### Memorandum 20 February 2007 Page 1

TO: Airport Deicing Administrative Record

FROM: Cortney Itle and Robyn Reid, ERG

DATE: February 2008

SUBJECT: Estimated Annual Costs for Airports with Limited ADF Use

This memorandum provides the methodology for estim ating costs for those airports located in traditionally warm climates were aircraft deic ing is rare. These airports may on occasion be required to defrost aircraft only a few cold morn ings per year and therefore their ADF usage will be orders of magnitude less than airports located in colder climates. Because ADF usage is small and infrequent, utilizing capture and control tec hnologies common to airports located in cold climates would not be appropriate. For these ai rports, ERG has developed costs for contractors to remove and dispose of spent ADF at an off-airport facility. The following sections provide a list of the airports included in this category and the costs associated with collection and disposal of small amounts of spent ADF.



### Airports With Small and Infrequent ADF Usage

To determine which airports ha ve small and infrequent ADF usage, ERG examined information contained in EPA’s airport deicing database questi onnaire. First, ERG determined which airports in the questionnaire database reported zero fl uid usage and zero SOFP days. Ten airports reported no ADF usage and no SOFP days and ther efore none of these airports were assigned costs for management of spent ADF. Those airports include the following:

 Metropolitan Oakland International;

 San Diego International Airport;

 Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport;

 Norman Mineta San Jose International Airport;

 Santa Maria Hancock Field;

 Bob Hope International Airport;

 Tampa International Airport;

 Sacramento International Airport;

 John Wayne Orange County Airport; and

 Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

ERG then determined which airports reported some ADF use, had less than 100 percent capture of the spent ADF, discharges spen t ADF to surface waters, but reported no deicing months. For these airports, ERG decided each would likely contr act collection and off-site disposal of spent ADF since they use only small amounts on an infrequent basis. These airports include the following:

 Ontario International Airport in California;

 Craven County Regional Airport in North Carolina;

 George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Texas;

 Sacramento Mather Airport in California;

### Memorandum February 2008 Page 2

 Lovell Field in Tennessee; and

 Lafayette Regional Airport in Louisiana.

For these airports, only costs for contract collecti on and off-site disposal of spent ADF have been estimated; no other capture and control option costs for spent ADF have been estimated.



### Cost Methodology for Airports with Small and Infrequent ADF Usage

To estimate the annual cost for contract collection and off site disposal of spent ADF at the six airports listed above, ERG evaluated both the lite rature data and contacted a vacuum truck

contractor located in the Southeast United States. According to the literature, contract hauling and disposal of spent ADF is approximately $1.83/gallon 1 . Discussions with Harbin Services of Athens, Tennessee indicated the daily rental charge for their vacuum truck to enter an airport and remove spent ADF solution from concrete areas would be approximately $1,100/day.

Using the cost information above plus the target ADF capture percentage (60%) and the estimated amount of ADF that drains off the plane (80%), the following equation was developed for the six airports listed above.

Annual Cost ($/yr): (ADF Usage (gal/yr) x 0.8 x 0.6 x $1.83) + (SOFP days/yr x $1,100/day)

Both the ADF usage information and the SOFP days for each airport will be determined from the airport questionnaire database.



### Summary

The equation included in this me morandum will be used in the ai rport deicing costs and loads

model to estimate the annual costs for a contract or to vacuum and dispose of spent ADF. Those airports listed in this memo are the only airpor ts that will be costed for this option.

1 Department of Defense, Naval Environmental L eadership Program (NELP), Aircraft Deicing and Aqueous Film Forming Foam Wastewater Treatment System Cost Analysis, 2000.