Pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the MCAS El Toro site under the Proposed Project
(2020) (Alternative B) would be higher than those under the Existing Conditions (1998), due to higher aircraft activity level at this site under the Proposed Project.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

The modeling indicates that for CO, there would be no exceedance of the State and federal lhour CO standards at any of the receptor locations around both airports. For the 8-hour CO concentrations, only Alternative G would have one exceedance projected at the South Terminal at 10.09 ppm (State and federal standard is 9 ppm) in year 2020. The Proposed Project (Alternative B) would not result in any exceedance of the l-hour and &hour CO standards in 1998 (Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project), 2005,2010,2015, and 2020. In general, year 2020, Alternative G would result in the highest CO concentrations around John Wayne Airport, followed by Alternative F, then by Alternative E (No Project), and the Proposed Project (Alternative B).

Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx)

This section details the results of the EDMS modeling for NO2 emissions. Note, however, that EDMS does not provide results of NO2 concentrations; it only provides results for emissions of all nitrogen oxides (NOx). The federal and State standards are written specifically in terms of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) rather than for the generic group of all nitrogen oxides. The EDMS model does not project concentrations of NOZ; it projects concentrations only for NOx. In order to determine the quantity of NO2 in the NOx projections generated by the EDMS model, conversion guidelines included in U.S. EPA CFR Parts 51 and 52 were used for the annual average. The guidelines state that for the annual average, 75 percent of NOx is NO2. For the one hour period, a ten percent conversion factor was used, based on the suggestion by Mr. Howard Segal, who was one of the creators of the EDMS model. This conversion factor is supported by

the U.S. EPA.

There would be no exceedance of the States l-hour NO2 standard at all receptor locations around both airports in 1998 (Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project), 2010, and 2020. However, there would be one exceedance each of the federal annual arithmetic mean (AAM) standard (0.0534 ppm) for NO2 concentration at Irvine Transportation Center around OCX for the Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project (2020) and the Proposed Project (Alternative B) (2020), and at the North Terminal on John Wayne Airport for Alternative G (2020). The projected exceedance of the federal NO2 AAM standard at the Irvine Transportation Center for the Existing Conditions Plus Proposed Project (2020) scenario is not likely to occur, given the condition that military operations were still in place, thereby precluding such occurrence.
The projected exceedance at the Irvine Transportation Center mound OCX would not occur until sometime after the year 2015, as can be seen in Table 66 where the NO2 AAM would be 0.0460 ppm at the Irvine Transportation Center in the year (approximately 14 percent lower than the standard level) and in Table 68 where the projected NO2 AAM would be 0.0583 ppm
(approximately nine percent above the standard level).
County of Orange EIR No. 573
Air Quality Technical Report
Because this projected exceedance in the year 2020 at the Irvine Transportation Center was based on an even split of the use of Runway 34L and Runway 34R for the aircraft take-offs to the north, a higher percentage of take-offs using Runway 34R, which is away Corn the Irvine Transportation Center, would help reduce the NO2 concentrations at this closest off-airport sensitive area, and would help reduce the local air quality impact to below the threshold levels. The modeling indicates that for NO2 around John Wayne Airport, Alternative G has the highest concentrations, followed by Alternative F, then by Alternative E, and Alternative B. The reason that NOa levels are highest for Alternative G is the high number of passenger jet operations (large jets typically emit high levels of NOx) at John Wayne Airport. The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on local NO2 AAM concentration with implementation of proper airport operational procedures on Runway 34R and Runway 34L.

Sulfur Oxides (SO*)

There would be no exceedance of the States l-hour SO2 standard and the State and federal 240 hour SO2 standards at any of the receptor locations analyzed around both airports. The modeling indicates that for SO2, Alternative F generates the highest concentrations for all sites around John Wayne Airport, followed by Alternative G, then by Alternative E, and Alternative B. The Proposed Project would not result in any significant impact on local SO2 concentrations.

The traffic modeling upon which much of the air quality assessment is based uses the OCTAM model, which utilizes Orange County growth projections which are consistent with SCAG growth forecasts to the year 2020. The growth forecasts are consistent with SCAG forecasts and are based in large part on the RCP&G. Therefore, the analysis is consistent with the RCP&G and the AQMP. In addition, the aviation forecasts made for this project are consistent with the SCAG demographics (e.g., population, housing, employment) forecasts. The forecast made for the Proposed Project are based on the same demographics as the AQMP, and therefore, the second criterion is met for consistency with the AQMP. Because both criteria were met for consistency, the Proposed Project is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.
Conformity with State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Only projects involving federal action are required to demonstrate conformity with the approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act provides that a federal agency, or other agency acting on behalf of the federal agency, cannot support, provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any action which does not conform to the approved State Implementation Plans (or Federal Implementation Plans) purpose of eliminating and reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and achieving expeditious attainment of the standards and not causing or contributing to new NAAQS violations and not increasing the frequency or severity of any existing violations of any standard. It should be noted that the federal law requires conformity with the SIP, not the AQMP. The AQMP must be reviewed and approved by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the U.S. EPA before it becomes part of the SIP. The Proposed Project will be required to demonstrate general conformity under the Clean Air Act. Conformity will be required for all criteria pollutants in which the region is designated as non-attainment or maintenance. In accord with the general conformity requirements, if a project results in emissions less than the de-minimis threshold, then the project is presumed to conform. If emissions exceed de-minimis, the conformity regulations identify several steps that can be undertaken to demonstrate conformity. For ozone only, if emissions are above the de-minimis threshold, then the project is required to offset all emissions in addition to showing that concentrations of the precursor pollutants (NOx and ROC) are less than the No Project This document focuses on meeting the State CEQA requirements. General Alternative. conformity will be addressed in connection with the federal approval process.

Table 72 shows the potential GSE emissions reductions at both airports. GSE emissions were
calculated based on annual landing and takeoff (LTO) cycles projected at the project sites for the year 2020 Alternative B scenario. Individual GSE emissions reduction for each type of alternative fuel is included in Appendix F-F. Table 72 shows the total emissions reductions (or increase if a negative number is shown) based on the assumption that the entire GSE fleet would
be using the same fuel type. It is shown that electric powered GSE would have the greatest emissions reduction for all pollutants. Gasoline would reduce the NOx and PM10 emissions, but would increase the emissions of CO and HC/ROC relative to default emissions. Both liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) would reduce emissions of NOx, HC/ROC and PM10 but would increase the CO emissions compared to the default diesel fuel. Table 72 Potential GSE Emissions Reductions (Pounds/Day)

[ CQ rr

- 591f 1,411 1,666

HCIROC

482 -147 - 106 i 629 -439 1,046
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1N A ] NA NA NA

- -3s - 86 I 165 ) 169

OCX, Diesel Gas

LPG CNG

/ JWA, Diesel Gas r I CNG

Electric

Total, Diesel

Electric Gas

LPG CNG Electric
- 50,156 - 19,262 - 19,262 30,668 8,984 - 13,592 - 4,833 - 4,833 9,8,474 - 63,748 - 24,095 - 24,095 39,995

29,490

2,330 - 660 -771 1,811 2,138 2,138 2,990
NOTE: [l] Emissions calculated based on annual LTO operations with GSEMODEL. The GSEMODEL assumes a11 default GSE would be used for all aircraft. Emissions reduction assumes all GSE would use the same type of fuel as shown. Emissions reduction for individual GSE is included in Appendix G. [2] Gas is the default Abel type for baggage tugs. [3] A negative number represents there is an emission increase compared to the default fuel. [4] Not Available. The GSEMODEL does not provide emissions for SOx. [5] Liquid Petroleum gas fueled engines. [6] Compressed natural gas fueled engines.
The Proposed Project is projected to have increases of criteria pollutants exceeding the SCAQMD established operational thresholds for the criteria pollutants of CO, NOx, and ROC. Therefore, emissions reduction measures will be considered for all criteria pollutants. Utilizing electric powered GSE and providing electrical power outlets for electric ramp vehicles and for battery charging of GSE, and providing pre-conditioned air at every gate would provide the highest amount of emissions reductions for all criteria pollutants. Based on the GSEMODEL results, if all GSE is converted to electric powered from the default (diesel) fuel, 98.8 percent of the hydrocarbon (HC) emissions, 99.9 percent of the carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, 95.6 percent of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM) would be eliminated.

If compressed natural gas (CNG) powered GSE is used in lieu of the default (diesel) fuel, 40.8
percent of HC, 68.4 percent of NO, and 94.5 percent of PM emissions can be eliminated. However, the CO emissions would increase by 62.8 percent from the default level.
Therefore, the following potential emissions reductions shown in Table 73 can be achieved with combination of the default fuel and alternative fuels Table 73 Potential 2020 Proposed Project (Alternative B) GSE Emissions Reductions (Pounds/Day)
90 percent electric-powered and 10 17,799 1,percent default fuel GSE 50 percent electric powered and 50 9,800 1,percent default fuel GSE 50 percent electric-powered and 50 3,584 1,percent CNG powered GSE 50 percent CNG powered and 50 -6,216L percent default tieI GSE 100 percent CNG powered GSE I -12,432 I 1,488 I 248 Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 1999 NOTE: [l] Use the reduction factor as NOx. [2] Negative values represent increases in emissions. 42
Potential Emissions Reductions From Fueling Facilities
As described earlier, the Proposed Project is designed to have a hydrant fueling system, a vapor recovery system and floating roof fuel tanks. Therefore, little or no hydrocarbon emissions would be anticipated. Therefore, the emissions listed in Table 26 from fuel storage and dispensing operations would be eliminated. For the Proposed Project (Alternative B) in year 2020, this represents a reduction of the ROC emissions by 95 pounds per day.

6.7 6.7.1

SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Short-Term Construction Air Quality Impacts
The Proposed Project would result in temporary significant and unavoidable construction air quality impacts. Most criteria pollutant emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD for construction would be exceeded during the projects peak construction years (second through fourth years in a five year period for each of the four phases), except SO,. NO, emission thresholds (100 pounds per day) would be exceeded most of the time, except the fifth year of each construction phase. PM10 emissions threshold would be exceeded most of the time when
emissions fkom equipment exhaust combined with fugitive dust generated by grading or soil disturbance. Emissions of CO and ROC would exceed the emissions thresholds during the projects peak construction years, but would be below the emissions thresholds during off-peak years.
Local Air Quality Impacts
The Proposed Project would not result in CO hot spots at intersections in the project vicinity. The Proposed Project in 2020, when added to the Existing Conditions (1998) roadway network and traffic conditions, would continue to have two intersections in the project vicinity exposed to eight-hour CO concentrations exceeding the State and federal standards. However, this exceedance is due primarily to high ambient eight-hour CO concentrations monitored at the Central Orange County Monitoring Station. The existing exceedance would no longer occur after the year 2005, as was shown in the CO hot spot analysis for the Proposed Project in 2005, 2010,2015, and 2020. The Proposed Project would not increase the frequency or severity of the exceedance. There would be no exceedance of the States l-hour NO2 standard at all receptor locations around both airports. However, there would be one exceedance of the federal annu&l arithmetic mean (AAM) standard (0.0534 ppm) for NO* concentration at Irvine Transportation Center around OCX for the Proposed Project (Alternative B) (2020). The projected exceedance at the Irvine Transportation Center around OCX would not occur until sometime after the year 2015, as can be seen in Table 66 where the NO2 AAM would be 0.0460 ppm at the Irvine Transportation Center in the year 2010 (approximately 14 percent lower than the standard level) and in Table 66 where the projected NO2 AAM would be 0.0583 ppm (approximately nine percent above the standard level). Because this projected exceedance in the year 2020 at the Irvine Transportation Center was based on an even split of the use of Runway 34L and Runway 34R for the aircr& take-offs to the north, a higher percentage of take-offs using Runway 34R, which is away from the Irvine Transportation Center, would help reduce the NO2 concentrations at this closest off-airport sensitive area, and would help reduce the local air quality impact to below the threshold levels.

Regional Air Quality Impacts
The Proposed Project Plus Existing Conditions (1998) would result in increases in criteria pollutants when compared to Existing Conditions (1998) on a regional basis. Specifi;cally, there would be an increase in emissions of CO, NOx, and ROC under the Existing Plus Proposed Project (Alternative B) scenario compared to the Existing Conditions (1998) scenario, which would exceed the SCAQMD established emissions thresholds for operation. Emissions of the PM10 under the Proposed Project (2020) would increase slightly over the Existing Conditions (1998) scenario. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in significant air quality impacts. This approach, however, does not take into account a number of significant factors relevant to the assessment of air quality impacts that may reduce emissions levels in the firture, including
County of Change EIR No. 573

aat pollu~t sowces

that motor
creating the existing emissions will become steadily cleaner over the yeas, vehicles operating in 20 years will be substantially cleaner than todays vehicles, ami
that industrial sources will continue to be regulated and continue to become cleaner as less polluting technologies continue to become available that replace todays technology. Additionally, this approach overlooks studies conducted by, among others, SCAG, which conclude that the regional air travel demand could be met whether a commercial airport is constructed at MCAS El Toro or not and, on that basis, it is incorrect to assume that the Proposed Project will add substantial emissions attributable to aircraft operations to the region. Circumstances relevant to a federally deregulated aviation industry and titure economic development in Southern California also clearly indicate that the aviation industry will provide service to meet foreseeable demand regardless of inconvenience levels so long as such service is profitable. The question in Southern California is not whether future airline service will be provided to meet demand, but where. Runway capacity at locations remote from- current or future population centers is available, but the consequence of using those facilities is increased drive time and VMT and resulting emissions. More conveniently located facilities, such as LAX, Burbank, or San Diego, can certainly handle increasing passenger demand levels, but at a cost of increased congestion and passenger inconvenience. For Orange County passengers, of course, LAX, Burbank, and other such existing facilities are relatively remote and require additional VMT to reach. But there is no substantial or credible evidence or experience in Southern California to support a conclusion that the airlines will simply fail to provide service sufficient to meet demand in a fully deregulated environment.

Summary

The Proposed Project would result in significant air quality impacts during construction and significant local and regional emissions during operation of the proposed facility when compared to Existing Conditions (1998). Mitigation measures designed to reduce construction, local, and regional project related emissions would be required.

for battery charging for passenger shuttles that serve hotels, rental car agencies, and other businesses. Relationship to DEIR No. 573: This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of planning. As revised the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ-I 4. AQ-6 During design of the aviation uses on the site, the County of Orange will consider encouraging the use of alternative fuel vehicles powered by natural gas, propane, and/or other alternative fkels, and providing fuel storage facilities for these alternative hels.
Relationship tu DEIR No. 573: This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of planning. As revised, the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ-15. AQ-7 During the preparation of construction level environmental documentation for the project, the County of Orange or the airport operator will require that plans and procedures be prepared that includes the requirement for final design studies to minimize taxi-in and taxi-out times and reduce aircraft queuing times. These may include, but are not limited to, design features and specific operations procedures.
Relationship tu DEIR No. 573: This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of planning. As revised, the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ-I 6. AQ-8 During design of the aviation uses on the site, the County of Orange will consider including electrical power and preconditioned air in the design of the terminal gates (jetways), to reduce emissions from operating aircraft engines at the gates.
Relationship tu DEIR No. 573: This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of planning. As revised, the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ-I 7. AQ-9 During design of the aviation uses on the site, the County of Orange will consider including electrical power outlets for electric ramp vehicles, and for battery charging for ground support equipment.
Relationship to DEIR No. 573: This measure has been updated tu reflect the current stage of
planning. As revised, the measure is replaced by Mitigation Measure AQ-18.
During design of the aviation uses on the site, the County of Orange will consider incorporating hydrant fkeling systems for commercial jet aircraft operations.
Relationship to DEIR No. 573: This measure has been updated to reflect the current stage of planning. As revised, the measure is replaced by Mitigatiun Measure AQ-19.

Construction Emissions

During construction of the Proposed Project, the County of Orange and its contractors will be required to comply with regional rules, which would assist in reducing shortterm air pollutant emissions. The SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. These dust suppression techniques are summarized below. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques as required by the SCAQMD can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component) by 50 to 75 percent.

Dust SuDpression:

Apply non-toxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers specifications, to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
Revegetate in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders, according to
manufacturers specifications, to exposed stock piles (i.e., gravel, sand, dirt) with
five percent or greater silt content. Water active sites at least twice daily. Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. All trucks hauling, dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of CVC section (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). Sweep streets once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent stieets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).
Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved
roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from main road.

County of Orange EIRNo.

Apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers specifications to all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces.
Trafk speeds on all unpaved roads to be reduced to 15 mph or less.
Vehicle and Equipment Exhaust: The following measures are provided to reduce air pollutants generated by vehicle and equipment exhaust during the project construction phases:
Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. Provide temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities to improve t&Tic flow (e.g., flagperson). Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow to off-peak hours (e.g., between 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.). Develop a construction traffic management plan that includes, but is not limited to Rerouting construction trucks off congested streets. I Consolidating truck deliveries. I Providing dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on-site and off-site.

Certain mitigation measures were evaluated, but are not proposed for inclusion in the project. These measures, and the reasons they are not proposed for adoption or inclusion in the project, are listed below. 9 Reduced use of reverse thrust can reduce emissions during the brief period (typically 15 seconds) when pilots may use the engines to slow the aircraft upon arrival. Reverse thrust is not used to slow every aircraft upon arrival. Reverse thrust is normally used to reduce aircraft time on the active runway tier landing and to reduce maintenance costs incurred with brake repair and replacement. Use of reverse thrust by pilots depends upon several factors including the length of runway available for stopping an aircraft, runway conditions, air traffic or ground control instructions, winds, aircraft type, width and speed, return taxiway condition and congestion, proximity of aircraft following on final approach, or many other possible operational considerations. This strategy has a direct relationship to the safe operation of an aircraft on the runways and, for this reason, the use of reverse thrust must be within the discretion of the pilot in command. Due to concerns over safety, insufficient potential emission reductions, and the need for pilot discretion, this strategy is considered infeasible. Taking passengers to aircraft could reduce aircraft emissions by reducing time spent in taxi/idle mode by placing the aircraft closer to the runways. However, the proximity of the terminals to the runways indicate that this particular strategy would have kinimal, if any, benefit at JWA and OCX. This strategy is not reasonable or feasible for implementation at OCX or JWA. Fleet modernization might reduce fleet average emissions of a particular pollutant. This strategy would entail replacing older aircraft/engines with aircraft/engine types that are designed to emit lower emissions of a specific pollutant. To date, consideration of emissions fkom aircraft has focused on reducing NOx emissions, which increased during the last decade with the increasing prominence of the high bypass ratio engine, which Hi9
provides significant noise reduction. The high bypass ratio engines resulted in substantial emission reductions in CO and ROG, but resulted in substantial increases in NOx. In the long term, the aviation industry and the federal government will continue to search for better te.chnology to reduce emissions (air and noise) from aircraft engines. Over the last two decades, engine manufacturers and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) research and development programs have significantly reduced jet engine emissions. NASA has ongoing research that has as its goal the development of technology that will reduce emissions of future aircraft by a factor of three within 10 years and by a factor of five within 25 years. However, these programs have been the subject of recent Congressional budget cuts. As a result, implementation of such technology, when available, will take decades. As a result, fleet modernization represents mitigation that may occur at the later part of the horizon for this project, but it is not viable in providing substantial reductions in emissions before 2020. In addition, such actions are beyond the control of the airport operator, as aircraft engine emissions are regulated by the federal government.

20.641
Aircraft GWAGEIAPU Roadways Parking Lots Stationary F LLL.-CL-CC Total

63.376

29.751

389.684

121.174

16.875 3.179

l ooo 4.843.719

,308. 094

2.465 l 903

.266 ,000 21.491

9.903 l ooo 2,416.815

94.992

514,226
+ Report includes 28 Aircraft and 0 GSE created by the user.
Study Name: JWA a/t F2020 Airport: JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT-ORANGE Report Date: 70/28/99
354.843 1,817.042 38.173 18.640 ,000 2,228.698
23.942 3.869 2.165 ,494.ooo 30.470

Alrcraft

30.985 43.508
661.600 137.056 4.558 1.699 moo0 804.913
,000 4.944 1.329 ,252.ooo 6.525

GSUAGEIAPU

Roadways Parking Lots Stationary F LL. I--Total

. 176 2.430 77,669

+ Report includes 20 Aircraft and 0 GSE created by the user,
Study Name: JWA a/t G 2020 Airport: JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT-ORANGE Report Date: 70/28/99
(Tons/Year) NAME co HC , NOx sox PM10
704.945 3,243,725 41.518 25.314 a000 4,015.502
56.027 78.337 ,620 ,255 4.346 139.505
1,366.492 255.605 4.957 2.296.ooo 1,629.350

45.627 7.018 2.355.602

,000 9.124 1.446.346

GSE/AGE/APU Roadways

Parking Lots Stationary

c* A.CLIA

55.602

10.916

* Report includes 22 Aircraft and 0 GSE created by the user.
Study Name: JWA a/t H 2020 Airport= JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT-ORANGE Report Date: 1 O/27/99

944.623 1,499.580

28.283
21.775 3.583 1.604. 379.ooo 27,341
Aircraft GSEIAGEIAPU Roadways Parking Lots Stationary

0 -I I"acLe

53.123 37.533 a422
483.952 128.515 3.377 1.238 ,000 617.082
,000 4.856.985. 182 ,000 6.023

13.582 ,000

2,486.068

1.877 93.084

Rtiport includes 26 Aircraft and 0 GSE created by the user.
Study Name: JWA a/f I2020 Airport: JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT-ORANGE Reporf Date: 1 O/27/99

(Tonsh'eai) NAME

1,236.,I 34.969 17.098 8.206 ,000 2,396.642
Aircraft GSEIAGEJAPU Roadways Parking Lots Stationary
57.774 31,199 ,255 ,078 1.216 90.522

kxaft LSEIAGEIAPU ioadways lJ20.983 2,455.695 41.630 65.153.ooo 3,683.461
185.090 64,590.846 1.046 10.562 262.134
1,181.075 254.457 5.684 5.728 -000 1,446.944
48.256 6.345 2.322 1.628.ooo 58.551
,000 9.342 1.389.646.ooo 11.377

Darking Lots

stationary N L1. s-11
* Report includes 104 Aircraft and 0 GSE created by the.*- B -
Study Name: Alternative A 2020 Airpod: Orange County International Airport

Report Date: 7 l/03/99

(TonHear) NAME
830.505 2J79.001 30.207 54.871 -000 3,094.584
38.953 5.642 1.796 1.416 -000 47.807
ma-aft ZSEIAGEIAPU Roadways Pafking Lots Stationary F a.-CC*robI

131,701 57,407

971.243 225.328 3.972 4.759.ooo 1,205.302
-.ooo 8.298 1.062 -544.ooo 9.904

-670 9.490 199.702

* Report includes 88 Aircraft and 0 GSE created by the user.

Study Name: OCX202OB

Airport: Orange County International Airport

Report Date: 1 O/28/99

(Tonsr/eatj
1,295.815 2,828.746 44.686 67.060.ooo 4,236.307
57.569 7.450 2.675 1.781.ooo 69.475
Gwaft ;SffAGElAPU Xoadways )arking Lots itationary s *.---CL -0ta1
197.416 75.125 642.812 14.297 288.292
1,451.834 303.211 5.849 5.774 ,000 1,766.668
-.ooo 11.091 1.598.703.ooo 13.392
* Report includes 92 Aircraft and 0 GSE created by the user.
Study Name: Alternative C 2020 Airport: Orange County International Airporf Report Date: 1 l/03/99
944.737 1,785.506 36.956 68.969 -000 2,836.168
45.278 5.194 2.201 1.680.ooo 54.353
Aircraft GSUAGEIAPU Roadways Parking Lots Stationary sot.-*a LI. al
159.772 -50.264 * 531.860 11.607 223.034
1,271.795 223.316 4.853 6.057.ooo 1,506.021
.ooo 8.205 1.306.605 -000 10.116
Report includes 74 Aircraft and 0 GSE created by the user.
Study Name: Alternative H 2020 Airport: Orange County Infernational Airport Report Date: 7 l/03/99

SUMMARY (TondYearj

WME co HC NOx sox PM10

timaft

745.733

167.991

610.027 155.127

25.901

SSEIAGEIAPU ioadways afking Lots %ationafy % a. *--a otal

1,198.332

17.475

34.940 ,253

-526 5.526 209.236

3.774 1.013

6.008.577

40.974.ooo

2,002.514

l ooo 771.161

.ooo 31.591
Report includes 88 Aircraft and 0 GSE created by the user.
Study Name: Alternative I 2020 Airport: Orange County International Airport

Report Date: 1 l/03/99

+JAME co HC
-uwaft 5SUAGUAPU kmdways >afking Lots Stationary '* a*.*-a* r0tal 699.078 1,774.933 24.556 49.877 -000 2JA8.444 115.726 46.856 773,186 182.144 3.245 4.417 -000 962.992 31.725 4.590 1.448 1.168.ooo 38.931 -000 6.746 -847.400 -000 7.993

-629 7.496 171.061

Study Name: Alternative J 2020 Airport: Orange County International Airport Report Date: 1 l/02/99
(Tons/Year) NAME co HC NOx sox PM10
Aircraft GSEiAGElAPU Roadways Parking Lots Stationary e a.-1-e Total
1,087.892 2,828.747 44.686 67.060.ooo 4,028.385
170.071 75.-812 14,297 260.948
1,415.581 303.211 5.849 5.774.ooo 1,730.415
53.212 7.450 2.675 1.781.ooo 65.118
-.ooo 11.091 l-598 -703.ooo 13.392
EDMS Emissions Inventory Southern California Region

LSA Associures,

1998 Emissions (Five Types of planes) [tons/year]
Aircraft Others 683 1.900 11998.955

438.961 266.786

6825.706 720.589

307.876 22.124

0 24.624

GSE Others

Study Name: Regional 20058
Airport: Regional Airports

Report Date: Q/03/99

(Tons/Year) NAME
10,564.085 14,537.921 -000 25102.006
10,788.856 1,459.084 417.100 36.754

Stationary

1,724.200 377.617 61.794 2,163.611

53.693

12,247.940

453.854

f LI.-*-r otalm
Study Name: Regional 2010B Airport: Regional AirporCs Reporf Date: 12/03/99

(Tons/Year) NAME *

10,769.289 14,820.196
10,998.373 1,487.416 425.201 37.466.ooo 54.736

Aircraft GSE/AGE/APU

1,757.703 384.948 62.994 2,205.645
Stationary c CI.-a-I Total

25,589.485

12,485.789

462.667

54.736
Study Name: Regional 2075B Airport: Regional Airports Report Date: 12/03/99
(Tons/Year) NAME * co HC NOx sox PM10
Ai rcrafi GSE/AGE/APU Stationary c CL.L111 Total
11,476.344 l&793.254. 27,269.598 o o o

1,873-l

11,720.487 1,585.074.ooo 13,305.561
453.122 39.926.ooo 493.048

.ooo 58.325.ooo 58.325

410.223 67.130 2,350.457
Study Name: Regional 20200 Airport: Regional Airports Rep& Date: 12/03/99

(Tons/Year) NAME-

12J53.847 16,725.523.ooo 2a,a79.370
479.860 42.280.ooo 522.140
Aircraft GSE/AGE/APU Stationary CI -.I*-Total

1,983.701 434.435 71.093 2,489.229
12,412.360 1,678.637.ooo 14,090.997

61.773.ooo 61.773

Other Airports Regional Emissions Summary
Units in tom per yenr Year2005 AN. B AIt, E Year2010 Ah. B Alt. E 25,590 28,492 Year2015 Ah. B Alt, E 27,270 Alt. A 30,350 Year2020 AN. F Alt. H -.--~

Criteria Pollutant

Alt. B
Ak E 33,639 2,944 16,623 619
Alt, G 32,602 2,907 14,784 565

Alt. I

HC NOx

25,102 2,164

12,248

26,203

31,112 2,759 15,240 569

28,879 2,489 14,091 522

34,708 2,995 16,131 605

31,232 2,572 15,227 560

30,552 2,662 15,167

561 66

12,745

2,206 12,486 463

2,534 13,891 520

2,350 13,306 493

2,642 14,956 555
Regional Emissions Summary

12/17/99