1 

## APPENDIX F **- 3** 
**PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT INVENTORY AND METHODOLOGY** 

**Bureau of Air Quality Department of Environmental Protection** 2



### I. **Including Airport Emissions into the SIP**

**– A Back** **ground**
**A. A Brief Overview of the Philadelphia International Airport**  The Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) is an integral part of the economic engine that both drives growth and responds to growth in the 5

- count y Philadelphia region and bey ond. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has designated PHL as a large hub airport. Large hub airports are defined as commercial service airports that account for greater than one percent of total U.S. passenger enplanements. PHLserves 26 scheduled passenger airlines, six cargo airli nes, and general aviation. PHLserves as a domestic connecting hub and international gateway for US Airway s and is a cargo hub for United Parcel Service. In 2002, PHLwas ranked the 12 th busiest airport in the United States in terms of aircraft operation s. The airport has been incrementally expanded and improved since it opened in 1940. The most recent improvements include the construction of Runway 8

- 26 in 1999 and the new International Terminal A

- West in 2003. FAA recently approved an extension of Runway 17

- 35 which is a project designed to immediatel y reduce current delay s. Despite completing most of these projects designed to lessen delay s, PHL was rated the fifth most delay ed airport in the U.S. The FAA identified PHLas one of the airports that contributes significantly

to delay s throughout the national airport s ys tem. In 2000, the City of Philadelphia initiated a Master Plan Update to study the facility

needs of the airport to meet future demand. The Master Plan Update projected that the dur ation of the average annual delay

per operation at PHL would increase from its current level of nearl y 10 minutes to nearly

19 minutes with the current airport configuration. The total number of delay ed operations would also increase. The City ’s master plan consultants studied the delay times and developed possible remedies or alternatives. The Master Plan Update concluded that the current and projected delay s needed to be reduced as soon as possible. The major long

- term project proposed for reducing d elay is known as the Capacity Enhancement Program (CEP). The CEP is proposed to be a significant redesign of the airport’s runway sy stem, taxiway s, and renewal of the terminals. The CEP alternatives under consideration strive to lower delay

times, parti cularly

during bad weather conditions. The primary way this will be accomplished would be to create more separation between runway configurations than exist now. This will enable multiple aircraft operations to occur simultaneously on at least two parall el runway s during bad weather. The revised runway configuration would also be accompanied by a more efficient taxiway s ys tem. To construct the new airport layout would require a massive excavation and earth moving effort. The construction emissions as we ll as project related aircraft emissions may generate significant emissions of NOx and VOC

. Other pollutants will probably not be significant enough to create a general conformity determination. The air qualit y effects of certain federally funded proje cts, that generate large amounts of direct or indirect emissions in non

- attainment and maintenance areas, such as the CEP,3

are required to be anal yz ed extensively . State and federal general conformity regulations require it. The primary

concern being that these large projects may add enough emissions to cause or contribute to a violati on of National Ambient Air Quality Standard s . An environmental impact statement (EIS) alway s accompanies a major FAA action such as the PHL CEP. Results from the EIS often serve as a basis for developing a general conformit y determination. Specifically, general conformit y is designed to ensure that a federal action will not produce emissions of a criteria pollutant that will:

 Cause or contribute to new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)  In crease the frequency or severit y of existing violations of the NAAQS, or  Delay the timel y attainment of an y NAAQS or any required interim emissions reductions or milestones. 

### B. General Conformity The Dep artment of Environmental Protection adopted by reference in Pa Code , Title 25, Subchapter J the federal requirements contained in Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans (40 CFR, Part 93, Subpart B). Gene ral conformit y guides the Department in how to address emissions from all other federal actions not covered by 40 CFR, Part 93, Subpart B

– Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans. General conformity requ ires the federal agency taking an action, such as FAA approval of the CEP, to develop a general conformity determination for each applicable pollutant to determine that the total direct and indirect emissions in a non

- attainment or maintenance area would n ot exceed specified rates outlined in the general conformity regulation . Since PHL is in the Philadelphia

- Wilmington

- Atlantic Cit y Non
- Attainment Area for ozone, general conformity

requires that no federally funded project can emit a specific amount of oz one precursors, which includes oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), during the calendar year that the project takes place. Currentl y, the total of direct and indirect emissions from federal actions may not exceed 100 tons per y ear of either NOx or VOC in the Philadelphia

- Wilmington

- Atlantic City Non
- Attainment Area unless it is determined that the emissions are included in the area’s applicable SIP

. PHLis also in Philadelphia

- Wilmington, PA

- NJ
- DE PM 2.5 nonattainment area which includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties in Pennsylvania, Burlington, Camden and Gloucester counties in New Jersey and New Castle County

in Delaware. Precursors to the formation of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) are PM 2.5 , NOx, and SOx. Aircraft do not emit large amounts of SOx and they do not emit enough PM to trigger the need for a conformity determination. Although emissions of VOC do not contribute to the formation of PM 2.5 , VOC emissions are referenced because they

are relevant to the airport’s general conformity determination. In formulating its plans for attaining and maintaining the ambient standards, the Department needs to have a clear reference point in knowing how much potential4

additional emissions would be generated from a large project like the CEP. When a project subject to general conformity exceeds the applicable emission, the indirect and direct emissions that are produced as a result of the project need to be entirely offset either through reducing the indirect or direct emissions, the development of additional mitigation measures in the non

- attainment area, purchase of emission reduction credits, or a determination needs to be made that the emissions are included in the air quality State Implementati on Plan (SIP). A combination of the aforementioned emission reduction methods could also be fashioned.


### C. Air Emissions from the CEP An air quality

anal ys is will be included in the EI S for the CEP. The air quality anal ys is is prepared in accordance wi th National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Part of the air qualit y analy sis will include an emission inventory anal ys is of the relevant criteria pollutants. For the general conformity regulation, emissions generated at PHL are estimated us ing two different scenarios. One scenario is the build scenario, which estimates the amount of emissions produced if the project is developed. The other scenario is the no

- build scenario, which estimates the amount of emissions that would be produced if the airport continues on a business

- as - usual course without building the CEP. As stated, the CEP will reduce delay . Reduced delay will greatly

reduce emissions since aircraft taxi and queue times will diminish. Even though the new airport will accommodate more operations, the emissions generated after the airport is redesigned could be projected to be less than if the airport is operated without the improvements from the CEP in the future. In other words, the average delay times will be reduced such that they offset most, if not all, emissions from the extra operations accommodated b y the proposed project. However, the CEP could generate a significant amount of emissions during construction. In creased emissions from less efficient aircraft operations efficiencies and the resulting increased delay s probably would combine with construction emissions during y ears of construction. Aircraft operations during construction are anticipated to be less efficient primarily because fewer runway s will be availabl e at various points in time during the construction. 

### D. Cooperative Effort Launched to Include PHL Emissions in the SIP Detailed inventories of the operations and emissions at PHL were developed. The Department worked closely with the City

of Philadelp hia, Division of Aviation, and their consultants (DMJM Aviation and Jacobs Consultancy , formerl y known as Leigh

- Fisher Associates) in a workgroup for several ye ars in order to comprehensivel y describe and document the emissions from PHLin the SI P for the ye ars 2002 and 2009. The airport workgroup strove to bring together all of the emissions from sources at PHL into a5

detailed inventory

of emissions. A detailed inventory will meet two goals: 1) an inventory will allow the Department to determine what emi ssions are included in the SIP in order for the airport to best develop a mitigation strategy for a project and 2) this will allow the airport to be eligible for Voluntary Airport L ow Emissions (VALE) Funding. In addition, the FAA has undertaken an Environmental Impact Statement for the CEP, where the Department and the U.S. EPA have been activel y engaged.


### II. **Emissions Inventory Development Methodology A. Inventory Modeling**  **1. Modeling Project** Emissions at PHLfor 2002 and 2009 calendar y ear and ozone summer weekday were modeled using historic data and the most current forecast current data available

. As stated, the department worked closel y with the City of Philadelphia, the city’s Division of Aviation, and consultants to PHLto incorporate r epresentative activity levels at PHLin all of the required emissions inventory modeling. **2. Emission Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS)** EDMS is the EPA

- approved model that the Department used for developing emissions inventories for aircraft, ground s upport equipment, and auxiliary power units. The FAA and the U.S. Air Force developed EDMS. The most current version of EDMS available when the inventory

was developed, EDMS 4.5, was used when the emissions inventory was developed. **3. Mixing Height Used for Modeling PHL**  Mixing height is the altitude under which PM 2.5 precursors mix to form PM 2.5 in the lower atmosphere. A more accurate mixing height than the presumed default value in EDMS was used developing an inventory for PHL. Upper air meteorolo gical data available from Sterling, Virginia in combination with surface data measurements taken at the PHL generated 1

- hr mixing heights in the meteorological preprocessor model PCRAMMET, EPA, PCRAMMET (software), Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1999. A ll mixing heights between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. were not considered when generating these averages because a small percentage of flight operations occur between those hours. The average summer weekday

mixing height was estimated to be 4,428 feet for PHL. Th e average annual dail y mixing height was estimated to be 3,600 feet. **4. Estimating Emissions Not Related to Aircraft**6

Other ty pes of emissions sources exist at PHLsuch as highway motor vehicles, point, area, and nonroad sources. The Department developed an emissions inventory of these sources. In some cases, when emissions from an area were included in the regional SI P inventory , the Department separated the emissions and included them in the emissions estimates of the airport section. In other cases, for instance, motor vehicles, emissions on PHLpropert y were not originall y included in the regional SIP inventory and were added to the regional inventory

as well as the airport inventory

. 

### B. Aircraft Commercial aircraft operations were significant and were modeled b y the EDMS 4.5 model directly . Emissions from aircraft operations were the most significant source of emissions at the airport. Annual and ozone summer weekday emissions were modeled for both calendar ye ars 2002 and 2009. Only annual em issions are considered for meeting general conformity requirements. At PHL, summer weekday emissions are ty picall y greater than what would be experienced on a ty pical average annual day

(annual emissions divided by

365 day s). **1. PHL Operations Data** The Department obtained operational data for PHL that was more exact than any other airport that was modeled in Pennsylvania. Four sets of data were requested from the airport for this study , an average ozone season weekday and annual operations by aircra ft ty pe, or airframe for 2002 and 2009. The airport’s Noise and Operations Monitoring System (NOMS) provided the percent of total operations per aircraft ty pe for both data sets. These percentages were applied to PHLaircraft activit y data supplied by the FAA Air Traffic Control (FAA ATCT) tower at PHL . The aircraft activity data saved within the NOMS database consists of actual FAA radar supplied b y the FAA ATCT to the airport as part of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA specifies that the air port collect aircraft radar data within 28 nautical miles radius of PHLup to 15,000 feet in altitude. All sensitive operations such as certain military operations are filtered and are not included in the inventory

. **2. Average Ozone Season Week Day** The data consists of the daily average of all weekday

(Monday through Friday) aircraft arrivals and departures on each runway at PHL for the months of July , August, and September 2002. A query of the NOMS database retrieved the aircraft operations that occur red for each of the three months for each aircraft t ype. The data was sorted by flight number in order to assign an aircraft t ype t ypical for that carrier and flight number. All operational unknowns were reconciled b y comparing aircraft types common to a particular airline operator and flight number. Total number of operations per aircraft ty pe for each month was totaled. The total number of operations for each aircraft ty pe was then computed as a percent of total operations for each aircraft type for the three

- month time period. The percentages were multiplied by the number of aircraft operations7

provide b y the FAA ATCT to calculate the number of operations per aircraft type for an average ozone summer weekday . This number was divided by the number of weekday s in the ozone season to derive a summer ozone weekday average of operations per aircraft ty pe. An ozone weekday average was not estimated for this plan since the state implementation plan for particulate matter examines annual emissions not daily emissions. **3. Annual Operations** This data consists of all aircraft arrivals and departures to and from each runway at PHL for calendar ye ar 2002. A query of the NOMS database retrieved the aircraft operations described above. The data was sorted to a ddress all unknown aircraft ty pes and flight numbers in order to assign an aircraft t ype common for that airline and flight number. Ty pes of aircraft were assigned to unknowns when possible. Total number of aircraft operations per aircraft t ype for each month was then totaled for all 12 months. The total number of operations per aircraft ty pe was estimated as a percent of total operations for each aircraft t ype for the 12

- month time period. These percentages were multiplied by total annual aircraft oper ations provided by the FAA ATCT to calculate the number of annual operations per aircraft t ype. **4. Growing Operations To 2009** In connection with the PHLMaster Plan, forecasts of aviation activity and passenger enplanements through 2020 have been prepar ed and documented in the Philadelphia Master Plan Forecast Report. The forecasts were prepared b y Leigh Fisher Associates, which is now known as Jacobs Consultancy , for the City of Philadelphia. The forecasts were prepared based on FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070

- 6B Airport Master Plans and are also consistent with the FAA Terminal Area Forecast. The forecasts were prepared using a standard methodology , summarized as follows:

 Analy sis of historical growth trends, and in particular historical growth in re lation to key factors such as economic activity and airline service developments. Statistical analy sis was conducted to examine the historical growth trends and provide input to assumptions regarding future growth trends.

 Assumptions regarding future annual growth rates using professional judgment based on anal ys es of historical trends and reference to independent forecasts such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) forecasts for the nation as a whole.

 Assumptions regarding the likely future trend in key

ratios such as average aircraft size and boarding load factors, based on analy ses of recent actual activity , information on airline fleet developments, and reference to independent forecasts such as the FAA forecast for the nation as a whole. The forecasts are unconstrained demand forecasts; that is, not dependent on the assumed availability

of airport capacity . These forecasts were submitted to FAA by the City of8

Philadelphia for review and concurrence. These forecasts were considered reasonable by FAA and approved for use in the Master Plan as well as for the CEP EI S. The anal ys is yielded total number of operations expected in 2009 along with the percentage breakdown of operations per aircraft t ype. The total operations per aircraft ty pe were allocated to the various engine configurations and specific aircraft ty pes in the same proportion that were used in developing the 2002 inventory

. **5. Aircraft Operations in EDMS** An operation is considered either a takeoff or a landing. Operations for e ach aircraft t ype were divided b y two to obtain landing

- and

- takeoff (L TO) cy cles for each aircraft. EDMS requires that the number of L TO cy cles per aircraft ty pe are entered in order to calculate emissions. **6. Engine Assignment** EDMS assigns a default engine to each aircraft t ype. The default engine was used unless better data was known. In some cases, it was known that certain airlines operate aircraft with certain engine models that are not the default engines listed in EDMS. The actual engine was assigned to an aircraft ty pe when available. Aircraft that used non

- default engines and were similarly reflected in the EDMS modeling were the Airbus 319, Airbus 320

- 211, Boeing 737

- 300, and the Boeing 757

- 200. See table titled “Comparison of Actual and EDMS Fleet Mixes and Engine Ty pes 2002 Baseline Anal ys is” at the end of the appendix for further information. **7. Suitable Aircraft Substitutions** A few models of smaller aircraft were not included in EDMS. For those aircraft, a suitable substitute ai rcraft was used. A suitable substitute was usually an aircraft that used the exact or similar engine and the substitute aircraft had a similar weight to the actual aircraft. Aircraft that were not included in EDMS that had significant operations at PHLw ere the Lear 45, Lear 55, Lear 60, Mu

- 2 Marquise, and the B58 Baron. They were replaced b y suitable substitutions Citation VII, IAI 1124 Westwind, Citation Sovereign, Jetstream 31, and Navajo. See table titled “EDMS Aircraft Recommended Substitutions PHL Master Plan SIP Assessment” at the end of this appendix for further information. **8. Ground Delay** The method for developing the delay times per LTO at PHLwas described in detail by Jacobs Consultancy . In summary , the average taxi

- out and average taxi

- in times for each runway in the primary

operating configurations, which are weather related, were taken from Appendix C of Airport Master Plan Technical Report 2004.17, Runway 17

- 35 Extension, Capacity/Delay Simulation Analysis , August 27, 2004. A weighte d average based on meteorological conditions and specific aircraft ty pes that use the airport’s various runway s during each operating configuration were developed. Two different9

delay times were developed for 2002. One delay estimate represented larger a ircraft that primarily use the larger runway s and the other represented smaller aircraft, such as general aviation and air taxi aircraft, which primarily use the shorter runway s. In 2009, it was forecasted that the extension to runway 17

- 35 would equalize the delay times of all aircraft at the airport. The EDMS model places taxi time, idle time, and delay time in a single Time

- in

- Mode category , reflecting the operation of aircraft with engines at very low throttle settings. This Time

- in

- Mode is not inten ded to include delay where an aircraft is not running the main engines (e.g. waiting out a delay at the gate). Table 1 presents Taxi/Idle/Delay Time

- in

- Mode used in the EDMS modeling that supported the SIP. **Table 1: Average Taxi/Idle/Delay Time -**  **in -**  **Mode per Landing and Take**  **- Off Cycle at**  **PHL Year**  **Smaller Aircraft**

**Delay Larger Aircraft** 

**Delay** 2002 15.32 minutes 26.23 minutes 2009 34.00 minutes 34.00 minutes


### C. Ai **rport Ground Support Equipment** Airport ground support equipment (GSE) comprises pieces of equipment that service planes between operations. Some examples of GSE are: fuel trucks, baggage tractors, lavatory trucks, and cargo loaders. Aircraft GSE was assigned to the aircraft based on the size and functionality

of the aircraft t ype, which can b e thought of as a classification. The five different classifications of aircraft for describing the typ es of GSE associated with that classification are: narrow

- body passenger, wide

- body

passenger, narrow - body cargo, wide

- body

cargo and commuter aircraft. General aviation aircraft were assigned no GSE unless a default GSE assignment for a general aviation aircraft existed in EDMS. GSE assignment and the time of operation for individual pieces of equipment per LTO were the same as used in the Runway 17

- 35 Extension Project Environmental Impact Statement, developed during a GSE survey conducted at PHL . Although some GSE is powered b y gasoline, EDMS does not output emissions based on the ty pe of fuel used. Therefore, all GSE emissions were combined in th e source classification code in the SIP that pertains to diesel fuel, 2270008005, since most GSE emissions are produced b y diesel

- powered equipment. 

### D. Auxiliary Power Units An auxiliary

power unit (APU) is a gas turbine engine used b y man y commercial j et aircraft to start the main jet engines, to provide electrical power, and to power the10

onboard air conditioning (heating and cooling) s ys tem. The pilot of an arriving aircraft can shut down the main engines and operate an onboard APU to generate power and to condition the air. When parked at a gate, an aircraft can instead use 400 Hz electrical power from a mobile ground power unit or receive electrical power and pre

- conditioned air from connections at the gate. Using ground

- based power instead of an A PU greatl y reduces air emissions and energy consumption. An onsite Terminal Gate Survey was conducted on April 5 and April 6, 2004 at PHLto determine which passenger gates have 400 Hz electrical power. Every gate in Terminal A through F at PHL was vis ually inspected to determine whether the gates have 400 Hz power connection, a pre

- conditioned air connection, or both. Approximately 83 percent of the gates at PHL had 400 Hz power in 2004. According to FAA guidance, aircraft that use gates that have 40 0 Hz power use their APU 7 minutes on average, which is required to be inputted into EDMS. The EDMS default time for an aircraft to use APU power at the gate is 26 minutes. The average time an APU was used at PHL in 2004 is described by the following cal culation, (0.83 * 7 minutes) + (0.17 * 26 minutes) = 10.23 minutes. For all aircraft that have APU installed in the EDMS model, 10.23 minutes was assumed to be the average time that the APU was operated at PHLin 2004 and bey ond. The APU usage was estimated to be 10.23 minutes per LTO in the 2009 inventory for all aircraft that use APUs. The Terminal Gate Survey occurred after the 13 gates of Terminal A were brought into operation in 2003. All 13 gates at Terminal A have the capability of supplying400 Hz power and pre

- conditioned air. For the 2002 baseline emissions, the absence of Terminal A gates was taken into account. The average time an APU was used at PHL in 2002 is described b y the following calculation, (0.79 * 7 minutes) + (0.21 * 26 minutes) = 10.99 minutes. The APU usage was estimated to be 10.99 minutes per LTO in the 2002 inventory for all aircraft that use APUs. The fuel used in APU was assumed to be jet fuel. APU emissions were classified in the SIP under their own source classific ation code, 2275070000 and the ty pe of fuel is described as “other.” The Department assumed that the number of gates offering electrical power would not change until 2009. 

### E. Highway Vehicles Michael Baker Jr. Inc developed a motor vehicle emissions inventory at the airport. Highway vehicles emissions on the airport property are not included in the highway vehicle inventory

in Appendix E. Baker produced 2002 average annual estimates for the pollutants of hydrocarbons, CO, NOx, SO 2 , ammonia, and fine particulate for the emissions inventories for the airport section of the SIP. **1. Overview of Vehicular Traffic Included in Analysis**11

The on

- road vehicle traffic associated with the airport was determined from the memos provided to Baker b y DEP. Table 1 summarizes the two on

- road categories and the associated vehicle t ypes included in the emissions anal ys is.
**Table 2: Summary of Vehicles Included in Analysis**

**Vehicles That Access Airport Terminals**  **Vehicles That Do Not Typically Leave the**  **Airport**

 Pass enger Car (Drop

Off, Pick Up, Employ ee Parking, Passenger Parking)  Courtesy

Vehicles (Hotel Van, Park & Ride, Rental Car Bus, Shared Ride, Employ ee Parking Bus, Econom y Parking Bus)  Taxi  Limousine  Delivery

/ Service Vehicles  Rental Cars  Public Transportati on (Bus, R
- 1)  Rental Car Buses

 Employ ee Buses  Long Term Parking Buses  Airport Service Vehicle Fleet

For each vehicle t ype, activity data was required to estimate emissions. The activity data was determined from provided memos, and where data was not av ailable, assumptions were applied as documented in the emission calculation spreadsheets. Activity data included the following:

 Number of vehicles  Distance of route through airport  Travel distance within parking lots/garage  Ty pical travel speeds  Number o f hot and cold starts  Idling at entry

& exit of parking facilities  Curbside dwell times  Signal light delay s (Number of signals and t ypical delay times)12

All provided activity

data was for a 2002 average annual day

. Average annual day emissions were multi plied by 365 day s to obtain average annual emissions. For emission calculations, the activity

data was adjusted for growth to reflect a ty pic al summer weekday in 2002 and 2009

. The memo also provided an estimated growth rate of 43.9% to estimate 2009 on

- road vehicular traffic for transportation modes that are expected to increase proportionate to passenger activity levels. Together the growth rate and seasonal adjustments result in an adjustment percentage of 57.2% for 2009. The provided growth rates we re determined from historical and projected growth in annual enplaned passengers at the airport. The growth percentages were applied directly to passenger cars, taxis, limousines, rental cars, deliver vehicles, and airport service vehicle fleets. However , an alternative approach was applied to all airport

- related buses. It was assumed that although passengers may grow by 43.9% between 2002 and 2009, buses grow at a slower pace since they may currently have some capacit y to handle more passengers and asso ciated business models do not increase activity proportionate to an increase in enplaned passengers. For the 2009 inventory , the average bus level was expected to be only

30% greater than the level in 2002. **2. Emission Calculation Methodology** The emis sions were calculated using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 emission model, which generates mobile source emission factors. The vehicle categories described above were mapped to the MOBILE6.2 vehicle classes. The 2002, 2008, and 2009 emission factors were calculated for e ach vehicle class for the following emission ty pes:

 Exhaust running emissions  Cold

- start emissions  Hot
- start emissions  Idling emissions Exhaust running emission factors were calculated to account for emissions resulting from vehicle travel within the air port and within the parking lot/garage. The emission factors were calculated using assumed speeds of 20 mph for in

- airport travel and 10 mph for travel within parking garages/lots. MOBILE6.2 produces exhaust emission factors in grams/mile. Total emissions were calculated for all the vehicle categories by multiplying the emission factors b y vehicle miles of travel (number of vehicles * distance) based on the anal ys is assumptions. Hot and cold

- start emissions are calculated to account for emissions resultin g from the total number of vehicle starts occurring within the airport vicinity . The factors were obtained through separate MOBILE6.2 runs. The output emission factors in grams/mile were converted to grams/start using MOBILE6.2 assumptions. The total start emissions were then calculated b y multiplying the grams/start emissions by the total number of starts per day

(number of vehicles * number of starts).13

Idling emissions were calculated to account for emissions resulting from vehicles idling at the airport. The factors, expressed in grams/hour were obtained by multiplying the running emission rates (grams/mile) for 2.5 mph by 2.5 mph as documented in EPA’s January 2002, Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity . These factors were multiplied by the total number of vehicles per day and assumed idling times at garage or lot entry /exit points, curbside dwell, and traffic signals. The total emissions resulting from each of these emission ty pes were summed to get an estimate of ty

pical summer weekday

emissions. Average weekday emissions were also estimated and multiplied by 365 day s to obtain an annual estimate in emissions. 

### F. Nonroad Equipment Emissions from nonroad equipment emissions, such as construction equi pment, during 2002 and 2009 from normal operations at PHL are included in the nonroad inventory for Philadelphia and Delaware Counties and were not included in this appendix. These on

going construction emissions have been associated with capital budgets that ranged from $258 million in 2002 to as little as $56 million in 2005. The Airport’s CEP project is expected to significantly ramp up the level of construction activities to greater than $5 billion of expenditures over a decade. This is also expected to generate substantial construction emissions and result in a temporary increase in emissions fro m airfield delay

. The construction emissions that will occur between January 1, 2010 and June 15, 2010 are forecast to be 37.3 tons of NOx. 

### G. Point Source **s** There are 21 stationary

sources of emissions at PHL . Many of these sources have the potential of using man y different t ypes of fuels. Philadelphia Air Management Services (AMS) provided to the Department 2002 emissions of NOx, VOC, CO, PM 10 , and SO x p roduced by

these sources while using specific fuels as shown by individual source classification codes (SCC). Most of these sources are boilers, generators and space heaters. The airport self reports emissions of these sources to Philadelphia Air Managem ent Services. The Department applied growth factors to the 2002 emissions to obtain 2009 emission levels. Growth factors for point sources were obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency ’s Economic Growth Analy sis S ys tem. Point source emissions are included in the regional point source inventory , and also identified in this appendix. **Table 3: Point Sources at PHL**
**Source Number**  **SCC Source Nam**  **e Growth**  **Factors (2002**  **- 2009)**  001 10300501 YORK

- SHIPLEY BOILER #1 1.07306 001 10300602 YORK

- SHIPLEY B OILER #1 1.0105514 **Source Number**  **SCC Source Nam**  **e Growth**  **Factors (2002**  **- 2009)**  002 10300501 YORK

- SHIPLEY BOILER #2 1.07306 002 10300602 YORK

- SHIPLEY BOILER #2 1.01055 003 10300501 YORK

- SHIPLEY BOILER #3 1.07306 003 10300602 YORK

- SHIPLEY BOILER #3 1.01055 004 10300501 KEWANEE BOILER #1 1.07306 004 10300602 KEWANEE BOILER #1 1.01055 005 10300501 KEWANEE BOILER #2 1.07306 005 10300602 KEWANEE BOILER #2 1.01055 006 10300501 WELL MCCLAIN BOILER #1 1.07306 006 10301002 WELL MCCLAIN BOILER #1 1.04706 006 10300601 WELL MCCLAIN BOILER #1 1.01055 007 1030 0501 WELL MCCLAIN BOILER #2 1.07306 007 10300601 WELL MCCLAIN BOILER #2 1.01055 008 10300501 WELL MCCLAIN BOILER #3 1.07306 008 10300601 WELL MCCLAIN BOILER #3 1.01055 009 10300501 MAINT. BLDG. BOILER #1 1.07306 009 10300601 MAINT. BLDG. BOILER #1 1.0 1055 010 10300501 MAINT. BLDG. BOILER #2 1.07306 010 10300601 MAINT. BLDG. BOILER #2 1.01055 011 10301002 AMERICAN STAND. BOILER #1 1.04706 011 10300602 AMERICAN STAND. BOILER #1 1.01055 012 20300102 EMERGENCY GENERATOR 1

- GB 1.07306 013 20300102 EMER GENCY GENERATOR 2

- GB 1.07306 014 20300102 CATERPILLAR GENERAT OR 3 1.07306 015 20300102 OBRIEN EMERGENCY GEN. 1 1.07306 016 20300102 CATERPILLAR GEN. #4 1.07306 017 20300102 DETROIT DIESEL GEN. 1 1.07306 018 10500106 GENERAC GENERATOR 1 1.05459 019 10 500106 MISCELLANEOUS HEATERS 1.05459 020 10500106 MISCELL. RESIDENTIAL HEAT 1.05459 021 10300501 CLEAVER BROOKS BOILER STP 1.07306 021 10300601 CLEAVER BROOKS BOILER STP 1.01055


### H. Area Sources Many different ty

pes of area sources exist at PHL , neve rtheless, the total emissions from these sources are not very significant. Primary area sources include: fuel storage and transport, solvent use, waste management, painting operations, light industrial and commercial sources, and agriculture and miscellan eous area sources. Ty pes of pollutants produced b y area sources at the airport are primarily either VOC or particulate matter. Fuel storage and transport may seem to be a source that would lend itself to high emissions but, aviation fuel, like diesel fue l, is not very volatile and the amount of evaporative emissions produced is negligible. Most area source pollution is produced b y15

solvent use or painting operations and is not estimated. These emissions are captured in our regional area source inventory

. Area source emissions are included in the regional area source inventory

and not included in this appendix. 

### I. **Capacity Enhancement Program Emissions** The Department included emissions from the CEP. Appendix F

- 4, PHL Capacity Enhancement Program Construction Period Air Emissions Inventory , examines the CEP project pertaining to the air emissions that will be generated b y the project

. Appendix F

4 explains the two design alternatives considered for the CEP, the construction process, air inventory

method ology , emissions inventory results, and a summary

of the emissions for various pollutants. The CEP’s e missions of NOx and VOC may exceed the de mimimis threshold as defined by General Conformity in 40 CFR §93.153 for a moderate nonattainment area inside an ozone transport region, like the Philadelphia area. As stated in Section III of the Attainment Demonstration and Base Year Inventory , Pennsylvania propos es to establish budgets for VOC emissions that are forecasted to be created b y the CEP in order to ensure that the VOC emissions of the CEP do not impede clean air goals established in the SIP. The highest amount of VOC emissions associated with each build alternative for an y ye ar of construction , 254 tons, is used as the bud get. Total VOC em issions of 254 tons appear in Table III

- 2 in the State Implementation Plan Revision: Attainment Demonstration and Base Year Plan

. The emissions are comprised of 248 tons of VOC produced from increased aircraft delay and 5.5 tons produced b y construction equipment used on the project. The Department concluded that since the VOC emissions used in the modeling of attainment for the fine partic ulate matter standard are 10,000 tons greater than the actual VOC emissions included in the SIP the Department can include th e VOC emissions from the CEP and still satisfy the requirements of general conformity that are outlined in Section A of this appendix. Once EPA approves this state implementation plan revision , a general conformity budget will be established for the CEP pr oject in the Attainment Demonstration and Base Year Inventory
. 

### III. **Emissions Summary Table 4: 2002 Annual PHL Emissions of**  **PM 2.5**  **Precursors (tons) Sources of Emissions**  **NOx VOC**  **CO PM**  **10 PM**  **2.5 SOx**  Aircraft 1880.68 310.70 2123.61 10.60 10.60 165.28 Gro und Support Equipment 242.72 148.21 3823.76 9.25 8.29 24.18 Auxiliary Power Units 28.87 3.05 44.29 0.00 0.00 4.18 Construction Equipment

--- --- --- --- --- --- Airport Motor Vehicles 251.56 43.70 592.38 9.50 9.50 7.45 Area Sources

--- --- --- --- --- --- Point Sources 13.1 5 0.35 4.08 0.43

--- 7.4816

**Table 5: 2009 Annual PHL Emissions of PM**  **2.5 Precursors (tons)** 



### IV. **Northeast Philadelphia Airport Methodology and Emissions Summary**  The City of Philadelphia also manages the Northeast Philadelphia Airport (PNE). PNE emissions are also incl uded in the SIP. PNE is the city ’s general aviation reliever and is located approximately

15 miles north of PHL

. Total annual aircraft operations were based on the operations contained in the FAAs Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). The TAF is the official forecast of aviation activity at FAA facilities. The TAF includes historic and projected aircraft operations at PNE. The forecast is an unconstrained demand forecast. It is not dependent on the assumed availability

of airport capacity . Ty

pes of aircra ft using PNE in 2004 were predicted using the City of Philadelphia NOMS. The percentage that certain aircraft ty pe used the airport in 2004 was carried directly forward to 2009. Total operations by aircraft ty

pe were apportioned to the total operations i n 2002 and 2009 as predicted b y the TAF. Operations data was inputted into EDMS similarly as described above for PHL.
**Table 6 : 2002 Annual PNE Emissions of**  **PM 2.5**  **Precursors (tons) Sources of Emissions**  **NOx VOC**  **CO PM**  **10 PM**  **2.5 SOx**  Aircraft 41.76 68.05 163 7.95 9.25 8.92 24.18 Ground Support Equipment 24.60 20.04 518.80 0.65 0.63 1.86 Auxiliary Power Units 1.30 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.13

**Table 7 : 2009 Annual PNE Emissions of**  **PM 2.5**  **Precursors (tons) Sources of Emissions**  **NOx VOC**  **CO PM**  **10 PM**  **2.5 SOx**  Aircraft 2662.28 534.90 3785.90 16.22 16.22 250.72 Ground Support Equipment 245.82 189.97 49 76.11 16.23 15.69 33.76 Auxiliary Power Units 36.78 3.28 45.30 0.00 0.00 4.99 Construction Equipment

--- --- --- --- --- --- Airport Motor Vehicles 169.41 21.74 396.76 4.03 4.03 1.68 Area Sources

--- --- --- --- --- --- Point Sources 13.76 0.36 4.22 0.45

--- 8.02 Capacity Enhancement Program

--- 254 .00

--- --- --- ---17

**Sources of Emissions NOx**  **VOC CO**  **PM 10**  **PM 2.5**  **SO x**  Aircr aft 32.96 55.98 1337.37 16.23 15.68 33.77 Ground Support Equipment 15.62 14.75 381.59 0.63 0.61 1.45 Auxiliary Power Units 0.98 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.10

Aircraft Engine Total % of Total Operations EDMS Engine Type NOx Comments CFM56-5A5 501 2.5% CFM56-5B6/P 15,810 78.2% V2522-A5 2,767 13.7% V2524-A5 1,139 5.6% CFM56-5A1 (A320-211) 445 4.6% CFM56-5A3 (A320-212) 661 6.8% CFM56-5B4/P (A320-214) 6,170 63.8% V2500-A1 (A320-231) 839 8.7% V2527-A5 (A320-232) 1,554 16.1% CFM56-3B1 16,201 57.6% CFM56-3B2 10,142 36.1% CFM56-3C1 1,773 6.3% CFM56-3B2 11,571 100.0% JT8D-15 62 0.4% PW2037 1,965 13.7% PW2040 951 6.6% RB211-535E4 10,445 72.7% RB211-535E4-B 940 6.5% Total: 83,935

Note: Grand Total does not match the grand total in the "AircraftDist.pivot" tab because some airlines' aircraft did not appear in jpfleets RB211-535E4 CFM56-3B-2 CFM56-3B-2 CFM56-5A1

PW2037's are also included in the EDMS fleet mix. Confirm that LTO's assigned to each engine type reflect the actual distribution of operations. **GOOD**CFM56-3B1's represent the majority of B737-300 operations in 2002, but are not reflected in the EDMS fleet mix. A majority of the A320 aircraft types (-212, - 214, -231, -232) and engine types operating at PHL in 2002 are not reflected in the

EDMS fleet mix. Philadelphia International Airport 2002 BASELINE ANALYSIS **COM PARISON OF ACTUAL AND EDMS FLEET MIXES AND ENGINE TYPES** 

V2522-A5 A majority of the A319 engine types operating at PHL in 2002 are not reflected in

the EDMS fleet mix. 0.535 **A319**

**B-757-200 B-737-400**  **B-737-300 A320-211** 

0.596 0.260 0.515 0.24018 **Aircraft Actual Engine Type**  **EDMS Engine Type (1)**  **Aircraft Actual Engine Type**  **EDMS Engine Type** 
Lear 45 Honeywell TFE731-20-AR TFE731-3 **Citation VII** Honeywell TFE731-4R-2S TFE731-3
Lear 55 Honeywell TFE731-3A-2B TFE731-3 **IAI 1124 Westwind** Honeywell TFE731-1100G TFE731-3 **Citation Sovereign Pratt & Whitney PW306C**  **PW308C** Falcon 20 Honeywell TFE731-5BR-2AC TFE731-3 **Cessna 441 Conquest2 Honeywell TPE331-8-410S/402S**  **TPE331-8 Jetstream 31**  **Honeywell TPE331-10 TPE331-10**  **Navajo Lycoming TIO-540-A**  **TIO-540-J2B2** Cessna T337 Continental IO-360-C IO-360-B

Notes: (1) EDMS engine type for actual fleet mix not present in EDMS model are derived from "Appendix F: Engine Mappings" of the SAGE Version 1.5 Technical Manual (2) EDMS engine types for aircraft in the EDMS model are taken directly from EDMS model. Sources: airliners.net / The International Directory of Civil Aircraft SAGE Version 1.5 Technical Manual: Appendix F Bombardier Learjet 45 General Specifications Bombardier Learjet 60XR General Specifications Cessna Citation Sovereign General Specifications Dassault Falcon 2000EX Specifications ?

Teledyne Continental IO-550C B58 Baron MU-2 Marquise Honeywell TPE331-10-501M ?

Pratt & Whitney PW305A (4) Lear 60

TPE331-10 **EDMS Substitution**

**Actual Fleet Mix** PHL MASTER PLAN SIP ASSESSMENT **EDMS AIRCRAFT RECOMMENDED SUBSTITUTIONS**