Feasibility study and environmental review for a regional aircraft rescue and fire fighting training facility / final report

              Feasibility Study and Environmental Review for a
Regional Aircraft Rescue and
Fire Fighting Training Facility
Final Report
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
Aeronautics Division
Prepared by:
Greiner, Inc.
r December 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 gg6
~ Ul~ au, , uo u, v, oJU~¢
List of Tables . . . . , ............................................................ iii
List of Figures ............................................................... iv
List of Schematics ............................................................ iv
Preface ...................................................................... v
10.0 DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 1
10.1 Inventory of Existing Information .................................. 10- 1
10.1.1 Federal Aviation Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 1
10.1.2 International Civil Aviation Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 3
10.1.3 National Fire Protection Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 4
10.2 Facility Demand Forecast ........................................ 10- 5
10.2.1 Arizona Airports ........................................ 10- 5
10.2.2 Military ............................................... 10- 9
10.2.3 Out- Of- State Airports .................................... 10- 9
10.2.4 Non- Aviation Users .................................... 10- 10
10.2.5 Existing and Future Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 11
10.3 Environmental Review .......................................... 10- 12
10.3.1 Regulatory Overview ................................... 10- 12
10.3.2 Assessment of Impacts .................................. 10- 13
10.4 Facility Site Selection .......................................... 10- 21
10.4.1 Potential Sites ......................................... 10- 21
10.4.2 Evaluation Methodology ................................. 10- 22
10.4.3 Site Rankings ......................................... 10- 24
10.5 Available Technology .......................................... 10- 29
10.5.1 Facility Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 29
10.5.2 Technology Overview ................................... 10- 30
10.5.3 Other Technologies ..................................... 10- 39
10.6 Preliminary Layout and Schematic Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 40
10.6.1 Layout Methodology .................................... 10- 40
10.6.2 Preliminary Schematic Design Drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 41
10.7 Project Construction and O/ M Cost Est'maates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 42
10.7.1 Revised Project Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 42
10.7.2 Revised Operation/ Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 46
10.8 Potential Liabilities ............................................ 10- 46
10.8.1 Technology ........................................... 10- 47
10.8.2 Economic ............................................ 10- 48
10.8.3 Safety ............................................... 10- 49
WP_ Wi~ O'uM:~ IUZA. R~:~ AS S'I" DY~ TOC_ ] O. MJ~ 4. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
( Continued)
10.9
10.10
10.8.4 Environmental 10- 50
Financial Feasibility ............................................ 10- 51
10.9.1 Methodology .......................................... 10- 51
10.9.2 Revised Results ........................................ 10- 54
Recommendations . ............................................ 10- 56
10.10.1 Committee Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 56
10.10.2 Consultant's Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 58
REFERENCES
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
LIST OF RECIPIENTS OF THE FINAL REPORT
APPENDICES
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M -
Appendix N
First, Second, and Third Draft Reports Tables of Contents
Supporting Information for the Holbrook and City of Phoenix Emergency
Services Institute Sites
Site Evaluation Supporting Materials
British Design ARFF Training Facilities
Project Construction Costs Worksheets
ARFF Study Committee Meeting Notes
Revised Financial Feasibility Analysis
wP_ wP~ o,~:,~.~,' r~ ss~ wroc_~ o.~,~,: ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
Title
ARFF- Related Training Requirements and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 6
Environmental Regulations Matrix ................................ 10- 14
Site Evaluation Matrix .......................................... 10- 25
Project Programming List for ARFF Training Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 31
Comparison of ARFF Training Systems Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 34
Matrix of Project Construction Cost Estimates for Fossil Fuel
and Propane Systems ........................................... 10- 44
Matrix of Possible Cost Savings by Alternative Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 45
Matrix of Total, Adjusted, and Owner Construction Cost Estimates by
Alternative Technology and Site .................................. 10- 53
B/ C RatioSummary by Alternative Technology and Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10- 55
WP_ WPRO~ M: V~ R. IZ~ STDY~ TOC_ I 0. MAK lll
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
I0. I
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
Title Follows
Certificated and Non- Certificated Airports with Commercial Service . Page 10- 8
Potential ARFF Training Facility Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10- 22
Tucson Public Safety Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10- 27
Williams Gateway Airport .................................. Figure 10.3
City of Phoenix Fire Department Emergency Services Institute . . . . . Page 10- 28
ARFF Training Facility Basic Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10- 29
LIST OF SCHEMATICS
ARFF Training Facility Schematic Layout Plan No. 1SB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 41
.... WP_ WPP, O~ M:~ AR] ZARFF~ EAS STDY'~ TOC l O. MAK iv
PREFACE
This Final Draft Report contains information collected or developed in support of Task 10 of the
Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT), Aeronautics Division, Feasibility Study and
Environmental Review for a Regional Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting ( ARFF) Training Facility.
This task is entitled Task 10 - Development Recommendations.
The primary purposes of this final stage of the project are to ( a) provide a summary of the essential
facts and fmdings of the study; and ( b) present the recommendations of the Study Committee and
the Consultant in support of ( 1) whether or not an ARFF training facility should be built in Arizona,
( 2) the most attractive host site( s), and ( 3) the most appropriate live- fire training technologies and
equipment. These recommendations are contained in Section 10.10 of this report,
The full results of Tasks 1 - Inventory of Existing Information, 2 - Facility Demand Forecast, 3 -
Environmental Review, 4 - Facility Site Selection, and 5 - Available Technology are contained in
the First Draft Report published separately in January 1995 [ ADOT 1995a]. The Second Draft
Report, published in April 1995, contains the initial results of Tasks 6 - Preliminary Layout and
Schematic Design, 7 - Preliminary Cost Estimates, and 8 - Potential Liabilities [ ADOT, 1995b].
Revised in this document, Task 9 - Financial Feasibility, was originally presented in the Third Draft
Report published in June 1995 [ ADOT, 1995c].
It is important to note that some of the information presented in the First, Second and Third Draft
Reports has been updated in response to questions, comments and new developments throughout the
course of this study. In this regard, the most " recent" materials are contained in this Final Draft
Report and should be considered the most authoritative. If there are no substantive changes to this
document, it will be considered the Final Report, with appropriate Addenda, if necessary.
This report represents the conclusion of the environmental review/ feasibility study and serves as a
" milepost" to this stage of the ARFF training facility project. The project schedule, a list of
participants, and a list of report recipients are included at the end of this document.
WP_ WPRO~ M:~ IZ~ S STDY~ TOC_ I O. MAK V
SECTION 10.0
DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
This report summarizes the essential facts and findings of Tasks 1 through 9 and concludes with the
development recommendations for the project. Most of the information in the first nine sections of
this report was excerpted from the First, Second, and Third Draft Reports, and updated wherever
necessary. For reference, the Tables of Contents for these first three reports are contained in
Appendix H.
10.1 INVENTORY OF EXISTING INFORMATION
Discussed in the First Draft Report, this task involved the identification and collection of vital
information concerning ARFF " live fire" training requirements and guidelines. This information,
highlighted below, was largely obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA),
International Civil Aviation Organization and the National Fire Protection Association.
10.1.1 Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Aviation Regulations ( FAR) Part 139 - Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving
Certificated Scheduled Air Carriers Operating Large Aircraft requires that:
" Each certificate holder provide rescue and fire fighting capability and that
the rescue/ fire fighting personnel are properly trained [ FAA, 1992a]."
In accordance with this regulation, Part 139 certificated airports are classified by indexes A through
E based on the longest length of air carrier aircraft and number of operations by this aircraft type.
This Part 139 index also determines the number and type of fire fighting equipment required for the
airport.
V~_ WPRO~:~ Z,~' rW~ SrO~ ECr_~ O. WP6 10 - 1
!
I
!
I
!
l
i
1
!
i
!
l
i
Part 139 ARFF training requirements include airport and aircraft familiarization, safety, incident
communications, hazardous cargo, proper use of equipment, and application of extinguishing agents.
Moreover, of upmost importance to this study, Part 139 requires that:
" All ARFF personnel serving certificated airports participate in at least one
' live- fire' drill every 12 months."
Unfortunately, the term " live- fire" drill is not defined in Part 139 and, therefore, an acceptable level
of training to meet this requirement is not fully understood.
FAA Advisory Circular ( AC) 150/ 5220- 17A, Design Standards for Aircraft Rescue and Fire
Fighting Training Facilities is used as a design guideline for ARFF live fire training facilities
receiving federal funds [ FAA, 1992b]. According to this AC:
" Certificated airports should provide its ARFF personnel with realistic
training in the application of extinguishing agents and devices comparable to
those used at the airport."
The Part 139 Index, mentioned above, is also used in this AC as a means of determining the
appropriately sized live fire area for the ARFF training facility.
Several other AC's published by the FAA contain recommended ARFF training curriculum ( AC
150/ 5210- 16) and provide information on extinguishing agents ( AC 150/ 5210- 6L), incident
communications ( AC 150/ 5210- 7B), protective clothing ( AC 150/ 5210- 14), ARFF building design
( AC 150/ 5210- 15), vehicle specifications ( AC 150/ 5220- 10A, 14A & 19) and airport emergency
response plans ( AC 150/ 5200- 31).
The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 also contains important information that pertains
to ARFF training facilities. Section 503 ( Definitions) defines " airport development" to include:
" ... any acquisition of land for, or work involved to construct, a bum area
training structure on or off the airport for the purpose of providing live fire
WP_ W PROUd :'~,,[ Z ARFFWEA SSTDY~ ECT I 0. WP6 10 - 2
drill training for aircraft rescue and fire fighting personnel required to receive
such training by a regulation of the Department of Transportation, including
basic equipment and minimum structures to support such training in
accordance with standards of the Federal Aviation Administration."
This defmition allows for the construction of ARFF training facilities using Airport Improvement
Program ( AIP) funds in accordance with the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990,
if the activity is undertaken by the sponsor, owner, or operator of a public use airport [ Tianin, 1994].
Presently, there are no known FAA guidelines which specifically address the funding, location or
type of regional ARFF training facilities nationwide. Instead, each FAA region is responsible for
developing its own plan for implementing a " state- by- state" approach whereby AIP funds would be
used to construct ARFF training facilities in select areas [ Costillano, 1994]. The number of facilities
in each region, or state, would depend on the geographic size of the state and the demonstrated
demand for the facility. Due to current funding limitations and the high cost of the first few regional
ARFF training facilities, the FAA plan assumes that only a few facilities would be built in each FAA
region.
According to FAA personnel in the Western Pacific Region, the number of ARFF training facilities
has not been predetermined but will be based on the demonstration of need by each state [ Critchfield,
1994]. The FAA Western Pacific Region includes Arizona, California, Nevada, Hawaii, and other
U. S. territories of the Pacific Islands.
10.1.2 International Civil Aviation Organization
The International Civil Aviation Organization ( ICAO) has several publications containing
information on ARFF training and operations. The most relevant, the Airport Services Manual Part
1 - Rescue and Fire Fighting, contains recommendations for ARFF personnel basic training [ ICAO,
1990]. According to the ICAO:
" ARFF training should address fire causes and extinction, extinguishing
agents, care and handling of equipment, airport and aircraft familiarization,
wP wP~ O~:~ z.~ wF~ ws, s~ Ec'r lo. wF6 10 - 3
search and rescue, accident site approach, positioning of equipment and
medical first aid."
This publication also contains guidelines on levels of fire fighter protection, ARFF stations, and
ARFF vehicles. The ICAO does not publish any specific guidelines on the frequency of live fire
training for ARFF personnel.
10.1.3 National Fire Protection Association
The National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA) also produces information in connection with
ARFF services and training. The publication, NFPA 403 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Services
at Airports, identifies airport responsibilities for the provision of ARFF services similar to those
contained in FAR Part 139, discussed previously. The appendix to NFPA 403 also provides training
guidelines for ARFF personnel which recommends that:
" Live fire exercise instruction should include, but may not be limited to,
exterior fuel fires, interior fires, engine fires, wheel fires and fires involving
on- board auxiliary power units."
NFPA 1003 Airport Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications identifies the knowledge and skills
required of an airport fire fighter for the attack, control and extinguishment of fires involving aircraft
and airport facilities. Again, for informational purposes, the appendix to this NFPA document
provides explanatory material in the utilization of live fire training facilities for aircraft fuel, three
dimensional and interior fires. This NFPA material also recognizes:
" ... the environmental concerns of traditional flammable liquid training fires
and considers flammable gas propane as an acceptable substitute."
This same appendix contains numerous basic design recommendations for ARFF training facility
aircraft and aircraft component mock- ups.
wP wPRo~: v,~ z~ ss~ Ec'rjo. w~ 10 - 4
Table 10.1 provides a summary of this, and other existing, information available from the FAA,
ICAO and NFPA as it pertains to ARFF live fire training facilities.
10.2 FACILITY DEMAND FORECAST
Also discussed in the First Draft Report, this task evaluated and quantified the existing and future
needs for an ARFF training facility in the State of Arizona. Potential " users" of the facility were
categorized as ( 1) Arizona airports, ( 2) military installations ( 3) out- of- state airports and ( 4) non-aviation
users.
10.2.1 Arizona Airports
For the purposes of this study, FAR Part 139 certificated airport fire fighting and rescue personnel
are considered the " primary" users of an ARFF training facility in Arizona. State- wide, 11 airports
presently meet this criteria and they are identified on Figure 10.1. In addition, there are
approximately 100 non- certificated airports in Arizona that serve either commercial or general
aviation aircraft. The five non- certificated airports that have commercial service are also shown on
Figure 10.1
In order to ( 1) determine which of the Arizona airports would likely benefit from an ARFF training
facility and ( 2) to better evaluate their individual training needs, a survey was developed and
distributed early in this study. From this survey, the following general profile of Arizona- based
ARFF live fire training was developed:
Of the 25 airport respondents, 11 are currently FAR Part 139 certificated ( 8 are
Part 139 Index A and 3 are Index E), 1 expects certification soon and 13 are
classified as general aviation.
If a facility were built, all of the Part 139 certificated airports and a number of
general aviation airports would use it, or consider using it, if the training was
affordable.
WP_ WPRO~:~ UZAgm~ SS~ SC'," ,0WP6 10 - 5
/ i! i i l l m D, m m! i n i m m i a
o
t . . t
I
TABLE 10.1
ARFF- RELATED TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES
Agency Regulation/ Guideline Section Relevance
Federal Aviation § 139.1 Applicability
Administration
Federal Aviation Regulation Part 139 -
Certification and Operations: Land Airports
Serving CAB - Certificated Scheduled Air Carriers
Operating Large Cireraft
§ 139.315 Aircraft Rescue
and Fire Fighting: Index
Determination
§ 139.317 Aircraft Rescue
and Fire Fighting:
Equipment and Agents
§ 139.319 Aircraft Rescue
and Fire Fighting
Operational Requirements
Prescribes rules for certificated airports which serve
scheduled or unscheduled air carriers using aircraft
with seating capacity of more than 30 passengers.
Determines airport index based on length of aircraft
groups and number of departures.
Identifies minimum requirements for vehicles,
equipment and agents.
Requires personnel be properly trained and
identifies curriculum; requires at least one live- fire
drill every 12 months.
Advisory Circular. 150/ 5220- 17A Design Standards
for an Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Training
Facility
AC 150/ 5210- 16 Availability of Basic Aircraft
Rescue and Fire Fighting Curriculum
AC 150/ 5210- 6C Aircraft Fire and Rescue Facilities
and Extinguishing Agents
AC 150/ 5210- 7B Aircraft Fire and Rescue
Communications
AC/ 5210- 14 Airport Fire and Rescue Personnel
Protective Clothing
All sections
All sections
All sections
All sections
All sections
Contains standards, specifications and
recommendations for the design of an ARFF
utilizing either propane or liquid hydrocarbons.
Announces the Standardized Basic Aircraft Rescue
and Fire Fighting Training Course.
Outlines proper use and application of agents.
Provides ARFF guidelines for airport
communication systems.
Provides specifications for suits and other personnel
gear.
( Page 1 of 3)
w ~
l ¸ i D m I i il L
,7 TABLE 10.1
ARFF- RELATED TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES
( continued)
Agency Regulation/ Guideline Section Relevance
All sections
o
O
!
Federal Aviation
Administration ( continued)
AC 150/ 5210- 15 Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting
Station Building Design
AC 150/ 5220- 4B Water Supply Systems for All sections
Aircraft Fire and Rescue Protection
AC 150/ 5220- 10A Guide Specification for
Water/ Foam Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
Vehicles
AC 150/ 5220- 14A Airport Fire and Rescue Vehicle
Specification Guide
AC 150/ 5220- 19 Guide Specification for Small,
Dual Agent Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
Vehicles
AC 150/ 5200- 31 Airport Emergency Plan
AC 139.49- I Programs for Training of Fire
Fighting and Rescue Personnel
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982
Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of
1990
All sections
All sections
All sections
All sections
All sections
§ 503( a)( 2)( D) Definitions
§ 9102
Contains standards andguidelines for ARFF
buildings.
Guidelines on the selection of water sources.
Contains performance standards for ARFF
vehicles
Contains procurement specifications for ARFF
vehicles
Contains performance standards for small
ARFF vehicles
Provides guidance for preparation of emergency
plans
Guidelines on conducting live fires.
Includes the acquisition of land, performance
of work and purchase of equipment in support
of an ARFF training facility in the definition of
airport development and within the Airport
Improvement Program ( ALP).
Allows funding of ARFF training facilities with
AIP funds
International Civil Airport Services Manual Part 1 Rescue and Fire Chapter 14 - Training Provides guidelines on the types of training
Aviation Organization Fighting recommended for ARFF personnel.
( Page 2 of 3)
ilm m B m m m m I, W
TABLE 10.1
ARFF- RELATED TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES
( continued)
t.... t
!
oo
Agency Regulation/ Guideline Section Relevance
National Fire Protection
Association
NFPA 403 - Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
Services at Airports
NFPA 1003 - Airport Fire Fighter Professional
Qualifications
NFPA 1002 - Fire Department Vehicle
Driver/ Operator Qualifications
NFPA 30- Flammable and Combustible Liquid Code
NFPA 54 - Fuel Gas Code - National
NFPA 70 - Electrical Code - National
§ 2.0 Organization of ARFF
Services
Appendix A Explanatory
Material
§ 3.0 Airport Fire Fighter
Appendix A - Explanatory
Material
Appendix B - Aircraft Fire
Suppression and Rescue Fire
Training Meek- Up
§ 7.0 Airport Rescue and Fire
Fighting Apparatus
Select sections
Select seetions
Select sections
Identifies airport responsibilities,
emergency preparedness requirements,
airport ARFF service categories and
minimum number of ARFF vehicles.
Provides training program guidelines to
meet NFPA 1003 qualification
requirements.
Establishes performance requirements for
airport fire fighters including prerequisite
knowledge and skills.
Addresses the substitution of flammable
gas for flammable liquid in training fires
for environmental considerations.
Provides recommendations for various live
fire training meek- ups.
Identifies prerequisite skills for ARFF
vehicle maneuvering and positioning.
Provides design criteria for storage of
flammable/ combustible liquids
Provides criteria for installation of fuel gas
piping systems
Provides criteria for design of electrie
systems
Information compiled by Greiner, Inc., 1995.
( Page 3 of 3)
!
I
!
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
UTAH
NEVADA
PAGE MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
GRAND CANYON
NATIONAL PARK
AIRPORT
BULLHrAD LAUGHUN
AIPRORT .
KINGMAN AIRPORT
PUI I. tAM
LAKE HAVASU
~, AIRPORT
• AIRPORT
PRESCOTT AIRPORT
SHOW
.<:
z
0
N
rv
NEW MEXICO
CALIFORNIA
PHOENIX SKY HARBOR
INT. AIRPORT •
.,/ YUMA INT.
AAIRPORT EVERGREEN AIR
CENTER
APPROX. SCALE: REPUBLIC
1"= 60 MILES OF MEXICO
TUCSON ~
INT,
AIRPORT
kSIERRA I -- VISTA
Greiner, lnc.
LEGEND AR= ON,*, , DEPARTMENT OF, TRANSPORTATION
AERONAUTICAL DIVISION
I ~ • FAR PART 139 Certificated Airports
~. © Non- Certificated Airports with
S I CommerciaSle rvice CERTIFICATED AND NON CERTIFICATED, = A, R, O TS W,, CO,, E, C,,' SE, V, C I
~- I FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I I~ t FO. ^ .~ o, o.^.^ .~ T~^,., NO. O ,., T~ I
FIGURE 10.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
Most airports would send less than 20 fire fighters and expect to allocate $ 500
to less than $ 100 per student.
Anticipated travel distances would range between 100 to 300 miles, with central
Arizona being the preferred location.
Extinguishing agents would likely consist of a water/ foam mixture or " water
only" applied with trucks and handlines.
The live fire simulator should include an aircraft fuselage and fuel spill, at a
minimum; and there is no strong preference for a conventional fuel or propane
facility.
10.2.2 Military_
Because there are several military installations located within the state of Arizona that also require
ARFF live fire training, their needs were also evaluated as part of this study. These installations
include:
U. S. Marine Corps Air Station - Yuma
Davis- Monthan Air Force Base - Tucson
Luke Air Force Base - Phoenix
161 st Air National Guard - Phoenix
162nd Air National Guard - Tucson
Information obtained from interviews with personnel from these military installations revealed that
in the short- term ( less than 5 years), the demand for " off- base" ARFF training is potentially high.
However, because the U. S. Air Force and Marine Corps have plans for their own ARFF training
facilities, this demand is expected to diminish over time.
10.2.3 Out- Of- State Airports
Consistent with the concept of a regional ARFF training facility, the Aeronautical Departments and
FAR Part 139 certificated airports in several neighboring states were also contacted in connection
with. this study. The results of this survey are summarized as follows:
WP_ WPRO~ M: kARIZARFF~ EASSTDYkSECTI 0 . WP6 10- 9
!
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
t
I
I
l
Nevada - The Washoe County Airport Authority is conducting a site selection
and environmental review for a new ARFF training facility at Reno- Stead
Airport. The Dodds- Beals Fire Training Academy is also building an aircraft live
fire simulator.
Southern California - The California Department of Transportation, Division
of Aeronautics, is also conducting feasibility and site selection studies for ARFF
training facilities. However, ARFF personnel from California indicated they
would consider using a facility in Arizona if one is unavailable in their state.
Utah - Site preparation and construction is reportedly underway for a new
regional ARFF training facility at Salt Lake City International Airport.
Colorado - The State's Aeronautics Division conducted an ARFF training
facility feasibility and environmental review study in 1994. As a result, many
ARFF personnel receive their live fire training under a civilian- military joint use
facility located at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs.
New Mexico - According to the State's Aeronautics Division, there are no
current plans to conduct an ARFF feasibility and environmental review study.
However, New Mexico is within the FAA region which contains the regional
ARFF Training Facility at Dallas/ Fort Worth International Airport and a non-aviation
fire- training facility is located in Socorro.
Based on this information, it appears that the demand from out- of- state users for an ARFF training
facility in Arizona is somewhat limited.. Depending on the outcome of the Southern California
study, ARFF personnel from this area and the State of New Mexico offer the most reasonable
patronage from out- of- state airports.
10.2.4 Non- Aviation Users
This user group is generally characterized as being unaffiliated with aviation directly and includes
industrial fire fighters; hazardous materials teams; and other Arizona- based federal, state and local
fire departments.
For the purposes of this'study, industrial fire fighters also include petrochemical, pipeline, and off-shore
fire fighters. Unfortunately, the training, equipment, and simulators required for these students
WP WPRO~[:~ AUZAKFf' 3FEASST DY~ SECT_ 1 0. WP6 10- 10
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
i
i
i
are highly specialized. Therefore, this group was not considered to be a significant user of an ARFF
training facility.
Hazardous materials response teams also require very specialized classroom and hands- on training.
This group is commonly associated with the other non- aviation fire departments discussed below.
As a result, this group of potential users was not separately considered.
Non- aviation- related fire fighters include those affiliated with county, city, and volunteer fire
departments; the National Park and Forest Services; and Indian reservations. Because a large
percentage of these fire fighters serve non- certificated airports and/ or are often the first responders
to " off- airport" aircraft incidents, the ARFF training needs for this group were seriously considered.
According to the Arizona State Fire Marshal Office, there are approximately 10,000 fire fighters
associated with 400 fire departments state- wide. From the results of this project's survey, it appears
that there is a strong demand for ARFF live- fire training among these Arizona- based fire
departments, provided it is affordable and conveniently located.
10.2.5 Existin~ and Future Demand
As previously stated, because the primary function of an ARFF training facility is to provide training
to FAR Part 139 certificated airport ARFF personnel, this group is considered the " base line"
demand for this project. The number of Arizona ARFF personnel that currently require this training
is 177, not including Yuma Intemationai Airport.
Although there is no current requirement for general aviation ARFF personnel to have live fire
training, there is a large amount of interest from this group. According to the survey, at least 200
of these fire fighters should be considered as potential users of an ARFF training facility.
With the exception of the USMC Air Station at Yuma, the other military ARFF personnel in Arizona
must presently receive live fire training off- base. Approximately 292 of these fire fighters are
located in Arizona, including the 130 at the Yuma Air Station.
WPW PROhM:~ RIZ~ ASSTDY~ SECT_ 0I. W P6 10- 11
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Finally, using the results of the non- aviation fire department survey, there is a potentially significant
demand for ARFF training from this group. From these data, roughly 588 of these fire fighters
would likely use the facility, and another 1,148 may use the facility, if the cost is affordable.
In summary, the current demand for an ARFF training facility in Arizona is estimated as follows:
Baseline Demand - 177 total fire fighters
Include 200 General Aviation - 377 total fire fighters
Include 292 Military - 669 total fire fighters
Include 588 to 1,148 Non- Aviation - 1,257 to 1,817 total fire fighters
In order to assess the future potential demand for an ARFF training facility in Arizona, forecasted
changes in Part 139 certification and ARFF indexes were also considered. Sources of information
included the user surveys, future year aviation needs studies, select airport master plans, and
interviews with airport managers. From this information, the future year " baseline demand" for and
ARFF training facility in Arizona is approximately 252 Part 139 airport ARFF personnel.
10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This task identified potential environmental concerns which may have an effect on the location,
design and operation of an ARFF training facility in the State of Arizona. Discussed more
thoroughly in the First Draft Report, this information was obtained from federal, state and local
regulations; discussions with agency personnel; and the evaluation of other ARFF training facilities
in Arizona and across the United States.
10.3.1 Regulatory Overview
On the federal level, important environmental compliance requirements are imposed by statutes such
as the Clean Air Act ( CAA), the Clean Water Act ( CWA), and the National Environmental Policy
Act ( NEPA), promulgated by such agencies as the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA),
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Corps of Engineers ( COE). These federal regulations involve the
WP WPRO'~, I : V~ JZ ARFF~ EAS STI) Y~ ECT_ I 0. WP6 10- 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
i
protection of the natural and human environment; including fish and wildlife, wetlands, floodplains,
farmlands, and historic and archaeological sites. In Arizona, many of these federal regulations are
administered by state agencies, such as the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ)
and the Arizona Department of Water Resources ( ADWR). On the local level, Maricopa, Pinal and
Pima Counties administer air quality programs sponsored by the ADEQ. Many counties and
communities also have land use zoning plans that establish the type and mix of acceptable land uses
within their jurisdictions.
10.3.2 Assessment of Impacts
A comprehensive summary of these federal, state, and local regulations as they potentially apply to
an ARFF live fire training facility in Arizona, is provided in Table 10.2. Of these, the following
issues related to air quality, water quality, and waste materials are of the greatest concern to
environmental agencies.
10.3.2.1 Air Quality
Several areas within Arizona are designated as " non- attainment" with respect to the Ambient Air
Quality Standards ( AAQS). As a result of these designations, certain federal actions must
demonstrate " conformity" with the State Implementation Plan ( SIP) for these non- attainment areas.
However, based on an air emissions inventory developed for this project ( see Air Quality Technical
Memorandum in Appendix A of the First Draft Report):
" the annual emissions are below " de minimus" threshold levels ( with one
worst ease exception), thus precluding the need for a conformity
determination."
According to ADEQ, an ARFF live fire training facility will likely require an Open Burning Permit.
Essentially, the ADEQ Open Burning Permit gives permission to " open burn," or create an " open
outdoor fire," on a case- by- case basis [ AAC, 1994]. Notably, these ADEQ rules allow:
WP_ WPRO~ d: VdI. IZ~ STDY~ SECT_ I 0. WP6 10- 13
lit
o
i . . t
!
4~
TABLE 10.2
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS MATRIX
Regulations/ Acts and/ or Policies
Airport and Airway Improvement
Act
National Environmental Policy Act
( NEPA)
Clean Water Act ( CWA)
Safe Drinking Water Act
Clean Air Act ( CAA)
Federal/ State/
Local Agency
Federal
Aviation
Administration
( FAA)
FAA
] J. S°
Environmental
Protection
' Agency ( EPA)
EPA
EPA
Relevance
Section 509 calls for assessment
of human and environmental
impacts for airport improvement
projects.
Section 102 requires the
evaluation of human and
environmental impacts for certain
federal actions.
Sections 402 and 404 requires
federal and/ or state permits for
the discharge of effluent to
surface waters and the dredging
or filling of navigable waters.
Applys to both construction
activities and industrial
operations.
Prevents the discharge of effluent
that would contaminate drinking
water sources and establishes
groundwater clean- up criteria.
Establishes ambient air quality
standards; regulates hazardous air
pollutants; and requires federal
actions demonstrate SIP
conformity in nonattainment
areas.
Brief Discussion
Likely result in Categorical Exclusion or
Finding of No Significant Impact
NEPA requirements subject to FAA review
through Categorical Exclusion,
Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement.
Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge
elimination System ( NPDES) permit may be
required for effluent discharge during
construction and operation.
FAA design standards provide for secondary
containment and effluent treatment or
disposal at ARFF Facilities.
ADEQ and Maricopa, Pima and Pinal
County agencies responsible for protecting
air quality in Arizona.
Emissions below " demmimus" levels so SIP
conformity not required.
Impact on ARFF
Training Facility
Project
See NEPA
discussion below
Cost and time for
environmental
review process;
anticipate
Categroical
Exclusion or
Finding of No
Significant Impact
See Discussion.
None expected; no
planned discharges
of effluent to
groundwater.
Discontinued use
of halon.
See Discussion.
( Page 1 of 5)
,4 TABLE 10.2
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS MATRIX
( continued)
o
!
t.,.. t
Regulations/ Acts and/ or Policies
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act ( RCRA)
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act ( CERCLA)
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act ( SARA)
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Endangered Species Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
National Historic Preservation Act
Department of Transportation Act
Federal/ State/
Local Agency
EPA
EPA
EPA
Occupational
Safety and
Health
Administration
( OSHA)
U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
( USFWS)
FWS
State Historic
Preservation
Office ( SHPO)
Department of
Transportation
( DOT)
Relevance
Regulates the use, handling,
treatment and disposal of solid and
hazardous waste; and the use of
underground storage tanks ( UST).
Requires spills of reportable
quantities to be reported and
remediated by responsible parties.
Reauthorized CERCLA and
established Emergency Planning
and Community Right- To- Know
Programs
Requires Material Safety Data
Sheets be provided
Prevents federal projects from
affecting endangered species or
their habitat
Requires consultation with
federal/ state wildlife agencies
when federal projects affect water
bodies
Section 106 requires federal
projects address effects on
National Register of Historic
Places sites.
Section 4( 0 lands used for
recreation must be avoided.
Brief Discussion
Petroleum- based fuels are exempt from
most RCRA requirements unless spills or
leaks occur.
Spills of fuels and foam resulting in
contamination must be addressed
Limited use of hazardous substances likely
precludes involvement
MSDS for fuel and AFFF need to be posted
on- site
Size of facility footprint can help avoid or
minimize involvement; addressed in NEPA
documentation.
Size of facility footprint can help avoid or
minimize involvement; addressed in NEPA
documentation.
Size of facility footprint can help avoid or
mmlmlze involvement; addressed in NEPA
documentation.
Size of facility footprint can help avoid or
minimize involvement; addressed in NEPA
documentation.
Impact on ARFF
Training Facility
• Project
USTs must meet
design standards;
burn pit sludge
requires testing
None expected
unless spill or leak
occurs
None expected.
None expected.
None expected.
None expected.
None expected.
None expected.
( Page 2 of 5)
m n m mmm m m n mm mm mmm I I m mm m m m m n
TABLE 10.2
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS MATRIX
( continued)
o
!
Regulations/ Acts and/ or Policies
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Federal Farmlands Protection Policy
Act
Archaeological and Historic Data
Preservation Act
Federal Land Policy and
Management Act
Arizona Administrative Codes
Federal/ State/
Local Agency
National Park
Service
Department of
the Interior
SHPO
Arizona
Department of
Environmental
Quality ( ADEQ)
Relevance
Directs federal actions to avoid or
mitigate adverse effects on rivers
listed in the Nationwide Inventory
Requires federal projects address
the conversion of farmland to
nonagricultural uses.
Requires federal projects address
the " potential loss and preservation
of historic and archaeological
data.
Requires consultation with Bureau
of Land Management if the site of
the federal project is being
considered for the National
Wilderness System
Title 18, Chapter 8 - Waste
Management Rule Article 2:
Hazardous Wastes, establishes
criteria for storage use and
disposal of hazardous wastes in
Arizona.
Title 18, Chapter 9 Water
Pollution Control
- Article 1: Aquifer Protection,
requires permits for
discharges to groundwater.
Brief Discussion
Size of facility footprint can help avoid or
mnnmme involvement; addressed in NEPA
documentation.
Size of facility footprint can help avoid or
mlmmlze involvement; addressed in NEPA
documentation.
Size of facility footprint can help avoid or
mnnnnze involvement; addressed in NEPA
documentation.
Size of facility footprint can help avoid or
mlmmme involvement; addressed in NEPA
documentation.
See RCRA discussion above.
Discharges to groundwater not planned.
Impact on
ARFF Training
Facility Project
None expected..
None expected.
None expected.
None expected.
None expected.
None expected.
( Page 3 of 5)
m mm m mm mm m n m m m m m m m m m m m m
! I
g~
!
t=== t
TABLE 10.2
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS MATRIX
( continued)
Regulations/ Acts and/ or Policies
Arizona Administrative Codes
Federal/ State/
Local Agency
Arizona
Department of
Environmental
Quality ( ADEQ)
Relevance
- Article 7 Wastewater Reuse
requires permits for
application of reclaimed
wastewater.
Title 18, Chapter 11 Water
Quality Boundaries and Standards
- Article 1: Water Quality
Standards, establishes water
quality standards for
navigable waters of the
state.
- Article 2: Discharge
Limitations establishes
limitations on discharge of
pollutants to navigable
waters.
- Article 4: Aquifer Water
Quality Standards defines
standards and sampling
methods for groundwaters
- Article 5: Aquifer
Boundary and Protected Use
Classifications identifies
aquifer exclusion areas and
classifies aquifer types.
Brief Discussion
Application of reclaimed wastewater
unlikely.
Discharges to surface water not planned;
NPDES permit will address.
Discharges to surface water not planned;
NPDES permit will address.
Discharges to groundwater not planned.
Discharges to groundwater water not
planned.
Impact on ARFF
Training Facility
Project
None • expected.
See Discussion.
See Discussion
None expected.
None expected.
( Page 4 of 5)
m n m m m u n L m m m mm m m m m mm m n
,4 TABLE 10.2
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS MATRIX
( continued)
Impact on ARFF
p . . t
!
t--- t
oo
Regulations/ Acts and/ or Policies
Arizona Administrative Codes
Maricopa County Administrative
Code
Pima County Administrative Code
Pinal County Administrative Code
Federal/ State/
Local Agency
Arizona
Department of
Environmental
Quality ( ADEQ)
Arizona
Department of
Water
Resources
Maricopa
County Division
of Air Pollutiion
Control
Pima County
Department of
Public Works
Pinal County
Air Quality
Control District
Relevance
Title 18, Chapter 12:
Underground Storage Tanks
describes underground storage
tank regulations.
Title 18, Chapter 2 Air
Pollution Control Standards
identifies air quality standards,
permit requirements and new
source performance standards.
ARFF Facilities exempt from
permitting.
Title 12, Chapter 15, Article 8:
Well Construction establishes
requirements for well
construction.
Air Pollution Conrol Regulations
establishes counties non-attainment
status and applicable
standards.
Title 17 Air Quality Control
establishes county's non-attainment
status and applicable
standards
Article 7 Rules and Regulations
identifies permit requirements and
emission standards
Brief Discussion
USTs will be designed and installed meet
criteria, or above ground tanks will be
used
Violation of standards not expected. See
CAA discussion.
Source of water likely from utility; any
production wells will need permit.
Williams Gateway site within non-attainment
area; permits not required;
pollution- alert days may restrict use.
Tucson Public Safety site within non-attainment
area; permits not required;
pollution- alert days may restrict use.
Evergreen Airpark Site located in Pinal
County.
Training Facility
. Project
See Discussion.
Limited or no use
on " no burn" days.
See Discussion.
See Discussion.
See Discussion.
None expected.
( Page 5 of 5)
" open bums ... by any public officer in the performance of official duty... for
the purpose of ... instruction in the methods of fighting fires."
The permit sets limitations on the manner and time of setting the fires and allows prohibition of
burning when atmospheric conditions are not conducive to smoke dispersion or when visibility
impairment could affect public safety. In spite of the assurance that a regional ARFF training facility
would be permitted in this manner, further discussions with ADEQ, or appropriate county agencies,
would be required after the site( s) and technology are formally selected for this project. The subject
of these discussions should be the acceptability of the periodic dense dark plumes of smoke that are
characteristic of ARFF live fire training facilities.
10.3.2.2 Water Quality
AC 150/ 5220- 17A, discussed previously, recommends that the design of ARFF training facilities
contain various environmental safeguards ( i. e., secondary containment, leak detection systems, and
effluent treatment) to address water- related environmental concerns. In addition, Section 402 of the
CWA requires a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit from EPA for
the discharge of effluent to a navigable water. Any unavoidable dredging or filling of wetlands will
require a CWA Section 404 ( Dredge and Fill) permit from the COE. These permits can be avoided
by discharging effluent to a sanitary sewer and avoiding wetlands.
In all cases, an Aquifer Protection Permit ( APP) from ADEQ will be required for an ARFF training
facility. In order to obtain an APP permit:
" the applicant must demonstrate that the facility will be designed, constructed
and operated as to ensure the greatest degree of discharge reduction
achievable through the application of the Best Available Demonstrated
Control Technology, equivalent processes, operating methods or other
alternatives."
Essentially, the discharge must not cause, or contribute to, a violation of an aquifer water quality
standard.
wP wPRo~: vuuz~ Ass~,~ Ecrj0. wP~ 10 - 19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.3.2.3 Waste Materials
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response and Compensation Liability Act ( CERCLA) primarily deal with hazardous materials and
hazardous waste. Hydrocarbon- based fuels ( including jet fuel, JP- 4, and propane) are exempt from
most of the requirements contained in these statutes. However, the storage of fuel in underground
tanks is regulated by RCRA, or by equivalent state regulations. Also under RCRA, the removal of
accumulated sludge in the bum pit may require testing in order to characterize the material's
chemical make- up before disposal.
Under CERCLA, any contamination of the soil, surface water, or groundwater, including the result
of fuel spills or leaks, must be reported to the National Response Center and/ or ADEQ. In addition,
the cause of the contamination, or the source of the spill, must be immediately addressed and the
environmental impacts mitigated.
Because it is unlikely that any hazardous or toxic substances will be stored, or utilized, at an ARFF
training facility in large quantities, regulatory agency reporting requirements, under the Emergency
Planning and Community Right- to- Know Act, will not apply, unless there is a spill or release of
regulated substances.
In the State of Arizona, owners of underground storage tanks ( UST's) must notify ADEQ in order
to register the UST's and to inform ADEQ of any changes in ownership, facility status, or problems.
In addition, owners or operators of UST's must demonstrate their ability to pay for contamination
clean- up if their tanks leak. UST's must be properly installed and protected from spills, overflows,
and corrosion. Leak detection equipment is also required.
WP_ WPROXM: kARIZ~ A$ STDY~ ECT_ I O. WP6 10 - 20
I
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.3.2.4 Other Impacts
Because the " footprint" of an ARFF training facility is less than 10 to 20 acres, most of the potential
impacts to fish and wildlife, wetlands, floodplains, farmlands, and historic or archaeological sites
can be avoided or easily mitigated.
Many counties and communities also have land use zoning plans that establish the type and mix of
acceptable land uses within their jurisdictions. However, because ARFF training facility sites are
located at airports, at military bases, or in otherwise remote locations, conflicts with local zoning
requirements will be minimized.
10.4 FACILITY SITE SELECTION
The purpose of this task was to identify several potential ARFF training facility site locations within
Arizona. The suitability of these sites was also assessed in terms of their ability to successfully
support an ARFF training facility. Based on this information, the sites were ranked in order of
preference.
10.4.1 Potential Sites
Sources of information used to identify ARFF training facility sites included the ADOT Department
of Aeronautics, the ARFF Study Committee, the user surveys conducted during Task 2 and Greiner,
Inc. personnel associated with this project.
Several areas of the state were also considered to be incompatible with an ARFF training facility
because of land use, environmental, or other geographic factors. These areas include national and
state parks, forests, and monuments; designated wilderness areas and wildlife refuges; military-proving
grounds; mountainous areas or regions of significant topographic relief; residential areas;
and areas inaccessible by roads.
WP_ WPRO~ I: kARIZ~ S STDY~ ECT I 0. WP6 10 - 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
From this information, eight sites were identified as being potentially suitable locations for an ARFF
training facility in Arizona. Shown on Figure 10.2, these sites included the following:
Evergreen Air Center °
Holbrook °
Kingman Airport °
City of Phoenix
Emergency Services
Institute
Prescott Airport
Tucson Public Safety Academy
Williams Gateway Airport
Yuma U. S. Marine Corps Air Station
Six of these sites ( i. e., Evergreen, Kingman, Prescott, Tuscon, Williams Gateway and Yuma) were
identified early in the study and discussed in detail in the First Draft Report. The two remaining
sites ( Holbrook and the City of Phoenix Emergency Services Institute) were identified and evaluated
later. Therefore, the descriptive and other supporting materials for Holbrook and City of Phoenix
Emergency Services Institute sites are contained in Appendix I of this report.
10.4.2 Evaluation Methodology
In order to evaluate the overall suitability of the eight individual sites as regional ARFF training
facilities, a set of 18 criteria were developed by the Study Committee and Greiner, Inc. team
members. Each criterion is considered important to a successful regional ARFF training facility.
These criteria are briefly discussed below:
Willing Host - The demonstrated willingness of site owner/ operator to
accommodate an ARFF training facility.
Land Availability - The availability and overall suitability of land to support a
facility taking into consideration size, terrain, obstructions, etc.
Land Use - The compatibility of existing and future land use at the site and
adjoining property.
Travel Distance - The roadway driving distance between the Part 139 airports
and the site, multiplied by the number of fire fighters from each airport.
WP_ WPROkM: kARIZARFF~ EASSTDYXSECIT 0 . WP6 10 - 22
I UTAH
I _
l I ~. o~ .%,°,~.~ ! / / A, RPORT I
LAKE HAVASU • AIRPORT
I ,1~.~ I SHOW t w o NEW MEXICO
I
i ~ AIURMP~ R~ T" l EZ~ ETEANI R
I TUCSON PUBI C
I SAFE1L'Y ACAID| AY
I APPROXS. C ALE: REPUBLIC
1"= 60 MILES OF MEXICO
i Greiner, lnc.
LEGEND ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOP.
, AERONAUTICAL DIVISION I • Potential ARFF Training
Facility Sites P- T . . . . . . . . . .
I ~ FAR PART 139 Certificated Airports 0 ENTIAL ARFF
0 Non- Certificated Airports with TRAINING FACILITY SITES
Commercial Service ..
I FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FOR A REGIONAL ARFF TRAINING FACILITY
i FIGURE 10.2
I
I
i
Distance to Other ARFFs - The approximate distance between the Arizona Part
139 airports and out- of- state regional ARFF facilities that would provide
comparable training.
Environmental and Geographic Factors - The potential to impact or conflict
with a wide variety of environmental issues including air quality; surface and
ground water; biotic communities; preserved or historic sites; aesthetics; and
other areas of federal, state, or local importance.
Community Acceptability - The apparent willingness of a community to
support a regional ARFF training facility and tolerate the associated smoke, fire,
traffic, etc.
Educational Support - The availability of training courses, qualified instructors,
and educational institutions involved in aviation, fire fighting and/ or emergency
response.
Lodging/ Meals/ Recreation Facilities - The availability of local and affordable
lodging, restaurants and recreation for overnight visitors.
Commercial Air Service - The availability of commercial air carrier service to
the site or a nearby airport.
Complementary Use Facilities - The existence of other aviation, fire fighting
and/ or emergency service facilities that would complement, or be complemented
by, an ARFF facility.
Utilities - The availability of electricity, storm and sanitary sewer, telephone,
water, wastewater treatment or any other utilities used to support an ARFF
facility.
Ground Access - The ability to access/ egress the site with heavy fire fighting
equipment taking into consideration the use of public/ private roads, crossing
active airfields, etc.
Existing Support Facilities - The existence of fire fighting facilities, equipment,
and trainers; equipment/ vehicle maintenance/ storage facilities; classrooms; and
other fire fighting/ rescue training aids.
Emergency Services - The availability of a hospital, clinic, EMS, police/ fire
departments, etc. in the event these services become necessary in connection with
an accident or emergency.
WP WPROkM: kARIZ~ SSTDY~ SECT 10. WP6 10 - 23
I
I
i
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
!
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
Utilization Restrictions - Any restrictions or impediments to the use of the site
and ARFF training facility taking into consideration seasonal/ weather factors,
environmental factors, and/ or other conflicts.
Miscellaneous Factors - Any other factors, positive or negative, not described
above that could have an effect on the location, design, construction, and use of
an ARFF training facility.
Cost Savings - The amount of construction and operational funds saved by the
availability of existing and/ or planned complimentary use and support facilities.
Table 10.3 contains a Site Evaluation Matrix summary of information, data, and observations that
were used to characterize each of the eight potential ARFF training facility sites with respect to the
18 evaluation criteria. This information was collected, or developed, by Greiner, Inc. personnel from
the user survey results, site visits, interviews, etc., performed in support of this feasibility
study/ environmental review.
10.4.3 Site Rankings
Using the Site Evaluation Matrix as a guide, the ARFF Study Committee members evaluated the
eight potential host sites during two scheduled committee meetings. Each of the 18 evaluation
criteria were preassigned a numerical weighting factor ( 1 through 3) reflecting its relative importance
in support of a successful ARFF training facility. Similarly, each site was assessed a numerical
value ( 1 through 3) in terms of its ability to satisfy the criteria. The computed scores from each of
the Committee members were then combined and averaged to rank the sites in order of desirability
( see Appendix J for Site Evaluation Supporting Materials).
Table 10.3 also contains the results of the Site Ranking process. In descending order, they are
Tucson, Williams Gateway, Phoenix, Yuma, Evergreen, Holbrook, Kingman, and Prescott. The
three highest ranked sites: the Tucson Public Safety Academy, Williams Gateway Airport, and the
City of Phoenix Fire Department Emergency Services Institute ( ESI) are described below. For
brevity, the five lower ranked sites are not further described.
WP WPROkM:~, IZARFb'WEAS STDY~ ECT I 0. WP6 10 - 24
m m 1 4 m m m 1 m m m i I ¸
O
TABLE 10.3
SITE EVALUATION MATRIX
;=-
;>
i,- I
!
tJ
Evaluation Criteria
Willing Host
Evergreen
Evergreen Air
Center
Holbrook
City ofHolbrook
KIn~ lman
Kingman Airport
Authority
Land Availability Adj. to N. E. flight line Adjacent to airport North end of airport
Land Use Aviation Aviation Aviation and
Industrial
Travel Distance ( person- 29,353 45,273 41,621
miles- traveled)
Distance to Nearest 700 miles ( Salt Lake 601 miles ( Salt Lake 525 miles ( Salt Lake
Regional ARFF City) City) City)
Environmental Impacts
a. Air
b. Surface/ Groundwater
c. Plant/ Animal
d. Other
Community Acceptability
Training/ Education
Support
Lodging/ Meals/
Recreation
a. Attainment Area
b. Minimal
c. Minimal
d. None anticipated
Good ( remote
location)
Central Arizona
College
Available on- Site
Available at Tucson
Airport
DOD aircraft trainer
and vehicle driving
Course
Accessible by on-site
roadways
Commercial Air Service
Complimentary Use
; Facilities
a. Attainment area
b, Minimal
c. Minimal
d, None anticipated
Good; accept
existing fire training
faci, ty
Holbrook Fire
Department training
Center/ Northland
Pioneer College
Commercially
available
Available at Flagstaff
Holbrook Airport and
Fire Department
Training Center
Accessible byon-site
roadeays
Ground Access
a. Attainment area
b. Minimal
c. Minimal
d. None anticipated
Marginal to good
( remote location but
widely visible)
Mohave Community
College
Commercially
available
nearby
Available on- site
Hualapai Valley Fire
Department
Accessible by on-site
roadways
ALTERNATIVES
Phoenix
City of Phoenix
Adjacent to
Training Academy
( private ownership)
Agricultural
28,000
650 miles ( Salt
Lake City)
a. Non- Attainment
area
b. Minimal
c. Minimal
d. None anticipated
Prescott
City of Prescott
East or N. E. end of
airport
Aviation,
Institutional
and Commercial
32,775
550miles ( Salt Lake
City)
a. Attainment area
b. Minimal
c. Minimal
d. None anticipated
Tucson
Tucson Public
SafetyAcademy
On- site
Institutional
33,743
750 miles ( Salt
Lake City)
a. Non- attainment
b. Minimal
c. Minimal
d. None
anticipated
Marginal to Good Marginal to good i Good
Embry- Rlddle Public Safety
University Academy
Commercially
available nearby
Emergency
Services Institute,
Phoenix College,
Arizona State,
Ottawa University
Commercially
available nearby
Available at Sky
Harbor
Emergency
Services Institute
Accessible by off-site
roadways
Available on- site
Embry- Riddle
University Accident
Investigation
Laboratory and U. S.
Forest Service
Facility
Likely on- site
Commercially
available nearby
and on- site in
future
Available at
Tucson Airport
Public Safety
Academy
Simulators and
Mock- ups
Accessible by
on- site roadways
Williams Gateway
Williams Gateway Airport
a. N. W. sector
b. S. E. sector
! a. Education/ Researoh -
Aviation
b. Industrial - Aviation
28,165
650 miles ( Salt Lake City)
a. Non- attainment area
b. Minimal
c Minimal, covered with
grass
d. Potential archaeological
areas at S. E. site
Marginal at N. W. site;
adj. to golf course and
housing) Good'at S. site
ASU, UND, MCCO, State
Fire Marshall
Available on- site
Yuma
US. Marine Corps
On Air Station
( undetermined)
Institutional - Military
50,769
675 miles ( Reno)
a Non- attainment
b. Minimal
c. Minimal
d. None
anticipated
Good; accept
existing ARFF
Arizona Western
College, USMC
Commercially
available nearby
Available at Sky Harbor, Available on- site
will be available on- site
Yuma Airport
and USMC Station
Planned State Fire
Marshall Training Center;
MCCD fire training program;
aviation- related
manufacturing, research and
education
Accessible by on- site
roadways
Likely on- site
( Continued on next page)
m m m m BIm IBm I ~ I! U UlJJ m I l l In,, R ml m kB= II~ m
Ever~ lreen
TABLE 10.3
SITE EVALUATION MATRIX
( Continued)
Klngman
¢>
!
cr~
EvaluaUon Criteria
Existing Support
Facilities
Utilities
a. Water
b. Sewer
c. Electric
Emergency Service
Utilization Restrictions
Miscellaneous Factors
Cost Savings
Total Points
Classrooms, offices,
smoke trainer,
vehicle driving
course
a. Within 200' of
site
b. Within 300' of
site
c. Within 300' of
site
Available in Tucson
None anticipated
AIPfundsmay be
restdcted
$ 200,000
87.5
Holbrook
Holbrook Fire
Department facilities
a. Near planned
service
b. Likely nearby
c. Near planned
service
Available in
Winslow, Show Low
& Flagstaff
None anticipated.
None
Minimal
84,5
Hualapai Valley Fire
Department
a. Within 300' of
site
b. Within 300' of
site
c. On- site
Available in Kingman
None anticipated
None
Minimal
82.6
ALTERNATIVES
Phoenix
Classrooms,
offices, vehicle
driving course, and
: training personnel
i associated with
i Emergency
Services Institute
a. Likely nearby
b. Likely nearby
c. Likely nearby
Prescoff
Classrooms,
cafeteria
dormitories at
Embry- Riddle
University
a. Within 300' of
site
b. Within 300' of
site
c. Within 300' of
site
Available ! n Available in Prescott
Phoenix
Potential None anticipated
restidctions on air
pollution alert days
Requiresland
purchase
$ 200,000
None
Minimal
90.4 69.2
3 8
Information compiled by Gralner, Inc., 1995.
Tucson
Public Safety
Academy Facility
a. On- site
b. On- site
c. On- site
Williams Gateway
Potential
restrictions on air
pollution alert days
Classrooms, dormitories
offices, storage buildings
a. Near 12" line
b. Near 10" - 12" line
c. Near planned service
Yuma
USMC trucks and
equipment,
classrooms
a. Likely nearby
b Likely nearby
c. Likely nearby
Available in Tucson Planned on- site and Available on base
available in Mesa/ Phoeniz and in Yuma
Potential restrictions on air
pollution alert days
Non- aviation host None
Two 8- week periods
during USMC
training
Will require state/
federal joint- use
agreement
$ 570,000 $ 210,000 $ 200,000
96.9 92.5 90.3
I
i
I
I
i
Tucson Public Safety Academy ( Ranked First - 96.9 Total Points)
The Public Safety Academy is a joint venture between the Tucson Fire and Police
Departments. As shown on Figure 10.3, the entire site covers 150 acres, located
four miles south of I- 10 near a state and federal prison. The area is remotely
located, essentially undeveloped, and zoned for institutional and commercial
uses.
The Public Safety Academy is presently constructing a new training facility at
this location which will consist of an office building, classrooms, locker/ shower
rooms, 10- acre driver training pad, and a " situational village." A police f'n'ing
range already exists. Planned fire training props include a bum building,
confined- space simulator, LPG tank, railroad prop, and a flammable liquid pit
fueled with natural gas. Utilities include electricity and sewer. Water will be
provided from an on- site well supplemented with " recycled" water used for fire
training. Future plans for the facility call for dorms, dining facilities, and
recreational facilities. The ARFF live fire simulator would likely be located in
the northwest comer of the Academy site, on a parcel that has been reserved for
future expansion.
Williams/ Gateway Airport ( Ranked Second - 92.5 Total Points)
Located at the former Williams Air Force Base in Mesa, this facility is in eastern
Maricopa County, approximately 25 miles from downtown Phoenix and is five
miles south of the Superstition Freeway ( U. S. 60). The area immediately
surrounding Williams is agricultural. Nearby communities include Mesa,
Gilbert, and Queen Creek. Presently, the Williams facility covers 4,000 acres of
land and contains 200buildings and 3 runways. The Williams Gateway Airport
Authority has developed reuse plans for Williams that involve aviation;
aerospace- related industry, research, and training; and education.
As shown on Figure 10.4, there are two undeveloped parcels located in the
northwest and southern sections of the airport that may be suitable for an ARFF
training facility. Williams Gateway also offers an on- site wastewater treatment
plant, a number of existing classrooms, office space, dormitories, a cafeteria,
recreational facilities, and driver training area which could be utilized in support
of an ARFF training facility.
The reuse plans also include an aeronautical educational consortium composed
of Arizona State University, the University of North Dakota Aerospace
Foundation and the Maricopa Community College District ( MCCD). In
conjunction with the MCCD Emergency Medical Technology and Fire Science
Program, the Arizona State Fire Marshall Office is planning to develop a fire
fighting training facility at Williams Gateway. Using state and county funds, the
facility will lease existing office, classroom, and dormitory space near the
WP_ WPROkM: kARIZARFI~ FEASSTD1Y0~. WSEP6C T 10 - 27
B
4 .' .... J ~ [ - - ' ~" C ~' ~ ' ; " , " ""' . . - - . _ ' j r " \ '
x x ~'"-"~'" J ~"' E -----. d~,, deral ' iLl ,
l \ l .- ii t . I .- J i | " 1 II
' " "~-'" " 7, _..--' l-" • ,,--'->. ,<, o , ~ 1 (
135 , J ",.' l'>° ', i k'tt. "" .... --:~.. i "~ %<> o.~":' 3.,~.
..--~ ZZ;::~ ~ II ~ - - - ' ~ Training Facility Site ~ . . . . . . . . .... C
. . . . . ° _ _ ~
C.. :(.. 1- ,., o~ ,,
) ' ACADEMY / ' I
,. SITE '
_ f -~ . . . . ,[
_ : ~ ~ . -=, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = =.
II
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AERONAUTICAL DIVISION
TUCSON PUBLIC SAFETY ACADEMY
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FOR A REGIONAL ARFF TRAINING FACILITY
FIGURE 10.3
I
25 /~.~ Water Tank
\ (
Proposed ARFF
Training Facility Site
" 1 I/
II I 3~ 57
\\
,1 1316 :. ~
======~=
late
J
," I|"
,...- ..-
-'" "~" • """'~ . ~ . . . . e l
Proposed ARFF
Training Facility Site
¢ ~ 13"/ u
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AERONAUTICAL DIVISION
WILLIAMS GATEWAY AIRPORT
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FOR A REGIONAL ARFF TRAINING FACILITY
FIGURE 10.4
l
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
il
I
I
i
i
I
I
i,
I
I
l
northeast flightline. A drill tower, a propane- fueled bum building, and confined
space/ trench rescue simulators will be added. An ARFF training facility has also
been considered.
Phoenix Fire Department Emergency Services Institute ( ESI)
( Ranked Third - 90.4 Total Points)
The Phoenix Fire Department Emergency Services Institute ( ESI) is located in
south- central Phoenix near the intersection of 22nd Avenue and Lower Buckeye
Road.
The ESI presently serves as a training facility for the City of Phoenix and other
municipal fire departments. Training is conducted in several class and simulator
rooms. An 85- seat auditorium is also available. Various fire fighting props
include two bum buildings, a railroad tank car, two LPG tanks, an aboveground
fuel tank, a smoke trainer, and confined space manhole. The live fire props are
fueled with propane, and Class A combustibles are used in the bum buildings.
Training officers and staff are members of the Phoenix Fire Department. Other
training aids include a video library, satellite tele- broadcast capability and a
variety of fire fighting/ emergency rescue equipment. The training program is
accredited by the State Fire Marshall's Office. The Department is also affiliated
with the Phoenix College Fire Management and Technology Program.
As shown on Figure 10.5, the proposed ARFF training facility site is located less
than one- half mile southwest of the ESI. The 30- acre parcel is currently used for
agriculture and is privately owned. Access is available on 27th Avenue and
Lower Buckeye Road.
Surrounding land uses include a City landfill/ recycling plant, a wastewater
treatment plant, ADOT and City of Phoenix vehicle storage maintenance
facilities and additional agricultural fields. The nearest residential areas are about
one mile away, near 1- 17.
Commercial air service is available at nearby Sky Harbor International Airport
and hotel/ restaurant facilities are located within a few miles of the site.
Notably, the Phoenix Fire Department currently provides ARFF services to Sky
Harbor International Airport. Between 1989 and 1991, the Department also
developed some preliminary plans for building and managing an ARFF training
facility in connection with the ESI.
WP_ WPKO~ I:~ S STDY~ SECT_ I 0. WP6 10 - 28
DO
. ... ~,~ . ,
°+..... " , #:{ i "
~., • .
_ + . ! , . " ..... ~ " ~ . Ij
05+ . a ~ ' IFI, I
i4- I' ProposedARFF I [ ~-~~
Training Facility Site ] ,,, ~ I; - "-- Y- I ' Emergency Services + .,.~,
t Institute f--~ h
" i ~ |
7 ,.--- A - ! -
IIII ~ ~ L
.__ j ~ ..:..+ ,.+..... ~ ~_ q
..:.,. ., .... ~ ~-. . . . . . . . . . . .
.~'-:~'."~.! • / c ' "' i~
--- ~.~+. ~.:.~.
~ i ~
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR'IATION
AERONAUTICAL DIVISION
CITY OF PHOENIX FIRE DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY SERVICES INSTITUTE
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FOR A REGIONAL ARFF TRAINING FACILITY FGIUR1E0 5.
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
i
l
I
I
i
Additional information on the Tucson Public Safety Academy and Williams Gateway sites can be
found in Appendix B of the First Draft Report. Additional information on the Phoenix Fire
Department ESI site is contained in Appendix I of this report.
10.5 AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
The purposes of this task were to identify and describe the major components ( i. e., equipment,
hardware, support systems, etc.) of an ARFF training facility and to evaluate the available
technologies for meeting these requirements. More thoroughly addressed in the First Draft Report,
this information was used by the Committee in support of their recommendations for the design and
operation of an ARFF training facility in Arizona.
10.5.1 Facility Components
According to AC 150/ 5220- 17A, Design Standards for an Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
Training Facility, an ARFF training facility is composed of the bum area, the vehicle maneuvering
area and an assortment of support equipment including the mock- up( s), control center, fuel/ water
storage tanks and a wastewater treatment system. These components are generally illustrated in
Figure 10.6 and are briefly discussed below:
Burn Area - This is the structure within which the live fire is conducted. The
basic design consists of a floor surrounded by a wall, or berm, made of concrete
or other impervious materials. In some cases, this structure is partially filled with
crushed stones and water and is also referred to as the " fire pit".
Vehicle Maneuvering Area - This fiat surface surrounds the burn area and
provides a platform upon which the fire fighters can approach the fire with their
vehicles and equipment. This surface is usually constructed of concrete, crushed
stone or gravel.
Mock- Up( s)- This metal structure is located within the bum area and serves to
simulate an aircraft or various aircraft components. In most cases, a metal
cylinder is used to represent the fuselage, and the other components are
individually fabricated to simulate an aircraft wing, landing gear, engine,
auxiliary power unit, etc.
WP WPROhM : ha,. RIZ AR. FFkFEA SS TDY'~ ECT_ I 0. WP6 10 - 29
Support Systems:
Control Center
( Building for propane or
Protective Wall for
FLH- Fired Trainer],
Fuel & Water
Storage Tanks ~ Fuel/ Water
Separator
o- . . . . . . . , ~ ARFF Vehicle
" ' " " S " , Maneuvering Area
B B
B B
a °
°#
o ~ ..,~ z".,, . . . . . o.°°
"~. , ., Jppoff
Service Maintenance
Vehicle Surface
Burn Area
Components
Crushed Stones
Mock- up, Concrete
Apron, Overflow Drain
From AC ] 50/ 5220- 17A
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR'IATION
AERONAUTICAL DIVISION
ARFF TRAINING FACILITY
BASIC COMPONENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FOR A REGIONAL ARFF TRAINING FACILITY
FIGURE 10.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Control Center - Located outside the burn and vehicle maneuvering areas, this
structure can serve several purposes. Fire fighters not engaged in the live fire and
the instructors are usually located here with a complete view of the bum area. In
some cases, the structure also provides protection to other support equipment
such as fuel/ water storage tanks, wastewater treatment systems, valve boxes and
electrical equipment.
Fuel/ Water Storage Tanks - Depending on the type of fuel used at the training
facility, the fuel tanks contain either jet fuel, JP- 4 or propane. Typically, these
tanks range in size from 5,000 to 20,000 gallons and both underground and above
ground tanks are used. Similar, but separate, tanks are used to store wastewater.
Wastewater Treatment System - In the case of liquid flammable fuels, this
system typically consists of a catch basin, an oil/ water separator and one or more
of the following: carbon filters, sand filters, evaporation pond and a wastewater
treatment plant. When using propane, the wastewater treatment system
requirements are reduced substantially.
Other components of an ARFF training facility likely include an access road, parking lot,
vehicle/ equipment storage and classroom buildings, security fence, water well, and other training
mock- ups. Table 10.4 comprises a listing of ARFF training facility components with a summary
of their intended functions.
Perhaps the most important element of an ARFF training facility is the type of fuel used to create
the live fires. Presently, there are two fundamental alternatives: conventional fuels and propane.
These two technologies are discussed further in this section, but for ease of comparison, Table 10.5
provides a matrix of" pros and cons" commonly associated With each fuel type.
10.5.2 Technology Overview
This section provides an overview of three types of technology used for ARFF training facilities:
traditional, British design, and propane systems.
WP_ W'PROLM:~ nJ. Z~ S STDY~ SECT_ I 0. WP6 10 - 30
m n m m m u m n m mmmm mmm m m mm mm
,3
TABLE 10.4
PROJECT PROGRAMMING LIST FOR ARFF TRAINING FACILITY
Component Fossil Fuel Propane Purpose
Burn Area
Floor Reinforced, portland cement concrete or high Same as fossil fuel Containment and Collection of
density flexible membrane liners ( i. e;, HDPE); water/ fuel; support for mockup
penetrations for support equipment
Curbs ( interiors and Refractory concrete Concrete masonry block or Permit specific zonal training
perimeters) portland cement concrete and containment of water/ fuel
Interior crushed stones Angular, well graded, nonfriable materials Same as fossil fuel Walking surface, heat
absorbent counteract drifting
water/ fuel
Berm Nonfriable, erosion resistant material Same as fossil fuel Gentle slope for
entering/ exiting burn. area
Zonal Fuel/ Water Inground piping with pumps, risers, branch pipes Provided by contractor; same as Delivery of fuel/ water to burn
Delivery Network and nozzels in accordance with API and NFPA fossil fuel with gauges and area
codes burners
Drainage System Iron or fiberglass inground piping. Same as fossil fuel Removal of unburned fuel and
water
Ignition/ Flame Sparker flame generating equipment Provided by contractor, same as Ignition of fuel and/ or
Generation System fossil fuel with burners propagation of flame
Sensors Not required Provided by contractor Monitoring of wate r
application
Vehicle Maneuvering Area
Apron Portland cement concrete, crushed stone or gravel Same as fossil fuel ARFF vehicle maneuvering
surface, collection of spills,
stormwater, etc.
Mock- Up( s)
Aircraft General shape of fuselage, able to withstand high Same as fossil fuel Target for practicing ARFF
radiant energies, direct flame and repeated thermal operations
cycling stresses
Aircraft Components Wing, engine, landing gear, etc. ( not including Same as fossil fuel and may Same as aircraft mock- up
interior fire); may be part of aircraft mock- up or include interior mock- ups ( i. e.,
separate simulator( s) cockpit, galley, etc.)
t , . . t
m
ta~
i . . t
( Page 1 of 3)
m n mm m mm m mm m mm mm m m mm m mm m mm m u
TABLE 10.4
PROJECT PROGRAMMING LIST FOR ARFF TRAINING FACILITY
( continued)
,3
O
|
t~
Component Fossil Fuel Propane Purpose
Control Center
Protective Wall Concrete block Not required Protection from heat and
flames for trainers and support
equipment
Control Building ( or Valves, switches and other mechanical/ electrical Central control console with Control of fuel/ water supply
Compound) equipment computer, monitors and software systems, drainage, and ignition
provided by contractor
Fuel/ Water Storage System
Fuel Fiberglass or steel below ground or above ground Aboveground tank( s) for liquid Storage of fossil fuel or
tank that meets ADEQ criteria propane that meets NFPA codes propane
Water Same as fuel ( or storage pond) Same as fossil fuel Storage of recycled and make-up
water; water source for
ARFF vehicles and equipment
Wastewater Treatment System
Catch basin, oil/ water separator filters Retention/ evaporation pond Recovery of fossil fuel and/ or
( carbon/ sand), retention/ evaporation pond and/ or treatment ofwastewater
wastewater treatment plant
Other Components
Access Road Concrete, asphalt or crushed rock Same as fossil fuel Access/ egress for trainers,
students, delivery and ARFF
vehicles
Parking Lot Same as access road. Same as access road Parking for above
Support Buildings Office, classrooms, restrooms, vehicle/ equipment Same as fossil fuel Space for administrative,
storage instruction, maintenance and
storage requirements
Security Fence Chain link and/ or stockade Same as fossil fuel Protection against unauthorized
access
Water Well Capable of refilling water storage tank or pond Same as fossil fuel For bum area make- up water
Smoke Suppression Water spray or smokeless fuels Water spray or not required Provides knock- down of smoke
System particles and cools equipment.
( Page 2 of 3)
m m mm m m m n l u m m m m mm m m mmm m m
o
t . . , t
!
t. tJ
TABLE 10.4
PROJECT PROGRAMMING LIST FOR ARFF TRAINING FACILITY
( continued)
Component
ARFF Vehicles
Environmental
Monitoring
Water Supply
Sanitary Sewer
Electrical Service
Fossil Fuel
Equipped with turret and hand line application
equipment; water and foam storage
Groundwater monitor wells or other leak detection
method
Propane
Same as fossil fuel ( foam storage
unnecessary)
Not required
Purpose
Training vehicles for students
Early detection of spills or
leaks •
On- site well or public utility Same as fossil fuel Filling and washing out of bum
area, smoke suppression system
On- site facility or public utility Same as fossil fuel Off- site disposal of waste water
Public utility Same as fossil fuel Electricity for pumps, lighting,
control systems, support
buildings
( Page 3 of 3)
Information developed by Greiner, Inc., .1995 from FAA AC 150/ 5220- 17A, " Design Standards for an Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Training Facility".
I
I
I
TABLE 10.5
COMPARISON OF ARFF TRAINING SYSTEMS MATRIX a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Criteria Fossil Fuel Propane
FAA Requirements + Meets Part 139 requirements + Meets Part 139 requirements
ADOT Requirements + Meets requirements + Meets requirements
Technology History + Standard technology prior to 1992 - New technology since 1992
Training Value
Maintenance and Repairs
+ Very realistic for heat, flames,
smoke, extinguishing
requirements
- Turnaround time between fires
governed by refueling rate,
problems with reignition and water
level adjustments.
- Specific f'ire size, location and
duation difficult to control
+ Water and/ or water/ foam mixture
used as extinguishing agents
+ Teaches realism
- Interior space training very limited
- Bum area concrete
cracking/ spalling and igniter
malfunctions common problems
- Realism simulated with burners,
sensors and automated/ manual
controls; unrealistic smoke levels.
+ Minimal time between f'ires
+ Size, location and duration of fire
controlled by computer or manually
- Foam usually not used; surregate
foams available
+ Teaches techniques
+ Interior space training conducted
- Complex system of burners,
igniters, sensors and valves
controlled by computer requires
specialized service
- Requires upkeep - Requires upkeep
Operation - Requires experienced operator - Requires trained operator
Safety - Fire must be extinguished with + Fire controlled by computer,
water or foam trainer and/ or emergency shut off.
Environmental
- Dense, black smoke highly visible
for long distance and duration
- Other air pollutants emitted in
moderate quantities
+ Unlikely to cause violation of
AAQS
Air Quality
+ SIP conformity determination
likely not required
+ Smoke visible, but not for long
distance or duration
+ Other air pollutants emitted in
smaller quantities
+ Very unlikely to cause violation of
AAQS
+ SIP conformity determination not
required
~_ WPRO'~:~ ZAXm~_-,, SS~ Ecr_~ 0. WP6 10 - 34
I
I
l
TABLE 10.5
COMPARISON OF ARFF TRAINING SYSTEMS MATRIX a
( Continued)
i
I
I
I
I
I
Criteria Fossil Fuel Propane
Soil/ Surface Water and
Groundwater
Wastewater
Permits
- History of causing contamination
from spills and/ or leaks
Requires treatment with catch
basin, oil/ water separator filters
and/ or waste water treatment plant
NPDES for off- site disposal of
wastewater ( w/ o public sanitary
sewer);
and construction
- Open bum permit ( minimal)
+ Not expected to cause
contamination
+ Non foam or fuel containing water
requires no treatment
- NPDES for disposal of wastewater
( w/ o sanitary sewer); and
construction
- Open bum permit
- Aquifer Protection Permit - Aquifer Protection Permit
Other Potential Limitations - Dense, black smoke may be - Construction costs significantly
objectionable in some areas and less more than fossil fuel facilities.
acceptable to regulatory agencies
Construction Costs $ 1.2 - 2.0 million $ 6.0 - $ 15.0 Million
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
a Information compiled by Greiner, Inc., 1995.
+ Denotes " pro".
- Denotes " con".
W'P_ WPRO~ I: k~ R/ Z~ STDY'dECT I 0. WP6 10 - 35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.5.2.1 Traditional Fossil Fuel Facilities
Historically, most ARFF training facilities were designed and constructed to use fossil fuels such
as kerosene, JP- 4, and jet fuel. The traditional concept used in the United States involves floating
a layer of fuel on top of the crushed stone and water within the bum area. The fuel is then ignited,
allowed to bum, and finally extinguished with water, or a mixture of water and foam.
A variety of live- fire sizes and scenarios are created by introducing the fuel into different zones of
the bum area. " Pool" or " spill" fires are common and, in most cases, the mock- ups consist of a
simulated aircraft fuselage and wing, although engine and landing gear mock- ups have been
successfully constructed.
The primary advantage of these fossil fuel ARFF training facilities is the " realism" they provide in
terms of the flames, heat and smoke commonly associated with aircraft fires. Additional realism is
experienced because the fire can only be extinguished by the fire fighters themselves. Another major
advantage of the fossil fuel facility is the " time- tested" and proven technology obtained from the
design, construction and operation of numerous facilities across the country.
In contrast, some of the attributes that make traditional fossil fuel ARFF training facilities popular
also create some significant problems. For example, because the uncontrolled burning of these fuels
produces a dense, black smoke, the plume is highly visible for many miles. These air pollutants are
of great concern in some areas for environmental reasons and are considered a visual nuisance by
many. The fuel, the foam and the wastewater are potential soil, surface water and groundwater
contaminants, should the environmental safeguards designed into the facility fail or if a spill occurs.
Soil and groundwater clean- up has become an expensive problem with several existing fossil fuel
facilities.
Other disadvantages associated with fossil fuel training facilities include several operational issues.
Because liquid fuel is used, the size, location and duration of the live fire in the bum area is difficult
to control by inexperienced operators. In other cases, the burning fuel is unintentionally pushed out
WP_ WPKOhM AARIZ ARFFWEA SSTDY~ SECT_ I 0. WP 6 10 - 36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
of the bum area creating a potential hazard or environmental problem. In addition, because fuel must
be added to the burn area for each new live fire and water level adjustments are sometimes required,
the number of live fires is time- limited.
10.5.2.2 British Design
A variation on the traditional, conventional- fuel, ARFF training facility has been developed and is
used widely throughout the United Kingdom. One system, produced by Imperial Fire Devices, Inc.,
includes full scale mock- ups of aircraft components ( i. e., wheel/ brake unit, wings, wing and tail
engines, cockpit, galley, lavatory, cargo hold and auxiliary power units) and the necessary ancillary
operational/ control equipment ( i. e., pipes, valves, pumps, tanks, etc.)
Using this concept and equipment, the fuel ( JP- 4, jet fuel or kerosene) is aerosolized, or sprayed, as
a mist onto the mock- up's metal surfaces through a series of pipes and small nozzles. The fuel is
ignited and extinguished by the fire fighters using water or a water/ foam mixture. The facility
Operator controls the fuel feed rate, increasing or decreasing the fire intensity or shutting it down
completely. Small pool fires can be created by allowing fuel to " puddle" beneath, and around, the
mock- ups before ignition. For the purposes of this study, the British design also includes the
necessary equipment to create large " conventional" pool fires.
Advantages over traditional facilities include ( 1) the more efficient combustion of fuel, ( 2) decreased
fuel usage, ( 3) reductions in smoke and wastewater, ( 4) increased control and repeatability of live
fires, ( 5) improved safety and ( 6) lower construction costs.
Approximately 15 such ARFF training facilities have been built in the United Kingdom and several
were visited by Greiner, Inc. personnel ( see Appendix K for additional information). Unfortunately,
none have been built, or are currently in use, within the United States at this time.
WP_ WPRO'~ I:~ UZ~ A S STDY~ SECT_ I 0. WP6 10- 37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.5.2.3 Propane Systems
According to materials developed by Contraves Inc. and Symtron Systems Inc., two leaders in
propane fire training systems, this ARFF training technology offers the following advantages:
Minimal smoke and wastewater generation.
Totally controllable and repeatable training exercises.
Flexibility in specifying and modifying training objectives.
Built- in safety measures that do not exist with fossil fuel systems.
The choice of water, foams or substitute foams.
Training fires that can be simulated using propane trainers include:
Aircraft fuel spill fires ( with " flame up" and " reflash").
Wing and tail engine fires.
Wheel/ brake landing gear fires.
Cockpit, passenger cabin, galley, baggage, and cargo compartment fires.
Auxiliary Power Unit fires.
Three dimensional fuel leak fires.
Pool or fuel spill fires.
The basic concept associated with each of these fires involves the supply of liquid propane to gas
burners located in the floor of the burn area and within the mock- ups. In the automated, or
" computerized", trainers, sensors monitor the application of extinguishing agents to the live fire,
adjust the flow of propane, and thereby the size of the fire. If the application of agents ceases before
the flames are " extinguished", the automated control system can simulate regrowth of the fire.
It is important to note that with propane- fueled facilities, the fire is not extinguished by the
application of the agent, but by the reduction in the flow of propane to the burners. In the manual
versions under consideration by the U. S. Air Force, this is accomplished by human operators using
valves and switches to reduce the flow of propane to the burners.
Because of the comparatively clean- burning properties of propane fuel, the smoke is much less dense
and black than the smoke from traditional fossil fuel ARFF training facilities. Furthermore, liquid
WP WPROhM: LMIIZAR£ FkFEA SSTDY~ ECT_ I O. W1P6 10- 38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
propane does not require all the environmental safeguards to protect against soil, surface water and
groundwater contamination compared to fossil fuel.
Another advantage of the propane- fueled facility is the ability to control the location, size and time
period of the fire. This reportedly adds some degree of safety in the event a fire fighter is injured
or unable to exit the bum area. It also becomes highly unlikely that the burning fuel will escape the
confines of the burn area.
A variation on the propane- fueled facility has also been developed for portability. These units,
developed by R 2 and Symtron Systems, are trailer- mounted and can be transported to any training
site. However, because FAA only permits the certification of Part 139 Index A and B airport fire
fighters with these units, they were not considered suitable to meet the training needs of the State
of Arizona.
10.5.3 Other Technologies
Other types of fire fighting technologies that may have application to a regional ARFF training
facility are identified and briefly summarized below:
Fire Fighting Equipment - Manufactured by Oshkosh Truck Corp. and others,
these specially designed vehicles carry between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons of water
and 130 to 420 gallons of foam. These trucks weigh between 33,000 and 67,000
pounds when loaded and are equipped with both handline and turret application
equipment.
Multimedia Interactive Training - Using video, audio, graphics animation and
computer workstations, students are instructed in ARFF techniques including
aircraft approach, engine shut down, crew and passenger extraction, and fire
extinguishing procedures. Utilized experimentally by the U. S. Air Force, this is
a proposed application of computer- based training in the civilian area. BDM -
Federal of Huntsville, Alabama is the developer of this system.
Smokeless Fuels - Developed by Exxon, Envirofire, and Dion & Sons, these
highly refined and specially blended hydrocarbon fuels and chemicals reportedly
produce little or no smoke when burned. Intended to address the air pollution
WP WPRO~ i/ vI: kARIZARFFWEASSTDY'tSEC1T0 . WP6 10- 39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
concerns associated with ARFF training facilities, these fuels have limited
application, thus far.
Aqueous Film Forming Foam ( AFFF) - Used as a fire extinguishing agent, this
synthetic surfactant is mixed with water in a 3 to 6 percent solution which forms
a vapor suppressing seal over the fire. Biodegradable and low in toxicity,
disposal in a wastewater treatment plan is recommended. Also available as a
fluroprotein foam and training foam. These products are distributed by
Chemguard, Inc., 3M, and others.
10.6 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT AND SCHEMATIC DESIGN
This task involved the preliminary layout and schematic design of an ARFF training facility. These
layouts and schematics are intended to graphically illustrate the primary facility components ( i. e.,
training areas, support systems, buildings, etc.). These plans were also used in support of the
preliminary cost estimates prepared for this project.
10.6.1 Layout Methodology
In accordance with the Scope of Work for this study, six " generic" site layouts were originally
developed in the form of architectural " schematic" programming sheets during Task 6. The
function, size, and/ or capacities of the individual components and their overall dimensions were
comparable between the alternatives and were considered " ultimate" facilities that would likely be
scaled back. The primary differences among each layout was in the positioning of the facility
components and the overall shape of the site. However, in all six cases, required separation
distances, functional relationships, and efficiencies of use of the equipment were equally considered
when laying out the sites.
Because the general layouts of ARFF training facilities using either conventional fuels or propane
do not differ substantially, the schematics for this task were developed to potentially accommodate
both types of training technologies. The specific design and engineering requirements for
conventional or propane- fueled facilities can be addressed later during the preparation of fmal
engirieering/ architectural design drawings.
WP_ WPROhM : LMUZ ARFFWEAS STDY~ S ECT_ l 0. WP6 10 - 40
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.6.2 Preliminary. Schematic Design Drawings
The original six schematic layouts are contained in the Second Draft Report and identified as Plans
1 through 6. These plans were reviewed by the ARFF Study Committee and displayed at the ADOT
Public Information Meeting held at Williams Gateway Airport in April 1995. Verbal comments
from ADOT, the Committee, fire fighters and potential host sites were generally favorable.
During Task 7 - Preliminary Cost Estimates, the estimated construction costs for the original six
schematic layouts ranged from $ 7.4 to $ 12.9 million. Taking into account possible site- specific cost
savings, the adjusted construction costs ranged between $ 3.5 and $ 10 million, depending on the site,
technology and layout. In contrast, during Task 9.0 - Financial Feasibility, it was determined that
building any of these facilities would not be cost effective at any of the potential host sites ( assuming
a low end estimate of potential users).
As a result, the ARFF Study Committee recommended that the original schematic layouts be scaled
back to help reduce the estimated construction costs. Schematic Layout Plan No. 1SB that follows
represents this scaled back version. The site is approximately 800 feet by 900 feet ( 16.5 acres) and
includes a circular bum area; aircraft mock- up; a combined operations/ control center and ARFF
vehicle building; confined entry ( smoke) trainer; wastewater treatment system, fuel storage facility,
access/ egress roads and security fence.
Several attributes of this revised layout include the following:
Adaptable to both conventional fuel and propane.
Future expansion areas in two quadrants of the site.
Space for other specialized mock- ups around the bum area.
Represents best conservation of utilities, pavement, etc.
Easily adaptable to sites with existing support facilities.
Meets or exceeds FAA design guidelines.
The construction and O/ M costs for this layout are discussed in Section 10.7 of this report.
WP_ W'PRO'd'd: kAIIJZARF'b3FEASSTDY~ 1S0E. WCPT6 10- 41
• ¢; U ,
X X II X ~ X X X X I X X X X X X X X X X X X X V X X
CONFINED ENTRY
TRAINER
POOL FIRE TRAINER
ARFF
VEHICLE
MANEUV.
A R EA
/
BURN AREA
} S ROAD
FUEL
STORAGE
FACILITY
I I
J
TANKER TRUCK
OFE- LOADING RACK
~ 1 ,~ ,~ "~'~.
t RFF VEH. PARK~-- k
, f
q OPERATIONS ,/ CLASSROOMS
CONTROL CENTE~ AND A~: F
:---------- VEHICLE BUiLDiNG
WASTE WATER
CATCH BASIN
13._
LEGEND ,, i
ARFF AIRCRAFT RESCUE
AND F! I~ E ~ It3~ ITINO
BLDG, BUILDINO
CONFINED ENTRY
F!~ E TRAENER
POOL FIRE
TRAINER
%,]
POV P RI",.' AT E OWNED
VECI- IILE
T' 000 OSHKOSH
Aq'FF VECHILE
TANKER TRLICK
OVER THE ROAD
MAINT. VAt'qTENANCE
MANEUV. MANEUVER
VEH. VEP~ CLE
WELL ( MAKE UP WATER)
100
L,
0 100 200 300
I
ADOTARF ~ E R ONAUTICAL DIVISION
TRAINING FACILITY
i i i
FEASIBILITY qTt'DY /= ND ~, . . . . . . . . . , '- L,
SCHEMATIC LAYOUT PLAN NO. 1SB
i i ii i . i
i
I
I
It is important to note that the final layout and design of the ARFF training facility could differ
somewhat from the schematic depending on ( 1) the selected site, ( 2) the available funds, ( 3) the
preferred technology, and ( 4) the availability of existing facilities and components.
10.7 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND O/ M COST ESTIMATES
For the purposes of this task, cost estimates were subdivided into two general categories: ( 1) project
( i. e., construction) costs and ( 2) operation/ maintenance ( O/ M) costs. To the extent possible, these
costs were based on information obtained in connection with other existing, and planned, ARFF
training facilities across the United States and around the world. Supplemented with data from
industry- standard price books and adjusted, as necessary, for this particular project and the Arizona
location, this information is also used in connection with the financial feasibility analysis presented
in the next section.
10.7.1 Revised Project Construction Costs
During Task 7 ( Preliminary Cost Estimates), project construction and O/ M costs were developed for
both conventional fuel and propane ARFF training facilities. These preliminary cost estimates,
contained in the Second Draft Report, were based on " ultimate" facilities that were expected to l~ e
scaled back based on the outcome of Task 9 ( Financial Feasibility).
As stated previously, the initial project construction costs ranged from $ 7.4 to $ 12.9 million,
depending on the technology and site layout. After applying site- specific cost savings for existing
or planned support facilities, the adjusted construction costs were reduced to between $ 3.5 and $ 10
million. By comparison, assuming the low end estimate of potential users from within Arizona, the
Financial Feasibility Analysis determined that these construction costs were not justifiable.
W~_ WP~ O~:~ OZAm-~ ASSrD~ ECr_, 0. W~ 6 10 - 42
Therefore, revised project costs have been prepared for scaled back facilities using both conventional
and propane fuels. These scaled back facilities are intended to satisfy FAA and NFPA requirements
and contain all the necessary components of a successful ARFF training facility. A schematic layout
( Plan No. 1SB) has been prepared of the scaled back facilities and was described in Section 10.6.
The revised Estimated Costs Worksheets for the scaled back facilities are contained in Appendix L.
The costs are broken out by technology type ( i. e., fossil fuel ( traditional design or the British
concept) and propane), and primary component ( i. e., bum area, mock- ups, fuel/ water storage system
etc.) The category " Other Components" includes a wide variety of construction items including site
work, access road, support buildings, utilities and other appurtenances. Other construction costs
including an ARFF vehicle; design fees; construction, engineering and inspection ( CE& I) fees;
permitting and impact fees; and a 15 percent contingency fee for unforeseen costs are also added.
For ease in assimilating this information, Table 10.6 contains a summary of these estimated project
construction costs. The two fossil fuel alternatives ( i. e., the traditional design and the British
concept) and the propane- fueled ARFF training facility are shown separately. As shown, the
traditional fossil fuel facility is expected to cost $ 2,615,000. By comparison, the fossil fuel facility
designed around the British concept is expected to cost $ 2,730,000. Finally, the propane- fueled
training facility is estimated to cost $ 6,575,000.
During the site evaluation and selection process, existing or planned equipment, personnel,
buildings, etc. that would help support this project were considered. Tablel 0.7 provides a summary
of site- specific costs savings for the City of Phoenix Emergency Services Institute ($ 200,000),
Tucson Public Safety Academy ($ 569,000), and Williams Gateway Airport ($ 211,000) sites taking
into account these factors. As shown in Table 10.8, these construction costs savings are applied to
the Total Construction Costs to obtain the Adjusted Construction Costs for each technology type and
site. For brevity, construction costs for the five lower ranked sites are not included.
WP_ WPKO'LM:' La~ IZARFFWEASSTD1Y0. W', SPE6C T 10 " 43
TABLE 10.6
MATRIX OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
FOR FOSSIL FUEL AND PROPANE SYSTEMS
Alternative Technologies
Component
Burn Area
Vehicle Maneuvering Area
Mock- Ups
Operations Building
Fuel/ Water Storage System
Wastewater Treatment System
Other Components
Total
Fossil Fuel
Traditional Design British Concept Propane
$ 164,906
$ 119,950
$ 300,000
$ 228,000
$ 222,061
$ 41,022
$ 534,458
$ 143,724
$ 124,533
$ 395,250
$ 228,000
$ 211,118
$ 41,022
$ 534,458
$ 1,610,397 $ 1,678,105
$ 130,506
$ 119,950
$ 3,000,000
$ 700,000
$ 82,650
$ 21,022
$ 452,058
$ 4,506,186
Notes:
1. Total costs do not include fire fighting equipment; permitting, impact, design, and CERI fees; and 15%
contingency.
2. See Appendix L for Cost Estimate worksheets.
3. Costs are = order of magnitude" estimates for planning purposes only and should not be used for budgeting
purposes.
4. Final project costs could differ based on selected site, available funds, and availability of other supporting
facilities or equipment.
5. Other components include sitework, access road, parking lot, support buildings ( classroom, office,
equipment/ vehicle storage), utilities and a wide assortment of other appurtenances.
6. British concept includes pool fire capability.
vo_ voRo~:~ R=~,~'~ s~ s,~ er_] 0.~ 6 10 - 44
TABLE 10.7
MATRIX OF POSSIBLE COST SAVINGS
BY ALTERNATIVE SITE
Possible Cost Savers
Support Buildings
Wastewater Treatment
Fuel/ Water Storage
Other Components
Tuscon Public Safety
Academy
$ 200,000
$ 41,000
$ 20,000
$ 308,000
Williams Gateway
Airport
$ 200,000
$ 11,000
TOTAL $ 569,000 $ 211,000
City of Phoenix Fire Dept.
Emergency Services Institute
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
Notes:
1. Support buildings include offices, classrooms and equipment/ vehicle storage facilities.
2. Other components include, sitework, access road, parking lot, utilities and a wide variety of other appurtenances.
3. Costs are " order of magnitude" estimates for planning purposes and should not be used for budgeting purposes.
4. For brevity, only the three highest ranked sites are addressed in this table.
Wp ' WFRO'~ f:' L~ tO. Z~ SSTDY~ F.~_ IO. WP6 10 " 45
10.7.2 Revised Operation/ Maintenance Costs
Estimated O/ M costs for utilities, staff, supplies and routine maintenance are difficult to derive. This
is because most existing regional ARFF training facilities have been operational for less than two
years, many are under warranty, and individual facility utilization schedules differ substantially.
As initially demonstrated during Task 7 ( Preliminary Cost Estimates), O/ M costs for an " ultimate"
facility were estimated to be $ 180,000 annually. These costs include full- time instructors,
administrative staff, utilities, etc., and appear to be reasonable compared to some existing regional
training facilities with high use ( i. e., Dallas/ Fort Worth, Texas; Duluth, Minnesota; Fayetteville,
North Carolina).
This initial O/ M cost estimate was scaled back to a range of $ 55,000 to $ 75,000 annually to reflect
the likely " baseline" demand on an ARFF training facility in Arizona. These costs could vary
substantially between conventional and propane- fueled facilities, but this difference has remained
undocumented in this report.
10.8 POTENTIAL LIABILITIES
This task identified and discussed potential risks and liabilities for the owner, operator, and/ or user
of an ARFF training facility located in Arizona. Wherever possible, and to the extent they are
known, mitigation or risk- reduction measures were also discussed.
The liabilities and risks associated with the construction and operation of an ARFF training facility
were subdivided into the following four subcategories: technology, economic, safety, and
environmental. Unfortunately, the ability to accurately predict and, thereby avoid, or minimize,
potential problems is somewhat limited due to the relative absence of this information in connection
with other fire training facilities. However, the following fundamentals, originally discussed in the
SecondDrafi Report, should be used as a framework in support of decisions affecting this project.
WP_ WPRO~:~ aZA~'~'~ SSTD~ ECZ_ I0. WP6 I 0 " 46
10.8.1 Technology
Live- fire training, using either conventional fuel or propane, involves equipment and materials that
are repeatedly subjected to smoke, flames, extreme heat, water, fuel, AFFF, and the natural elements
( i. e., wind, U. V. radiation, precipitation, etc.). Under normal operating conditions, it is expected that
they will wear out, deteriorate, or otherwise fail over time.
In order to help reduce the liabilities and risks associated with the technological limitations of the
available training systems, the following mitigation measures should be adopted:
Incorporate fire training facility design, materials, and functions that are proven
to be successful at other existing facilities.
Utilize the training facility systems and components in accordance with their
intended design, function, and capacities.
Provide only the type of training the firefighters are required, or have shown a
desire, to have.
Locate, operate, and maintain the training facility in a manner that will help
preserve its structural, mechanical, and operational integrity and functions.
Design and construct the facility following accepted architectural/ engineering
practices provided by experienced contractors.
Avoid obsolescence, to the extent possible, with up- to- date training equipment
and requirements, aircraft mock- ups and simulators and other system
components.
Notably, most of the ARFF training facilities using fossil fuel employ materials, equipment, and
methods that have been tested over time and under a wide variety of conditions. As a result, the
technological limitations of these facilities is better known. Propane- fueled facilities are relatively
new and the components ( including labor) are covered under a warranty by the manufacturer.
Therefore, the type and extent of the technological limitations associated with these facilities is less
well known.
wp WPl~ O~:,~ Riz~- E^ ss~ cr_~ o. w~ 10 - 47
10.8.2 Economic
As previously discussed, the majority of the regional ARFF training facility construction costs are
eligible for FAA funding through the Airport Improvement Program ( AIP). In contrast, O/ M costs
are usually borne by the facility owner/ operator. As a result, the unfunded construction and O/ M
costs are offset with user fees, to the extent possible.
In order to help reduce the liabilities and risks associated with the costs for constructing, operating,
and maintaining an ARFF training facility in Arizona, the following mitigation measures should be
considered:
Review the Economic Feasibility Study for this project ( Task 9) that compared
the estimated costs for building and operating a training facility against the
anticipated revenues collected from the users.
Realistically anticipate the revenue- generating capability of a regional ARFF
fire- training facility.
Offer the facility and training to other fire fighters.
Locate the ARFF training facility in an area where the use will not be
significantly restricted.
Participate in " mutual aid" with other entities requiring aircraft live fire training.
Incorporate the use of the ARFF training facility with other related public safety
training.
Select a host site that has demonstrated its willingness and commitment to help
fund, construct, operate, and maintain an ARFF training facility.
Build only those elements of the training facility that are either required or will
otherwise be utilized by ftrefighters.
Develop a standard set of user fees and require users to sign and/ or provide
documents insuring payment for services, equipment, and materials provided.
w~_ wPRo~:~.~-~ ssm~ Ecr_ lo. wP6 10 - 48
I
i
I
I
!
i
i
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i,
I
I
i
Again, the concepts of regional ARFF training facilities and the offering of such training to airport
firefighters for compensation are relatively new. For example, the first FAA- funded regional
training facilities have been in operation for less than two years. As a result, the economic risks and
liabilities of constructing and operating a facility in Arizona are difficult to predict, based on
experiences in other states.
10.8.3 Safet~
ARFF training facilities, by their intended design and function, involve flammable liquids and gases,
smoke and other products of combustion, heat and flames, confined spaces, and other potential
health and safety risks to the users. This is because the objective of the training is to provide realistic
conditions that enable firefighters to deal with the special problems associated with aircraft rescue
and fire- fighting. In order to help reduce the inherent safety liabilities and risks associated with the
operation of an ARFF training facility, the following mitigation measures should be considered:
Require facility operators and trainers to be experienced and qualified to conduct
live fire and confined space training.
Require facility users to be properly trained in firefighting techniques, be
physically fit, and meet all other requirements of fire fighters.
Provide users with safety lectures and/ or lessons explaining the potential hazards
of the training.
Require users to utilize their own personal protective equipment, suits, breathing
masks, etc.
Require trainers and users to perform only standard ARFF drills.
Limit the simulation, or practice, of confined space entry and smoke training to
a minimum.
Label and sign all known hazards in and around the facility in accordance with
OSHA guidelines.
Require users and trainers to sign agreement documents indicating proof of
insurance, waiver of claims, and any other special conditions.
WP_ WPRO'dV[ AARIZARFFWEASSTDY~ S1E0C. WT P6 10 - 49
Have the facility design plans and specifications, as well as the constructed
facility, reviewed by a qualified safety professional.
While the liability of 0ffering live fire training to firefighters can never be eliminated, reasonable
precautions taken by the owner, operator, and users of the facility can help minimize the risks. As
a general policy, these risks must also be balanced with the risks to the air traveling public when
aircraft firefighters are not properly trained to respond to an emergency.
10.8.4 Environmental
As previously discussed, ARFF training facilities, by their intended design and function, involve
varying amounts of flammable fuels, smoke, and waste materials. In order to help reduce the
liabilities and risks associated with the potential environmental impacts of an ARFF training facility,
the following mitigation measures should be considered:
Select training technologies that minimize environmental impacts.
Incorporate environmental protection measures into the design of the facility.
Develop and practice pollution prevention measures in the design, and during the
operation, of the training facility.
Obtain all necessary environmental permits.
Educate the facility operator and users in the methods and importance of
environmental protection.
Utilize the facility components and environmental safeguard equipment for their
intended purpose.
Locate the facility outside environmentally protected or sensitive areas.
The most common complaints from the general public and regulatory agencies in connection with
ARFF training facilities are associated with environmental issues; smoke, soil/ groundwater
contamination, and wastewater disposal being the three primary sources of concern.
~ wP~ o,~:~. JZ~-~ ss~ Ecrjo. wP6 10 - 50
10.9 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
This task involved conducting financial feasibility analyses for an ARFF training facility in Arizona.
Construction, operation and maintenance ( O/ M) costs as well as potential cost recovery sources were
considered. The primary purposes of these analyses were to help determine an affordable cost for
a training facility and evaluate the extent fees collected from the users of the facility would likely
offset the initial construction and annual O/ M costs.
The results of this analysis are primarily intended for planning purposes and do not necessarily
represent " bottom line" values used to make final financial decisions in connection with this project.
Rather, this information is more suited for identifying, and generally quantifying, the best sources
of fmancial support in comparison to the anticipated costs to build and operate an ARFF training
facility.
10.9.1 Methodology
The methodology used to test financial feasibility in this study is the conventional benefit/ cost ( B/ C)
analysis. Following this methodology, the present ( current year) value of the anticipated annual
revenues from user fees ( i. e., benefits to the ARFF training facility host) is compared against the
present value of the owner's portion of the construction costs and the annual O/ M costs of the facility
in a discounted cash flow analysis. Essentially, if the ratio of benefits- to- costs ( the B/ C ratio) is
greater than 1.0, the project is considered cost- effective or financially feasible.
It has already been established that the number of fire fighters which can be expected to use the
facility range from a low of 177 to a high of as many as 1,890. The low estimate is the present
number of Arizona fire fighters at the 11 Part 139 certificated airports who are required by FAA to
receive the " live fire" training.
In the B/ C calculation, the low end of the estimate ( 177 fire fighters in the opening year, increasing
to 250 in future years) was used for conservatism. This is also consistent with the FAA- intended
'~_ W~ O~,:~ R~ EASS~ V0. WP~ 10 " 51
primary purpose of the facility which is to provide training to fire fighters at Part 139 certificated
airports. The high estimate includes Arizona- based general aviation fire fighters and non- airport fire
fighters who responded to the surveys. It is anticipated that some portion of the general aviation fire
fighters and non- airport fire fighters would use the ARFF training facility if it were constructed and
in operation.
User fees were determined through an assessment of similar ARFF training facilities which are
presently in operation within the United States. From this comparison, the tuition revenue which
would be earned at an ARFF training facility in Arizona is estimated at $ 375/ trainee/ day. The
resulting conservatively low estimate of the annual gross revenues which could be earned by the
ARFF training facility is $ 66,375 ( 177 trainees x $ 375/ trainee) in the opening year, increasing to
$ 91,250 ( 250 trainees x $ 375/ trainee) after five years.
The capital expense ( design and construction costs) necessary to put the facility and equipment in
place differs depending on the selected technology and alternative site for the ARFF training facility.
As previously reported, the estimated construction costs for the traditional and British fossil fuel
facilities ( with pool fire capabilities) are $ 2,615,000 and $ 2,730,000, respectively, and $ 6,575,000
for propane facilities.
Potential " site- specific" cost adjustments taking into account existing or planned equipment,
personnel, buildings, etc., that would help support, or complement, this project were also considered.
These site- specific cost savings for the City of Phoenix ESI ($ 200,000), Tucson Public Safety
Training Academy ($ 569,000), and Williams Gateway Airport ($ 211,000) were summarized in
Table 10.7. By applying these site- specific cost adjustments to the estimated construction cost
estimates, the total capital investment costs for each of these three sites were computed. These
values are also shown in Tablel 0.8.
Notably, the user costs for travel, lodging, salary, etc., were not addressed in the B/ C analysis.
Rather, the " benefit" is measured in terms of the ability of the host site to recover its costs.
wP_ wRo~:~ luz,~ P~- e, ss~ Ec'r , o. v~ 6 10 - 52
m ann n i m null inn I , I tmn m I nnn m m I m rain m
t
>
O
!
TABLE 10.8
MATRIX OF TOTAL, ADJUSTED AND OWNER CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
BY ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND SITE
Alternative Technology
Total Construction Costs
Site Cost Saving
Adjusted Costs
Owner Costs
Tucson Public Safety Academy
Fossil Fuel
Traditional British
$ 2,615,000 $ 2,730,000
$ 569,000
Propane
$ 6,575,000
$ 2,046,000 $ 2,161,000 $ 6,006,000
$ 205,000 $ 216,000 $ 601,000
Williams Gateway Airport
Fossil Fuel
Traditional British Propane
$ 2,615,000 $ 2,730,000 $ 6,575,000
$ 211,000
$ 2,404,000 $ 2,519,000 $ 6,364,000
$ 240,000 $ 252,000 $ 636,000
City of Phoenix Fire Department
Emergency Services Institute
Fossil Fuel
Traditional British
$ 3,915,000 $ 4,030,000
• Propane
$ 7,875,000
$ 200,000
$ 3,715,000 $ 3,830,000 $ 7,675,000
$ 372,000 $ 383,000 $ 768,000
Notes:
1 Site Cost Savings from facilities, equipment, etc. located at, or planned for, the individual sites.
2 Adjusted Costs = Total Estimated Construction Costs - Site Cost Savings.
3 Owner Costs = Adjusted Costs x 10% ( remaining 90% assumed to be funded from FAA Airport Improvement Program).
4 Owner costs do not include potential " matching funds" from ADOT.
5 Costs are " order of magnitude" estimates for planning purposes and should not be used for budgeting purposes.
6 City of Phoenix Fire Department ESI site includes land acquisition costs.
7 British fossil fuel system includes pool fire capability.
8 Only the three highest ranked sites are addressed in this table.
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
As previously stated, certain costswill be incurred over the 20- year analysis period for operating and
maintaining the ARFF training facility. These O/ M costs include routine and periodic maintenance
of the facility, equipment, buildings and groiands; labor costs; etc., and are estimated to range
between $ 55,000 and $ 75,000 annually.
In addition to the routine O/ M costs, it is anticipated that certain costs must be incurred for periodic
maintenance items associated with the ARFF facility. For example, the support buildings ( if
constructed) will require periodic maintenance and repair for continued serviceability. Insufficient
documentation is available from in- place ARFF facilities to allow estimating periodic maintenance
costs for aircraft mock- up components, although it is certain, in principle, that they would also occur.
Examples of such requirements might be replacement of crushed stone and curbing at the fire pits,
replacement or repair of flame generating system parts, and replacement of some mock- up
components which are continually exposed to fire conditions. Because of this lack of data, this
analysis has made no assumptions in this regard and the results should be understood in this light.
Finally, in the case of the City of Phoenix Fire Department Emergency Services Institute site, land
acquisition costs were also considered. Based on the assumption that a 15- acre parcel is acquired
at $ 85,000/ acre ($ 2.00/ sq. ft.), the estimated land purchase price is $ 1,300,000. The owner's share
of $ 130,000 ( 10%) is included in the B/ C analysis.
10.9.2 Revised Results
The results of the B/ C analysis are summarized in Table 10.9. As stated previously, a B/ C ratio of
1.0 or greater is used as an approximate measure of acceptability.
The Tucson Public Safety Academy site has B/ C ratios of 0.99 and 0.98, respectively, for the
traditional and British fossil fuel facilities. Given the range of uncertainties inherent to the analysis,
these results are considered to be a positive sign of economic feasibility. The propane- fueled facility
has a B/ C ratio of 0.73 at this location.
WP_ WPKO'iM: kARIZS~ S TDY~ SECTIO _ . W6P 10 - 54
I
I
I
TABLE 10.9
B/ C RATIO SUMMARY BY
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND SITE
B/ C Ratio j
Fossil Fuel
Site Traditional British Propane
Tucson Public Safety Academy 0.99 0.98 0.73
Williams Gateway Airport 0.96 0.95 0.71
City of Phoenix Emergency Services Institute 0.86 0.85 0.65
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
IfB/ C Ratio > 1.0, considered to be cost effective.
Results do not include the benefit of ADOT matching funds.
Only the three highest ranked sites are addressed in this table.
WP_ W PRO'~ M:~. RIZARFF'~ EAS STDY~ SECT 10. WP6 10 - 55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Williams Gateway Airport has B/ C ratios of 0.96 and 0.95, respectively, for the traditional and
British fossil fuel facilities. Again, these results are considered to be acceptable. The propane- fueled
facility has a B/ C ratio of 0.71 at this location.
The City of Phoenix Fire Department Emergency Service Institute has B/ C ratios of 0.86 and 0.85
for the traditional and British fossil fuel facilities. These figures reflect the land acquisition costs
required for this site. The propane- fueled facility has a B/ C ratio of 0.65 at this location.
The B/ C analysis computation sheets are contained in Appendix N of this report. Notably, the B/ C
analysis did not include the benefit of ADOT matching funds, which could amount to approximately
5 percent of construction costs.
10.10 RECOMMENDATIONS
This final task involves the development and reporting of the recommendations of the ARFF Study
Committee and the Consultant in connection with this project. For the most part, these
recommendations were based on the facts and findings contained in this, and the three previous,
reports.
10.10.1 Committee Recommendations
Throughout the entire course of this study, the ARFF Study Committee has provided input in the
form of questions, answers, and recommendations to ADOT and the Contractor; reviewed and
commented on the First, Second and Third Draft Reports; and participated in regularly scheduled
committee meetings to help resolve issues in a timely, efficient, and objective manner.
On August 8 and October 11, 1995, the Committee held their final meetings and formalized their
recommendations in connection with this study ( see Appendix M for Meeting Notes). These
recommendations are summarized as follows:
WP WPROLM: kARIZARFFWEASSTDY~ SE~_ I 0. WP6 10 - 56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Build a regional ARFF training facility in Arizona - Based on ( 1) the
demonstrated existing and future training needs of both aviation and non- aviation
fire fighters; ( 2) the potential benefits to the air traveling public; ( 3) and the
limitations of obtaining similar training elsewhere, the Committee members
enthusiastically make this recommendation.
Utilize conventional fuels for aircraft mock- up and pool fire training -
Because of the realism, ( i. e., " Train like you fight" philosophy), experience ( i. e.,
proven track record) and affordability, the Committee