011-200

LOCKHEED L-1011-500

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-10

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-30

MCDONNELL DOUG DC10-40

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-51

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-52

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-53

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-55

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-60

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-61

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-61(CARG)

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-62

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-62(CARG)

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-63

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-63F(CARG)

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-70

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-71

MCDONNELL DOUG DC8-73F(CARG)

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-10

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-15F

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-30

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-40

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-50

MCDONNELL DOUG DC9-80

MCDONNELL DOUG MD-11

NAMC YS-11

AP AP AP AP ID ID ID ID

THCef COef NOXef SO2ef THCef COef NOXef SO2ef

0.18568 0.59195 0.15771 0.01439 1.27983 1.21759 0.02525 0.00745

0.02484 0.10764 0.15732 0.01490 0.04488 0.31812 0.03300 0.00713

0.76255 2.60140 0.80441 0.05383 2.64518 3.77425 0.11103 0.02208

0.76255 2.60140 0.80441 0.05383 2.64518 3.77425 0.11103 0.02208

0.07938 0.17691 1.11133 0.06124 0.08424 0.53525 0.18144 0.02333

0.06097 0.56617 0.99297 0.04704 0.65319 1.68585 0.13997 0.01680

0.11574 0.60185 1.08797 0.06250 0.87769 2.37739 0.13356 0.02061

0.14485 0.84680 0.84680 0.06017 1.37109 3.17516 0.11774 0.02051

0.27355 1.94169 0.43975 0.04722 3.68815 3.64029 0.49067 0.01708

0.33216 2.03450 0.39860 0.04484 3.62883 3.17522 0.81001 0.01750

0.33216 2.03450 0.39860 0.04484 3.62883 3.17522 0.81001 0.01750

0.33216 2.03450 0.39860 0.04484 3.62883 3.17522 0.81001 0.01750

0.33216 2.03450 0.39860 0.04484 3.62883 3.17522 0.81001 0.01750

0.27355 1.94169 0.43975 0.04722 3.68815 3.64029 0.49067 0.01708

0.33216 2.03450 0.39860 0.04484 3.62883 3.17522 0.81001 0.01750

0.33216 2.03450 0.39860 0.04484 3.62883 3.17522 0.81001 0.01750

0.33216 2.03450 0.39860 0.04484 3.62883 3.17522 0.81001 0.01750

0.24493 1.89637 0.45985 0.04838 3.71713 3.86742 0.33472 0.01688

0.33216 2.03450 0.39860 0.04484 3.62883 3.17522 0.81001 0.01750

0.18310 1.42021 0.45467 0.04545 2.74844 2.96751 0.25377 0.01682

0.00597 0.31349 0.61205 0.04031 0.05622 0.94311 0.12288 0.01659

0.00597 0.31349 0.61205 0.04031 0.05622 0.94311 0.12288 0.01659

0.00597 0.31349 0.61205 0.04031 0.05622 0.94311 0.12288 0.01659

0.01373 0.07553 0.21629 0.01854 0.05887 0.22154 0.04880 0.00837

0.04875 0.31775 0.19295 0.01854 0.14841 0.50071 0.04287 0.00837

0.04789 0.29613 0.19701 0.01887 0.13889 0.47739 0.04328 0.00846

0.06738 0.39203 0.24093 0.02205 0.19497 0.63098 0.05317 0.00957

0.07574 0.32899 0.25998 0.02274 0.17096 0.50299 0.05764 0.00947

0.07339 0.19051 0.41652 0.02474 0.05552 0.20331 0.05998 0.00883

0.02365 0.22943 1.08327 0.06386 0.31858 1.47402 0.13407 0.01905

0.00000 0.21966 0.02083 0.00511 0.05618 0.26132 0.01010 0.00341

TK = Takeoff; CB = Climbout

AP = Approach; ID = Idle F-9
Appendix F

F-10

Table F-4. Assumed aircraft body type equivalencies.*

LTO Data Aircraft Type Assumed Aircraft Type

A-300B A-300B4

A-320-100 A-320-200

B-707-300B/C B-707-300

B-727-200 (CARGO) B-727-200

B-727-200C B-727-200

B-737-100 (CARGO) B-737-100

B-737-100/200 B-737-100 (50%), B-737-200 (50%)

B-767-200ER B-767-200

BAE-146-100/200 BAE-146-1 (same as BAE-146-2)

DC-10-10 (CARGO) DC-10-10

DC-10-30 (CARGO) DC-10-30

DC-8-50F DC-8-50

DC-8-73F (CARGO) DC-8-73F

DC-8-73 DC-8-73F

L-1011-100/200 L-1011-100 (same as L-1011-200)

L-1011-500TR L-1011-500

MD-8-63F DC-8-63F

* Equivalencies based upon available databases and literature (e.g., FAEED,

1995; ICAO, 1995; CARB, 1994) and engineering judgement. For three of these

equivalencies, emission factors were located for the aircraft type during the final

review of the document. Comparison of the actual to the assumed equivalent

confirmed that minimal changes would occur in the emissions estimates.
APPENDIX G

FACILITY-SPECIFIC AND REGIONAL

EMISSIONS SUMMARIES
Table G-1. 1990 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (short tons/year), Default Mixing Height

 LTOS VOC CO NOx SO2

Hartsfield (ATL) 287,080 1555.13 4136.43 3570.26 165.78

Atlanta Total 287,080 1555.13 4136.43 3570.26 165.78

Logan (BOS) 114,282 894.28 2295.22 1752.92 77.07

Boston Total 114,282 894.28 2295.22 1752.92 77.07

Douglas (CLT) 119,990 748.56 1385.67 956.74 52.01

Charlotte Total 119,990 748.56 1385.67 956.74 52.01

Midway (MDW) 65,135 119.11 446.16 483.95 25.37

O'Hare (ORD) 347,653 1534.13 5137.57 4552.77 209.84

Chicago Total 412,788 1653.23 5583.73 5036.72 235.20

Hobby (HOU) 55,779 72.80 352.25 441.03 22.07

Intercontinental (IAH) 181,214 596.88 2132.56 2111.24 100.76

Houston Total 236,993 669.68 2484.80 2552.27 122.83

Burbank (BUR) 26,129 16.55 160.76 213.79 9.77

Los Angeles Intl. (LAX) 212,041 1958.73 5321.53 4202.68 168.69

Long Beach (LGB) 12,984 13.38 81.65 134.65 5.76

Ontario (ONT) 40,323 78.59 347.42 452.82 20.33

John Wayne (SNA) 28,291 32.13 213.94 271.01 12.02

Los Angeles Total 319,768 2099.38 6125.31 5274.95 216.57

Newark (EWR) 134,124 773.48 2241.86 1722.35 84.38

John F. Kennedy (JFK) 94,382 1398.94 4082.31 2806.06 113.34

La Guardia (LGA) 154,700 877.80 2492.55 1823.20 93.68

New York Total 383,206 3050.22 8816.72 6351.61 291.41

Philadelphia Intl. (PHL) 107,646 354.67 1127.38 1098.41 53.11

Philadelphia Total 107,646 354.67 1127.38 1098.41 53.11

Sky Harbor (PHX) 121,024 226.14 1014.73 1130.01 53.71

Phoenix Total 121,024 226.14 1014.73 1130.01 53.71

National (DCA) 96,931 249.45 930.37 1007.71 49.37

Dulles (IAD) 60,787 267.12 868.35 800.15 36.03

Washington, DC Total 157,718 516.57 1798.72 1807.86 85.39

Grand Total 2,260,495 11,767.86 34,768.71 29,531.76 1,353.08
Table G-2. 2010 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (short tons/year), Default Mixing Height

LTOs VOC CO NOx SO2

Hartsfield (ATL) 388,728 3,180.47 6,858.94 7,397.42 262.18

Atlanta Total 388,728 3,180.47 6,858.94 7,397.42 262.18

Logan (BOS) 137,137 1,461.75 3,417.41 2,897.56 104.64

Boston Total 137,137 1,461.75 3,417.41 2,897.56 104.64

Douglas (CLT) 215,726 2,123.93 2,907.53 1,702.28 83.83

Charlotte Total 215,726 2,123.93 2,907.53 1,702.28 83.83

Midway (MDW) 66,510 121.62 455.59 494.16 25.90

O'Hare (ORD) 500,767 2,111.02 7,301.24 8,216.63 303.11

Chicago Total 567,277 2,232.64 7,756.83 8,710.79 329.01

Hobby (HOU) 61,621 80.39 389.06 487.13 24.37

Intercontinental (IAH) 337,080 927.31 3,550.96 4,642.39 183.53

Houston Total 398,701 1,007.71 3,940.03 5,129.52 207.91

Burbank (BUR) 30,607 18.68 187.52 250.41 11.41

Los Angeles Intl. (LAX) 312,976 2,956.98 7,870.28 6,454.80 237.37

Long Beach (LGB) 14,790 13.70 89.26 153.72 6.49

Ontario (ONT) 53,445 72.94 442.26 694.10 27.89

John Wayne (SNA) 33,043 26.05 238.73 318.06 13.73

Los Angeles Total 444,860 3,088.35 8,828.05 7,871.08 296.89

Newark (EWR) 183,381 1,377.01 3,642.37 3,317.04 127.39

John F. Kennedy (JFK) 111,360 1,690.74 5,548.37 4,169.16 154.16

La Guardia (LGA) 158,209 1,804.44 3,745.06 3,164.30 112.46

New York Total 452,950 4,872.19 12,935.80 10,650.50 394.01

Philadelphia Intl. (PHL) 123,177 439.86 1,293.80 1,678.46 64.66

Philadelphia Total 123,177 439.86 1,293.80 1,678.46 64.66

Sky Harbor (PHX) 179,265 305.27 1,667.14 1,954.14 81.24

Phoenix Total 179,265 305.27 1,667.14 1,954.14 81.24

National (DCA) 97,268 132.18 643.28 1,180.26 46.49

Dulles (IAD) 105,888 580.12 1,823.95 1,933.10 70.69

Washington, DC Total 203,156 712.30 2,467.23 3,113.36 117.18

Grand Total 3,110,977 19,424.48 52,072.75 51,105.12 1,941.56
Table G-3. 1990 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (short tons/year), Variable Mixing Height

LTOS VOC CO NOx SO2

Hartsfield (ATL) 287,080 1468.13 3791.43 2058.41 111.16

Atlanta Total 287,080 1468.13 3791.43 2058.41 111.16

Logan (BOS) 114,282 875.81 2216.65 1359.73 63.91

Boston Total 114,282 875.81 2216.65 1359.73 63.91

Douglas (CLT) 119,990 720.88 1273.40 549.60 34.41

Charlotte Total 119,990 720.88 1273.40 549.60 34.41

Midway (MDW) 65,135 109.67 403.30 317.76 18.01

O'Hare (ORD) 347,653 1470.43 4846.49 3019.34 155.29

Chicago Total 412,788 1580.10 5249.79 3337.09 173.31

Hobby (HOU) 55,779 68.40 328.86 327.49 17.17

Intercontinental (IAH) 181,214 572.40 2030.13 1582.74 80.76

Houston Total 236,993 640.80 2358.99 1910.23 97.93

Burbank (BUR) 26,129 15.26 149.96 138.92 6.84

Los Angeles Intl. (LAX) 212,041 1907.90 5104.69 2776.14 124.63

Long Beach (LGB) 12,984 11.77 75.07 87.79 4.08

Ontario (ONT) 40,323 72.92 321.79 296.30 14.45

John Wayne (SNA) 28,291 30.01 200.77 177.57 8.52

Los Angeles Total 319,768 2037.87 5852.28 3476.72 158.51

Newark (EWR) 134,124 765.89 2209.60 1553.81 78.28

John F. Kennedy (JFK) 94,382 1392.04 4056.67 2530.61 105.44

La Guardia (LGA) 154,700 867.37 2446.12 1644.08 86.68

New York Total 383,206 3025.30 8712.39 5728.50 270.40

Philadelphia Intl. (PHL) 107,646 345.33 1085.66 904.55 45.58

Philadelphia Total 107,646 345.33 1085.66 904.55 45.58

Sky Harbor (PHX) 121,024 208.35 914.35 555.32 31.12

Phoenix Total 121,024 208.35 914.35 555.32 31.12

National (DCA) 96,931 237.33 878.59 755.69 39.47

Dulles (IAD) 60,787 260.01 834.57 599.63 29.07

Washington, DC Total 157,718 497.34 1713.17 1355.32 68.53

Grand Total 2,260,495 11,399.92 33,168.11 21,235.47 1,054.87
Table G-4. 2010 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (short tons/year), Variable Mixing Height

LTOs VOC CO NOx SO2

Hartsfield (ATL) 388,728 3,026.52 6,318.79 4,189.04 171.53

Atlanta Total 388,728 3,026.52 6,318.79 4,189.04 171.53

Logan (BOS) 137,137 1,436.86 3,318.84 2,234.13 86.12

Boston Total 137,137 1,436.86 3,318.84 2,234.13 86.12

Douglas (CLT) 215,726 2,070.46 2,715.44 962.20 55.16

Charlotte Total 215,726 2,070.46 2,715.44 962.20 55.16

Midway (MDW) 66,510 111.98 411.82 324.47 18.39

O'Hare (ORD) 500,767 2,037.66 6,975.06 5,386.47 221.21

Chicago Total 567,277 2,149.64 7,386.88 5,710.94 239.60

Hobby (HOU) 61,621 75.56 363.30 361.79 18.97

Intercontinental (IAH) 337,080 887.15 3,408.40 3,457.94 145.72

Houston Total 398,701 962.71 3,771.70 3,819.72 164.68

Burbank (BUR) 30,607 17.22 175.02 162.67 7.98

Los Angeles Intl. (LAX) 312,976 2883.37 7553.99 4237.86 174.29

Long Beach (LGB) 14,790 11.92 82.13 100.17 4.59

Ontario (ONT) 53,445 66.72 414.08 451.04 19.67

John Wayne (SNA) 33,043 24.62 225.14 207.99 9.71

Los Angeles Total 444,860 3,003.86 8,450.37 5,159.73 216.24

Newark (EWR) 183,381 1,366.78 3,603.28 2,982.78 117.75

John F. Kennedy (JFK) 111,360 1,683.33 5,523.48 3,750.82 143.13

La Guardia (LGA) 158,209 1,788.44 3,681.34 2,840.18 103.47

New York Total 452,950 4,838.54 12,808.10 9,573.78 364.35

Philadelphia Intl. (PHL) 123,177 430.34 1,254.54 1,375.21 55.14

Philadelphia Total 123,177 430.34 1,254.54 1,375.21 55.14

Sky Harbor (PHX) 179,265 289.28 1,533.12 944.02 46.22

Phoenix Total 179,265 289.28 1,533.12 944.02 46.22

National (DCA) 97,268 122.99 610.10 878.86 36.79

Dulles (IAD) 105,888 568.87 1,767.43 1,438.13 56.51

Washington, DC Total 203,156 691.86 2,377.53 2,317.00 93.30

Grand Total 3,110,977 18,900.07 49,935.31 36,285.77 1,492.32
Table G-5. 1990 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (metric tons/year), Default Mixing Height

 LTOS VOC CO NOx SO2

Hartsfield (ATL) 287,080 1410.80 3752.55 3238.92 150.39

Atlanta Total 287,080 1410.80 3752.55 3238.92 150.39

Logan (BOS) 114,282 811.29 2082.21 1590.24 69.92

Boston Total 114,282 811.29 2082.21 1590.24 69.92

Douglas (CLT) 119,990 679.09 1257.07 867.95 47.18

Charlotte Total 119,990 679.09 1257.07 867.95 47.18

Midway (MDW) 65,135 108.05 404.76 439.03 23.01

O'Hare (ORD) 347,653 1391.75 4660.77 4130.25 190.36

Chicago Total 412,788 1499.80 5065.53 4569.28 213.37

Hobby (HOU) 55,779 66.05 319.56 400.10 20.02

Intercontinental (IAH) 181,214 541.48 1934.64 1915.30 91.41

Houston Total 236,993 607.53 2254.20 2315.40 111.43

Burbank (BUR) 26,129 15.01 145.84 193.95 8.86

Los Angeles Intl. (LAX) 212,041 1776.95 4827.66 3812.64 153.04

Long Beach (LGB) 12,984 12.14 74.08 122.15 5.22

Ontario (ONT) 40,323 71.29 315.18 410.79 18.44

John Wayne (SNA) 28,291 29.14 194.08 245.86 10.90

Los Angeles Total 319,768 1904.54 5556.84 4785.41 196.47

Newark (EWR) 134,124 701.69 2033.80 1562.51 76.55

John F. Kennedy (JFK) 94,382 1269.11 3703.45 2545.64 102.82

La Guardia (LGA) 154,700 796.34 2261.22 1653.99 84.99

New York Total 383,206 2,767.14 7,998.48 5,762.15 264.36

Philadelphia Intl. (PHL) 107,646 321.76 1022.75 996.47 48.18

Philadelphia Total 107,646 321.76 1022.75 996.47 48.18

Sky Harbor (PHX) 121,024 205.15 920.56 1025.14 48.73

Phoenix Total 121,024 205.15 920.56 1025.14 48.73

National (DCA) 96,931 226.30 844.03 914.19 44.79

Dulles (IAD) 60,787 242.33 787.76 725.89 32.68

Washington, DC Total 157,718 468.63 1631.79 1640.08 77.47

Grand Total 2,260,495 10,675.73 31,541.97 26,791.03 1,227.50
Table G-6. 2010 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (metric tons/year), Default Mixing Height

LTOs VOC CO NOx SO2

Hartsfield (ATL) 388,728 2,885.33 6,222.43 6,710.94 237.85

Atlanta Total 388,728 2,885.33 6,222.43 6,710.94 237.85

Logan (BOS) 137,137 1,326.10 3,100.27 2,628.67 94.93

Boston Total 137,137 1,326.10 3,100.27 2,628.67 94.93

Douglas (CLT) 215,726 1,926.83 2,637.71 1,544.31 76.05

Charlotte Total 215,726 1,926.83 2,637.71 1,544.31 76.05

Midway (MDW) 66,510 110.33 413.31 448.31 23.50

O'Hare (ORD) 500,767 1,915.12 6,623.68 7,454.13 274.98

Chicago Total 567,277 2,025.45 7,036.99 7,902.43 298.48

Hobby (HOU) 61,621 72.93 352.96 441.92 22.11

Intercontinental (IAH) 337,080 841.26 3,221.43 4,211.58 166.50

Houston Total 398,701 914.19 3,574.39 4,653.50 188.61

Burbank (BUR) 30,607 16.94 170.11 227.17 10.35

Los Angeles Intl. (LAX) 312,976 2,682.57 7,139.92 5,855.79 215.34

Long Beach (LGB) 14,790 12.43 80.98 139.45 5.89

Ontario (ONT) 53,445 66.17 401.22 629.68 25.30

John Wayne (SNA) 33,043 23.64 216.57 288.54 12.45

Los Angeles Total 444,860 2,801.75 8,008.81 7,140.65 269.34

Newark (EWR) 183,381 1,249.22 3,304.36 3,009.22 115.57

John F. Kennedy (JFK) 111,360 1,533.84 5,033.48 3,782.26 139.85

La Guardia (LGA) 158,209 1,636.98 3,397.52 2,870.65 102.02

New York Total 452,950 4,420.05 11,735.35 9,662.13 357.45

Philadelphia Intl. (PHL) 123,177 399.05 1,173.74 1,522.70 58.66

Philadelphia Total 123,177 399.05 1,173.74 1,522.70 58.66

Sky Harbor (PHX) 179,265 276.94 1,512.43 1,772.79 73.70

Phoenix Total 179,265 276.94 1,512.43 1,772.79 73.70

National (DCA) 97,268 119.92 583.58 1,070.73 42.18

Dulles (IAD) 105,888 526.28 1,654.69 1,753.71 64.13

Washington, DC Total 203,156 646.20 2,238.27 2,824.44 106.31

Grand Total 3,110,977 17,621.88 47,240.40 46,362.56 1,761.38
Table G-7. 1990 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (metric tons/year), Variable Mixing Height

 LTOS VOC CO NOx SO2

Hartsfield (ATL) 287,080 1331.88 3439.57 1867.38 100.84

Atlanta Total 287,080 1331.88 3439.57 1867.38 100.84

Logan (BOS) 114,282 794.53 2010.93 1233.54 57.98

Boston Total 114,282 794.53 2010.93 1233.54 57.98

Douglas (CLT) 119,990 653.98 1155.22 498.59 31.22

Charlotte Total 119,990 653.98 1155.22 498.59 31.22

Midway (MDW) 65,135 99.49 365.87 288.27 16.34

O'Hare (ORD) 347,653 1333.97 4396.70 2739.13 140.88

Chicago Total 412,788 1433.46 4762.58 3027.39 157.22

Hobby (HOU) 55,779 62.05 298.34 297.09 15.57

Intercontinental (IAH) 181,214 519.28 1841.72 1435.85 73.27

Houston Total 236,993 581.33 2140.06 1732.95 88.84

Burbank (BUR) 28,291 27.23 182.14 161.09 7.73

Los Angeles Intl. (LAX) 26,129 13.85 136.04 126.03 6.20

Long Beach (LGB) 212,041 1730.84 4630.94 2518.50 113.07

Ontario (ONT) 40,323 66.16 291.93 268.80 13.11

John Wayne (SNA) 12,984 10.68 68.10 79.65 3.70

Los Angeles Total 319,768 1848.74 5309.16 3154.06 143.80

Newark (EWR) 134,124 694.81 2004.54 1409.61 71.02

John F. Kennedy (JFK) 94,382 1262.85 3680.18 2295.75 95.65

La Guardia (LGA) 154,700 786.87 2219.11 1491.50 78.64

New York Total 383,206 2744.53 7903.83 5196.86 245.31

Philadelphia Intl. (PHL) 107,646 313.28 984.91 820.60 41.35

Philadelphia Total 107,646 313.28 984.91 820.60 41.35

Sky Harbor (PHX) 121,024 189.02 829.49 503.78 28.23

Phoenix Total 121,024 189.02 829.49 503.78 28.23

National (DCA) 96,931 215.31 797.06 685.56 35.80

Dulles (IAD) 60,787 235.88 757.12 543.98 26.37

Washington, DC Total 157,718 451.19 1554.17 1229.54 62.17

Grand Total 2,260,495 10341.94 30089.91 19264.69 956.97
Table G-8. 2010 Commercial Aircraft Emissions (metric tons/year), Variable Mixing Height

LTOs VOC CO NOx SO2

Hartsfield (ATL) 388,728 2745.66 5732.40 3800.30 155.61

Atlanta Total 388,728 2745.66 5732.40 3800.30 155.61

Logan (BOS) 137,137 1303.52 3010.85 2026.80 78.12

Boston Total 137,137 1303.52 3010.85 2026.80 78.12

Douglas (CLT) 215,726 1878.32 2463.45 872.91 50.04

Charlotte Total 215,726 1878.32 2463.45 872.91 50.04

Midway (MDW) 66,510 101.59 373.60 294.36 16.69

O'Hare (ORD) 500,767 1848.56 6327.78 4886.61 200.68

Chicago Total 567,277 1950.15 6701.38 5180.96 217.36

Hobby (HOU) 61,621 68.55 329.59 328.21 17.21

Intercontinental (IAH) 337,080 804.82 3092.10 3137.04 132.19

Houston Total 398,701 873.37 3421.69 3465.25 149.40

Burbank (BUR) 30,607 15.63 158.78 147.58 7.24

Los Angeles Intl. (LAX) 312,976 2615.79 6852.98 3844.58 158.11

Long Beach (LGB) 14,790 10.81 74.51 90.87 4.17

Ontario (ONT) 53,445 60.53 375.65 409.19 17.84

John Wayne (SNA) 33,043 22.33 204.25 188.69 8.81

Los Angeles Total 444,860 2725.10 7666.17 4680.91 196.17

Newark (EWR) 183,381 1239.94 3268.89 2705.98 106.82

John F. Kennedy (JFK) 111,360 1527.11 5010.90 3402.74 129.84

La Guardia (LGA) 158,209 1622.47 3339.71 2576.61 93.87

New York Total 452,950 4389.53 11619.51 8685.33 330.54

Philadelphia Intl. (PHL) 123,177 390.41 1138.12 1247.59 50.02

Philadelphia Total 123,177 390.41 1138.12 1247.59 50.02

Sky Harbor (PHX) 179,265 262.44 1390.84 856.41 41.93

Phoenix Total 179,265 262.44 1390.84 856.41 41.93

National (DCA) 97,268 111.57 553.49 797.30 33.37

Dulles (IAD) 105,888 516.08 1603.41 1304.67 51.27

Washington, DC Total 203,156 627.66 2156.89 2101.98 84.64

Grand Total 3,110,977 17,146.14 45,301.31 32,918.45 1,353.83
APPENDIX H

EPA REGIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES

FOR 1990 AND 20101

 

1

 Sources: EPA 1993b; EPA 1996a
H-1

APPENDIX H

EPA REGIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES

FOR 1990 AND 2010

Table H-1. Total regional emissions (short tons/year) from all sources.

1990 2010

Region VOC NOx SO2 VOC NOx SO2

Atlanta 224748 167080 174090 128042 91732 14336

Boston 377304 284640 229486 217451 126178 63966

Charlotte 63066 41391 36069 41483 23237 13908

Chicago 539292 458495 339631 334749 259702 264691

Houston 1159232 565690 269067 337886 271033 188596

Los Angeles 694080 564901 56578 357299 322695 53735

New York 918914 697440 376663 454301 308530 140533

Philadelphia 522672 290781 148648 229269 145326 113657

Phoenix 133710 120251 8068 86542 112346 9614

Washington DC 195562 205038 242901 94514 83792 29775

Table H-2. Total mobile source emissions (short tons/year).

1990 2010

Region VOC NOx SO2 VOC NOx SO2

Atlanta 124967 124551 7610 54149 78718 6580

Boston 178146 195213 11947 66478 96947 9034

Charlotte 27381 26736 1556 14141 17360 1283

Chicago 245150 284120 14415 86198 137996 11634

Houston 162671 183341 25359 72169 111856 24763

Los Angeles 379604 445087 40804 103619 243259 38649

New York 387005 412802 37793 131625 204286 31327

Philadelphia 175189 180575 12169 63558 91511 9294

Phoenix 76525 81246 4644 41854 57860 4370

Washington DC 117036 130674 9021 44929 70569 7539

Table H-3. Total nonroad mobile source emissions (short tons/year).

1990 2010

Region VOC NOx SO2 VOC NOx SO2

Atlanta 25410 32245 862 25041 26467 962

Boston 45849 42548 1240 37867 28944 1229

Charlotte 6625 7453 152 6692 6955 203

Chicago 82315 116102 2977 41797 53852 2771

Houston 49285 74067 17319 43575 56383 18691

Los Angeles 49766 140936 16447 56997 114210 17421

New York 82947 97157 15639 65267 63190 14680

Philadelphia 45263 46484 2455 35474 30996 2299

Phoenix 21409 31070 770 22100 25722 838

Washington DC 28471 35418 2193 23273 22716 1917
H-2

Table H-4. Total regional emissions (metric tons/year) from all sources.

1990 2010

Region VOC NOx SO2 VOC NOx SO2

Atlanta 203890 151574 157933 116159 83219 13006

Boston 342288 258224 208188 197270 114468 58030

Charlotte 57213 37550 32722 37633 21080 12617

Chicago 489242 415944 308111 303682 235600 240126

Houston 1051648 513191 244096 306528 245880 171093

Los Angeles 629665 512475 51327 324140 292747 48748

New York 833633 632713 341706 412139 279897 127491

Philadelphia 474165 263795 134853 207991 131839 103109

Phoenix 121301 109091 7319 78510 101920 8722

Washington DC 177413 186009 220358 85743 76016 27012

Table H-5. Total mobile source emissions (metric tons/year).

1990 2010

Region VOC NOx SO2 VOC NOx SO2

Atlanta 113369 112992 6904 49124 71413 5969

Boston 161613 177096 10838 60308 87950 8196

Charlotte 24840 24255 1412 12829 15749 1164

Chicago 222399 257752 13077 78198 125189 10554

Houston 147574 166326 23006 65471 101475 22465

Los Angeles 344374 403780 37017 94003 220683 35062

New York 351089 374492 34286 119409 185327 28420

Philadelphia 158930 163817 11040 57659 83018 8431

Phoenix 69423 73706 4213 37970 52490 3964

Washington DC 106174 118547 8184 40759 64020 6839

Table H-6. Total nonroad mobile source emissions (metric tons/year).

1990 2010

Region VOC NOx SO2 VOC NOx SO2

Atlanta 23052 29252 782 22717 24011 873

Boston 41594 38599 1125 34353 26258 1115

Charlotte 6010 6761 138 6071 6310 184

Chicago 74676 105327 2701 37918 48854 2514

Houston 44711 67193 15712 39531 51150 16956

Los Angeles 45147 127856 14921 51707 103611 15804

New York 75249 88140 14188 59210 57326 13318

Philadelphia 41062 42170 2227 32182 28119 2086

Phoenix 19422 28187 699 20049 23335 760

Washington DC 25829 32131 1989 21113 20608 1739