ACRP Project Guidance for Estimating Airport Construction Emissions. Final Report

Transcription

1 ACRP Project Guidance for Estimating Airport Construction Emissions Final Report by Brian Kim, Kazumi Nakada, Wyle, Inc. John Trendowski, C&S Engineers Mary Vigilante, Synergy Consultants, Inc. Virginia Raps, Environmental Research Sciences Adrian Jones, Environmental Science Associates, Inc. David Stonefield September 10, 2013

2 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION LITERATURE REVIEW DEFINE ACTIVITIES DEVELOPMENT OF THE DATA COLLECTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT OF EMISSION FACTORS OVERVIEW OF EMISSION FACTORS FROM NONROAD AND MOVES REVIEWS OF OTHER SOURCES OF EMISSION FACTORS EVALUATION OF RECOMMENDED EMISSION FACTORS NONROAD AND MOVES FUGITIVE EMISSIONS DEVELOPMENT OF A METHODOLOGY TO OBTAIN ACTIVITY DATA REVIEW OF METHODOLOGY TO OBTAIN ACTIVITY DATA DEVELOPMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ACTIVITY DATA Site/ Activity Data Construction Activity Data ELECTRONIC TOOL DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT AND TOOLS ARCHITECTURE FUNCTIONALITY ASSESSMENT OF THE ELECTRONIC TOOL INTRODUCTION EMISSION FACTOR EVALUATIONS Improvements to the NONROAD Equipment Power Rating Selection Non-Road Emission Factor Comparisons On-Road Emission Factor Comparisons EMISSION INVENTORY EVALUATIONS Emissions Inventory Comparisons All default Settings for Various Projects Emissions Inventory Comparisons Runway Extension Project Emissions Inventory Comparisons Project-Specific Data used in ACEIT Conclusion PLAN FOR INTEGRATION WITHIN THE FAA S AEDT INTRODUCTION AEDT SYSTEM OVERVIEW IMPLEMENTING AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODELING CAPABILITY INTO AEDT REFERENCES Wyle T

3 APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REVIEW BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX B: PROJECT, ACTIVITY, AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT RELATIONSHIP APPENDIX C: NONROAD AND MOVES EQUIPMENT INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT.. 76 APPENDIX D: DEVELOPMENT OF EMISSION FACTORS FROM NONROAD AND MOVES APPENDIX E: COUNTY MAPPINGS FOR FUEL CHARACTERISTICS APPENDIX F: EXAMPLE EMISSION FACTORS USED IN ACEIT APPENDIX G: NONROAD TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITIES APPENDIX H: FUGITIVE EMISSIONS APPENDIX I: PROJECTS, ACTIVITIES, AND EQUIPMENT FOR CIVIL AND VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS APPENDIX J: NON-ROAD EQUIPMENT EMISSION FACTORS Wyle T

4 1 Introduction Each year, there are hundreds of airport improvement projects approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). These projects range from entirely new general aviation airports and new cargo operations to new taxiways and runways to the expansion of airport passenger terminals. These projects are intended to reduce excessive departure and arrival delays as well as to accommodate growth 10 to 20 years from now. Airports are also expanding to encompass shopping, and manufacturing and distribution warehousing making the airport part of a growing economic community. However, before these projects may begin, the airport sponsor must disclose potential environmental impacts as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As many of these airports are located in areas where the air quality does not meet Federal standards, there is often an additional requirement to show the projects conform to the Clean Air Act (CAA) and to any plans the State might have to reduce air emissions and improve air quality. One element of the demonstration of conformity is an inventory of emissions likely to occur from the operation of construction equipment used to build the projects. The evaluation of operational emissions is well established for airports and is integrated into the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) modeling tools, particularly the FAA s Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) (FAA a 2013), which will soon be replaced by the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) (FAA b 2013). Construction emissions, on the other hand, are not included in EDMS or in any FAA guidance. While noting the need to evaluate construction emissions, neither FAA nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance mandates a specific methodology. As a result, a simple review of conformity documents and/or NEPA documents shows that a wide range of methods and emissions factors are being used. Because of the lack of specific guidance regarding the modeling of airport-related construction emissions, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) has funded Project under their Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP). The goal of the project was to develop a guidebook and an electronic tool (Airport Construction Emissions Inventory Tool, ACEIT) that would provide clear instructions on developing airport construction emissions inventories in an accurate and consistent manner. The purpose of this Final Report is to provide details of the project, including all of the decisions and assumptions made regarding the use of data and methods. The intent of ACEIT is to serve as a required compliment to the Guidebook in developing airport construction emissions inventories. While it is possible to manually (e.g., using a spreadsheet) develop such inventories, it is not recommend as the work could involve significant use of resources to collect the necessary data. More importantly, the use of ACEIT provides consistency to help prevent differences due to different modeling choices and assumptions. The structure of this report follows the order of the tasks that were accomplished during the project. This provides a methodical presentation of the work reflecting a logical progression of data gathering and assessments leading up to the development of the Guidebook and ACEIT. The following tasks were conducted during this project: Wyle T

5 Task 1: Literature Review Task 2: Define Activities Task 3: Development of the Data Collection Plan Task 4: Development of Emission Factors Task 5: Evaluation of Recommended Emission Factors Task 6: Development of a Methodology to Obtain Activity Data Task 7: Interim Report Task 8: Prepare Guidance Document Task 9: Development of the Electronic Tool Task 10: Validation of the Electronic Tool Task 11: Technical Memorandum for Integration into FAA Tools Task 12: Draft Guidance Document, Electronic Tool, and Final Report Wyle T

6 2 Literature Review A literature review was conducted to collect current regulations, guidelines, studies, reports, articles, books, and software related to airport construction, airport construction emissions, and construction in general. The primary function of the literature reviews was to assess the state of existing practices, to avoid reinventing the wheel, to identify information weaknesses and gaps, and to identify areas where further study is needed. While many documents were found to include construction emissions inventories, including airport projects, there were few that provided detailed information such as equipment lists, hours of equipment operation, or guidance required to actually calculate a construction emissions inventory. In fact, the literature review identified several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the methods and datasets used by practitioners to develop construction emission inventories and to develop activity data and schedules for construction vehicles and equipment. As such, the literature review confirmed the need for further clarification and supports the need for this project. Rather than focus on amassing large quantities of construction emission inventories, the Research Team sought unique projects, and a diverse range of sources, projects, and methodologies. In doing so, the collected information serves to provide insight into current practices yet meets the objective of this project to develop a consistent and accurate evaluation tool. Therefore, each member of the Research Team participated in the literature review with assignments to investigate information in the following document categories: Federal, state, and local environmental quality reports, regulations, and guidelines Emission inventory computer models and software specific to construction activities Construction equipment manuals and specifications Construction methods and practices, including sustainable construction practices Studies and reports containing construction emissions data for airport projects Reports and studies describing airport construction activities and equipment Extensive use was made of the collective resources (document libraries) of the individual Research Team members supplemented by internet searches. A diverse collection of literature was investigated from the following sources: USEPA Guidelines, research reports including scientific articles and emission factors, modeling guidelines, software and user's guides, and regulations FAA - Procedures manuals, regulations, and guidelines for airport construction Department of Energy - Environment assessments Department of Defense - Army and Marine Corps construction handbook and EISs Department of Transportation - Guidelines for construction specifications NEPA studies for airports and energy projects EISs, EAs, EIRs, Categorical Exclusions, General Conformity analyses State and municipality environmental protection agencies - Sustainability in construction manuals, procedures manuals, and emission factors TRB - Related research studies Wyle T

7 Airport industry magazines, air quality associations, and airport consultant firms - Airport Business Magazines, Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA) research papers, consultant research and case studies Construction industry resources - Guidelines and books on construction phases, equipment specifications Internet websites - Various related websites were researched and relevant pages copied The collected documents were stored on a central research team project SharePoint site, and were made available to the research team, ACRP, and the panel. To help support the Research Team s use of these documents, a bibliography was prepared with notes summarizing each document s contents (see Appendix A). Wyle T

8 3 Define Activities The Research Team developed a process through which an inventory of construction equipment emissions can be systematically developed through a series of questions and choices of ever increasing detail. The process begins by selecting the overall project type, which leads to a list of related construction activities, where the selection of each activity generates a list of likely construction equipment needed to complete the activity. Each unit of construction equipment is assigned emission factors and a fair amount of default data is provided so that completing the inventory requires a limited amount of information from the user. The experienced user has opportunities throughout the process to input as much data as is available that could affect the outcome of the inventory. Appendix B provides a conceptual schematic overview of the relationship between common construction activities and project and construction equipment types. The guidance document and the electronic tool basically follow the logic represented by this schematic. Based on information compiled during the literature review, the approach taken for this project identifies typical construction projects that occur at airports, the range of associated construction activities for those projects, and the list of available construction vehicles/equipment associated with the various construction activities. The relationship between these three categories is exemplified in Figure 2-1. Project 1 Activity 1 Equipment 1 Project 2 Activity 2 Equipment 2 etc. Activity 3 Equipment 3 etc. Equipment 4 Equipment 5 Equipment 6 etc. Figure 2-1. Example Relationships between Projects, Activities, and Equipment The overall airport improvement program may require more than one construction project, which may require overlapping construction activities, and many activities require similar pieces of construction equipment. In the example shown in Figure 2-1, Project 1 requires at least two activities which in turn require various types of equipment. Activities required for Project 2 overlap some of the requirements of Project 1. However, the projects are separate and the activities and equipment requirements for each project type must be accounted for separately in the emission inventory. It should be noted that some projects have activities that are common to other projects, but may vary in scale; for example, site preparation is required for many projects, but the site preparation required for a runway fillet is different in scale from that of a runway extension, which is different in scale from a new runway. Wyle T

9 The Research Team anticipated that users of the Guidebook and electronic tool would be useful to both novice and expert users. For novice users, it was anticipated that the Guidebook would provide primer-type information to ensure all applicable considerations in data collection and methodologies were properly considered. Whether the users are novices or experts, the Guidebook and the electronic tool was envisioned to be flexible enough to allow the combined use of default data and user-supplied information. Being completely consistent with the software tool, the Guidebook was planned to serve as both a primer and a step-by-step set of instructions for calculating airport construction emissions. Following the general process represented in Appendix B, the points below identify how the Research Team had organized information and arranged guidance to allow consistent calculation of construction emissions for airport projects. Project Type. The analyst/user is provided with a list of specific airport construction projects from which to choose. The selection of a project type generates a set of questions that characterizes the general scope of the project and should be information readily available to either the novice or experienced analyst. Additional information may be provided by the analyst at this point, but would not be required to complete the inventory. For instance, if the project selected is a new runway, the length and width of the runway may need to be provided by the analyst. The list of projects compiled by the Research Team is intended to capture the majority of projects that an airport sponsor is likely to undertake and is not intended to reflect all project possibilities that might be proposed. However, the list should be sufficiently robust that a listed project type could be used to represent similar projects modifications can be made to reflect the desired project (assuming the combination of activities and equipment are known). Construction Activity. Types of construction activities vary from location to location and are based on project type. Some users of the Guidebook and electronic tool will have a sense as to specific construction activities that are required to implement their project and other users will not. The Guidebook is expected to help understand regional or location differences in construction practices which the user may wish to consider. For instance, a new runway constructed in the northern states would require a frost layer whereas a runway built in the extreme southern states would not. Equipment list. For each construction activity, the Research Team has developed a list of construction equipment and vehicles likely to be required. The user will be able to select additional units based on the degree of detail known about the project. At this stage the user selects operational characteristics of the equipment to assist in the calculation of the emission factors. For example, horsepower, load factor, size of an excavator bucket, type of crane, size of a generator set. The Guidebook provides default information, guidance on how to estimate the data, or where to obtain such information. It was believed that although users will be able to rely on the use of default data provided in the Guidebook and software tool, they will also have the ability to tailor the construction emissions analysis to local conditions (e.g.,to specify which construction activities are generally associated Wyle T

10 with each project type). Just as no two airports are the same, the type of construction activities for a project can vary greatly depending on site conditions, engineering and design considerations, the contractor, and size of the project. For example, construction activities that are associated with a 100 foot runway extension at a small general aviation airport in the northeast could be substantially different than construction activities associated with a 1,000 foot runway extension at a large hub airport in the southwest. As part of the data collection efforts, the Research Team used available information from the literature review and knowledge of engineers and construction managers to catalog typical construction activities by project type. The Research Team intended that the Guidebook and electronic tool would provide a list of general (default) activities that are typically associated with a particular project type. The Guidebook and electronic tool were planned to provide what the Research Team had determined to be a typical equipment mix for each type of construction activity. The equipment mix for each construction activity can be affected by a number of factors. For some construction tasks, there may be a number of acceptable equipment based on physical characteristics of the project, such as square feet of new pavement. The research work included reviews of airport construction projects as well as discussions with engineers and construction managers to obtain data needed to determine an equipment mix by project type and by construction activity. In addition, the Research Team considered the following factors that affect the selection of equipment for a particular construction activity. Examples of such factors included but were not limited to: Size of the project (e.g., acres or square yards for clearing and grubbing, cubic yards for excavation, square feet for concrete pavement, square feet and number of floors for building construction, number of windows/doors, etc.). Auxiliary information (e.g., square feet of area, total cubic yards, distance from site to stockpile area, number and length for utility installation, worker commute to site, etc.). Expected hours or time frames for the construction activities. As presented in Appendix B, once the equipment mix is defined, emissions associated with fuel combustion as well as fugitive emissions can be calculated using published (or calculated) emission factors. Construction equipment largely utilizes petroleum-based fuels that generate pollutants associated with combustion. In addition, fugitive emissions associated with certain construction activities typically include volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter (PM). Wyle T

11 4 Development of the Data Collection Plan This task mainly focused on the development of an emission factor data collection plan for the list of non-road equipment specified in Appendix B as well as for on-road vehicles to encompass the full breadth of emissions arising from airport construction projects. This covered emissions from fuel combustion (e.g., tailpipes) as well as from activities causing fugitive emissions. The USEPA s non-road emissions model (NONROAD) and the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model served as the core sources of data for fuel combustion emission factors as well as fugitive (e.g., evaporative) emissions from the modeled equipment, while various other sources provided information regarding non-fuel-related fugitive emissions information. In order to avoid confusion, the fugitive emissions modeling work described in this document mainly refers to the non-nonroad and non-moves generated results. The USEPA has spent significant resources in developing NONROAD2008 (USEPA 2009) and MOVES2010b (USEPA 2012), the latest versions of the tools used to calculate emissions from non-road equipment and on-road vehicles, respectively. NONROAD allows modeling of equipment emission factors based on various parameters including age of vehicle, horsepower rating, load factor, fuel type, and region. MOVES can be used to calculate exhaust, brakewear and tire wear emissions for cars, motorcycles, and trucks travelling on highways and other paved roadways. The Research Team carefully considered the best ways to implement these parameters as part of the emission factors as well as considering inputs form the project panel. In addition to reviewing the NONROAD and MOVES models, the Research Team reviewed a number of chapters/sections of AP-42 to obtain emissions information from fugitive sources (USEPA 2011). The AP-42 database, which is accessible through the USEPA s Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emissions Factors (CHIEF), is the de facto source for emission factors for a large number of emission sources. The Research Team used information contained in Volume 1 of AP-42 to supplement data contained in the NONROAD and MOVES models including but not limited to the information in the following sections: Chapter 3 Stationary Internal Combustion Sources Chapter 4.5 Asphalt Paving Operations Chapter 11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Chapter Concrete Batching Chapter Paved Roads Chapter Unpaved Roads Chapter Heavy Construction Operations Chapter Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles Besides these sources, the Research Team engaged in due diligence by considering various other air emission models/tools used to calculate emissions from non-road and on-road mobile sources of emissions such as: Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) (FAA a 2013) Wyle T

12 Air Conformity Applicability Model (ACAM) (AFCEE 2010) OFFROAD2007 (CARB b 2007) EMFAC2007 (CARB a 2007) NonRoad Engine and Vehicle Emissions Study (NEVES) (USEPA 1991) URBan EMISsions (URBEMIS) model (SCAQMD 2007) CalEEMod (Environ 2011) The FAA s EDMS contains emission factors for some non-road equipment (e.g., GSE), but it is noted that in the latest version of the model, all of the emission factors for GSE are derived from NONROAD. The implementation of the emission factors in EDMS was considered a good starting point for how the emission factors could be implemented within the electronic tool (i.e., formatting of the emission factors along with the activity data). The Air Force s ACAM is similar in concept to EDMS but contains data that are specific to the air bases serving the fleet of aircraft used by the Air Force. ACAM contains emission factors for construction activities that were developed by the Santa Barbara Air Quality Management District (SBAQMD) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Although not used for this project, ACAM s modeling infrastructure for construction emissions was reviewed for potential ideas on how best to implement methods and data in the electronic tool. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) OFFROAD model is considered similar in scope to NONROAD but provides California specific emission factors due to the state emission control requirements. The Research Team did not use any data from OFFROAD (beyond those already available in NONROAD). Since OFFROAD is specific to California, any data obtained from the model would need to have been carefully considered before being applied on a national level. For similar reasons, the CARB EMFAC model was also not used since MOVES was able to provide all of the necessary data for on-road equipment. Although some considerations were given to collecting regionally-specific data, the focus and the default approach was to collect emission factors that are representative of the national average. The NEVES spreadsheet data/tool was prepared by an FAA environmental specialist in 1991 and the full report containing this data is available from the USEPA. The NEVES data reflects emission factors of vehicles that were in use during the 1970s and 1980s, which when applied to today s vehicles likely overstates the emissions of most pollutants. While this source was reviewed for completeness, the consensus among members of the Research Team was that NEVES is outdated and should not be used to prepare construction emissions inventories. This appears to be the understanding among FAA and USEPA as well. Originally developed by CARB, the URBan EMISsions (URBEMIS) model is an emission factor prediction tool that was also reviewed for completeness. It is not considered to be appropriate for this project as it incorporates data from CARB s EMFAC and OFFROAD models. The Research Team determined that the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in California was similarly not appropriate for use in this project. Wyle T

13 In addition to these models, various reports and documents (e.g., EIS and EA documents) listed in the bibliography in Appendix A were assessed for any additional emission factors (e.g., obtained from manufacturers, derived from measurements, etc.). Because of the completeness of NONROAD and MOVES, data from other sources were ultimately deemed unnecessary. The Research Team was prepared to contact construction equipment manufacturer(s) to address any data gaps (e.g., if the team identified a equipment type not included in the NONROAD or MOVES databases). The thought was that a surrogate (substitute) equipment could possibly be used to fill in any identified data gaps. Again, due to the completeness of NONROAD and MOVES, the Research Team concluded there was no need to contact manufacturers. Not all specific equipment types are represented in the emission factors. Rather, USEPAs models reflect SCC (Source Classification Code) groups. Therefore, as part of the overall documentation effort, the Research Team decided to develop a catalogue of pictures for various construction equipment to aid in identifying the vehicle classifications. This should help future users (especially novices) of the Guidebook to better visualize the different equipment types and potentially some fugitive sources as well. As emission factors for each source are collected, the Research Team adopted specific terminology (e.g., aerial lifts, cranes, excavators, etc.) for each equipment and activity that were consistently used throughout this project. The initial terms exemplified in Appendix B were revised accordingly based on evaluating the terms used by the aforementioned models (i.e., NONROAD and MOVES) and reports/documents (e.g., AP-42). Wyle T

14 5 Development of Emission Factors 5.1 Overview of Emission Factors from NONROAD and MOVES Following the development of a data collection plan, the actual data collection work and data assessments were carried out. This mainly involved running NONROAD and MOVES to develop equipment-related emissions while AP-42 and other documents were reviewed to obtain fugitive emissions calculation methods. Appendix C provides a list of the NONROAD and MOVES equipment that were included in this project. The purpose of the data collection work was to review various sources of information related to the estimation of criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions for airport construction activities. For engine exhaust, tire wear, and break wear emission factors, the Research Team focused on the USEPA-approved NONROAD and MOVES models. NONROAD can be used to develop emission factors for most types of non-road and non-mobile construction equipment operated on construction sites while MOVES can be used to generate emission factors for onroad motor vehicles which may be used on a construction site (i.e., emission factors from MOVES can be used to calculate emissions associated with construction employee travel to and from the job site, construction material delivery trucks, and light duty pick-up trucks operated on and off the construction site). Considering the scope of this ACRP project, the Research Team originally used national average options to define inputs to both NONROAD and MOVES model runs to ensure the resulting emission factors were not region/location-specific. The MOVES model was also run using the national scale option and with default data for selected counties/states. These were later changed to include region-specificity per discussions with the project panel and the USEPA (see discussions in later sections). The pollutant emissions modeled within these tools are presented in Table 5-1. As indicated by the note below the table, the highlighted pollutants were selected for inclusion in ACEIT as they satisfy most environmental assessments needs of airport construction projects. Table 5-1. Pollutants included in NONROAD and MOVES Pollutant Category NONROAD MOVES Criteria pollutants and precursors CO (carbon monoxide), NO x (nitrogen oxides), SO 2 (sulfur dioxide), THC (total hydrocarbons), NMHC (non-methane hydrocarbons), TOG (total organic gases), NMOG (non methane organic gas), VOCs (volatile organic compounds), PM 10 (particulate matter with CO NO x SO 2 THC, NMHC, NMOG, VOCs PM 10 PM 2.5 Wyle T

15 aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers [µm] or less), PM 2.5 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 µm or less) NH 3, NO (nitrogen oxide), NO 2, various PM components Greenhouse gases CO 2 CO 2, methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O) Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) Benzene, Ethanol, methy tertiarybutyl ether (MTBE), Napththalene, 1,3-Butadiene, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, and Acrolein. Note: those pollutants highlighted in gray were reflected in the methodologies of this project. 5.2 Reviews of Other Sources of Emission Factors Because NONROAD and MOVES provide emission factors for all of the necessary equipment/vehicles for this project, there was little need to investigate other sources for equipment emission factors. However, other various sources were reviewed according to the data collection plan for the following reasons: As a source for comparison in case questions arise concerning the emission factors from the main sources (e.g., NONROAD and MOVES). For potential insights on the implementation of emission factors (e.g., units, categorizing parameters, etc.). As references (literature-type reviews) for future work if the list of equipment are expanded (e.g., on future ACRP projects). Most of the documents reviewed during Task 1, including the various National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Conformity-type documents, point to the use of emission factors from NONROAD, MOBILE, and MOVES for non-california states and OFFROAD and EMFAC within California. In some documents, the use of the 1991 Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study-Report (NEVES) is referenced. While NEVES provides comprehensive, nationwide coverage of construction emissions, its database is now considered out-dated (USEPA 1999). Although OFFROAD and EMFAC can be used to develop emission factors for non-road and onroad construction vehicles and equipment, both models are specific to vehicle emission standards that have been adopted in California which are more stringent than federal vehicle emission standards. Because NONROAD and MOVES provide coverage for the primary construction vehicles and equipment that are being evaluated as part of this research project, the Research Team spent only a limited amount of available resources reviewing construction equipment and Wyle T

16 exhaust emission factors associated with California emission models such as URBEMIS, CalEEMod, OFFROAD and EMFAC. Within the literature materials collected, there was very little information related to the Department of Defense (DoD) activities on construction emissions modeling. As somewhat of a counterpart to the FAA s EDMS model, the Air Force s ACAM predicts emissions from most Air Force base activities including construction (AFCEE 2010). ACAM s construction emission factors are based on the use of URBEMIS2007 as well as data from AP-42 and methods developed by California s SCAQMD. ACAM calculates construction emissions for each specified year using the closest 5-year bin (representative 5-year category). The construction process is modeled as two phases: Phase 1 covers grading while Phase 2 is the actual construction of the building/facility. ACAM s functional design is similar in scope to the current plans for the design of the tool to be developed under this ACRP project. That is, ACAM provides defaults for much of the inputs and allows users to modify those defaults as necessary. In addition to these various sources of equipment emission factors, methods to predict fugitive emissions were also collected and reviewed. Sources included URBEMIS, CalEEMod, the FAA s air quality handbook (FAA 1997), the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (APCD) (SJVAPCD 2009), and the USEPA s AP-42 publication. Of these, most of the methods were from AP-42. Wyle T

17 6 Evaluation of Recommended Emission Factors 6.1 NONROAD and MOVES The raw outputs from NONROAD and MOVES were processed to derive and appropriately categorize each emission factor with units as indicated below: NONROAD o Exhaust: g/hp-hr o Fugitive: g/equip-day MOVES o Exhaust: g/mile o Fugitive: g/veh-day All of the details on the development of these emission factors are provided in Appendix D and E. As part of the panel, the USEPA provided both reviewer support and also worked with the Research Team in developing the input data and assumptions to properly develop these emission factors. Although the potential existed to allow the emission factors to be modifiable within ACEIT, the decision was made to only allow viewing of the factors (non-modifiable). This was done partly because in most cases (the vast majority of cases), users will not have access to more accurate (more specific) emission factors. Also, it helped to simplify the use of ACEIT by avoiding the use of various qualifying texts (e.g., cautionary notes) on limitations associated with using data from non-usepa approved sources for regulatory purposes. The Research Team felt that such texts would have created some confusion on using the tool. As previously indicated, based on the scope of this ACRP project and the need to assess airport construction projects, the list of pollutants included from each model are: Criteria Pollutants o CO o NO 2 o SO 2 o PM 10 o PM 2.5 Greenhouse Gases o CO 2 o CH 4 (only MOVES) o N 2 O (only MOVES) Precursor Pollutants o VOCs o NO x Examples of the Emission factors implemented within ACEIT are presented in Appendix F, including the different components (rateperdistance, ratepervehicle, and rateperprofile) from MOVES. Wyle T

18 NONROAD only predicts emissions of one greenhouse gas, CO 2, while MOVES predicts emissions of CO 2, methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). For consistency between the outputs from the two models and considering the smaller impacts from CH 4 and N 2 O emissions, only CO 2 emissions was originally included from MOVES. However, after discussions with the panel and the USEPA, both CH 4 and N 2 O emissions were included in this study s methodologies for completeness. To model future scenarios, the Research Team determined that 30 years worth of emission factors would suffice: 2013 to This was deemed reasonable for most environmental studies based on the Research Team s past experiences working on various airport studies. Originally, the intention was to generate emission factors for each year. But based on the sizes of the datasets expected, emission factors were developed in increments of 5 years, and linear interpolation used for each of the in-between years. Although the Research Team plan was to develop emission factors that represent national averages, some consideration was given to reflecting differences in regions through the specification of ambient temperature categories. It is important to note that construction emissions inventories prepared for NEPA or General Conformity, are reflective of the construction period, often spanning several seasons of the year. As a result, average temperatures in a location were used in those assessments. To better understand the impacts, the Research Team conducted several sensitivity analyses using different temperature settings in NONROAD to assess the impact on the model s output (i.e., the emission factors). As exemplified in Appendix F, the NONROAD temperature sensitivity assessments revealed that emission factors for gasoline-powered equipment can vary by as much as 30% for NO x, 10% for CO, and 10% for VOCs (depending on the equipment) when ambient average temperatures values were varied using a range between 50 0 F to about F. The relationship between ambient temperature and fugitive VOC emissions (i.e.., evaporative emissions) in NONROAD is even more significant; however, the overall contribution of fugitive VOC emissions to total THC and VOCs estimated for a single piece of equipment is relatively small. Ambient temperatures appear to have no effect on diesel vehicle emissions in NONROAD. This is consistent with the fact that diesel fuels have relatively low vapor pressures. Existing MOVES temperature sensitivity analyses show similar variances in emissions for gasoline-fueled on-road equipment: about 25% for NO x, 30% for CO, 10% for VOCs/THC, and 5% for PM 2.5. Diesel equipment showed similar but generally lower sensitivities: about 20% for NO x, 15% for CO, 5% for VOCs/THC, and about 1% or less for PM 2.5. These sensitivities correspond to an average temperature change from 50 0 F to F. Greater temperature ranges can result in significantly greater sensitivities, especially if temperatures are lowered beyond 50 0 F (Choi 2011) Originally, the use of average temperature data for selected FAA regions were explored, but the decision was made to not use them as they did not appear to provide enough resolution to Wyle T

19 properly model the impacts of temperature impacts. The following points indicate the modeling choices that were made with support from the USEPA (with more details provided in Appendix D and E): Generate emissions results for daily average temperatures ranging from below 10 to over 80 deg. F with the increments and representative temperatures. Also, the daily minimum and maximum temperature ranges were set to +25 deg. F in increments of 5 deg. 14 representative counties (as provided by the USEPA) were used to represent all U.S. counties. Average daily temperature and humidity profiles provided by the USEPA for modeling in MOVES. Two seasons were chosen for simplicity and conservatism: summer and winter. Vehicle speeds in MOVES are not explicitly included as part of the emission factor development. Speeds are reflected as part of the vehicle use profiles associated with different roadway types. It is up to the user to determine the most appropriate source of data to obtain representative temperature data. To assist the user in determining appropriate temperatures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) is a good source for such data: The required daily average as well as maximum and minimum temperatures can potentially be developed from the monthly data available from this NCDC source. This suggestion was put forth in the scenario guidance file available within the electronic tool. 6.2 Fugitive Emissions 40 CFR (b)(20) defines fugitive emissions as those emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening. In addition to the equipment-based emission factors from NONROAD and MOVES, recommendations for fugitive-type emissions were also made. Appendix G provides a table that lists the fugitive emissions and methods (predominantly from AP-42) that were included for the projects and activities defined in this project. It also includes a mapping table that indicates the type of fugitive emissions modeled for each project and activity type combination. In the few cases when competing (overlapping) methods from AP-42 and non-ap-42 resources were available (e.g., URBEMIS and AP-42), the AP-42 method was selected to provide consistency in using USEPA methods. Although most of the fugitive sources were assigned appropriate methods, there were no suitable methods to model emissions from: Concrete/asphalt cutting Wood cutting Wyle T

20 As a result, fugitive emissions from these activities were assumed to be zero. This is likely a reasonable assumption since these activities will likely not produce noteworthy emissions (e.g., relatively short operations and relatively low emission factors associated with these sources) in the context of airport-related construction emissions. Wyle T

21 7 Development of a Methodology to Obtain Activity Data 7.1 Review of Methodology to Obtain Activity Data It is important to note that information related to construction equipment activity (e.g., daily hours of use for a piece of construction equipment) is often not readily available since the environmental review for most airport projects occurs prior to detailed design of the project. Until the completion of NEPA, airport sponsors do not have an approved project and thus are unable to conduct design and contractor selection. As a result, detailed engineering data may only be available for the more complex projects (i.e., projects that require more detailed engineering analysis during the planning phase). At the point when NEPA or General Conformity evaluations are conducted, the projects are at the planning stage; limited, if any, engineering and design has been initiated, and construction contractor selection has not occurred. For some projects, up to 15% design has been prepared to facilitate the preparation of requisite environmental data for NEPA documents or environmental permitting. As a result, the variability of data available concerning construction is wide. The methodologies and guidance provided by this ACRP project have been tailored to assist users in preparing construction equipment activity estimates based on the wide variation in detailed information available about the project. To aid in differentiating users, the following levels of users were defined: Level 1: The most basic level and assumes that the user does not have comprehensive data concerning the construction process for a proposed project. Level 2: An intermediate level where the user may have some project-specific data. Level 3: The most comprehensive level and assumes that the user has the ability to prepare a comprehensive data set concerning the construction of a proposed project. These categories are used to help better understand and discuss the different levels of users and are not intended to be exacting. To prepare a construction emissions inventory requires two basic data sets: Activity data (equipment to be used and the amount of time each unit is operated). Emission factors for the equipment and fugitive sources. Sophisticated users will have detailed construction activity information that is project and site specific, and the tools provided by the project should allow those users to input their data to the tool. However, other users will use the Guidebook and tool to assist them with preparing the activity data set with limited construction background or information. The methodology presented herein provides a step-by-step procedure in estimating construction-related activity data. The methodology is based on a default system that will enable a novice user to obtain preliminary activity data to estimate potential construction emissions for various types of projects. Wyle T

22 In creating this guidance, typical projects and associated construction activities that occur at an airport were identified. Similarly, a typical equipment mix was developed for each of the different construction activities based on construction experience. A user can select (or use defaults) a number of activities and equipment that may be associated with a project. Each project is broken down into specific construction steps, referred to as activity categories. Similarly, each activity category is correlated to a construction equipment mix. Appendix B exemplifies the relationship between airport construction projects, construction activity categories, and equipment. The approach reflected in the identification of equipment and activities allows for capturing in the inventory pollutants associated with the combustion of fuels as well as fugitive emissions from the disturbance of soil or construction operations as well as from certain activities such as the drying process of volatile materials, including paint. Appendix I lists construction activities and equipment mixes associated with a site/civil project type as well as similar information for vertical construction projects. Site/civil work is associated with horizontal construction on the airfield or roadways, while vertical construction involves the construction of a building or other above-ground structures. For site/civil projects, a listing of the activities (excavation, soil control, placement of pavement, etc) for a typical project (new runway, airfield lighting, runway markings, etc) are provided based on construction experience and construction handbooks. To determine typical hours of operations for the various activities, construction estimates and schedules, as well as the applicable codes, RS Means Site Work & Landscape Cost Data (RSM 2009) was used to estimate set unit values for the length of time needed for each piece of equipment to accomplish an activity. These values were normalized to a typical construction unit, such as acre, cubic yards, or linear feet. The approach to determining the equipment mix for vertical construction was to create basic models of various buildings and other airport projects. Because of the difference in size and scope, foundation systems, structural frames, and exterior sheathing can vary depending on the size of the building. Using a building of a particular size as a base, the typical construction methods, activities, and equipment use duration were outlined. The following outlines the steps needed for the project for users of Level 1 (users who do not have comprehensive data concerning the construction process for the proposed project): Level 1 Information Gathering/Preliminary Screening Estimates The first and most critical step is to obtain as much information as possible about the project and methods of construction that are likely to be employed. The minimum information needed to prepare a preliminary emission estimate using this guidance is as follows: 1. What are the de minimis thresholds applicable to your project? This question can be answered by understanding the following two questions: Wyle T

23 a) What are the non-attainment and/or maintenance pollutants for the area where the project will occur? This information can be located in the USEPA Green Book ( listing the status for each nonattainment county. The user should verify the attainment status with the local or State environmental office. b) Is the project located in the ozone transport region? The ozone transport region is comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and the District of Columbia. The answers to the first two questions will determine the Clean Air Act de minimis thresholds for the project based on non-attainment or maintenance area classification or location in an ozone transport area. A listing of the de minimis thresholds are specified in 40 CFR (b). The Guidebook and Tool will identify the results relative to these thresholds and will provide warnings of when it is appropriate to continue to use the results for purposes of conformity. 2. What is the project type? A listing of typical projects that occur at an airport is provided in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2. Table 7-1 provides some typical site/civil projects that typically occur on the airfield while Table 2-3 represents vertical construction projects. If a specific project type does not appear on the comprehensive, predefined list (see Appendix I), the user should identify a project or structure that is similar in nature. It should also be noted that a major construction project may include more than one project type. For instance, a new runway may involve a land acquisition, demolition, taxiway, a drainage system, detention basin, and other potentially stand alone projects. 3. What are the dimensions and size of the project? In addition to the project type, the size of the project is needed to estimate the number of hours to complete a construction activity. The required information may be the acres of land, cubic yards of soil, or linear feet of pavement, depending on the project scope. For example, the total surface of a grading project in square yards would be used to estimate the operating time for excavators, graders, and other necessary pieces of equipment; and the cubic yards of a concrete placement project would determine how long a concrete truck would be operating at the project site. Wyle T

24 The needed activity information for each type of site/civil project is also listed in Appendix I. Information to determine project size may be found in a current Airport Layout Plan (ALP), Master Plan, or other planning document. Appendix I normalizes the estimated activity data (e.g., hours) for the various types of construction activity based on total project size. For example, knowing the square feet of the proposed structure, the hours of use for the various types of construction equipment can be calculated. Therefore, knowing project type and size allows a user to obtain a preliminary screening estimate of emissions. In addition to the overall length and width of a project area, an nominal additional space can be added to account for disturbance areas. For this project, 10 ft was added to both the length and width (i.e., L+10 ft and W+10 ft). 4. Construction timing? Will the construction occur in one calendar year, and if not, how will it be staged over multiple years? The Clean Air Act General Conformity de minimis thresholds reflect maximum allowable emissions over a calendar year. Therefore, if the emissions are to span multiple years, the user will need to specify how to distribute the emissions. Using the estimated hours (based on size of the project) and recommended emission factors, a user with only the information listed above can conduct a preliminary screening level estimation of emissions associated with the project and compare it to the de minimis thresholds specified in 40 CFR (b). It should be noted that this is generally the minimum amount of information that a user needs to know about a proposed project. The more knowledge about how the project would be constructed, the more accurate the emission estimate. While not applicable to every project, users may wish to consider information sources in their organization that might assist with improving the quality of a Level 1 evaluation (such as engineers, planners, project managers, etc). Other information such as average ambient temperatures, location, and seasonality are also required as a minimum when specifying scenarios under a Level 1 analysis. Improved Level 1 Evaluation The following details the steps to obtain more refined activity data (i.e., other than Level 1 default data usage). Step A Select the on-site construction activities that correspond to the project type Knowing the project type and its size, the tool or guidance will provide a screening estimate of emissions associated with a project. The more informed user may have more details of the Wyle T

25 project and be able to select the activities, based on the location, past projects, or other construction information. For example, a service road project typically involves clearing/grubbing, soil erosion/sediment control, excavation, sub-base placement, dust control, grading, asphalt or concrete placement, drainage, street lighting, fencing, topsoil placement, hydro-seeding, markings, sidewalks, and tree planting. Construction activities may vary by location, season, and contractor experience. However, the user may know that this project will not involve a particular activity and would not use this task in the emission estimate. For the service road project example, sidewalks and fencing may not be necessary in all instances. Knowing this information, the user would not use the associated equipment mix attributed to sidewalks and fencing. It is strongly recommended that all sources of information be investigated to minimize assumptions. A user without the details of construction would use the default activities, which would likely overestimate emissions associated with a project type. However, an informed user will know the expected site specific construction activities that are required to implement the project and should use these activities rather than defaults. Step B Select the on-site equipment mix that corresponds to each construction activity As provided in Appendices I, each construction activity for a project type has a list of typical equipment used to construct the project. In addition, certain construction activities are more likely to have fugitive emissions associated with them than others. The user needs to decide whether the equipment mix for a specific activity, provided as a default, will be representative of each construction activity. A listing of the equipment and their function will be provided in the guidance. An informed user could then adjust the equipment mix based on the specific knowledge of the project. For example, typical excavation to construct a taxiway involves an excavator, dozer, roller, dump truck, pickup truck, and scraper. If a user knows that an excavator will not be used, this equipment could be removed from the calculations. The selection of equipment used by one contractor may be different than the equipment mix expected by another contractor or an engineer. Therefore, it is advisable for the emission estimator to continue to interact with the project team to verify the representativeness of the equipment selection. If such project-specific information is not available, defaults are provided. Step C Knowing the size of the project, estimate hours of use for on-site equipment mix. As described previously, a user must have some basic physical characteristics about the projects, such as size (a 1,000 ft runway extension or a 10,000 square foot building), to perform emission calculations. Again, Appendix I provides a normalized estimate of hours of operation for the various pieces of equipment based on activity size for site/civil projects. The unit of measurement for size will vary depending on the construction activity; the units presented in Appendix I provide a best fit for each specific type of construction activity. For example, units of Wyle T

26 measure for clearing, grubbing and sediment control are acres, excavation and soil placement are in cubic yards, while grading and hydro-seeding are in square feet. The units for the equipment conversion factors are different between the horizontal construction projects and the vertical construction projects. For vertical construction projects, units are consistently in hours per square feet gross building area (GBA) of the proposed structure. This unit was selected since it is assumed that the user of the Guidebook and software tool will know the square footage of a proposed structure. Equipment mix and operating hours will vary depending on the geographic location, soil characteristics, season of the year and schedule. Although it is recommended that the user conduct some research in the expected hours of operation for the various pieces of equipment based on engineering specifications, local practices, or cost estimates, such documents may not be available during the planning phase of the project. If details of expected operating hours for the various equipment to perform each task is not known, the defaults would be used initial for screening. Step D Summarize the total hours of use for each type of on-site equipment Certain types of equipment can be used for various construction activities and others will be used during multiple activities. Ultimately, the user will need to determine the total number of hours that each piece of equipment will operate during the course of the project. The user will need to sum the expected operating hours for each piece of equipment for all activities. Step E Determine horsepower and fuel type Emissions are not only affected by the hours of operation for a particular piece of equipment, but also by the horsepower of the equipment. In addition, the type of fuel will greatly affect the emissions. At the planning stage of a project, even advanced users may be unaware of the size and fuel requirements for equipment that will be used to perform a given task. For the purposes of model development and selection of default values, the most popular horsepower could be used for each piece of equipment as a default. Unless another fuel type is known, a default of diesel would be recommended, as diesel has historically fueled the majority of construction equipment. A design consultant or contractor may be able to provide information on the size and horsepower as well as fuel use for equipment typically used in the area. While much of the equipment types modeled in ACEIT have emission factors for both diesel and gasoline fuel types, the following equipment only have diesel emission factors: Asphalt Deliveries/Ten Wheelers Bulldozer Concrete Ready Mix Trucks Concrete Ready Trucks Mix for Cores Concrete Truck Crack Filler (Trailer Mounted) Off-Road Truck Pickup Truck Scraper Seed Truck Spreader Small Dozer Survey Crew Trucks Ten Wheelers Wyle T

27 Delivery of Tanks (3) Distributing Tanker Dozer Dump Truck Dump Truck (12 cy) Excavator Excavator for U/G Services/Tanks Flat Bed or Dump Trucks Flatbed Truck Grader Grout Wheel Truck Hoist Equipment with 40 Ton Rig Hydralic Hammer Hydroseeder Line Painting Truck and Sprayer Material Deliveries Ten Wheelers- Material Delivery Tool Truck Tractor Trailer- Equipment Delivery Tractor Trailer- Material Delivery Tractor Trailer- Steel Deliveries Tractor Trailer- Stone Delivery Tractor Trailer- Topsoil & Seed Tractor Trailer- Truck Delivery Tractor Trailer w/ Boom Hoist-Curbs Del & Place Tractor Trailer with Boom Hoist- Delivery Tractor Trailers- Rebar Deliveries Tractor Trailers Temp Fac. Truck for Topsoil & Seed Del&Spread Water Truck Excavator with Bucket Excavator with Hoe Ram It should also be noted that while horsepower (as well as load factor) affects emissions, it was ultimately not included as a modifiable option to the user within ACEIT for the same reason the emission factors were also made un-modifiable. Step F Account for emission controls for combustion equipment, where known Airports across the country are developing green construction methods to reduce emissions as well as promote sustainable technologies. Some emission control techniques include specifying equipment operating on alternative fuels or particulate traps for diesel equipment. Therefore, if the airport for which the construct emission inventory is being calculated has or will implement green construction methods for the project, the user must account to this in the selection of applicable equipment or construction activities. Many locations may not have this information and may choose to use the model twice once without and once with, for purposes of testing the emission reduction of various control techniques. Although this is a consideration for understanding the influence on emissions, it is not controllable within ACEIT as the emissions factors were made un-modifiable. Step G Calculate reasonably foreseeable off-site travel-related emissions Steps A-F would be used to estimate the on-site emissions of a project through activity data, equipment mix, hours of operation, and the NONROAD model emission factors. However, emissions associated with off-site travel for material deliveries and employee travel must also be addressed in a construction emissions analysis prepared in support of a General Conformity Applicability Analysis and/or NEPA documentation. For example, the commute to work by the construction employees should be estimated based on the user s judgment knowing the expected number of construction workers, average distance to the nearest major community, the speed Wyle T

28 limits of roads and thoroughfares leading to the airport, and distance to major suppliers of fill, sub-base, concrete, asphalt, etc. The following are typical details which should be determined by the user: Number of construction employees (e.g., assume each individual as one commuter). Speed limit of thoroughfare or roads that will accommodate construction vehicle trips. Assume travel will be at the speed limit. Commute distance for employees. Distance to/from material supply depots (including fill, sub-base, concrete, asphalt, and/or building materials). Type of on-road vehicle(s) used by construction employees and used to make deliveries. The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for on-road vehicle was estimated as follows: Employee commute: All travel was assumed to be conducted using passenger cars and a conservative estimate of 1 employee per car was used. A nominal round-trip commute distance of 30 miles was used for each employee. For conservative, the number of employees was estimate as the greater of the two: o The number of equipment types listed in the mix for each project (for all activities). o The result of multiplying the total $ millions in project costs with a nominal value of 11 this was considered a reasonably conservative estimate based on the Research Team s project experiences. Material deliveries: The number of material delivery trucks (e.g., dump trucks) was determined from the volume of material (e.g., cubic yards) and the carrying capacity of each truck as well as assuming 2 trips per day. Each trip is also assumed to be 40 miles round-trip. In addition to the hours-of-use of the non-road construction equipment, the VMT for on-road material delivery trucks traveling around the site (off the roadway) was estimated using a nominal 5 miles per day for each of the equipment. Step H Calculate fugitive emissions In addition to emissions associated with fuel combustion, the tool will quantify the particulate and volatile organic compound fugitive emissions for a project. The Research Team determined fugitive emissions are typically associated with the following types of construction activities: Paint drying Asphalt drying (paving) Asphalt manufacturing and storage (batch plant) Roof tar drying Wyle T

29 Fuel transfer/storage Unstabilized land Soil handling Concrete mixing and batching (batch plant) Material movement (paved and unpaved roads) Demolition Conveying materials Wind erosion (disturbed vacant lands, aggregate and sand piles, etc.) Appendix H provides the list of fugitive emissions that were implemented within ACEIT. Stabilized construction entrances, water suppression, or fabric filters on hot mix asphalt plants are some of the methods used to control fugitive emissions. Unlike the hours-of-usage for each construction equipment, the fugitive emissions are calculated based on the number of project days (e.g., the amount of time the equipment is exposed at a construction site). Step H Calculate sum of on-site, off-site, and fugitive emissions To estimate the total emissions associated with a project, the user must calculate the sum of emissions associated with the aforementioned combustion of fuels in operating equipment, travel on nearby roadways and fugitive emissions. In quantifying emissions to comply with the Clean Air Act General Conformity regulations, construction emissions must be presented based on annual contributions of the project. This is typically done by estimating activities and associated emissions for each calendar year according to the project schedule. If this information is unavailable, the most conservative approach would be to assume that all activities and emissions would occur in a single year. Sources of information to improve project construction equipment estimation It should be noted that the actual construction activities and associated emissions will vary based on the location of the project, the season of the year in which construction activity is occurring, the selected contractor, and a number of other factors. Therefore, users of the Guidebook and software tool should consult with the planning and engineering staff (if available) to obtain as much details for the project prior to quantifying potential activities and associated emissions. Other information that could be researched prior to performing the calculations include off-road and on-road equipment mix, the size of the project, expected hours of operation, project schedule, and emission controls. Discussions with project planners, engineers, and construction personnel within the organization may be helpful even if the proposed project is not defined to enable a Level 2 or 3 evaluation. The engineering design team or planning consultants can provide details of the project and needed activities. Other sources of information include past airport projects of similar size and scope, historical records of non-airport projects in the area, and construction handbooks, such as Means and Methods. Wyle T

30 Table 7-1. Example Site/ Work New Runway Runway Extension Runway Safety Area Runway Markings Airfield Lighting Runway Drains Service Road Taxiway Exit Taxiways Navaids Fencing Rehabilitate Runway/taxiway Drainage System Detention Basin Access Road Terminal Apron Parking Lot Helipad Fuel Tanks Cargo Apron Hangar and Apron Tiedowns Landscaping Noise Barrier Table 7-2. Example Construction Building; 1 Story, up to 10,000 SF Gross Building Area (GBA) Building; 2-3 Stories, 10,000-30,000 SF Gross Building Area. Building; 4-10 Stories, ,000 Gross Building Area. Building; Stories,100, ,000 Gross Building Area. Parking Garage Ground plus (1) upper level, steel frame. (500 car facility) Parking Garage Ground plus (2) levels, post-tensioned concrete frame. (750 car facility) Gas station; with fuel island covered by a canopy, pre-fabricated attendant booth. Convenience store, a metal stud / panel wall system. Car wash; often adjacent to a fuel facility; a masonry building. Fire station; or Air Rescue Fire Fighting Facility; a masonry / steel building. Hanger Building; Pre-Engineered Metal Building type of construction 7.2 Development of Representative Activity Data The purpose of this project was to provide guidance concerning the quantification of airportrelated construction emissions. A key component of the guidance is the use of representative activity data and emission factors to estimate emissions associated with a project. The activity data were used as defaults in the screening methodology defined in the Guidebook and Software Tool. The data was developed for the various predefined site/civil and vertical construction projects listed in Appendix I. This section discusses the rationale in developing the activity data for each type of project Site/ Activity Data The General Conformity applicability analysis begins with a specific proposed project. The Research Team identified various project types that typically occur at an airport reflecting both site/civil work as well as vertical/building projects. For the projects associated with site/civil Wyle T

31 work (not associated with construction of a building or structure), inspection records and available information from past projects were reviewed to determine the construction activities associated with each project type. Some projects, such as airfield lighting, has one listed construction activity, while major projects, such as a cargo apron, have over 15 potential construction activities. A construction activity is a distinct task that needs to be performed to construct the project. For example, clearing/grubbing, erosion control, excavation, sub-base placement, dust control, grading, asphalt placement, concrete placement, drainage, lighting, fencing, topsoil placement, hydro-seeding, and marking, and tree planting are all potential tasks associated with construction of an airport service road. It should be noted that a specific construction project at an airport may not include all of the listed construction activities listed. However, the construction activities predefined for a project type was attempted to be inclusive. For each construction activity, the research team defined a default equipment mix based on the various types of equipment listed in NONROAD, the research team s understanding of construction methods, the research team s construction project experience, and review of available data and documentation associated with past projects. For example, clearing and grubbing of a treed area involves a chain saw, chipper/stump grinder, and a pickup on site, while excavation (cut to fill) typically involves an excavator, dozer, roller, dump truck, and pickup. In addition, for each piece of construction equipment, a representative number of hours were estimated for a standard unit of measurement for specified activity. To determine typical hours of operations, construction estimates and schedules, as well as the applicable codes and RS Means Site Work & Landscape Cost Data (RSM 2009) were used to estimate set unit values for the length of time needed for each piece of equipment accomplish an activity. These values were normalized to typical construction unit, such as acre, cubic yards, or linear feet. This provides a means to estimate the overall number of hours for a piece of equipment that would be used to complete a specific construction activity. The following examples provides the size unit for various construction activities: Clearing/Grubbing Soil Erosion Control Topsoil stripping Cut and filling excavation Sub-base Placement Grading Asphalt Placement Concrete Placement Drainage Piping Street Lighting Fencing Hydro-seeding Markings hours per acre hours per acre hours per square yard hour per cubic yard hours per square yard hours per cubic yard (dump truck) hours per square yard hours per square yard hours per ton (dump truck) hours per cubic yard (Surfacing Equipment) hours per cubic yard hours per linear feet hours per three lights hours per linear feet hours per square feet hours per square feet Wyle T

32 Sidewalks Trees planting days per square feet days per tree Construction Activity Data Predicting the activity data associated with equipment and tools for vertical construction is extremely difficult as there are many variables such as the size of the project, the schedule of the project, the various materials and systems that can comprise a building, fuel source and finally, the numerous ways, means and methods, that a structure can be constructed. The approach used to develop the activity data for a vertical construction project was to create basic models of buildings and other vertical structures. The following models were selected to give a range of vertical construction projects that typically occur at or near an airport. The first four models are typical enclosed building projects of progressive size, whether the project is a new building or an addition to an existing building. The intent was to identify reasonable durations, foundation systems, structural frames, and exterior sheathing respective of the size of the building. Most building projects were believed to fit into one of the following categories: A building; 1 story, 10,000 square feet (SF) Gross Building Area. A building; 3 Stories, 30,000 SF Gross Building Area. A building; 10 Stories, 100,000 Gross Building Area. A building; 20 Stories, 500,000 Gross Building Area The multi-level parking structures that reflect both a steel frame construction and a pre-stressed post tensioned concrete frame structure, which are common designs for parking structures, both including a ground level and a first level of parking: Ground plus (1) upper level, steel frame. (500 car facility) Ground plus (2) levels, post-tensioned concrete frame. (750 car facility) There are five specialty construction projects where the building components reflect special use: Gas station; with a fuel island covered by a canopy and pre-fabricated attendant booth. Convenience store, often adjacent to a fuel facility; a metal stud / panel wall system. Car wash; also often seen adjacent to a fuel facility; a masonry building. Fire station; or often called an Air Rescue Fire Fighting Facility; a masonry / steel building. Hanger Building; Pre-Engineered Metal Building type of construction. The last two models are supporting models that are typically conducted landside at an airport as part of vertical construction and can differ from airside construction provided in the site/civil activity data: Wyle T

33 Site Work; 10,000 SF area: This reflects all services for a building up to 5 feet from a building perimeter. Open parking lot; 10,000 SF with lighting. This also should be used as added scope to the buildings noted above. Since vertical construction is schedule driven, the key characteristic of a project is the reasonable duration for each phase of construction. First, a project schedule was created for each model to determine the durations of each stage of construction. The phasing, durations, and equipment are somewhat subjective, but were based on construction experience to reflect reasonable durations for each construction activity as well as the basic equipment expected to be used. Next, the construction phases and equipment were transferred to an activities database for each model. The day duration for each piece of equipment of each phase is multiplied by reasonable hourly use per day for each piece of equipment equaling the total number of hours of use during that phase. The energy source for each piece of equipment is also identified. By dividing the total hours of use for that phase by the total number of project calendar days creates a normalized unit; hours of emissions per total duration of the project. Similarly, by dividing that total hours of use by the gross building area (GBA), a normalized unit; hours per GBA, was developed for each project. For the parking structures, an additional unit (hours per car) was created by using the number of cars of the parking structure, since the number of cars is a key planning unit. Wyle T

34 8 Electronic Tool This section describes the functionality and architecture of the electronic tool from a software development point of view, and also provides explanations for making certain decisions. The functionalities from a user point of view are provided in the Guidebook. 8.1 Development Environment and Tools Microsoft C # under the Visual Studio.NET development environment was used to develop ACEIT as an installable Windows.NET application. This integrated development environment (IDE) allows for relatively quick development of graphical user interfaces (GUI) due to the availability of various graphical control objects as shown in Figure 8-1. Figure 8-1. Visual Studio.NET Development Environment for C # Although Visual Studio.NET Version 2008 was used, the code is generic enough that it can be readily used in newer versions of Visual studio.net. Both the code and the associated data files were submitted along with this report to TRB ACRP. Visual Studio was chosen over other development environments because it is one of the most popular development environments and is expected to be supported in the long term, thus allowing for potential updates to the tool (future versions) using the same environment. Also, the Wyle T

35 .NET framework works well under Windows which is currently the de facto standard operating system on most desktop computers. Although ACEIT could have been developed as a spreadsheet tool, Visual Studio was preferred because it allowed better control over data and the user interface which provides a better user experience (i.e., facilitates the use and understanding of the tool). In addition, the large datasets are easier to handle within Visual Studio. Within the IDE, only the standard controls and options available within Visual Studio were used in developing ACEIT. Purposely, no third party vendor tools were implemented, thus avoiding any software licensing complexities. This also allows for facilitated updates to ACEIT as future developers would not need to purchase and install any third party tool. All of the datasets (e.g., emission factors) used in ACEIT are implemented as ASCII text files, mostly in comma-delimited format. Although robust database tools could have been used, the data-access functionalities required by ACEIT were fairly simple (i.e., mostly just reading of the data rather than complicated read and write operations). As such, the standard data reading functions were used with the ASCII files. 8.2 Architecture Figure 8-2 provides an architectural overview of the tool showing the main components and how they generally interact with each other. This diagram represents a conceptual view showing a main controller that controls (or coordinates) the interaction between the user inputs/outputs and the calculation routines as well as accessing the various data files. For simplicity, no data access modules are shown they are aggregated as part of the main controller. Wyle T

36 User inputs GUI Presents scenario modeling options Saving and loading of modeled scenario Error checking Presents output results Main Controller Controls handling of all data flows Controls all scenario modeling logic Initiates the use of each module Presents output results through the GUI Construction Emissions Calculations Calculates all emissions (criteria and GHG) pollutants Dynamic Linked Library (DLL) with clearly defined input and output variables Database Emission Factors Activity Data Misc. Data Figure 8-2. Architectural Diagram of the Electronic Tool All of the aforementioned datasets and calculation methods are implemented within the tool which is completely in harmony with the information presented in the Guidebook. The electronic tool is intended to serve as a necessary complement to the Guidebook meaning that users of the Guidebook are fully expected to use the tool to model construction emissions rather than developing them manually (e.g., using a spreadsheet). In support of this approach, the Guidebook also serves as a user s guide to the tool and is available electronically from the tool s help menu. In addition to the functionality inputs/suggestions provided by the project panel, the EPA (as part of the panel) provided support in the proper development of both the NONROAD and MOVESbased emission factors. As previously indicated, this included various simplifying assumptions, aggregations of modeling options, and methods to develop emission factors from the emissions. 8.3 Functionality Figure 8-3 provides a functional overview of the electronic tool. As shown, the software represents a calculation tool that uses a specific sets of input data (i.e., project information, activity data, and emission factors) to calculate emissions inventories. Wyle T

37 Project Information User Inputs Activity Data Equipment Fugitive Sources Emission Factors Equipment Fugitive Sources Emissions Calculations Emissions Inventory GUI Tool Figure 8-3. Functional Diagram of the Electronic Tool As previously indicated, project information is necessarily provided by the user while the tool provides default data for activities and emission factors. While the user is able to modify or replace the default activity data with more specific information, the emission factors are not modifiable. The tool has a graphical user interface that allows the user to define scenarios (i.e., as part of the project information) and to modify the default activity data and view emission factors. While the initial overall goal of ACEIT was to serve as a straightforward (no frills) calculation tool, additional features were added to help improve scenario modeling capabilities. The major addition was the ability to model more than one scenario. This was significant because it allowed for the modeling of both contiguous as well as non-contiguous months of construction activities each with different characteristics such as ambient temperatures, seasons, etc. The work required to implement this functionality proved to be difficult since it affected every aspect of data usage, presentation within the GUI as well as in the input/output files, and calculations. However, by implementing it, it ultimately provided the user with a much better modeling experience that helps to save time and effort when modeling complex scenarios. Rather than running the tool multiple times and consolidating multiple output files, the user can generally conduct the work under one run and deal with just one set of results. In addition to the calculator functionalities, the overarching goal was to simplify the use of the tool while still allowing for options that expert users could use. The result was the implementation of default activity data and emission factors so that novice users could quickly generate emissions inventories by providing a few sets of information. This simple usage where all default data are used is labeled as a Level 1 analysis (see Guidebook for more details). In contrast, a Level 2 or 3 analysis would involve the use of more accurate data (e.g., activity data) by expert users. As such, the result is a tool that allows users to perform screening analyses using minimal project information but also allows higher fidelity modeling if more accurate data is available. As Wyle T

38 indicated in Figure 8-1, the tool s series of tabbed pages correspond to different datasets required for emissions calculations. The first three tabs represent the minimum dataset required by the user while default data is presented in the other tabs resulting from the scenario specifications made in the first three tabs. Wyle T

39 9 Assessment of the Electronic Tool 9.1 Introduction The purpose of this assessment was to present the results of evaluations that were conducted to validate the emissions predictive capabilities of the electronic tool, ACEIT. These evaluations were conducted as part of the overall software development efforts following various updates and fixes to both the software and the methodology/data, such as: Replacement of the placeholder datasets (e.g., emission factors) with real data Corrections in activity data for equipment usage Improved weighted average horsepower for each equipment type Corrections of emission factor derivation from the NONROAD activity data Corrections of fugitive emissions assignments to each project type The evaluations were primarily conducted by comparing emission factors and emissions inventories with those from previous studies. These evaluations represent spot verifications designed to provide a level of comfort with the methods and data employed within the tool. A more rigorous validation effort with uncertainty assessments can also be conducted, but was considered outside the scope of this project. It should also be clarified that this work represented a snapshot in time. Any unresolved issues and problem areas identified during the work were addressed in an upgrade to the tool. 9.2 Emission Factor Evaluations Improvements to the NONROAD Equipment Power Rating Selection Originally, the horsepower rating for each equipment was selected by choosing a nominal average or middle value as indicated in the figure below: Wyle T

40 Figure 9-1. Selection of a Nominal, Average Horsepower Rating for NONROAD Equipment After reviewing the selections further, it was determined that for some equipment, the horsepower appeared inappropriate, resulting in emission factors that appeared to be inaccurate. Rather than correcting the horsepower for individual equipment, the correction was accomplished systematically using the NONROAD population data (52state.pop) to select the most popular horsepower. This adjustment appeared to noticeably change (correct) the emission factors and the emissions inventories Non-Road Emission Factor Comparisons The first set of verifications was conducted against the NONROAD data employed within the Federal Aviation Administration s (FAA s) Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). EDMS uses NONROAD emission factors to model emissions from Ground Support Equipment (GSE). Appendix J provides a list of all the diesel and gasoline GSE emission factors for EDMS and ACEIT. These values all correspond to year 2020 conditions. The 2020 ACEIT emission factors were developed using the following test scenario settings: Year: 2020 State: Colorado County: Bent Season: Winter Annual Mean Temperature: 50 < T <= 80 Average Annual Minimum Temperature Change: 10 <= Change in T < 20 Average Annual Maximum Temperature Change: 10 <= Change in T < 20 Project Type: Runway Extension In order to compare emission factors, a sample (random) set of both EDMS and ACEIT equipment were selected so that they can be compared as a group. Individual equipment are difficult to compare (i.e., one-to-one comparisons are difficult) due to various reasons including: Wyle T

41 NOx EF (g/hp-hr) CO EF (g/hp-hr) ACRP Project Airport Construction Emissions Final Report September 10, 2013 Differences in equipment types/names that cannot be resolved Temperatures under which the emission factors were developed State and county impacts on fuel characteristics Seasonal impacts on fuel characteristics Figures 2 through 5 provide comparisons of the diesel-based emission factors while Figures 6 through 9 provide comparisons of gasoline-based emission factors for non-road equipment ACEIT EDMS Equipment Figure 9-2. Comparison of Diesel Non-Road Equipment CO Exhaust Emission Factors ACEIT EDMS Equipment Wyle T

42 VOC or HC EF (g/hp-hr) PM2.5 EF (g/hp-hr) ACRP Project Airport Construction Emissions Final Report September 10, 2013 Figure 9-3. Comparison of Diesel Non-Road Equipment NOx Exhaust Emission Factors ACEIT EDMS Equipment Figure 9-4. Comparison of Diesel Non-Road Equipment PM 2.5 Exhaust Emission Factors ACEIT (VOC) EDMS (HC) Equipment Figure 9-5. Comparison of Diesel Non-Road Equipment VOC/HC Exhaust Emission Factors Wyle T

43 NOx EF (g/hp-hr) CO EF (g/hp-hr) ACRP Project Airport Construction Emissions Final Report September 10, ACEIT EDMS Equipment Figure 9-6. Comparison of Gasoline Non-Road Equipment CO Exhaust Emission Factors ACEIT EDMS Equipment Figure 9-7. Comparison of Gasoline Non-Road Equipment NOx Exhaust Emission Factors Wyle T

44 VOC or HC EF (g/hp-hr) PM2.5 EF (g/hp-hr) ACRP Project Airport Construction Emissions Final Report September 10, ACEIT EDMS Equipment Figure 9-8. Comparison of Gasoline Non-Road Equipment PM 2.5 Exhaust Emission Factors ACEIT EDMS Equipment Figure 9-9. Comparison of Gasoline Non-Road Equipment VOC/HC Exhaust Emission Factors It should be noted that the emission factors were kept in the units shown in Appendix J so that they reflect a normalization by horsepower. While specific individual comparisons are difficult, group comparisons are reasonable partly because the core non-road equipment engine designs are similar and need to adhere to the tiered certification levels. Although the figures show various individual differences, most of the comparisons for both diesel and gasoline-based emission factors appear to show reasonable agreement. They show that the emission factors used in ACEIT appear to have been properly developed. Reasonability in Wyle T

45 CO EF (g/veh-mile) NOx EF (g/veh-mile) ACRP Project Airport Construction Emissions Final Report September 10, 2013 this case is judged based on the overall distribution of emission factors and that there is no clear group differences. The exception are the gasoline-based CO emission factors. Both Figure 6 and the data presented in Appendix J show significant differences. Further investigation appeared to indicate that this may be a normal artifact of improvements in the tiered emissions requirements reflected in the latest version of NONROAD used for this assessment On-Road Emission Factor Comparisons In addition to non-road equipment, similar reasonability comparisons of emission factors for onroad equipment were also conducted. The comparisons were conducted against the MOBILE6.2 emission factors currently employed within EDMS. Because of the use of generic vehicle classes, the comparisons can be conducted more specifically for on-road vehicles, but there are still complicating factors that do not allow a complete apples-to-apples -type comparison, such as: Temperatures under which the emission factors were developed State and county impacts on fuel characteristics Seasonal impacts on fuel characteristics Other complicating factors can be considered inherent differences in the default data (e.g., age and VMT distributions) used in MOBILE6.2 versus MOVES which were left unchanged since the purpose was to compare the implementations in EDMS and ACEIT. Figures 10 through 13 show comparisons of emission factors for the gasoline, light-duty, passenger vehicles while Figures 14 through 17 show comparisons of emission factors for diesel, heavy-duty vehicles. As with the non-road equipment comparisons, the emission factors for the on-road equipment were obtained from the same 2020 scenario MOBILE6.2 - Light duty Equipment MOVES 2010b - Passenger Car 0 MOBILE6.2 - Light duty Equipment MOVES 2010b - Passenger Car Figure Comparison of Gasoline On- Road, Light-Duty, Passenger Vehicle CO Emission Factors Figure Comparison of Gasoline On- Road, Light-Duty, Passenger Vehicle NOx Emission Factors Wyle T

46 NOx EF (g/veh-mile) CO EF (g/veh-mile) VOC EF (g/veh-mile) PM10 EF (g/veh-mile) ACRP Project Airport Construction Emissions Final Report September 10, MOBILE6.2 - Light duty Equipment MOVES 2010b - Passenger Car MOBILE6.2 - Light duty Equipment MOVES 2010b - Passenger Car Figure Comparison of Gasoline On- Road, Light-Duty, Passenger Vehicle VOC Emission Factors Figure Comparison of Gasoline On- Road, Light-Duty, Passenger Vehicle PM 10 Emission Factors EDMS Class 7 HD EDMS Class 8a HD EDMS Class 8b HD ACEIT Asphalt 18 Wheeler Equipment ACEIT Cement Mixer ACEIT ACEIT Dump Truck Dump Truck - Asphalt - Subbase Figure Comparison of Diesel On-Road, Heavy-Duty Vehicle CO Emission Factors EDMS Class 7 HD EDMS Class 8a HD EDMS Class 8b HD ACEIT Asphalt 18 Wheeler Equipment ACEIT Cement Mixer ACEIT Dump Truck - Asphalt ACEIT Dump Truck - Subbase Wyle T

47 PM10 EF (g/veh-mile) VOC EF (g/veh-mile) ACRP Project Airport Construction Emissions Final Report September 10, 2013 Figure Comparison of Diesel On-Road, Heavy-Duty Vehicle NOx Emission Factors EDMS Class 7 HD EDMS Class 8a HD EDMS Class 8b HD ACEIT Asphalt 18 Wheeler Equipment ACEIT Cement Mixer ACEIT Dump Truck - Asphalt ACEIT Dump Truck - Subbase Figure Comparison of Diesel On-Road, Heavy-Duty Vehicle VOC Emission Factors EDMS Class 7 HD EDMS Class 8a HD EDMS Class 8b HD ACEIT Asphalt 18 Wheeler Equipment ACEIT Cement Mixer ACEIT Dump Truck - Asphalt ACEIT Dump Truck - Subbase Figure Comparison of Diesel On-Road, Heavy-Duty Vehicle PM 10 Emission Factors Although the vehicle types are labeled as EDMS and ACEIT, the underlying comparisons are actually between MOBILE6.2 and MOVES. Several of the MOBILE6.2 heavy-duty equipment types and each of the four heavy-duty equipment modeled in ACEIT were included (modeled as part of the 2020 scenario). The ACEIT equipment types are mapped to MOVES equipment types as shown in Table 1. Table 9-1. ACEIT to MOVES Equipment Mappings Wyle T

48 ACEIT On-Road Heavy-Duty Equipment Types Asphalt 18 Wheeler Cement Mixer Dump Truck - Asphalt Dump Truck - Subbase Material Flatbed Truck Passenger Car Tractor Trailer MOVES Heavy-Duty On-Road Equipment Types Combination Short-haul Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Combination Short-haul Truck Passenger Car Combination Short-haul Truck Since the equipment mappings for the cement mixer and the two dump trucks are identical, their emission factors would also be the same. This is clearly indicated in the comparison plots. Overall, the comparisons appear to be consistent with findings from earlier studies that show these types of differences between MOVES and MOBILE6.2-generated emissions (e.g., Beardsley 2009 and CRC 2010). Although these past studies were conducted using emissions inventories rather than emission factors and conducted as cases studies for specific locations, they still provide a good sense for the range of differences that can be expected with the emission factors because the activity data used to develop the inventories were the same (or similar) between the two models. While the past studies show that differences of over 50% are not uncommon for some pollutants depending on the modeled scenario (i.e., modeled location), the level of differences shown in some of the figures (e.g., 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16) appear to exceed the differences found in the past studies. Further studies may be warranted, but the trends appear to be appropriate. 9.3 Emission Inventory Evaluations Emissions Inventory Comparisons All default Settings for Various Projects Emissions inventories developed using ACEIT were compared against previously developed inventories, such as those from General Conformity applicability assessments. The first set of comparisons was conducted based on results from three cases: 1. Construction of a consolidated rental car facility (RAC). 2. Construction of a 1,000 ft runway extension. 3. Construction of a revised airport access road. The conformity information reported in Table 2 are reported in the actual conformity documents, and represent the peak year emissions in tons per year including both combustion and fugitivetype emissions. The ACEIT results are based exclusively on the use of default data and assumptions for the necessary user inputs including project type and cost. The results show extensive differences from the use of the default data in ACEIT. Wyle T

49 Table 9-2. Comparisons of Emissions Inventories from ACEIT and Previous Studies (all Emissions in tons/yr) Model/Method CO NO x SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 VOC RAC Conformity NA 8.77 RAC ACEIT Rwy Ext Conformity Rwy Ext ACEIT Access Rd Conformity Access Rd ACEIT Source: Synergy Consultants, based on results reported in actual conformity applicability analyses as well as use of Version 0.9 ACEIT using default data. Listed above as reported in documents. One of the complicating factors associated with these comparisons is that the years during which these construction projects were planned to occur are not available for modeling in ACEIT. The ACEIT provides for construction in the year 2013 and beyond, whereas the projects used for comparison were valid for years prior to 2013, some as many as 10 years. The older projects used the tiered emission standards for non-road engines found in 40 CFR Part 89, and usually for Tier 1-3 standards. Tier 4 emission standards for the heavier equipment, greater than 75 horsepower, is not required until the manufacture years. The emission factors for these large engines in the ACEIT reflect the lower emission standards and helps to explain much of the lower emissions estimated by ACEIT. The differences in equipment activity data (i.e., hours of usage) were also found to be attributable to the differences (ACEIT defaults versus more project-specific). Overall, the differences show the importance of having improved local data. For instance, the default data for the rental car facility (RAC) do not reflect the amount of excavation needed for this specific facility. The results of the Runway Extension differ the greatest for PM, where the conformity document assumed a large amount of fugitive dust, which was not included in the ACEIT results. A software bug was found where the fugitive PM results were not being added to the exhaust emissions. This bug has been correct. In addition, a bug related to the calculation of HC/VOC emissions was also correct it now provides lower VOC emissions. Since these inventory differences can be explained, they help to verify the reasonableness of the results. In addition, it is important to note that the purpose in developing the tool is not just to simplify and support the development of emissions inventories, but to provide consistency. Even if local data is available for construction project, two different persons using the same initial data may end up with different results due to the myriad of modeling choices and assumptions that need to be made Emissions Inventory Comparisons Runway Extension Project Wyle T

50 A second set of comparisons were conducted using the results from a 2005 runway extension project at a small, municipal airport. Unlike the previous inventory comparisons, project-specific data were used in ACEIT to help gauge the overall emissions results. To begin the assessment, as little information as possible was input into ACEIT, thereby simulating a novice s attempt at developing the inventory (i.e., all default emission factors and activity data were used). An examination of the size details showed ACEIT was light on the volume of soil to be disturbed and moved. This is not a flaw in ACEIT, rather, each situation is unique with respect to the condition of the site to be developed. Therefore, the ACEIT input was revised to show 228,600 cubic yards (cy) for Excavation (Borrow) and 180,000 cy for Excavation-Cut to fill, Which is consistent with the original conformity evaluation. The original data did not include measure of Topsoil Stripping. So, the default value of 14,430 square yards (sy) was not changed. ACEIT appeared to under-predict the overall length for runway lighting. For a 1,300 feet runway extension, ACEIT gave 2,800 feet for lights. This was revised to 1,300 X 3 = 3,900 feet to account for lights on both sides of the runway and the centerline lights as well. ACEIT appeared to cover all other activities adequately that were originally modeled except for pavement demolition again, another site-specific condition. After this assessment, demolition project types were also included in ACEIT. When the original emissions inventory was compared to that produced by ACEIT, there were large differences in the emissions of CO and NO x (the original emissions were higher than estimated by ACEIT). The original inventory had much higher emissions for NOx and CO. An investigation on possible causes focused on dump trucks since these large trucks are heavily used for excavation work. When the total hours of usage for the dump truck were applied to the difference in emission factors between the original work and ACEIT, the resulting emissions helped to confirm that much of the differences in the emissions inventory appear to be due to the emission factors and site-specific conditions that ACEIT would not anticipate. Other differences can be attributed to the additional construction activities included in the ACEIT modeling work and the missing demolition activity Emissions Inventory Comparisons Project-Specific Data used in ACEIT A third comparison was made against a taxiway construction project at Denver international Airport on Concourse B (City and County of Denver 2004). The following texts describe the construction emissions were originally calculated for the project: The evaluation considered emissions from non-road vehicles and equipment, asphalt paving (i.e. evaporative VOC emissions), concrete batching, and land development (including wind erosion). Emissions calculations were not performed for on-road vehicles and equipment. PM 10 emission factors per cubic yard of concrete for an average batch formulation at a typical concrete batching facility using the central mix method are presented in Table (in the referenced document) Plant Wide Emission Factors Per Yard of Central Wyle T

51 Mix Concrete in Section of AP-42. PM 10 emissions associated with wind erosion from sand and aggregate storage piles were calculated using methodologies presented in Section 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining of AP-42 because no wind erosion factors are not included in Section Asphalt paving emissions associated with the construction of Taxiway K were calculated using the methodologies presented in Section 4.5 Asphalt Paving Operations of AP-42. The emission factor for earth moving was derived from Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section Heavy Construction Operations, January The monthly emissions factor used was 1.2 tons/acre/month. Emission factors for wind erosion were derived from Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining, October Emission factors for wind erosion are expressed in tons/acre/year. Emission factors for total suspended particulates (TSP) were converted to PM 10 emission factors. It was assumed that PM 10 represents 50% of TSP. It was assumed that Taxiway K would be constructed in It was assumed that concrete would be batched on-site. It was assumed that asphalt would be batched off-site. The modeling in ACEIT was conducted using default options and data for the scenario depicted above. It should be noted that because of the default settings in ACEIT, the emissions inventory generated by ACEIT includes emissions from on-road vehicles. The emissions inventory comparisons are shown in Table 9-3 Table 9-3. Comparison of Emissions Inventories for Taxiway Project Model/Method CO NO x SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 VOC Taxiway K Conformity Nonroad equipment n.a..42 n.a OnRoad n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Fugitive n.a. n.a. n.a..423 n.a Total n.a..843 n.a Taxiway K ACEIT Nonroad equipment OnRoad* Fugitive Total These comparison show reasonable agreement between the two sets of emissions. However, there are significant differences in fugitive PM and VOC emissions (the higher values from ACEIT). These are likely due to the software bugs as indicated previously, which have been corrected. Wyle T

52 9.3.4 Conclusion The overall conclusion is that ACEIT appears to generate reasonable emissions. The comparisons of emission factors indicate good agreement with other models (e.g., EDMS and MOBILE6.2). The emissions inventory comparisons also show reasonable agreement. The main differences could be explained based project-specific data and modeling differences. As such, it is worth repeating that whenever possible, more accurate, project-specific data (e.g., project activities, equipment, hours-of-use, etc.) should be obtained whenever possible in order to improve the modeling work. The default options/data in ACEIT is intended to provide a screening-level emissions inventory. As part of this assessment, a few updates were made to ACEIT including the addition of demolition project types and the modification to use the most popular horsepower ratings (based on equipment population distribution). Also, the identification and correction of two software bugs related to fugitive PM and HC/VOC emissions also explain the differences and improved the modeling work. Wyle T

53 10 Plan for Integration within the FAA s AEDT 10.1 Introduction The purpose of this section is to provide an overall plan for incorporating the airport construction emissions methods and data contained within the Airport Construction Emissions Inventory Tool (ACEIT) into the Federal Aviation Administration s (FAA s) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). This plan is intended to serve as a guide for the FAA and its developers should they decide to integrate ACEIT s methods and data into AEDT AEDT System Overview AEDT represents the FAA s efforts to combine legacy noise (e.g., Integrated Noise Model, INM) and emissions/air quality (e.g., Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System, EDMS) models into a single modeling system. The purpose in doing this is to help ensure both noise and emissions modeling are conducted using the same underlying methods (e.g., aircraft performance) and datasets (e.g., airport information). This will allow the user to have more confidence when conducting tradeoff and interdependency-type studies between noise and emissions. In addition to aggregating the legacy models, AEDT will also represent the state-ofthe-art in open (non-proprietary) methods and data since it will include the products of years of FAA research. In its simplest description, AEDT represents a collection of computational modules and datasets with a taskmaster module that manages their control and access. Figure 1 provides a simplified overview of this system. User Graphical User Interface Taskmaster Database AEDT Computational Modules Noise Results Emissions Results Wyle T

54 Figure 1. Simplified Overview of the AEDT System In order to bring order to this system with its many different datasets and modules, the FAA instituted a standardized framework and specifications that each dataset (which form the overall database) and modules must adhere to. For each computational module, at least two documents are necessary: Algorithm Design Document (ADD) Interface Control Document (ICD) The ADD is essentially a technical document that explains the methodology used in the module. It provides all of the calculation methods/equations, variables and constants, assumptions, etc. In contrast, the ICD is intended to support the programming and module access efforts since it essentially provides a listing of all of the input and output variables (i.e., properties) as well as the structure and format of any methods (i.e. callable object methods). The overall AEDT system is developed using Microsoft Visual Studio.NET integrated development environment (IDE). Although the preference is to use one language (e.g., C++ or C#), the environment allows the seamless use of different languages for different modules. Each module is generally developed as a managed,.net Dynamic Link Library (DLL), and the datasets are stored in a Microsoft SQL database Implementing Airport Construction Emissions Modeling Capability into AEDT In order to implement any new computational module into the AEDT system, the general requirements are to develop it in the form of a managed DLL with coding written in the Visual Studio.NET environment. Coding in other programming environments may be allowed, but the preference would be to use the latest version of Visual Studio.NET. ACEIT has been developed using Visual V #, one of the languages within Visual Studio.NET. The emissions and data access routines within ACEIT exist in a modular format and can be extracted from ACEIT in a straightforward manner for conversion into a DLL format. The ACEIT V # code will be available along with the Final Report for dissemination to the FAA based on TRB/ACRP s purview. The extraction of the code within ACEIT needs to follow the specifications specified in the ADD and ICD documentation. Since the Final Report for this ACRP project will provide all of the details regarding the construction emissions methods and data, it can serve as the ADD. Indeed, the Final Report will provide far more information than that typically found in most ADDs since the Final Report will also describe all of the decisions and other background information related to the progression of the project. As a result, the only remaining item necessary for implementation within AEDT is the ICD. The remaining parts of this section describe the main components of the ICD. Wyle T

55 The input section and output results in ACEIT can be used as a starting point for the input and output variable specifications, respectively, within the ICD. The main differences are those variables that are not necessary for generating (or representing) the emissions inventories. For example, the study name and description are not necessary those are specific to the ACEIT graphical user interface. With that in mind, the input variables are provided in Table 1. Table Input Variables Input Variable Units Type State N/A String County N/A String Year Year Integer Number of Months Month Integer Season N/A String Average Daily Temperature Range N/A Integer Maximum Daily Temperature Change Range N/A Integer Minimum Daily Temperature Change Range N/A Integer Project Type N/A Integer Size Variable (Cost of the Project) $ Million Single Precision Other Size Variables () N/A Array The temperature ranges, project type, and other size variables are all listed in the Final Report. Each of these variables can be designated using an integer (e.g., 1 equals T<=10 deg. F). The Other Size Variables have been grouped into an array since they are dependent on the project type selected. The Final Report also provides the full list of these variables based on the project type. These input variables represent the least amount of information the user must supply in order to develop an airport construction emissions inventory. The FAA will need to decide which other variables (e.g., activity data) can be modified by the user. Potentially, the FAA can follow the suggestions indicated by the ACEIT interface which allows the user to modify activity data but not the emission factors. Also, unlike the functionality afforded by ACEIT in modeling multiple scenarios under one study, this input variable list represents just one scenario. The modeling of multiple scenarios will depend on how the DLL is ultimately incorporated into AEDT and the functionality offered by the AEDT GUI. In addition, how the values for each variable are specified by the user (e.g., drop down list, typed value, etc.) are also dependent on the design and functionality of the AEDT GUI. Similar to the inputs, the output variables also focus on the minimal information generated: total emissions by pollutant for each equipment or fugitive source as indicted in Table 2. Table Output Variables Wyle T

56 Output Variable Units Type Non-Road Equipment Variables () N/A Array On-Road Equipment Variables () N/A Array Fugitive Source Variables () N/A Array Season N/A Integer The non-road equipment variables (e.g., excavator) are based on the project year, project type, and activity type. The on-road equipment variables (e.g., cement mixer) are based on project year only since a constant fleet of default on-road equipment are applied to all scenarios. Fugitive source variables (e.g., soil handling) are based on project year and project type. For each of these multidimensional arrays, emissions for each pollutant are generated as indicated below: Non-Road Equipment Variables: Carbon monoxide (CO) Nitrogen oxides (NO x ) Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) Particulate matter, 10 µm (PM 10 ) Particulate matter, 2.5 µm (PM 2.5 ) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) On-Road Equipment Variables: Carbon monoxide (CO) Nitrogen oxides (NO x ) Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) Particulate matter, 10 µm (PM 10 ) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Fugitive Source Variables: Carbon monoxide (CO) Nitrogen oxides (NO x ) Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) Particulate matter, 10 µm (PM 10 ) Particulate matter, 2.5 µm (PM 2.5 ) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) Methane (CH 4 ) Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) Once these detailed results are generated, the AEDT GUI can aggregate the results in various ways including total emissions per year (e.g., tons/yr). Wyle T

57 References Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) (2010). U.S. Air Force Air Conformity Applicability Model, Version 4.5, User s Guide. January. Beardsley, Megan, et al (2009). Air Pollution Emissions from Highway Vehicles: What MOVES Tells Us. 18 th Annual International Emission Inventory Conference. Baltimore, Maryland. April California Air Resources Board (CARB a ) (2007). EMFAC2007, Version 2.30, Calculating Emissions Inventories for Vehicles in California, User s Guide. California Air Resources Board (CARB b ) (2007). User s Guide for OFFROAD2007. CARB Mobile Source Emissions Inventory Program. November 7. Choi, D., Beardley, M., Brzezinski, D., Koupal, J., Warila, J. (2011). MOVES Sensitivity Analysis: The Impacts of Temperature and Humidity on Emissions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OTAQ, Ann Arbor, MI. City and County of Denver. Concourse B East Expansion and Taxiway K: General Conformity Evaluation. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. February Coordinating Research Council (CRC) (2010). Review of the 2009 Draft Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) Model. CRC Report NO. E-68a. November. Environ International Corporation (Environ) (2011). CalEEMod User s Guide Version February. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (1997). Air Quality Procedures for ian Airports & Air Force Bases Appendix F: Ground Support Equipment and Aerospace Ground Equipment Emission Methodology. Report Number FAA-AEE April. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA a ) (2013). Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) User s Manual. FAA-AEE Revision 10. June 17. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA b ) (2013). Aviation Environmental Design Tool. Updated June 27. RS Means (RSM) (2009). Site Work & Landscape Cost Data. Copyright 2008 by RS Means, A Division of Reed Construction Data. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (2007). Software User s Guide: URBEMIS2007 for Windows, Version 9.2, Emissions Estimation for Land Use Development Projects. November. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (2009) Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology, 540 -Asphalt Roofing. Revision Date: July 13. Wyle T

58 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1991). Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study-Report. EPA 460/ , November. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1999). Development of Nonroad, Stationary, and Area Source Emissions for Tier 2/Sulfur NPRM. Memorandum Submitted to Docket A USEPA, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigan. March 29. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2009). EPA NONROAD Model Updates of 2008, NONROAD2008. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. International Emission Inventory Conference. EPA-420-F April. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2012). Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), User Guide for MOVES2010b. Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. EPA-420-B b. June. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2011). Emission Factors & AP 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Technology Transfer Network, Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors. Last updated on Wednesday, December 28. Wyle T

59 Appendix A: Literature Review Bibliography Hardcopy or Electronic? Electronic Electronic Electronic Document Type Complete Citation Document Summary Regulation Studies/Reports Guidance Federal Aviation Administration. Federal Presumed to Conform Actions Under General Conformity. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No 145, pp , July Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Final Environmental Assessment for Runway 1-19 Runway Safety Enhancements, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. December Federal Aviation Administration. Air Quality Procedures for ian Airports & Air Force Bases Appendix F: Ground Support Equipment and Aerospace Ground Equipment Emission Methodology. Report Number FAA-AEE-97-03, April 1997 The FAA s Federal Register notice regarding airport-related actions that are presumed to conform to SIPs. Provides a list of airportrelated actions that are exempt from the general conformity requirements. Provides project descriptions and justifications for airport-related presumed to conform actions. Describes how to apply the list of presumed to conform actions to a proposed airport project (i.e., single action and combined action projects). Contains a construction emissions inventory for proposed runway safety area improvements at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Emissions calculations were performed for on-road construction vehicles, nonroad construction vehicles, land clearing and development activities, and asphalt paving activities. Emission factors from the USEPA s NONROAD model and the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) were used in the analysis. This document provides the methodology for calculating emissions from ground support equipment. GSE units can be very similar to construction equipment as they are non-road, usually dieselpowered, and emissions are calculated using load factors and horsepower, the same as for construction equipment. The text provides definitions of brake horsepower and load factors. Also included is a method to calculate emissions from the power plant generating the electricity to charge electric units. cy/airquality_handbook/ Electronic Guidance Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports. Advisory Circular 150/ E, September 30, 2009 This AC provides the FAA standards for the construction of airports. In particular there is a section on earthwork, which is sometimes the largest contributor to air emissions from construction. Electronic Guidance O Hare Modernization Program (OMP). Memorandum Discussing Construction Specifications for OMP, April 26, This memo ( ) has an attached text that lists construction specifications for the OMP project. Several of the recommendations relate to emission reduction strategies. Wyle T

60 Electronic Guidance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources. EPA420-R , December Presents an overview of mobile sources of emissions and identifies methods that can be used to identify and inventory sources, estimate emissions, and establish and maintain mobile source emission inventories. Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Guidance Guidance Guidance Guidance Guidance Guidance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 3 Stationary Internal Combustion Sources. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, January 1995 (as amended). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section Paved Roads. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, January U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section Unpaved Roads. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, November U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section Heavy Construction Operations. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, January U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, November U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October Summarizes the USEPA s methodology for calculating emissions associated with stationary internal combustion sources and includes emission factors for the same sources. Summarizes the USEPA s methodology for calculating fugitive dust emissions associated with vehicle travel on paved roads and includes particulate emission factors. Summarizes the USEPA s methodology for calculating fugitive dust emissions associated with vehicle travel on un-paved roads and includes particulate emission factors. Summarizes the USEPA s methodology for calculating emissions associated with heavy construction operations including earthmoving activities. Summarizes the USEPA s methodology for calculating dust emissions associated with aggregate handling and storage piles. Summarizes the USEPA s methodology for calculating fugitive dust emissions associated with wind erosion on construction sites. Wyle T

61 Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Guidance Guidance Guidance Guidance Guidance Guidance Guidance Studies/Reports U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, March U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section Concrete Batching. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, June U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 4.5 Asphalt Paving Operations. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, January Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). User s Guide for the Final NONROAD2005 Model. EPA420-R , December Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) User s Manual. FAA-AEE-07-01, November Ringwald, Richard. Means Heavy Construction Handbook, RS Means Company Kingston MA, Kiley, Martin National Construction Estimator 46 th Edition, Craftsman Book Company, Carlsbad, California, 1997 Federal Aviation Administration. Final General Conformity Determination for New Runways, Terminal Facilities and Related Facilities at Washington Dulles International Airport, FAA, August Summarizes the USEPA s methodology for calculating emissions associated with asphalt batch plants and includes emission factors for the same source. Summarizes the USEPA s methodology for calculating emissions associated with concrete batch plants and includes emission factors for the same source. Summarizes the USEPA s methodology for calculating evaporative emissions associated with asphalt paving activities and includes emission factors. The document provides detailed information regarding the U.S. EPA s NONROAD model including: installation instructions, user interface, core model data and algorithms, reporting utilities, and model functionality. The EDMS User Manual provides installation instructions, descriptions regarding the user interface, information regarding the core model and reporting utilities, and information regarding model functionality. Provides guidance concerning the types of construction vehicles/equipment that are used to complete various assignments. Also provides information about the materials handled by various types and powers of equipment. Provides guidance concerning the types of construction vehicles/equipment that are used to complete various assignments. Also provides information about the materials handled by various types and powers of equipment. Contains the documentation included in the Final EIS for the completion of new runways and other terminal facilities at Dulles Airport. The Conformity appendix describes the methods used to prepare the conformity-related inventory, including the construction emissions inventory. The construction appendices provide detailed information regarding assumptions. Wyle T

62 Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Federal Aviation Administration. Clean Air Act Final General Conformity Determination, Los Angeles International Airport Proposed Master Plan Improvements Alternative D, Los Angeles, California, January Federal Aviation Administration. Final General Conformity Determination for Runway 8L-26R, George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Federal Aviation Administration. Final EIS Appendix B Final Air Quality Conformity Analysis (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B) Proposed Master Plan Update Improvements, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, July Port of Seattle. Final Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Comprehensive Development Plan POS SEPA No Environmental Review NEPA Environmental Assessment, CH2M Hill, Appendix I, August Port of Seattle/City of Des Moines. Des Moines Creek Business Park Draft EIS, POS SEPA No 06-13, GENERAL CONFORMITY APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS, Proposed Des Moines Creek Business Park at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport, June Port of Seattle. General Conformity Applicability Analysis Proposed Consolidated Rental Car Facility at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, October Federal Aviation Administration. O Hare Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement & Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Evaluation & General Conformity Determination, Appendix J, July Contains the documentation included in the Final EIS for the Master Plan at LAX, including relocation of a runway, terminal and landside development. Note that this work includes methodologies specific to California. Contains the documentation included in the Final EIS for the new runway development at Houston Intercontinental Airport. Also provides information regarding terminal, rental car and support facility development. Contains the documentation included in the Final EIS for the new runway development at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The Master Plan includes a new runway with significant fill import, as well as terminal and landside improvements. This was the first conformity evaluation for a complex airport project after passage of the General Conformity requirements. Contains the documentation included in the Final EIS for terminal and landside development at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Contains the conformity documentation for commercial development on residual airport lands at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Contains the conformity documentation for a consolidated rental car facility at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Contains the documentation included in the Final EIS for the reconfiguring the airfield at Chicago O Hare International Airport. Also included are terminal and landside development. The documentation shows the conformity methodology as well as the detailed construction emission estimates. Wyle T

63 Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Guidance Guidance Guidance Federal Aviation Administration. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Appendix F, February Federal Aviation Administration. O Hare Modernization Final Environmental Impact Statement & Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Evaluation & General Conformity Determination, Appendix Q, July U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study-Report. EPA 460/ , November U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study Appendices. EPA 460/ , November U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity. EPA-420- B , April Contains the documentation included in the Final EIS for a new runway and terminal development at Phoenix Sky Harbor. Contains the documentation included in the Final EIS for the reconfiguring the airfield at Chicago O Hare International Airport. Included are also terminal and landside development. The documentation shows the conformity methodology as well as the detailed construction estimates. Contains emission calculation methodologies for nonroad vehicles and equipment including construction equipment. Used historically to calculate emissions from airport service vehicles and airport construction activities. Contains a discussion regarding the contribution of nonroad sources to ozone and carbon monoxide pollution. Has been replaced by NONROAD. Contains emission calculation methodologies for nonroad vehicles and equipment including construction equipment. Used historically to calculate emissions from airport service vehicles and airport construction activities. Contains emission factor data and load factor data for construction equipment and vehicles. Provides guidance on the use of MOVES for emission inventory development in support of state implementation plans (SIPs) and for regional emissions analysis for transportation conformity determinations. Electronic Electronic Guidance Research U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User s Guide to MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2. EPA420- R , August Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Update of Diesel Construction Equipment Emission Estimates for the State of Texas Phase 1 and II. Eastern Research Group, Inc., Austin, Texas, July User Guide for the MOBILE model. MOBILE was used to calculate emission factors for on-road motor vehicles including pick-up trucks and delivery vehicles associated with airport construction activities. Presents the results of a study conducted to refine an earlier emissions inventory for diesel construction equipment. The study relied on surveys and other available data sources to collect data regarding construction equipment activity and use across Texas. The collected operator data allowed for the development of industryspecific equipment population growth and geographic allocation surrogates. Wyle T

64 Electronic Electronic Guidance Studies/Reports Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. Illinois Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports. November 2, Landrum & Brown. Air Quality Assessment, Covington Municipal Airport. February This document provides a detailed list of construction tasks required to build an airport. For instance, Item 151 is the description of clearing and grubbing and includes details of the work required to remove existing concrete and drainage structures. Item 152 is excavation and embankments; there are sections describing the details of preparing the various courses of base material, including the depth and type of material. There is a large section on the installation of lighting systems. This is an air quality assessment for a small airport in Georgia. The air quality study evaluated operational and construction emissions related to a proposed runway extension project. The report does not include the calculations for the inventory, but does contain the construction emission inventory data. Electronic Electronic Electronic Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Guidance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling-Compression-Ignition, NR-009d. EPA-420-R July U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling, NR-005d. EPA-420-R July Jones & Stokes Associates. Software User s Guide: URBEMIS2007 for Windows Version 9.2. November Technical documentation related to the USEPA s NONROAD2008a emission inventory model. This report describes and documents exhaust emission factors used to model compression-ignition engines. Pollutants addressed in the document include hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ), carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. This report documents the default median life, annual activity, and load factor input values used by the USEPA s NONROAD2008a emission inventory model. The NONROAD model uses annual activity and load factor values to calculate yearly emissions for each engine type included in the model. In addition, NONROAD uses the activity and load factor values, in combination with the median life values, to calculate the fleet age distributions for each engine type. The User Manual for the URBEMIS2007 model Version 9.2. The URBEMIS model is designed to calculate operational emissions and construction-related emissions for land use development projects in California. The URBEMIS model incorporates emission factors for on-road and offroad motor vehicles from the EMFAC2007 and OFFROAD2007 emission models. The URBEMIS model has been applied to several airport projects in California (i.e., to calculate construction-related emissions). Wyle T

65 Electronic Guidance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Using the MOVES and EMFAC Emissions Models in NEPA Evaluations. February 8, Memorandum from Susan E. Bromm, Director Office of Federal Activities to USEPA Regions I-X regarding use of the MOVES2010a model in Transportation Conformity, General Conformity, and NEPA Evaluations for projects in all states except California. The EMFAC2007 model is recommended for estimating motor vehicle emissions for projects in California. Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Studies/Reports Research Research Research Guidance SAGE Environmental, L.L.C. Final Environmental Assessment, Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and Base Building Construction and Operation, McCarran International Airport. June 30, Pouliot, G., Simon H., Bhave, P., Tong, D., Mobley, D., Pace, T., and Pierce, T. Assessing the Anthropogenic Fugitive Dust Emission Inventory and Temporal Allocation using an Updated Speciation of Particulate Matter. Pace, Thompson G. Methodology to Estimate the Transportable Fraction (TF) of Fugitive Dust Emissions for Regional and Urban Scale Air Quality Analyses. Air Quality Modeling Group (AQAD), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. August STI Sonoma Technology. The Arizona Construction Emissions Field Study Arizona Department of Transportation. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May Pollutant emissions associated with construction of the new ATCT and demolition of the existing ATCT were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 software. Describes fugitive dust speciation profiles for anthropogenic sources (unpaved and paved road dust, dust from highway travel, commercial and residential construction activities, and agricultural tilling). Discusses the limitations of the emission inventory modeling process with respect to calculation of fugitive dust emissions from anthropogenic sources. Summarizes the research that has been conducted to improve the understanding of fugitive PM2.5 and PM10 emissions, impactation on land cover (vegetation and structures) and processes that enhance deposition on a local scale. A poster that summarizes the construction emissions study performed for SR92 in Arizona. This document was issued in June 2010 and updated in May It contains information about URBEMIS, an emissions model for AQ that includes construction emissions. The appendices include emission calculation methods and examples, including an example of construction emissions. Electronic Studies/Reports Exploring the Airport of January 9, Airport Business Magazine This is a magazine article from Airport Business, January Provides a good overview of the airport city concept and ideas as to the future design of airports. Electronic Studies/Reports Federal Aviation Administration. Port Columbus International Airport Final Environmental Impact EIS for Port Columbus International Airport. Includes a detailed construction emissions inventory. Wyle T

66 Statement. March Electronic Electronic Electronic Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Federal Aviation Administration. St. George Municipal Airport Final Environmental Impact Statement. May FAA. Fort Lauderdale Hollywood Final Environmental Impact Statement. June Sustainable Design Standards and Guidelines (v.1) Massachusetts Port Authority. Electronic file includes Table of Contents and Executive Summary. Website provided to access entire document. On the website, Appendix H is the Air Quality appendix. Section 6.4 of the EIS is the Air Quality impact analysis. There are PDF s of all the construction emission calculation worksheets in Appendix H. 33 construction projects are evaluated in this document with very thorough information.66urrent Excerpts of the Air Quality Technical Appendix (Appendix G) from the Final EIS. Appendix G does not contain detailed calculation worksheets for construction emissions but the methodology used to calculate construction-related emissions is described. This manual applies to projects at Boston Logan International Airport (BOS), L.G. Hanscom Field, and Worcester Regional Airport. BOS has the first LEED Certified airport terminal in the world. Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) assisted MassPort in developing the manual. Includes project site designs for several projects, such as, airfield design, ramp, roadway, parking, etc. For each task, there is a list of actions and strategies. Electronic Research Transportation Research Board (TRB). Guidebook on Preparing Airport Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories (ACRP Report 11) Prepared by Kim, B., Waitz, I.A., Vigilante, M., & Bassarab, R. Airport Cooperative Research Program: Washington, D.C. This guideline manual provides a framework for identifying and quantifying specific components of airport contributions to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Includes a section on construction activities. Electronic Studies/Reports Sustainable Construction Practices in Airport Pavement Rehabilitation Projects Prepared by Velez-Vega, E.M. & Bardt, D.R. Kimley-Horn and Associates: West Palm Beach, FL. Presented at the 2010 FAA Worldwide Airport Technology Transfer Conference, Atlantic City, NJ. This paper (and associated presentation) provides a list of sustainable practices, particularly interesting is the use of recycled material for re- paving. References LEED considerations. Also looks at stormwater design. Wyle T

67 Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Studies/Reports Research Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). Sustainable Airport Planning, Design and Construction Guidelines (v. 3.1) Prepared by LAWA and CDM. Los Angeles and Cambridge,MA. Pena-Mora,F., Ahn, C., Golparvar-Fard, M., Hajibabai, L., Shiftehfar, S., An, S., & Aziz, Z A Framework for Managing Emissions from Construction Processes. Presented at the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Austin, TX. City of Chicago. O Hare Modernization Program: Sustainable Design Manual Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Final Environmental Impact Report, Final Environmental Impact Statement Cadiz Groundwater Storage and Dry-year Supply Program. San Bernardino County, California. September, Zander Associates. Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for Chatsworth Reservoir Wetland and Riparian Mitigation Program. Sylmar, California. October, This manual provides a comprehensive set of airport-specific performance standards that focus on sustainability. Strategies are intended to reduce carbon and water footprints and to create public benefits. Includes brownfield redevelopment. Lists types of renewable materials used in construction. Does not include construction equipment lists but provides information regarding certain construction tasks. This paper addresses construction emissions, but it is not specific to airport construction projects. On page 7 there is flow diagram for earth moving activities. Discusses construction emission models and sustainable construction practices. This manual applies LEED principles to airport construction projects. Lists design guidelines for several projects that provides ideas for construction details. Provides details for some design recommendations that could be included in the ACRP 02-33, such as specifying low VOC adhesives and paints. Also discusses using salvaged materials and resources. Provides a summary of how to calculate construction-related emissions. A summary method is provided for the following sources of construction emissions: construction equipment engine exhaust; motor vehicle exhaust, brake and tire wear; entrained dust from material delivery trucks traveling on unpaved roads; entrained dust from cement trucks traveling on unpaved roads; entrained dust from construction worker buses while traveling on unpaved roads during construction of the conveyance and power transmission facilities; entrained dust from vehicles travelling on paved roads; entrained dust from construction equipment traveling on unpaved surfaces in construction areas; fugitive dust from bulldozing, grading and scraping; fugitive dust from handling of excavated material, such as dropping material into haul trucks; and fugitive dust from wind erosion of disturbed areas. Details calculation of horsepower-scaled emission factors for mobile and off road equipment; tabulates emission factors for equipment types with sources of emission factors listed. Wyle T

68 Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Guidance Spreadsheet Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Guidance Sonoma Technology, Inc. Construction Activity, Emissions, and Air Quality Impacts: Real-World Observations from an Arizona Road-Widening Case Study.Phoenix, Arizona. September 17, ENVIRON International Corporation. Port of Oakland 2005 Seaport Construction Emissions Inventory.Oakland, California. March 12, County of Lake Community Development Department. Bottle Rock Power Steam Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/Enviromental Assessment. Lakeport, California. September 16, New York State Department of Transportation. Environmental Procedures Manual. New York, January 2001 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Off- Road Mobile Source Emission Factors Federal Aviation Administration. Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report EOEA 10458, Logan Airside Improvements Planning Project, March Federal Aviation Administration. General Conformity Applicability Analysis for Proposed Love Field Modernization Program at Love Field Texas, March 19, Transportation Research Board (TRB). Sustainable Airport Construction Practices (ACRP Report 42) Prepared by Ricondo & Associates (Chicago), Center for Transportation and the Environment (Atlanta), & Ardmore Associates (Chicago). Airport Cooperative Research Program: Washington, D.C. Study assessed impacts of widening a two lane highway on air quality and emissions. Mainly focused on PM emissions, but observed GHGs as well. Determined that the prominent contributor was fugitive dust, and not vehicle emissions. Includes emission estimates for construction equipment and on-road trucks associated with construction activities at different marine terminals at the Port. Each project is described and then a table summarizes the emissions associated with each project. Details emission calculations for four different phases of construction: access road construction, pipeline construction, well pad construction, and well drilling. Summarizes the NYSDOT s methodology for calculating emissions associated with transportation projects. Contains tables for Mobile6.2 software Spreadsheet containing methodology and emission factors for calculating off-road mobile source emissions from construction equipment for 2007 to Contains the documentation included in the Final EIS for a new runway at Boston Logan Airport. The appendix focuses on the construction assumptions. Contains the general conformity and construction assumptions for the modernization of the existing terminal at Dallas Love Field. ACRP Report 42: Sustainable Airport Construction Practices is a collection of sustainable practices that can be implemented during the construction phase of an airport project. This collection includes best practices, methods, procedures, and materials. The study findings are also presented in a searchable, filterable Microsoft Excel spreadsheet on a CD-ROM. Wyle T

69 Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Studies/Reports City and County of Denver. Chiller Engine Replacement Project: General Conformity Evaluation. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. February City and County of Denver. Rental Car Facility Expansion: General Conformity Evaluation. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. December City and County of Denver. Concourse B East Expansion and Taxiway K: General Conformity Evaluation. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. February Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Documented Categorical Exclusion, Northwest Wing of Concourse D, McCarran International Airport. March Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Construction of Terminal 3, McCarran International Airport. Appendix B Air Quality Analysis. September City and County of Denver. Expansion of Concourse A East and C East: General Conformity Applicability Analysis. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. April Technical documentation includes a construction emissions inventory for a proposed chiller engine replacement project at Denver International Airport. Construction equipment (exhaust) emissions were calculated using information from NONROAD and land development emissions (fugitive dust) were calculated using information from the USEPA s AP-42 publication. Technical documentation includes a construction emissions inventory for a rental car facility expansion project at Denver International Airport. Includes detailed worksheets with construction activity data (nonroad construction vehicles and equipment) and calculation equations for fugitive dust and asphalt paving related emissions. Technical documentation includes a construction emissions inventory for a concourse expansion project and an associated taxiway paving project at Denver International Airport. Includes detailed worksheets with construction activity data (nonroad construction vehicles and equipment) and calculation equations for fugitive dust and asphalt paving related emissions. Air quality technical report prepared in connection with a NEPA CATEX. Contains detailed construction activity data for the proposed Northwest Wing of Concourse D at McCarran International Airport (now constructed) and a detailed inventory of construction-related emissions. Air quality appendix prepared in connection with the Supplemental environmental assessment for Terminal 3 at McCarran International Airport. The construction emissions inventory was developed using detailed (engineering-level) estimates for each phase of construction of the Terminal building and associated elevated roadway system. The construction emissions inventory also addressed site preparation and utility infrastructure upgrades associated with Terminal 3 which is proposed on a site formerly occupied by a residential subdivision. Draft Report (final report issued in August 2007) includes a construction emissions inventory for a multi-concourse expansion project at Denver International Airport. The project also involved the extension of a taxiway and development of a multi-use apron. Includes detailed worksheets with construction activity data (nonroad construction vehicles and equipment) and calculation equations for fugitive dust, asphalt batching, concrete batching, and asphalt paving activities. Final Report available in hard copy only. Wyle T

70 Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Studies/Reports Studies/Reports Regulation Regulation Regulation Regulation Department of Army. Earthmoving Operations. FM 5-434, June United States Marine Corps. Final United States Marine Corps F-35B East Coast Basing Environmental Impact Statement. Vol.I, October U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 89. Partial Removal of Direct Final Rule and Revision of the Nonroad Diesel Technical Amendments and Tier 3 Technical Relief Provision. December 26, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Parts 9, 69, et. al. Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Final Rule. June 29, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Parts 9, 86, and 89. Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Final Rule. October 23, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Parts 9, 89, Nonroad Diesel Technical Amendments and Tier 3 Technical Relief Provision. September 18, A handbook with information about general construction by the US Army. (Chapter 2 of the Army manual is about dozers and what it takes to removes trees; Chapter 4 covers grading; Chapter 5 covers loaders; Chapter 10 covers dump trucks; Chapter 12 covers asphalt application rates. Environmental Impact Statement for USMC F-35B (There were not any construction related emissions that were described in this document); Appendices are uploaded as separate document but it has the same document ID (KN004). December 2007 revisions to 40 CFR Part 89 which establishes emission standards for nonroad diesel engines. Established the Tier 4 emission standards for nonroad diesel engines. Also established ultra-low sulfur standards for diesel fuel. Established the Tier 2 and Tier 3 emission standards for nonroad diesel engines. September 2007 technical revisions to emission standards for nonroad diesel engines. Electronic Regulation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Parts 60, 85, et. al. Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule. July 11, Established emission standards for stationary compression ignition ICEs similar to the mobile source emission standards adopted for nonroad diesel engines. The standards apply to diesel generators which are often used by construction contractors. Electronic Regulation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Parts 9 and 89. Control of Air Pollution; Determination of Significance for Nonroad Sources and Emission Standards for New Nonroad CompressionIgnition Engines At or Above 37 Kilowatts. June 17, Established emission standards for nonroad sources with compression ignition engines 50 horsepower or greater. Wyle T

71 Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Regulation Regulation Regulation Guidance Guidance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Parts 60, 63, et. al. Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment; Proposed Rule. May 18, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part Control of Emissions from New Large Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines. November 8, 2002, as amended. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 90. Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark- Ignition Engines At or Below 19 Kilowatts. July 3, 1995 as amended. California Air Resources Board. EMFAC2011 User s Guide. September 19, California Air Resources Board. EMFAC2011 Technical Documentation. September 19, The final rule (September 2008) established emission standards for marine spark-ignition engines and small land-based nonroad engines. The USEPA also adopted evaporative emission standards for equipment and vessels using these engines. The standards apply only to newly manufactured products. Established emission standards for large gasoline-powered nonroad engines. Applies to equipment manufactured after January 1, Established emission standards for small nonroad spark ignition engines (at or below 19 kilowatts). Combination of the three User guides developed by the CARB for EMFAC2011 (EMFAC2011-SG, EMFAC2011-LDV, and EMFAC2011-HD). The EMFAC2011 program updated EMFAC2007 and includes the three separate modules listed above. EMFAC2011-SG (Scenario Generator): Estimates emissions for alternative air quality / transportation planning scenarios with alternative vehicle miles traveled by speed and vehicle class, using methods consistent with previous EMFAC model versions. EMFAC2011-LDV (Light-Duty Vehicle): Estimates emissions for gasoline vehicles, diesel vehicles <14,000 pounds gross vehicle rated weight, urban transit buses, and motor homes. EMFAC2011-HD (Heavy-Duty): Estimates emissions for commercial diesel trucks and buses which exceed 14,000 pounds gross vehicle rated weight. The EMFAC2011 technical documentation describes the changes to the EMFAC model from previous versions of EMFAC including EMFAC2007 and provides information regarding an on-line data tool maintained by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) which contains on road vehicle emissions data for various regions in California. EMFAC2011 reflects recent rulemakings by CARB including on-road diesel fleet rules, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Wyle T

72 Electronic Electronic Electronic Studies/Reports Guidance Guidance U.S. Department of Energy, Draft Environmental Assessment for Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Initiative Application, September Federal Aviation Administration. Voluntary Airport Low Emission Program Technical Report (v 7). Office of Airports, Airport Planning and Programming. Washington D.C. December 2, 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section Industrial Wind Erosion. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, November The Delphi project involves the construction and operation of a 10,700 square foot utilities building containing boilers and heaters and a 70,000 square foot engineering laboratory, as well as site improvements (roads, parking, buildings, landscaping, and lighting). Appendix A describes a methodology for concrete delivery. The Voluntary Airport Low Emissions Program (VALE) is the FAA s program to assist airport planners in converting on-road vehicles to alternative fuels with lower emissions. Chapter 5 contains the emission factors for new on-road engines/vehicles. There are several tables in Chapter 5 showing the distinction between emission standards for the various categories of vehicles, i.e. light-duty trucks, passenger cars, heavy-duty trucks, etc. Summarizes the USEPA s methodology for calculating wind erosion emissions (i.e., wind blown dust emissions). Electronic Electronic Guidance Guidance Federal Aviation Administration. Air Quality Procedures for ian Airports & Air Force Bases Appendix H: Stationary Emission Methodology. Report Number FAA-AEE-97-03, April Environ International Corporation. CalEEMod User s Guide Version : Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod. February Contains emission factors and emission calculation equations for several sources of emissions that are relevant to the ACRP research including: coating and painting operations, sand/dirt piles, and material loading/unloading operations. CalEEMOD is a software model that calculates air pollutant emissions and greenhouse gas emissions for land use projects. Developed for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), CalEEMod is capable of calculating emissions for construction and operational sources of emissions. Appendix A of the User s Guide provides technical details regarding the calculation methodologies employed by the model. Wyle T

73 Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Hardcopy Guidance Guidance Guidance Studies/Reports Guidance Environ International Corporation. CalEEMod User s Guide Version : Appendix E Technical Source Information. February Environ International Corporation. CalEEMod User s Guide Version February Jones & Stokes Associates. Appendices, Software User s Guide: URBEMIS2007 for Windows Version 9.2. November Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Record of Decision for Capacity enhancement Program at Philadelphia International Airport Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. December University of California, Berkeley. Airport Air Quality: Approaches, Basics & Challenges. Institute of Transportation Studies CalEEMOD is a software model that calculates air pollutant emissions and greenhouse gas emissions for land use projects. Developed for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), CalEEMod is capable of calculating emissions for construction and operational sources of emissions. Appendix E of the Users Guide provides additional details regarding construction surveys that were conducted to develop model defaults and construction worker and delivery trip rate assumptions. CalEEMOD is a software model that calculates air pollutant emissions and greenhouse gas emissions for land use projects. Developed for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), CalEEMod is capable of calculating emissions for construction and operational sources of emissions. The technical appendices to the URBEMIS2007 model contain details regarding data and calculation equations used by the model to develop emission estimates for area sources and construction sources of emissions. Appendix A of the User s Guide contains details regarding construction emissions. The document provides the FAA s decision on the Capacity Enhancement Program (CEP) at Philadelphia International Airport. It briefly describes mitigation of construction emissions. Comments from the USEPA on Final Environmental Impact Statement are listed in Attachment A & D. Attachment F shows ambient pollutant concentration for No-action and Alternative scenarios for the year of 2025 by using the worst meteorological case. Presented in a manner consistent with introductory college-level textbook, this publication is a single source of information on the subject of airport-related air quality. Includes a short overview of construction-related emissions and the method of estimating emissions for construction activities. Electronic Guidance Eastern Research Group, Inc. Emission Inventory Improvement Program, Volume III: Chapter 17 Asphalt Paving. January Provides a detailed discussion regarding evaporative emissions from asphalt paving and recommended approaches for estimating emissions. Wyle T

74 Electronic Electronic Guidance Guidance Eastern Research Group, Inc. Emission Inventory Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 3 Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Emissions from Hot-Mix Asphalt Batch Plants. July Choi, D., Beardley, M., Brzezinski, D., Koupal, J., Warila, J. MOVES Sensitivity Analysis: The Impacts of Temperature and Humidity on Emissions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OTAQ, Ann Arbor, MI Provides a detailed discussion regarding evaporative and combustion emissions from asphalt batch plants and recommended approaches for estimating emissions. Provides a sensitivity analyses for the MOVES2010 emissions model focused on the effects of temperature and humidity on emissions calculations. In MOVES2010, temperature and humidity affect emissions through (1) direct effects via temperature adjustment on emission rates, 2) direct effects via a humidity correction factor for NOx, and 3) indirect effects via an air conditioning adjustment. The sensitivity analysis examines relationships among meteorological parameters and emissions for gasoline and diesel vehicles for all road types. Wyle T

75 Appendix B: Project, Activity, and Construction Equipment Relationship Project Type Construction Activities Equipment Mix New Runway Clearing and Grubbing Aerial Lifts Runway Extension/Relocation Excavation Air Compressors Runway Safety Area Grading Bore/Drill Rigs Runway Marking Cut and Fill Cement and Mortar Mixers Airfield Lighting Asphalt Placement Chain saw Runway Drains Concete Placement Chipper/stump grinder Service Road Asphalt Batch Operations Cold planer Taxiway Exit Concrete Batch Operations Compactor Taxiways Hauling Materials (Paved Roads) Concrete Saws Navaid Hauling Materials (Unpaved Roads) Cranes ATCT Tower Conveyorized Transport Crushing Equipment Fencing Coating/Painting Dumpsters/Tenders Rehabilitate Runway/Taxiway Plant Grass/ground cover Dump Truck Detention Basins Plant Sod Excavators Access Roadway Utility Installation Feller Buncher Termina Building Building Demolition Forklifts Terminal Apron Site Preparation Generator Sets Parking Lot Fill Import/Export Graders Parking Garage Other Material Import Hydro Power Unit Consolidated Rental Car Facility Emergency Generator On-Road Tractors Helipad Construction/Erect Off-Road Trucks Fuel Tanks Utility Bedding Material Handling Equipment etc. etc. etc. Figure B-1. Conceptual Example Relationship between Project, Activity, and Equipment Wyle T

76 Appendix C: NONROAD and MOVES Equipment Included in this Project Table C-1. ACEIT Equipment Mappings to NONROAD Equipment ACEIT Equipment SCC NONROAD Equipment 40 Ton Crane 22xx Cranes 40 Ton Crane (to unload & set tanks) 22xx Cranes 40 Ton Rough Terraine 22xx Cranes 40 Ton Rough Terraine Crane 22xx Cranes 90 Ton Crane 22xx Cranes 90 Ton Crane Supplemental Hoisting 22xx Cranes Aerial Lift 22xx Aerial Lifts Air Compressor 22xx Air Compressors Asphalt Deliveries/Ten Wheelers 22xx Off-highway Trucks Asphalt Paver 22xx Pavers Asphalt Paving Machine 22xx Pavers Auger Drill 22xx Bore/Drill Rigs Backfill with Backhoe 22xx Other Construction Equipment Backhoe 22xx Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Bob Cat 22xx Skid Steer Loaders Boom Manlift 22xx Aerial Lifts Bore/Drill Rig 22xx Bore/Drill Rigs Bulldozer 22xx Crawler Tractor/Dozers Caisson Drilling Rig 22xx Bore/Drill Rigs Chain Saw 22xx Chain Saws > 6 HP Chain Saws 22xx Chain Saws > 6 HP Chipper/Stump Grinder 22xx Chippers/Stump Grinders Cold Planer 22xx Pavers Compacting Equipment 22xx Plate Compactors Concrete Boom Pump 22xx Pumps Concrete Pump 22xx Pumps Concrete Ready Mix Trucks 22xx Off-highway Trucks Concrete Ready Trucks Mix for Cores 22xx Off-highway Trucks Concrete Saws 22xx Concrete/Industrial Saws Concrete Truck 22xx Off-highway Trucks Concrete Truck Pump 22xx Pumps Concrete Vibrator 22xx Other Construction Equipment Crack Cleaner 22xx Concrete/Industrial Saws Crack Filler (Trailer Mounted) 22xx Gas Compressors Crane 22xx Cranes Crane w/ Concrete Pump 22xx Cranes Curb/Gutter Paver 22xx Pavers Delivery of Tanks (3) 22xx Off-highway Trucks Distributing Tanker 22xx Off-highway Trucks Dozer 22xx Crawler Tractor/Dozers Dump Truck 22xx Off-highway Trucks Dump Truck (12 cy) 22xx Off-highway Trucks Wyle T

77 Excavator 22xx Excavators Excavator for U/G Services/Tanks 22xx Excavators Flat Bed or Dump Trucks 22xx Off-highway Trucks Flatbed Truck 22xx Off-highway Trucks Fork Truck 22xx Forklifts Forklift 22xx Forklifts Forktruck (Hoist) 22xx Forklifts Front Loader 22xx Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Front Loader for Subgrade Materials 22xx Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Front Loader/Scraper (to clear lot) 22xx Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Generator 22xx Generator Sets Generator Sets 22xx Generator Sets Grader 22xx Graders Grout Mixer 22xx Other Construction Equipment Grout Mixer for Mortar 22xx Other Construction Equipment Grout Wheel Truck 22xx Off-highway Trucks Grub the site down 2'-0 22xx Concrete/Industrial Saws High Lift 22xx Forklifts High Lift Fork Truck 22xx Forklifts Hoist Equipment with 40 Ton Rig 22xx Off-highway Trucks Hydralic Hammer 22xx Excavators Hydroseeder 22xx Off-highway Trucks Line Painting Truck and Sprayer 22xx Off-highway Trucks Loader 22xx Rubber Tire Loaders Log Chipper 22xx Chippers/Stump Grinders Man Lift 22xx Aerial Lifts Man Lift (Fascia Construction) 22xx Aerial Lifts Masonry Saw 22xx Concrete/Industrial Saws Material Deliveries 22xx Off-highway Trucks Mulcher 22xx Chippers/Stump Grinders Off-Road Truck 22xx Off-highway Trucks Other General Equipment 22xx Other General Industrial Equipment Paving Machine 22xx Paving Equipment Pickup Truck 22xx Off-highway Trucks Pile Driver 22xx Bore/Drill Rigs Pressure Washer 22xx Pressure Washers Pruning Saw/Chain Saw 22xx Chain Saws > 6 HP Pumps 22xx Pumps Roller 22xx Rollers Rubber Tired Loader 22xx Rubber Tire Loaders Scraper (If required) 22xx Scrapers Seed Truck Spreader 22xx Off-highway Trucks Set With Fork-Truck 22xx Forklifts Skid Steer Loader 22xx Skid Steer Loaders Slip Form Paver 22xx Pavers Small Dozer 22xx Crawler Tractor/Dozers Stripping Machine & Truck 22xx Other Construction Equipment Surfacing Equipment (Grooving) 22xx Surfacing Equipment Survey Crew Trucks 22xx Off-highway Trucks Wyle T

78 Sweepers 22xx Sweepers/Scrubbers Sweepers/Scrubbers 22xx Sweepers/Scrubbers Ten Wheelers 22xx Off-highway Trucks Ten Wheelers- Material Delivery 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tool Truck 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tower Crane 22xx Cranes Tractor 22xx Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Tractor Trailer- Equipment Delivery 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tractor Trailer- Material Delivery 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tractor Trailer- Steel Deliveries 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tractor Trailer- Stone Delivery 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tractor Trailer- Topsoil & Seed 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tractor Trailer- Truck Delivery 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tractor Trailer with Boom Hoist- Curbs Del & Place 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tractor Trailer with Boom Hoist- Delivery 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tractor Trailers- Rebar Deliveries 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tractor Trailers Temp Fac. 22xx Off-highway Trucks Tractors/Loader/Backhoe 22xx Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Trencher 22xx Trenchers Trencher for U/G Piping 22xx Trenchers Trenchers 22xx Trenchers Trowel Machine 22xx Other Construction Equipment Trowel Machines (2) machines 22xx Other Construction Equipment Trowel Machines (4) machines 22xx Other Construction Equipment Truck for Topsoil & Seed Del&Spread 22xx Off-highway Trucks Truck Tower (Mantiwoc type) 22xx Cranes Vibratory Compactor 22xx Plate Compactors Water Truck 22xx Off-highway Trucks Excavator with Hoe Ram 22xx Excavators Excavator with Bucket 22xx Excavators Table C-2. ACEIT Equipment/Vehicle Mappings to MOVES Equipment ACEIT Equipment/Vehicle Asphalt 18 Wheeler Cement Mixer Cement Truck for Fencing Concrete Mixer for Fencing Dump Truck Dump Truck - Asphalt Dump Truck Subbase Material Flatbed Truck Motorcycle Passenger Car Passenger Truck Tractor Trailer MOVES Vehicle Combination Short-haul Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Single Unit Short-haul Truck Combination Short-haul Truck Motorcycle Passenger Car Passenger Truck Combination Short-haul Truck Wyle T

79 Appendix D: Development of Emission Factors from NONROAD and MOVES Overview This technical memo is intended to provide concise details on the specifications and data used to model NONROAD2008 and MOVES2010b to develop emission factors. This information is intended for experienced users of NONROAD and MOVES as it contains technical details. Overviews of the resulting NONROAD and MOVES emission factor tables are provided below. The NONROAD-based emission factor table is made up of the following fields: Year County Season Daily average temperature Daily maximum temperature Daily minimum temperature Equipment Type Fuel Type (combined with Equipment Type) HPavg Load Factor Running EFs (g/hp-hr) for CO, NO x, SO 2, VOCs, PM 10, PM 2.5, and CO 2 Evaporative EFs (g/day) for VOCs These variables represent all of the options that the user can select or modify within the electronic tool, and as a result, impact both running and evaporative emission. The MOVES-based on-road emission factor table is made up of the following fields: Year County Season Daily average temperature Vehicle Type Fuel Type Temperature profile category EFs (g/mi) for CO, NO x, SO 2, VOCs, PM 10, PM 2.5, CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O EFs (g/veh) for VOCs Wyle T

80 These variables represent all of the options that the user will be able to select or modify within the electronic tool, and as a result, impact the emission. The emission factors are developed from the three output emissions rates tables from MOVES: RatePerDistance (RD) emissions per vehicle-mile RatePerProfile (RP) emissions per vehicle-day RatePerVehicle (RV) emissions per vehicle-day Strategy for NONROAD Emission Factors Development Modeling Steps The process for developing this table involved running NONROAD as indicated by the following steps: Step 1: Options Wyle T

81 Each of the minimum, maximum, and average temperatures were modified accordingly to represent each scenario. In addition, the diesel sulfur % was modified by year as indicated in the details provided in the proceeding sections. Step 2: Period The modeled year (episode) are specified accordingly for each scenario. The seasonal option is used for the Period with either the winter or summer Season chosen depending on the scenario being modeled. And the Period total is selected for the Type option. Wyle T

82 Step 3: Region From the States and Counties available, each of 14 counties is selected for the modeled scenarios. These 14 counties are then used to represent all other U.S. counties using a mapping scheme. Wyle T

83 Step 4: Sources Both Diesel and SI (only gasoline) fuel types are selected with the construction segment option. The Add Equipment option are selected to list all equipment. Details Year Each year from 2013 to 2043 in 5-year increments (e.g., 2013, 2018, 2023, etc.) are modeled. Season Only winter and summer will be modeled using the representative months of January and July, respectively. County Each of 14 counties is modeled to take into account regional differences in fuel characteristics. These counties are mapped to all other counties and states in the U.S. Wyle T

84 Map Code County State 1 Imperial County California 2 Canyon County Idaho 3 Jefferson County Alabama 4 Wayne County Michigan 5 St. Louis County Minnesota 6 Franklin County Ohio 7 Tulsa County Oklahoma 8 Bexar County Texas 9 Oklahoma County Oklahoma 10 Chesterfield County Virginia 11 Escambia County Florida 12 Jackson County Missouri 13 Polk County Oregon 14 Dane County Wisconsin Fuel Type Only two fuel types are modeled: 1. Gasoline (Spark Ignition) 2. Diesel Daily average temperature Five representative temperatures are modeled in order to represent the indicated ranges. Type Range (T, deg. F) Representative T (deg. F) T < < T < Daily Average 30 < T < Temperature 50 < T < T > Daily maximum and minimum temperatures The daily maximum and minimum temperatures are specified according to the representative temperature changes indicated in the table below: Wyle T

85 Representative T Change Type Change (T, deg. F) (deg. F) T < Daily Minimum -20 < T < Temperature* -10 < T < < T < Daily Maximum 10 < T < Temperature* T > These temperature changes are applied to each of the representative daily average temperatures (all combinations of the three sets of temperatures). That is, for example: Run 1: min and max Run 2: min and max Run 3: min and 90+5 max Run 4: min and max Run 4: min and max etc. Exhaust Emission Factor The emission factors are developed directly from the output inventory for each scenario since the Reporting Tool could not be made to work (or work properly). The individual emission factors are calculated as follows: Exhaust Emission Factor = emissions / (population x total activity x HPavg x LF) Where, total activity = population x activity of one equipment These emission factors are developed for CO, NO x, SO 2, PM 10, PM 2.5, CO 2, and VOCs (see below for VOC derivation). Evaporative Emission Factor Again, these emission factors are developed directly from the output inventory for each scenario since we could not get the Reporting Tool to work (or work properly). The individual emission factors are calculated as follows: Evaporative Emission Factor = emissions / (number of days x population) Emissions = Crankcase + Hot Soaks + Diurnal + Displacement + Spillage + Running Loss + Tank Permeation + Hose Permeation These emission factors are developed for THC only. All Diesel equipment have crankcase emissions. Wyle T

86 Only 4-stroke gasoline construction equipment have crankcase emissions (2-stroke equipment do not). THC to VOC Conversion Exhaust and Crankcase Emissions: Gasoline, 2-stroke, VOC/THC = Gasoline, 4-stroke, VOC/THC = Diesel, VOC/THC = Evaporative Emissions: VOC/THC = 1 Horsepower Ranges For the range of horsepower available for each equipment, the most popular horsepower and load factor were selected based on the equipment population data as specified in the NONROAD 52state.pop data file. PM 10 and PM 2.5 PM 10 EF = PM Total EF PM 2.5 EF = 0.92 x PM Total EF Diesel Sulfur Content Year Sulfur (ppm) Sulfur (%) Gasoline Sulfur Content Year Sulfur (%) Equipment Coverage Tractors/dozers with rubber tires (SCC ) is listed as an available equipment type within NONROAD but is not represented in the output results. The USEPA clarified that NONROAD does not produce emissions for this equipment because its population is zero. As such, the USEPA generated the required emissions inventories for all required years. The Wyle T

87 USEPA also provided support in developing emissions data for the following NONROAD equipment: Strategy for MOVES Emission Factors Development Modeling Steps The following sub-sections describe the settings used to run MOVES. Some settings may vary depending on the output emissions type (RD, RP, or RV). Runspecs provided by the USEPA were used to run the various scenarios. Scale RD/RP/RV Input: Wyle T

88 National scale and inventory option are selected. Time Spans RD input: RP/RV input: Wyle T

89 January and July are selected for winter and summer, respectively, for each of the modeled years (i.e. 2013, 2018, 2023,..., 2043). Geographic Bounds RD/RP/RV input: Each of 14 counties are selected for the modeled scenarios. Vehicles/Equipment - On Road Vehicle Equipment Wyle T

90 RD/RP/RV input: Diesel and gasoline fuel types are selected along with all of the source types except for school bus. Road Type RD input: Wyle T

91 RP/RV input: All road types except for off-network are selected for RD input. RP and RV includes all roads. Pollutants and Processes RD input: Wyle T

92 RD input (continued): RP input: RV input: Wyle T

93 RV input (continued): The selections are based on the main pollutants of concern are: CO, NO x, SO 2, VOCs, PM 10, PM 2.5, CO 2, CH 4, and N 2 O. Manage Input Data Sets Wyle T

94 RD/RV input: RP input: Zonemonthhour data for each temperature and humidity profile are provided by the USEPA and these are utilized for each study scenario. Wyle T

95 Strategies No specifications Output - General Output RD/RP/RV input: Each scenario is assigned a specific database for output, and grams and miles are selected for RD inputs. Output - Output Emissions Detail RD input: Wyle T

96 RP/RV input: Advanced Performance Features No specifications. Wyle T