Thanks for asking!
Your clarification is most helpful. I will start with the FAA's
listing of the hazardous materials associated with airports. I will
also quote extensively a public domain document that discusses Plane
Pollution, issued by the National Institutes of Health. I will add
applicable excerpts from additional studys/reports, and links to
information specific to airport operation, plus exposure estimates
from what studies have been published.
Hazardous Air Pollutants Associated with Aircraft, Airports, Aviation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The U.S. EPA has listed the following 14 HAPs (12 individual
substances and two select groups of complex organic compounds) they
believe are present in the exhaust of aircraft and/or their ground
support equipment (GSE):
- 1,3-Butadiene
MSDS: http://hazard.com/msds/mf/cards/file/0017.html
- nHexane
MSDS: https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/00731.htm
- Acetaldehyde
MSDS: http://hazard.com/msds/f2/ckt/cktxb.html
- Xylene
MSDS: http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/x2000.htm
- Acrolein
MSDS: http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/a1538.htm
- Propionaldehyde
MSDS: http://hazard.com/msds/mf/cards/file/0550.html
- Benzene
MSDS: http://hazard.com/msds/mf/amoco/files/11697000.html
- Styrene
MSDS: http://hazard.com/msds/mf/cards/file/0073.html
- Ethylbenzene
MSDS: https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/00596.htm
- Toluene
MSDS: http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/t3913.htm
- Formaldehyde
MSDS: http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/f5522.htm
- Lead compounds
- Polycyclic Organic Matter
- (POM) as 7 Polycyclic Organic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
- POM as 16 PAH
Formaldehyde appears to be the most prevalent HAP in aircraft exhaust
followed by acetaldehyde, benzene, and toluene.
.. Ten individual HAPs comprise the vast majority of HAPS that are
reported to occur in aircraft and/or GSE exhaust:
- Formaldehyde
- 1,3-Butadiene
- Acetaldehyde
- Xylene
- Benzene
- Lead
- Toluene
- Naphthalene
MSDS: http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/n0090.htm
- Acrolein
- Propionaldehyde
Read the full report:
SELECT RESOURCE MATERIALS AND ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE TOPIC OF
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (HAPs) ASSOCIATED WITH AIRCRAFT, AIRPORTS, AND AVIATION
Federal Aviation Administration | Office of Environment and Energy
http://www.aee.faa.gov/emissions/local/HAPs_rpt.pdf
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES | Plane Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview: "In regulating aircraft and airports, several compelling
interests compete: safety, international commerce, and environmental
quality. Of these, safety issues receive perhaps most of the
attention, garnering large headlines in the wake of airplane
accidents. But the issue of the effect of airports on the environment
and human health has heated up in recent years as public interest and
citizen groups contest airport expansion on environmental and health
grounds, and the airline and airport industries attempt to meet
increasingly stringent regulations in these areas.
Airports are known to be major sources of noise, water, and air
pollution. They pump carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NO x ) into the atmosphere, as
well as dump toxic chemicals--used to de-ice airplanes during winter
storms--into waterways. But determining the extent of airplanes'
contribution to local, national, and international levels of pollution
is difficult--cars and airplanes entering and leaving airports produce
roughly equivalent quantities of ozone precursors. Auxiliary power
units (APUs), little jet engines in the planes' tails that power
appliances while the planes are at the gate, and ground support
vehicles also produce quantities of pollutants. And competing local
and national political forces make airport pollution hard to regulate;
much of the air pollution is local, but automobile and airplane
emissions are regulated both nationally and internationally.
The growth of air traffic further frustrates mitigation of
environmental problems. Air traffic is expected to double nationally
by the year 2017 and internationally by 2010, according to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). At least 32 of the 50 busiest U.S.
airports have plans to expand operations, according to a survey
conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), published
in the environmental group's October 1996 report Flying Off Course:
Environmental Impacts of America's Airports. According to the FAA, 60
of the 100 biggest airports want to at least build or extend runways."
Air Pollution
-------------
"In 1993, aircraft emitted 350 million pounds of VOCs and NO x during
landing and takeoff cycles, more than double 1970 levels, according to
the NRDC report. These two classes of compounds are precursors of
ground-level ozone, which can interfere with lung function. "During
the summer . . . between 10% and 20% of all East Coast hospital
admissions for respiratory problems may be ozone-related," says the
NRDC report.
Airports are among the greatest sources of local air pollution. A
major airport's idling and taxiing planes can emit hundreds of tons of
VOCs and NO x annually. John F. Kennedy International Airport is the
second largest source of VOCs in New York City. LaGuardia is among the
major sources of NO x .
The VOCs emitted by airports may comprise a variety of toxic
chemicals, according to a 1993 study by the EPA. Chicago's Midway
Airport released more benzene and formaldehyde than most Chicago
factories. But Jacob Snow, assistant director of aviation for planning
and environment at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas,
Nevada, asserts that in the world of ozone precursor emissions, those
from airports are of little consequence. "McCarran's VOC emissions
[for 1993] were equivalent to those [produced by] the motor vehicles
used by less than 9% of the nonattainment basin's households," he
says. Similarly, a 1991 study by Argonne National Laboratory, funded
by the FAA, concluded that "the impact of airport emissions on the
surrounding air quality was not significantly larger than that of the
background emissions. This implies that on a per-unit area of ground
surface basis, the airport emissions are roughly comparable to those
of the surrounding urban/suburban areas and roadways."
And, in fact, ground access vehicles such as passenger cars and buses
just entering and leaving airports often exceed airplanes as the
dominant sources of air pollution at airports. Nationally, ground
access vehicles emit 56% of VOCs, while aircraft taking off and
landing give off only 32.6% (including emissions from APUs), according
to the EPA. Ground access vehicles emit 39.3% of NO x , trailing
closely behind emissions by aircraft and APUs of 46.3%.
Ground service equipment is responsible for 10.9% of airport-generated
VOCs and 14.3% of NOx nationally, according to the EPA. National
figures for APUs were not available, but in southern California in
1990, APUs gave off less than 1% of hydrocarbons and about 6% of NOx,
according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB)."
See Also:
Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels | Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, 1994 Volume 2
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/pubs_html/attf94_v2/chap3.html
FAA Advisory Circular
Fuel Venting and Exhaust Emission Requirements for Turbine Engine Powered Aircraft
http://www.aee.faa.gov/emissions/engine/ac34_1B.pdf
Nonattainment Areas
-------------------
In 1993, one out of five U.S. citizens lived in a locale where air
failed to meet national standards for ozone. Thirty of the nation's 50
busiest airports are located in ozone nonattainment areas, and three
of these are located in the dirtiest nonattainment area, the Los
Angeles-South Coast basin.
Taxiing
-------
Critics charge that taxiing airplanes emit hundreds of tons of
greenhouse gases, but airport officials say these amounts are
negligible compared to those from cars, buses, and other ground access
vehicles.
States that include nonattainment areas must develop state
implementation plans (SIPs) for cleaning their air. But states have
scant leverage to deal directly with airport pollution. States cannot
regulate aircraft emissions for the same reason they cannot regulate
automobile emissions. "Can you imagine every airport imposing
different standards on 737s?" asks Ken Feith, senior scientific
advisor in the EPA's office of air and radiation. So what can a SIP
do? "If an airport is owned and operated by a state or local political
jurisdiction, that jurisdiction has total control over ground
equipment," says Feith. "They can impose restrictions as long as they
don't interfere with flight operations." For example, that
jurisdiction can limit a terminal's number of gates.
One measure that could reduce emissions is single-engine taxiing.
Single-engine taxiing saves fuel and reduces emissions substantially.
Delta Airlines pilots generally use one engine to taxi, and at the
airline's hub in Atlanta, this strategy saved $5.9 million in fuel
costs in 1995 alone, according to the NRDC. But other airlines eschew
or minimize the practice. Some airplanes lack the ability to taxi on
one engine, says James Ericson, director of the office of environment
and energy at the FAA. Furthermore, crews must be properly trained in
the technique. Albert Prest, vice president of operations for the Air
Transport Association, a trade group, says that the practice can be
dangerous in certain circumstances, such as wet weather, because it
may encourage the plane to slide or veer to one side."
The Case in California
----------------------
But with 25-30 year lifetimes for jets, emissions from airplane
engines will remain a problem long after the 2010 deadline for SIPs
for extremely polluted areas such as Los Angeles to achieve air
quality standards. According to projections by the CARB, aircraft NO x
emissions at so-called South Coast (the southern coast of California)
airports will have doubled in 2010 over 1990 levels, to 24.8 tons per
day or about 13% of 1990 levels. The board expects hydrocarbon
emissions to drop somewhat, from 7.0 to 5.4 tons per day.
In contrast, the board expects ground access vehicle NO x emissions,
mostly from automobiles, to drop to 2.4 tons per day, or about
one-quarter of 1990 levels. The projected reductions are due to
California's stringent automobile air quality standards. But critics
say the figures are optimistic because they assume a slower rate of
growth than is actually occurring.
California's efforts illustrate the difficulties of cleaning air as
population and travel explode. The California SIP incorporates a 50%
increase in air traffic in the South Coast region, says Henry Hogo,
planning manager for the South Coast air quality management district.
"We try to balance economic needs with health," he says. "We want to
allow growth and see if we can come up with ways of reducing
emissions."
Nonetheless, in 1994 the state asked for the federal government's help
to curtail reductions in federally regulated interstate transportation
sources such as trucks and airplanes, says Hogo. A consultative
process was set up between the South Coast district, the CARB, and the
EPA to figure out how to achieve the necessary reductions. "The state
assigned to the EPA the responsibility to reduce emissions from
aircraft engines by a total of 8 tons per day through new standards,"
says Doris Lo, an environmental engineer in the EPA's Region IX. But a
16% reduction in emissions, recently proposed by the International
Civil Aviation Organization, would not come close to delivering the
required reduction. The proposed reduction is being opposed by two
U.S. engine manufacturers--Pratt & Whitney and General Electric--as
well as by the FAA, and is unlikely to be implemented.
The EPA is looking elsewhere for the 8 tons. The easiest emissions
reductions could be had by powering ground service equipment with
electricity and alternative fuels, and having aircraft at the gate
plug into the terminal "instead of running those dirty [auxiliary]
engines," says Lo. Nonetheless, these two sources represent a small
percentage of VOCs and NO x , and, so far, less than a ton per day of
possible reductions has been identified.
Politics have stifled the South Coast district's own efforts to manage
local air quality planning, critics charge. "The state legislature has
taken away some of our authority in this area," admits Hogo. In 1994
the district had considered reducing passenger car traffic into
airports. At the same time, it had proposed requiring owners of
sporting event centers and shopping centers to develop plans to reduce
vehicle trips into their locations, says Hogo. A cross-section of
business interests pressured the state legislature to block the latter
proposal; the legislative stone killed both birds.
Gary Honcoop, manager of the office of air quality and transportation
planning at the CARB, refuses to discuss what other approaches to
cleaning airport emissions might be explored, saying, "There is a lot
of sensitivity because of the airlines involved and some of their
concerns. I would hesitate to stir that process up by identifying too
much specificity at this point."
NASA, however, is developing new engines that could reduce NO x by 70%
by the middle of the next decade. "We have a pretty good indication
that [these levels] can be achieved," says Richard Niedzwiecki, a
senior engineer in aeronautics for combustion and emissions research
at NASA's Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Such engines could
be in commercial aircraft as early as 2008.
Nonetheless, global warming will complicate further efforts to bring
down emissions, says Niedzwiecki. To save on CO 2 emissions, he
explains, aircraft weight must be reduced. But reducing NO x requires
engines with larger combustion zones. Furthermore, higher operating
temperatures reduce CO 2 emissions, but raise NO x emissions.
"There is now talk of seeking much more substantial CO 2 reductions,
and we are putting a program together," says Niedzwiecki. He is
"cautiously optimistic" that both CO 2 and NO x goals can be met, but
the time frame for doing so, he says, is 2010-2050.
Water Pollution
---------------
More than 4 million gallons of glycols were used for aircraft de-icing
at 93 airports during 1989-1991, according to a survey by the FAA.
Glycols are the most voluminous water pollutants from airports. As
there are over 500 certified airports in the United States, the actual
amount emitted may be much higher.
During de-icing, the airlines mix 55% glycol and 45% water, heat the
mixture to about 185° F, and spray the planes down with it, says Miles
Carter, manager of environmental services at Denver International
Airport. Without recapture efforts, 50-80% of the glycols may end up
in the local waterways, says Mark Williams, assistant environmental
program manager for the Maryland Aviation Administration. Forty-five
of the 50 busiest airports in the United States are within 3 miles of
a major waterway, according to the NRDC report. Other chemicals
besides glycols that are used at airports may get into waterways, but
information about these is sketchy. At Kennedy Airport, there are two
underground lakes of jet fuel, estimated to contain 3-5 million and
6-9 million gallons, respectively, according to the NRDC report. The
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has ordered
the airport to remove the fuel.
Environmental meltdown? Glycols and other chemicals used to de-ice
planes during storms can be toxic to animals and humans.
But glycols receive the most attention. Ethylene glycol is both more
effective and more toxic than propylene glycol. The lethal dose for
humans of ethylene glycol is a little over three ounces, according to
a report prepared for the EPA. Less can damage kidneys. Propylene
glycol is relatively innocuous. However, both ethylene glycol and
propylene glycol consume high levels of oxygen during decomposition,
according to the Airports Council International, a trade group in
Washington, DC. This can deplete waterways of oxygen and kill fish.
The NRDC complains that regulations for disposal of de-icing chemicals
lack teeth. The stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs)
required of states under the Clean Water Act should greatly reduce
contaminated stormwater discharges from airports if implemented as
required, according to the NRDC report. But, the report continues, "It
is not clear when, or if, the plans will be inspected by a regulatory
agency." In addition, "SWPPPs must be made available only to
regulatory agencies, not the public," which impedes the ability of
citizen groups to ensure proper implementation. Says Bennett, "I find
that impossible to believe, but compliance is up to . . . the states."
Furthermore, only those airports using an annual average of 100,000
gallons or more of de-icing fluid will be required to monitor or
sample, according to the NRDC. These represent either 4 or 10% of
airports nationwide, according to figures by the American Association
of Airport Executives and the FAA, respectively. Bennett defends the
air transportation providers, saying that the NRDC has provided no
evidence that airports are not meeting established regulatory
standards. He adds that, although these contituencies have the right
to participate in development of regulatory standards, they have no
authority to make a final determination of what those standards are.
A small number of airports are very successfully recapturing glycols
following use. According to the Airports Council International, 14 of
48 airports surveyed had containment systems for recapturing used
glycols. Six airports prepared them to be recycled for other uses.
At Maryland's Baltimore/Washington International Airport, an estimated
25% of glycols are collected following de-icing. That doesn't mean
that 75% find their way into the waters. Some of that amount
evaporates or goes into the ground, where it decomposes in about 4-20
days, says Williams. The FAA is developing a new model to try to
determine how much glycol actually gets into the water.
Watching the water.
Stormwater pollution prevention plans could greatly reduce the amount
of glycol-contaminated water discharged from airports.
Baltimore/Washington uses two de-icing pads near the end of the
runways to retrieve the glycols. The pads, big parking areas, are
sloped to shunt de-icing fluids from beneath the plane, along with any
precipitation that lands there, down one drain. Stormwater collected
elsewhere goes down another drain. Baltimore/Washington also uses
"glycol recovery vehicles," vacuum sweepers that "look sort of like
street sweepers, that suck up the glycol and any liquid on the
pavement," says Barbara Grey, manager of environmental plans and
programs for the Maryland Aviation Administration. The glycol is piped
to a huge tank, and then released very slowly over months to the
sewage treatment plant.
At the Denver airport, which was designed to optimize collection of
glycols, 65-70% of the fluid is recaptured, says Carter. These glycols
are concentrated to a relatively high 25% on average, depending on the
duration and nature of the precipitation.
Recyclers increase the concentration to as high as 99.5%. "We recycle
it for coal companies, some paint manufacturers, and General Motors,"
says Carter. But in the United States, recycled glycols are never used
for de-icing, unlike in Europe. "The American manufacturers of glycol
have convinced the U.S. airlines that it is a liability to use
recycled glycol, although the same airlines use it in Europe all the
time," says Carter.
A technological fix that could render de-icing chemicals partially
obsolete is the use of infrared rays to heat the exterior of the
plane. In such a process, immediately before takeoff the plane would
pull into a hangar-like structure outfitted with the infrared energy
process units and park there for approximately six minutes while the
de-icing takes place.
"I'm really thrilled about it," says Robert Stone, manager of Buffalo
Niagara International Airport, where the technology is about to be
tested. Capital costs for the process, which are less than $2 million,
are far less than the cost of systems to recapture de-icing fluids,
which can range into the tens of millions. Six planes can be de-iced
for $100-200 worth of gas and electricity, while a single de-icing
with glycols can cost $2,500.
Future Flight
-------------
The projected doubling of passenger air traffic within the United
States in the next 20 years, as well as the rapid growth of the U.S.
population (which every 11 years adds the equivalent population of
another California), virtually ensures that the environmental impact
of airports will increase unless strong mitigation measures are taken.
It is likely that population pressure will lead to greater numbers of
people living near airports, even if not within the 65-DNL contour.
Even as planes become quieter, increasing numbers will ply the skies,
exposing people within the flight pattern to more, if perhaps softer,
booms. The 25-30 year lifetime of airplanes will keep large numbers of
today's polluting engines aloft long after technological solutions
begin to make significantly cleaner engines available. And
technological advances in the area of de-icing have been slow coming,
potentially allowing toxic chemicals to continue to be released into
groundwater. Says Feith, "I think that none of us, even here at EPA,
have given substantial thought as to what are potential solutions to
the problem of airport pollution."
Source: Flying off Course: Environmental Impacts of America's
Airports. Natural Resources Defense Council, October (1996). Original
source: FAA Aviation Forecasts: Fiscal Years 1996-2007, Office of
Policy and Plans, Table 33, March (1996)
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 105, Number 12, December 1997
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/qa/105-12focus/focus.html
A Human Health Risk Assessment | Orange County, California Airports
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paper presented at the Air & Waste Management Association's national
meeting in Salt Lake City on June 21st, 2000 by author David Lindberg.
The research was conducted by CH2M Hill, a subcontractor to P&D
Aviation that did the air quality portion of the El Toro EIR. P&D
Aviation is the county's prime contractor on the El Toro project." The
proposed airports (combined) operational total is approximately 1/2 -
2/3's of that of Minneapolis/St. Paul, however, emissions patterns are
explained, and it is likely that calculations can be extrapolated for
greater operational levels. An excerpt:
Public concern has been raised over the potential health risks
associated with toxic substances in urban air. Exposed populations ten
to reside in industrialized urban areas where the ambient
concentrations of toxic substances are the highest. Environmental
justice concerns by Illinois congressmen in 1990 precipitated a study
by the U.S. EPA of cancer risks in Southwest Chicago, which included
aircraft operations and other airport-related sources at Chicago
Midway Airport (M+DW). The Southwest Chicago study estimated that MDW
accounted for approximately 11 percent of the total excess lifetime
cancer risk attributed to air polution (2). The maximum off-site
incremental cancer risk associated with MDW-mobile sources was
estimated to be 223 in a million (2). A similar study performed by the
Los Angeles Unified School District estimated maximum off-site
incremental cancer risk for proposed operations at the Santa Monica
Municipal Airport to be 23 in a million (3).
Toxic substances
The list of substances for which emissions have been quantified in
this risk assessment was obtained from EPA documents prepared in
support of the 1996 Base Year National Toxics Inventory (4,5). A total
of 23 toxic substances were identified for inclusion in this risk
assessment, 10 of which are recognized by the California Air Resources
Baord (CARB) as potential carcinogens (including particulate matter
less than 10 micromenters in diameter in diesel exhaust)."
"Polycyclic organic matter (POM) as 7-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(7-PAH) includes the following 7 POM compounds determined by the
International Agency for Researcher on Cancer to cause cancer:
benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)flouranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene..."
The Emissions Calculation Methodology of this report may be of
especial interest, since it shows how exposure levels are determined.
An introduction to the document notes, "Particular attention should be
paid to Figure 5, page 15 "Excess Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk"
The risks exceed new EPA standards." Available only in Adobe Acrobat
.pdf format.
A Human Health Risk Assessment of the John Wayne and Proposed Orange
County International Airports
http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/AWMA-paper.pdf
The Environmental Impact of America's Airports
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"In January 1995, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
undertook a study to determine: (1) the most important environmental
issues connected with airports, and (2) the best management techniques
airports were using to mitigate them."
Air Pollution Summary: "Noise tends to dominate debates over airport
pollution, often to the exclusion of another important topic:
ground-level ozone pollution, the primary component of smog. Smog is
normally associated with motor vehicles and industrial sources such as
factories, power plants, and incinerators. However, air pollution
totals from automobiles and many major industries have stabilized or
decreased with time while aircraft continue to emit more and more
ground-level ozone precursors--volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx)--with each passing year. For example, in 1993,
airplanes at U.S. airports produced 350 million pounds of these
pollutants during their landing and takeoff cycles (LTOs), more than
twice their 1970 total. This total is likely to climb even higher as
the aviation industry grows."
Findings:
"Airports are significant sources of ground-level VOC and NOx
emissions. Locally, an airport's arriving and departing planes can
create as much, if not more, ground-level VOCs and NOx as many of its
largest industrial neighbors (see table below)."
"Airports are not regulated in the same manner as other significant
air pollution sources. Neither airports nor airlines are held
accountable for the aggregate impacts of their ground-level aircraft
emissions. State and local regulators remain nearly powerless to
address the problem in meaningful ways, while other major industrial
sources are accordingly forced to compensate on airports' behalf as
states scramble to meet mandatory emissions reductions deadlines. The
number of commercial flights (which burn the most fuel and cause the
most pollution per operation) meanwhile grows higher and higher each
year."
"A 1993 EPA-sponsored study of toxic emissions at Chicago's Midway
Airport (a much smaller airport than Chicago's O'Hare, with about 3
million enplanements per year, compared with O'Hare's 30 million)
suggests that toxic air pollution from aircraft deserves more
attention. The study, conducted in response to community concerns,
evaluated cancer risks attributable to all air pollution sources in
southwestern Chicago. It indicated that Midway's arriving and
departing planes constitute a considerable source of particulate
matter as well as toxic compounds such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and
formaldehyde, releasing far more of these pollutants than other
industrial pollution sources within the 16-square mile study area. In
fact, few of all of Chicago's industrial sources release as much
benzene or formaldehyde as Midway Airport. Nevertheless, airports are
exempt from the federal law that requires other toxic sources to
report their toxic emissions totals (the Toxic Release Inventory, or
TRI)."
Copyright considerations allow me to post an excerpt only. See the
full article, including emission measurement Tables at:
Natural Resources Defense Council
Flying Off Course | The Environmental Impact of America's Airports
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/foc/aairexsu.asp
Safeguarding our Atmosphere
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"In 1993, a study of toxic emissions at Chicago's Midway Airport
revealed that arriving and departing planes released more pollutants
than the industrial pollution sources in the surrounding
16-square-mile area. A more recent study at London's Heathrow airport
showed that aircraft contributed between 16 and 35 percent of ground
level NOx concentrations.
Because of local concerns about the gases exhausted by airplanes, the
expansion plans of several U.S. airports?Atlanta, Boston, Chicago,
Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and
Washington?have been stopped. Internationally, NOx emission limits set
by the ICAO could result in strategies to limit air traffic, such as
per flight emissions fees and curfews. Environmental concerns together
with the prediction that world air traffic will grow 5 percent
annually for the next decade have made reducing aircraft NOx emissions
a priority."
NASA | Safeguarding our Atmosphere
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/PAIS/fs10grc.htm
Safe Winter Flying Versus Clean Water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"To ensure safety of winter aircraft flight, anti-icing and deicing
fluids (ADFs) are applied to aircraft and runways. Anti-icing fluids
adhere to aircraft surfaces and prevent ice and snow buildup for set
periods of time, known as ?holdover? times. The aircraft remains safe
from ice if it takes off within the holdover time. Deicing fluids are
typically used on aircraft immediately preceding departure from the
hangar or gate, or during snow or ice accumulation. To keep ice off
the runways, airports use combinations of ADFs to depress the freezing
point on the pavement. When used before freezing conditions set in,
these chemicals prevent strong bonds from forming between the pavement
surface and ice molecules, enabling snow and ice to be removed easily
using sweepers and plows. Although some airports use non-chemical
methods to prevent ice and snow accumulation, most airports use ADFs
because they ensure aircraft and passenger safety, are easy to use and
economical, and don?t require physical infrastructure such as heated
hangars.
A Chemical Cocktail
Four types of aircraft ADFs are available. They vary according to the
concentrations of either propylene or ethylene glycol (commonly known
as antifreeze). Historically, ADFs for pavement included urea,
ethylene glycol, or a combination of the two. Today?s pavement ADFs
contain additives like potassium acetate, sodium acetate, sodium
formate, potassium formate, or calcium magnesium acetate to lower
freezing points.
So What?s the Problem?
Ethylene and propylene glycol can wreak havoc on our waterways by
depleting the water of oxygen as they biodegrade. A 1998 TMDL study
conducted by the Kentucky State Division of Water indicated that
deicing one large passenger jet could generate a BOD5 equivalent to
the daily domestic wastewater generated by 5,000 people. In addition,
when glycols are released into anaerobic conditions their
biodegradation can release byproducts such as acetaldehyde, ethanol,
acetate, and methane that are highly toxic to many aquatic organisms.
Urea used on runways also biodegrades and releases ammonia and
nitrogen, resulting in algal growth and decay that depletes the water
of oxygen.
Water Quality Regulation at Airports
Some regulations control ADFs. All airports discharging more than
100,000 gallons per year of glycol-based fluids or 100 tons of urea
into navigable waterways must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The NPDES permit requires airports
to develop a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which
identifies the sources and types of pollution, delineates drainage
basins in the facility, defines structural controls on storm water
runoff, and describes BMPs to minimize and prevent pollution from
entering the storm water drainage system. The SWPPP is the legal
document holding the airport facility accountable for all discharges
if and when the airport is inspected by regulators for compliance with
their stated BMPs.
Because no federal effluent limits exist for ADFs, standards across
airports very greatly, if they exist at all. The establishment of
standards is influenced by whether the receiving waterbody is
designated as impaired, whether a total maximum daily load (TMDL) has
been developed for the water, and whether the state considers the
effluent to be degrading the waters and not complying with state
standards. Some airports may only have to comply with their NPDES
permit and may not need to meet an established standard. Instead, an
airport might have to merely report concentrations of each effluent
type (e.g., ammonia, total suspended solids) at a specified frequency
(e.g., once a month).
The airport facility has little or no control over how, when, or what
type of ADFs are administered and is often limited only to specifying
where deicing can take place in its jurisdiction. The deicing
decisions depend on the specifications of aircrafts and the judgment
of the operators. To account for this uncertainty, many airports
require individual airline operators to be co-permitees, sharing
information and responsibility for BMPs."
US EPA News-Notes Database | Safe Winter Flying vs. Water Quality
http://notes.tetratech-ffx.com/newsnotes.nsf//NT00003A82?OpenDocument
Deicing and Water Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The presence of snow, ice, or slush on runways or aircraft frequently
causes hazardous conditions that can contribute to aircraft accidents,
delays, diversions, and flight cancellations. Consequently, deicing or
anti-icing (preventing the formation of ice) of aircraft and runways
is a necessary part of operations at most airports in winter months.
The most common method of controlling ice is through the use of
chemicals, particularly ethylene- or propylene-based glycol mixtures
with additives.
Most airports were built long before environmental regulations
governing polluted water "runoff" were in place, and many airports
lack the infrastructure to control large quantities of deicing fluids.
Deicing generally takes place directly on the tarmac; deicing
chemicals then enter the runoff from this procedure and flow into
nearby waterways. In 1987, under Clean Water Act revisions, stormwater
runoff was finally recognized under federal law as a serious water
pollution problem, and the national stormwater permit system was
adopted to attempt to control polluted runoff from urban areas,
including industrial sites.
Findings:
Given that many, if not most, of the country's largest airports are
sited along waterways, the control and disposal of deicing chemicals
constitutes a significant water pollution issue. Our survey found that
45 of the 50 busiest airports in the country were within three miles
of an ocean, bay, lake, wetland, reservoir, river, or stream.
The runoff management systems that airports are required to implement
under the national stormwater system is problematic, with gaps in the
areas of effluent standards, enforcement, and monitoring.
The use of deicing chemicals (particularly ethylene glycol) and other
toxic substances at airports may present threats to human health,
particularly to airport workers.
In addition to ethylene glycol, numerous hazardous substances such as
solvents and metals are used at aircraft maintenance facilities.
However, airports are exempt from reporting under the Toxic Release
Inventory."
Natural Resources Defense Council
Flying Off Course | The Environmental Impact of America's Airports
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/foc/aairexsu.asp
The entire "Flying Off Course" Report is available as a 334 page .pdf document:
National Resources Defense Council | Flying Off Course
http://www.rcaanews.org/nrdc_FOC.pdf
Cancer Incidence Near Chicago O'Hare and Midway Airports
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Illinois Department of Public Health: " Because of the
documented presence of cancer-causing air pollutants from jet engines,
cancer concerns exist for populations living near Chicago?s O?Hare and
Midway airports. The concerns,however, are based on projected cancer
risks from measured pollutants. This study examined actual cancer
incidence observed in communities near the two airports.
Methods Cancer cases reported to the Illinois State Cancer Registry
from 1987 to 1997 were used to calculate age-adjusted incidence rates
among populations living near the two airports. Cases were separated
by ZIP code into four study groups according to projected cancer risks
from a previous study as well as geographic distances to the airports.
Standardized rate ratios were computed for each of the study groups
relative to a reference group defined as areas at least eight miles
away from either airport. Gender- and race-specific rate ratios were
evaluated separately for all cancers combined and for each of 22
site-specific cancers.
See the full report:
Cancer Incidence in Populations Living Near Chicago O'Hare and Midway
Airports, Illinois 1987-1997
PDF: http://www.idph.state.il.us/cancer/pdf/O'Harereportpdf.pdf
HTML: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:RVyQaWDwEh4J:www.idph.state.il.us/cancer/pdf/O%27Harereportpdf.pdf
Massport | Logan - Air Quality FAQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the difference between air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants?
"Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) are different from traditional air
pollutants like nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. HAPs are known or
suspected to have direct or indirect human health effects, such as
respiratory or nervous system damage."
What are the potential effects associated with the criteria pollutants
if elevated levels are present?
"Carbon Monoxide (CO) results from the incomplete combustion of fuel.
CO is an odorless, colorless gas that at elevated concentrations can
cause headaches and nausea. Consequently, emissions of this gas from
major sources (for example motor vehicles) are regulated by federal
emission standards.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are organic chemicals that easily
vaporize at room temperature. VOCs include a wide range of substances,
such as hydrocarbons (for example benzene and toluene), halocarbons
and oxygenates. The hydrocarbon VOCs are usually grouped into methane
and other non-methane VOCs. Methane is an important component of VOCs,
its environmental impact principally relates to its contribution to
the production of ground level or lower atmosphere ozone. Typical
sources of VOC?s include incomplete fuel combustion, leakage of
natural gas from distribution systems, and atmospheric chemical
reactions. The evaporation of solvents can also result in releases of
VOCs
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) are the total of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
nitric oxide (NO). When fuel sources such as natural gas, coal, oil
and gasoline are combusted, atmospheric nitrogen may combine with
molecular oxygen to form NO. NO is colorless and odorless. When NO
reacts with ozone (O3), it forms NO2, a reddish-brown haze with a
pungent odor. Automobiles, trains and aircraft are sources of NOx.
Other common sources include industrial and power plants. Typically,
the largest urban source of NOx is emissions from motor vehicles. The
human health effects of exposure to nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen
dioxide, are similar to those of ozone. These effects may include:
Short-term exposure at high concentrations can decrease lung function.
Lower concentrations can irritate lungs.
Even low concentrations can affect lung function in asthmatics.
Long-term lower level exposures can affect lung tissue.
Children may also be especially sensitive to the effects of nitrogen oxides.
Particulate Matter (PM) are small particles suspended in the air. PM
can come from smoke, dust and many types of combustion. They can be
course particles (50-100 microns) or very small (0.005 microns). PM10
(10 microns) and smaller PM2.5 (2.5 microns) are important from a
public health perspective since they are small enough to penetrate the
lungs. High concentrations of PM have been associated with a range of
breathing and respiratory symptoms. Currently, the U.S. EPA has a
NAAQS for PM10, though a national standard for PM2.5 has been under
consideration for several years."
Winthrop Community Health Survey (Boston Logan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: "In many communities located close to major airports, power
generation facilities, or other major industries, there is a strong
perception that pollution generating activities at these facilities
result in a direct negative impact on the health of residents.
Statements to this effect have been repeatedly voiced by
representatives of the communities surrounding Logan airport, but,
absent hard data in the existing record, no action has been taken by
responsible authorities to investigate further. Currently, plans are
underway for the construction of additional facilities Logan airport
which will markedly increase operational capacity and the generation
of pollutants. While potent arguments in favor of this expansion are
being presented from an economic standpoint, once again no
consideration is being given to the possible public health impact.
In light of the failure to address this issue by Massport, or by
Federal or State regulatory authorities, the Winthrop Environmental
Health Facts Subcommittee, a voluntary group made up of residents of
the Town of Winthrop Massachusetts, elected to address the question
directly. A strong correlation is known to exist between exposure to
petrochemical exhaust emissions and a variety of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases (1-10). Logan airport estimates its daily
production of such pollutants at approximately 50,000 pounds per day
(11). The Subcommittee undertook a survey to determine whether a
correlation also exists between frequency and severity of respiratory
disease and level of exposure to these pollutants as determined by
location in Winthrop relative to the airport.
The results of this survey demonstrate that a clear increase in
several respiratory diseases and disease symptoms exists between areas
of the Town which are adjacent to the airport, and those more
distantly located on Broad Sound. In fact, for the most common
respiratory diseases, asthma and allergy, disease is twice as common
in the most heavily exposed neighborhood as it is in the least
exposed. Finding no other likely explanation for this effect, the
Subcommittee proposes that airport activities, most likely the
generation of airborne pollution from the combustion of gasoline and
kerosene, are indeed negatively affecting the health of the residents
of Winthrop.
The implications of these findings are serious. While the unique
geography and demographics of Winthrop provided a situation where the
effects of airport generated pollution could be studied in isolation
from other pollutant sources, Winthrop is by no means the only
community impacted, nor the community most highly impacted by airport
activity-generated emissions. As sample size determines the
sensitivity of the analysis, only the most frequently occurring
respiratory diseases could be adequately tested. Thus, while the case
can be made strongly for asthma and allergenic disease, effects on
other less common serious or life-threatening respiratory and
cardiopulmonary conditions which are also linked to fuel exhaust
exposure remain an unexplored possibility.
Finally, while the study convincingly illustrates the difference in
impact due to relative exposure level, it does not define a level of
exposure where impact is minimal or tolerable. In brief, the study
demonstrates that serious damage is being done to the health of the
residents of Winthrop at current levels of airport activity, and this
damage correlates with location, a measure of exposure to airport
activity-generated pollution. The Subcommittee feels it is incumbent
on State regulatory authorities responsible for the public health to
further investigate this matter, to further define the scope and
severity of the problem, and initiate processes which will return our
community to the state of health enjoyed by the majority of
Massachusetts citizens."
The full report available at:
Winthrop Community Health Survey
http://www.us-caw.org/winstudy.htm
I have not been able to locate reliable resources regarding
specifically fuel dumping, except as touched upon in the studies
listed above. I have located a number of Material Safety Datasheets
that may be useful in determining the hazard due to "raw" aviation
fuels.
Material Safety Data Sheets
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MSDS Archive (Jet Fuel)
http://hazard.com/msds/gn.cgi?query=jet+fuel&start=0
MSDS Archive (DeIcer)
http://hazard.com/msds/gn.cgi?query=deicer&start=0
You may also use this database to look up individual substances (i.e.
glycol) or mixtures.
Additional Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AirportWatch
A group campaigning for an environmentally acceptable Air Transport
White Paper, and is opposed to the airport and runway expansion plans
outlined in the UK Government's The Future Development of Air
Transport in the United Kingdom : A National Consultation July 2002.
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/
EMEP/CORINAIR Atmospheric Emission Inventory Guidebook
http://reports.eea.eu.int/EMEPCORINAIR4/en/B851vs2.4.pdf
FAA Office of Environment and Energy
http://www.aee.faa.gov/emissions/airindex.htm
Aviation Environmental Effects
http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/subject-listing/env.html
El Toro Info Site | Issues: Pollution
http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues.html#pollution
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency | Minneapolis Airport Fact Sheet
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/g-27-02.pdf
I hope you find these resources and this information useful. Should
you have any questions about the material or links provided, please,
feel free to ask for clarification.
---larre
Answer Strategy | Search Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------------
chicago airports 1993 exhausts
"health risk assessment" airport
"volatile organic compounds" airport
human health risk assessment airport
airport de-icing chemicals OR compounds
environmental effects airports
chemical composition jet fuel
composition jet fuel exhaust |
,
0 Comments
)