April 11th, 2000 SAE Advances in Aviation Safety Conference and Exposition

1. The Cost of Implementing Ground Based Fuel Tank Inerting in the Commercial Fleet April 11th, 2000SAE Advances in Aviation SafetyConference and Exposition SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

2. Outline • Background / Definition • Ground Rules / Methods • Quantify Nitrogen Volume Requirements • Non-Recurring Costs • Recurring Costs • Industry Extrapolation • Conclusions and Recommendation SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

3. Background • Propose to Improve Level of Fuel Tank Safety in the Fleet • Fuel Tank Inerting is Proven Effective and Existing Nitrogen Generation Technology is Mature • ARAC Stated GBI was Most Cost Effective Method to Reduce Exposure to Flammable Fuel Tank Scenarios (Approximately 4 Billion Dollars) • Get Industry Involvement to More Accurately Determine Cost of Gas(MEDAL) and Airport Modification. (ATL, Delta and ACY, SJTA) SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

4. Definition of GBI • GBI Uses Ground Based Equipment to Inert AC Fuel Tanks Prior to Flight with Some Combination of Ullage Washing and Fuel Scrubbing • Ullage Washing is Displacing Most of the Air in the Fuel Tank Ullage with Nitrogen or NEA • Fuel Scrubbing is a Process by Which most of the Oxygen Dissolved in Fuel is Replaced with Nitrogen SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

5. Ground Rules • Cost to Implement in 3 Years and Inert for 10 Years • Consider only Transport Category Airplanes Carrying Greater than 19 Passengers • System Must be Able to Inert Aircraft in Normal Turn-Around Time • Determine all Recurring and Nonrecurring Costs to Airports and Operators but Do Not Consider the Cost of Aircraft Modifications • Calculate the Cost of Inerting All Relevant Depatures and HCWT Departures Only, Do Not Consider the Cost of Fuel Scrubbing HCWT Only SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

6. Methods • Examine Departure and Refueling Data for Sample Airports to Determine the Volume of Nitrogen Required • Size System(s) and Determine Ullage Washing and Fuel Scrubbing Architecture for Study Airports • Determine Recurring Nitrogen Volume Cost, Annual Labor and Maintenance Cost • Determine Nonrecurring Cost of Engineering/Architecture, System Installation, Ancillary Equipment and Facility Modification for the Study Airports • Use Nonrecurring Costs, and Recurring Costs Based on Departure Averages to Determine Total Industry Cost (2000 Dollars) SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

7. Approximate Nitrogen Requirements • Determine Average Amount of Fuel Serviced for Study Airport Departures on a Busy Day/Hour for 3 Categories of Aircraft (Wide-Body, Single Aisle, and Commuter) • Determine Average Amount of Ullage Remaining for Study Airports Departures on a Busy Day/ Hour for Same 3 Categories of Aircraft • Determine Nitrogen Required Based on Fuel Serviced and Ullage Remaining Averages • Apply Averages and Traffic Forecasts to Predicted ATL and ACY Departures for 2012 Busy Day/Hour Extrapolation to Determine the Amount of Nitrogen Required for Study Airports SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

8. Basic Architecture • Ullage Washing • Use Nitrogen Requirements to Specify a Nitrogen Generator for Each Concourse • Nitrogen Generator would Charge an Accumulator • Accumulator Plumbed Throughout Concourse Using PVC pipe. Flexible Pipe Carries Nitrogen to Each Gate Loading Area Through Festoons Where Nitrogen is Dispersed to Aircraft Parked at Each Gate via a Hose Reel with a Metering Unit SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

9. Basic Architecture • Fuel Scrubbing • Large Airport would Have Nitrogen Generator and Fuel Scrubber at Fuel Farm • Fuel would be Scrubbed Before it was Pumped into the Airports Main Hydrant System • Small Airports would use Portable Fuel Scrubber Units (with Nitrogen Generators) in Tow with Existing Fuel Trucks • Fuel Would be Pumped from Truck to Scrubber, then from Scrubber to Aircraft SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

10. Non-Recurring Costs • Each Architecture Spawned a List of Materials and Work Which was then Bid by Airport Contractors/Engineers • Considered the Cost of Architecture and Engineering, Plumbing/Electrical/Mechanical Installation and Nitrogen Generation System Installation SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

11. Airport Non-Recurring Costs • Large Airport (ATL) • Engineering / Architecture - $250,000 • Facility Modification - $5,796,679 • Commuter Concourse Mods - $2,065,432 • Fuel Farm Modification - $165,575 • System Installation - $1,025,000 SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

12. Small Airport Non-Recurring Costs • Small Airport (ACY) • Engineering / Architecture - $25,000 • Facility Modification - $90,859 • Fuel Truck Modification - $155,000 • System Installation - $76,683 SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

13. Recurring Costs • Each Nitrogen Generation System Sized has a Cost / Unit Volume Associated with the Lease • Used Estimated Operation Costs Based on Operator/Vendor Input • Also Consider the Cost of System Maintenance SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

14. Large Airport Recurring Costs • Washing Nitrogen - $.10 / 100 ft3 • Scrubbing Nitrogen - $.24 / 100 ft3 • Washing Labor - $2.23 / Departure SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

15. Small Airport Recurring Costs • Washing Nitrogen - $.47 / 100 ft3 • Scrubbing Nitrogen - $.22 / 100 ft3 • Washing Labor - $20.00 / Departure SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

16. HCWT Recurring Costs SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

17. Industry Extrapolation • Non-Recurring Costs Simply Multiplied by the Number of Respective Airports that Meet Study Requirements • Recurring Costs Developed with the per Departure Values Developed from ATL and ACY Multiplied by Forecasted Industry Departure Data Modified to Meet Study SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

18. Industry Extrapolation Assumptions • ATA Publishes 418 Primary US Airports • Assume 400 Operate Aircraft > 19 Seats • FAA APO Forecast Data in Terms of “Commercial Air” and “Commuter and Air Taxi” Movements • Divide Movements by 2 to Get Departures • Assume 20% AT and Comm are < 19 Seats • DOT T3 Schedule Data for 1998 Review for Relevant Departure Percentages SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

19. Estimated Departure Data SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

20. Calculated Relevant Percentages SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

21. Industry Recurring Nitrogen Costs • Used Calculated Percentages to Split Departures into Wide-Body, Single Aisle, and Commuter for Big Airports and Small Airports • Multiplied these Numbers by the Appropriate Average Nitrogen Volume per Departure Calculated at ATL and ACY for Both Total Departures and HCWT Departures Only • Nitrogen Volumes were then Multiplied by the Appropriate Volume Cost from ATL and ACY SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

22. Industry Recurring Nitrogen Cost Totals SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

23. Labor Costs SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

24. Industry Nonrecurring Costs • Assume 50 Airports Large, 350 Small • Multiply ATL Nonrecurring Costs by 50 and ACY Nonrecurring Costs by 350 SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

25. Industry Cost Summary SAE Advances in Aviation Safety

26. Conclusions and Recommendations • GBI Offers a Significant Cost Advantage over Traditional Fuel Tank Inerting Because of the Minimal Impact on Operational Costs • 1.6 Billion for Complete GBI, All Departures (Approximately 40% of ARAC Estimated Cost) • 800 Million for HCWT Ullage Washing Only • More Information is needed on Fuel Scrubbing and Small Airport Operations to Reduce the Uncertainty of the Cost Numbers SAE Advances in Aviation Safety