: aerial replacement funding - pbtechpbtech.org/clients/stalbert/attch/stalbertcc... · approval...

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Subject: AERIAL REPLACEMENT FUNDING Recommendation(s) 1. That Council Motion C37-2015 be rescinded. 2. That Administration be authorized to replace the aerial fire truck with a project

cost of $1,468,000 (CN) with the replacement project being funded from the following sources:

1. $297,000 being drawn from the Equipment Replacement Fund Reserve; and

2. $1,171,000 from the Stabilization Reserve.

3. That all funds from the sale of the current aerial unit will be returned to the Stabilization Reserve.

Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval on the funding to replace the aerial fire truck, as noted in Council motion (C37-2015). Second, this report provides additional information regarding the tender and the cost benefit analysis of a new or used aerial unit as noted in Council motion (C255-2015). Council Direction On May 19, 2015 Council passed the following motion:

(C255-2015) “That the matter “Aerial Fire Truck Replacement Funding” be postponed pending the receipt of the analysis of the submitted bids and a response from Edmonton concerning the cost or potential to purchase or lease on of their aerial fire trucks.”

On February 2, 2015 Council passed the following motion:

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

(C37-2015) That Administration be authorized to replace the aerial fire truck with an estimated project cost of $1,470,000 with the replacement project being funded from the following sources; 1. $500,000 in estimated Trade-in value; 2. $297,000 being drawn from the Equipment Mobile Replacement Reserve; 3. Up to $700,000 from the Stabilization Fund

Background and Discussion On May 19, 2015, Council passed motion (C255-2015) postponed the funding approval until additional information was received, including the tender evaluation data. On February 2, 2015, Council’s motion (C37-2015) approved the funding strategy for the replacement aerial unit. The tender for the unit closed April 22, 2015 and the City received two compliant bids. On December 15, 2014, Council’s motion (C572-2014) approved the replacement of the current aerial fire truck up to $900,000 and that Administration was to prepare a funding strategy for Council’s approval by January 31, 2015. In Canada, municipal fire departments are graded by the Fire Underwriters on a regular basis (Attachment 4: City of St. Albert report dated November 5th, 2010). The grading system is used to determine the fire risk level within a community and provides two different grades with each community assessment. The 2010 report states the Fire Services grade for small building fires is at the highest numeric number of one (Dwelling Protection Classification – Grade 1). The Public Fire Protection Classification (PFPC) for St Albert, on a scale of 1 to 10, with one being the highest grade, is Grade 4. This PFPC grade evaluates the ability of the fire protection programs to prevent and control major fires in multi- family residential, commercial and industrial buildings. Both grading scores take into consideration staffing levels, fire apparatus, training, fire prevention activities and fire protection water. This Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) report helps to validate the fire departments ability to handle different fire risks according to their severity based upon the building complexity (single family dwelling versus a four-storey multi-family residence). As well, the survey data is used to determine fire insurance rates within the community. In many respects, fire departments have been referred to as insurance programs, as the more capable and reliable the fire department becomes, the lower the community fire risk. Meeting additional FUS survey elements will essentially demonstrate that the community has a lower fire risk. It has been suggested that St. Albert could improve its PFPC grade of 4 by enhancing its fire prevention programs (City has added additional fire prevention staff since 2010 report was issued) and by providing additional front line and

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

backup/reserve fire apparatus. As an example, Table 1 shows how other Mid-Size communities like St. Albert, have two aerial units and the date when the second unit went into front line service.

Table 1 No. of Aerial Units

Population – Second Aerial in Service

Year Second Unit In-Service

Airdrie 2 38,822 2010 Grand Prairie 2 35,962 2000 Lethbridge 2 64,938 1995 Medicine Hat 2 42,000 1989 Red Deer 2 54,309 1987 St. Albert 1 63,255 N/A The photo below clearly demonstrates the importance of having an elevated fire water flow to effectively combat a multi-storey building. This four-storey, 106 unit condominium fire in Edmonton (May 22th, 2015) caused a $16.3 million fire loss displacing more than 200 people. The lower left hand corner of the photo shows just how ineffective the ground level water streams are when combating a fire that has spread into the attic and roof sections.

Photo copyright owned by Sun Media, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

The map below shows the density of buildings that would require an aerial unit in the event of a fire in these properties. St. Albert has over 150 such properties and

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

a several more under construction or being planned. The darker red indicates an increased density of buildings.

FUS also have a grading process to evaluate the age of fire apparatus to determine how many years fire apparatus should remain in service as front line units and as second line unit or used only as a reserve/backup unit (see Attachment 3). For the FUS grading purposes no credit is given to fire apparatus beyond 15 years in age regardless of the size of the community. In medium sized cities fire apparatus 16-20 years old can receive credit only if in second line (can not be used as front line response units). The FUS do not give any credit fire apparatus that is more then 20 years old. Most municipalities have 20 year life cycle programs for fire apparatus with the first 15 years of operational use as a front line unit and the remaining five years as a mechanical back up role. Given this data, this is the primary reason why used fire apparatus beyond 15 years of age would not be a viable option for St. Albert, as the aerial is required as a front line optional unit. A brief explanation of the components of an aerial unit is important for the reader to understand the basic functions which in turn drive the cost of the unit whether it is new or used equipment. The major components include: power train (engine & transmission), 100 foot aerial c/w platform, and a water fire pump. Many of the used aerial units on the market, for example, do not have a fire pump which work well in large departments with high staffing levels and multiple number of fire apparatus, but would be impossible to staff given our current staffing levels. In addition, many of the 10-15 year old used equipment have only 55 – 85 foot aerial reach; which is a significant concern given the existing need within St. Albert. We know that we have many 4 and 5 storey structures within St. Albert and we know that future buildings will exceed this building height as the city continues to grow and develop.

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

The below photos of the four used aerials demonstrate the type of used units on the market from the United States brokers. Staff has looked at over 70 different used units from five different re-sellers, two Canadian and three American sites. Those more than five years old have been discounted, as have those with no fire pumps and any aerial with a platform ladder that is less then 95’ reach. Comparison of four used aerial units:

2001 Ferrara Inferno 100’ – No fire pump -

$129,000 USD 2009 Rosenbauer 105’ – No fire pump -

$495,000 USD

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

2009 E-One – 100’ No fire pump - $500,000

USD 2005 E-One Bronto – 114’ $500,000

USD The second reason for not purchasing a used aerial relates to the cost benefit analysis of a used unit 15 years of age versus a new unit. The capital cost associated with purchasing a 15 year old used aerial unit every five years coupled with the operating cost of units nearing the end of their life-cycle exceeds the same combined expense for a new aerial unit over its 20 year life cycle. The purchase of a used unit comes with many hidden expenses and these costs need to be included in the purchase price of a used unit. The used vehicle expense increases even more when importing a fire unit from the United States. There are additional expenses when non-Canadian used units are purchased, including; exchange rate, freight, cold weather upgrade, testing of fire pump, switch-out of pump operation gauges and testing, pump threads changed to meet the Alberta Standard, and the addition of emergency lights to satisfy current safety standards. In total, these additional expenses translate into surcharge to the advertised selling price of approximately $200,000. It is important to remember that a used 15 – 20 year old aerial units are very difficult to sell and have very low residual market value once they have reached 20 years of service. Table 2 shows the capital costing of four used, 10 year old aerials plus the additional maintenance expense for the last five years of front line duty. The information clearly shows the purchase of a new vehicle remains the most cost effective approach rather than 10 year old used units over the same period of time.

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

Table 2 Unit Type

Purchase Price

Purchasing 10 year old

units

New Unit - Purchase Price of

1,458,000

2015

Used 2000 100'

Platform $ 550,000 Life Cycle Expenses Plus

Purchase Price $ 701,955 Residual value -$ 100,000

2020

Used 2005 100'



2025

Used 2010 100'



2030

Used 2015 100'


Purchase Price $ 1,067,586 $ 1,860,819 Residual value -$ 145,000 -$ 145,000

Total Cost of Unit Over 15 Year Life Cycle (Front Line) $ 3,015,124 1,715,819 Fire apparatus replacement guidelines can be determined using the economical theory of optimal vehicle replacement, which is demonstrated in Chart 1. As a fire apparatus ages, its capital cost diminishes and its operating costs (maintenance, repair, and fuel) increase. The combination of these two costs, capital and operating, produces a U-shaped combined cost curve that reflects the total cost of ownership of the asset. Ideally, a fire apparatus should be replaced around the time the rise in annual costs begins to outweigh the decline in annual capital costs. On Chart 1, this is when the two cost curves intersect (intersection of the green and blue lines) and the total cost of ownership begins to increase. For aerial units this intersecting point is in the 10 – 15 year range. There are other costs, some more easily measured than others, which are also impacted by the organization’s replacement cycle decisions. Some of these include unmanageable repair costs, increase vehicle downtime which impacts response capability, reduced employee safety, reduced public safety, reliability, functionality and higher greenhouse emissions.

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

When vehicle replacement cycles are not followed there may be two events that follow. First the costs are transferred from the capital budget to the operating budget. Second, such referral may increase overall fleet costs. CHART 1

Most municipalities have fleet replacement management plans that fund the replacement of all their fire apparatus. These plans are closely adhered to and this assures the funds are available when vehicles are due for life cycle replacement. The normal process is for fire apparatus to be disposed through public sale or auction. Since the fire apparatus are at the end of their life cycle, the units have a very low residue dollar value and rarely can be certified for operational use, let alone front line use. Given the current processes municipalities are not in the business of leasing or selling their used fire units outside of these processes and the only units they would have would be their oldest and least desired units. Chart 2 shows the number of response incidents for the current aerial unit, as compared to the other front line fire engines. The data is for the period January 1, 2015 to May 24, 2015; as January was the date that the aerial was returned to service following lengthy period of major repairs.

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

Chart 3 shows only the fire response for each front line unit during this same period of time.

A lease option has been included in this report and shows that an aerial unit lease cost of $150,000 over 15 years. The lease was based on $900,000 down payment and leasing amount of $550,000. The leasing option is not very common for municipalities, as cities have access to much lower financing rate than private vendors. Down Payment Finance Amt(15 yrs) 10 Payments @ $70,000 Leasing Cost

$900,000 $550,000 $700,000 $150,000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Engine 1 Engine 2 Engine 3 Rescue 1 Aerial

Num

ber o

f Cal

ls

CHART 2: Vehicle Responses - All Emergency Calls Jan 01 - May 24, 2015

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Engine 1 Engine 2 Engine 3 Rescue Aerial

Num

ber o

f Fire

Res

pons

es

CHART 3: Fire Responses by Unit Jan 01 - May 24, 2015

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

Various funding options have been reviewed with Finance and after careful consideration the most appropriate funding source remains. The recommendation is to fund this new aerial fire truck replacement from the Stabilization Reserve. As noted in the December 15th Agenda Report, there is approximately $297,500 in the Equipment Replacement Fund Reserve for this unit replacement. Other funding options were reviewed, however, they were deemed less appropriate given the current situation. The confidential attachment (Attachment 2) of the Aerial Unit RFP shows the detail and analysis used to arrive at Administration’s decision regarding this process. The tender for the replacement aerial unit closed April 22, 2015 and the City received two compliant bids. The recommendation is contained within the confidential attachment. Stakeholder Communications or Engagement

N/A Implications of Recommendation(s) a) Financial:

• The Stabilization Reserve has sufficient funds to cover this expense. The balance as of March 31 is as follows:

Reserve balance: $3,767,482.83 Less: Committed Projects - $1,385,000 Available Balance - $2,382,482.83

b) Legal / Risk:

• None at this time

c) Program or Service: • The funding recommendations, if accepted, would ensure that the

current service levels would be maintained. d) Organizational:

• There are no foreseeable impacts resulting from the recommendations

Alternatives and Implications Considered If Council does not wish to support the recommendation, the following alternatives could be considered:

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

a) Alternative 1. Utilize the Equipment Replacement Fund Reserve: not recommended as this would seriously deplete the reserve, resulting in significant shortfall for the next several years.

b) Alternative 2: Purchase a used unit that meets Insurance Underwriters municipal grading purposes: not recommended as a used aerial would have a greater total financial impact then a new unit.

c) Alternative 3: Lease a new aerial unit: not recommended as the financial impact would be greater then if the City purchased the unit outright.

Strategic Connections a) Council’s Strategic Outcomes and Priorities (See Policy C-CG-02)

• CULTIVATE EXCELLENCE IN GOVERNMENT: A responsive, accountable government that delivers value to the community.

• The aerial unit ensures the current service delivery level is being met, and without a similar unit, service is impacted.

• CULTIVATE A SAFE, HEALTHY AND INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY: A community that provides opportunities for everyone to realize their potential in a thinking, caring and connected way.

• This aerial unit provides the necessary fire protection for large buildings from a fire suppression and rescue perspective, thereby helping to ensure our community is safe from the threat of fire.

b) Long Term Plans (e.g. MDP, Social Master Plan, Cultural Master Plan, etc.)

• The Fire Services Long Range Plan speaks to the fleet replacement plan and maintaining the quantity of apparatus and replacement cycles to meet industry service standards.

c) Corporate Objectives (See Corporate Business Plan) • Deliver programs and services that meet or exceed our standards

programs and services that meet or exceed our standards o Replacement of this unit will ensure the service standard is being met and

therefore not negatively impacting the City’s fire insurance rating. • Exercise strong fiscal management

o Every effort will be made to ensure the City can leverage the best financial terms with the new vendor.

• Ensure our customers are very satisfied o Customer satisfaction will be difficult to meet if the unit is not replaced, as

there would be an increase potential for larger fire losses. d) Council Policies

N/A

e) Other Plans or Initiatives (Business Plans, Implementation Strategies, etc.) • 2015- 2017 Fire Services Action Plan

City Council Agenda

July 13, 2015 / File No.:411-5

Attachment(s)

1. Confidential Administrative Report 2. Confidential Evaluation Report 3. Insurance Grading Recognition of Used or Rebuilt Fire Apparatus 4. Confidential Fire Underwriters Survey – City of St. Albert

Originating Department(s): Fire Services Author(s): General Manager Approval:

Ray Richards, Fire Chief Chris Jardine, GM, CPS

City Manager Signature:

Date:

Fill UflDCRUJRITCRJ JURYiY A SERVICE TO INSURERS AND MUNICIPALITIES

c/o SCM Risk Management Services

Insurance Grading Recognition of Used or Rebuilt Fire Apparatus

The performance ability and overall acceptability of older apparatus has been debated between municipal administrations, the public fire service and many others for years. Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) has reviewed experiences across Canada and in other countries and has developed a standard for acceptance of apparatus as the apparatus becomes less reliable with age and use.

The public fire service is unique compared to other emergency services in that fire apparatus vehicles are not continuously in use. However, when in use, the apparatus is subject to considerable mechanical stress due to the nature of its function. This stress does not normally manifest itself on the exterior of the equipment. It is effectively masked in most departments by a higher standard of aesthetic care and maintenance. Lack of replacement parts further complicates long term use of apparatus. Truck and pump manufacturers maintain a parts inventory for each model year for a finite time. After that period, obtaining necessary parts may be difficult. This parts shortage is particularly acute with fire apparatus due to the narrow market for these devices.

Fire Underwriters Survey lengthy experience in evaluating fire apparatus indicates that apparatus should be designed to an acceptable standard. The standard that is accepted throughout Canada by Fire Underwriters Survey is the Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada (ULC) Standard S515 (most updated version) titled, "Automobile Fire Fighting Apparatus," which was adopted as a National Standard of Canada in September 2004. Alternatively, NFPA 1901, the Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus (most updated version) is also accepted by Fire Underwriters Survey with respect to apparatus design. Fire apparatus should be built by recognized manufacturers and tested by a suitably accredited third party.

Fire apparatus should respond to first alarms for the first fifteen years of service. During this period it has reasonably been shown that apparatus effectively responds and performs as designed without failure at least 95% of the time. For the next five years, it should be held in reserve status for use at major fires or used as a temporary replacement for out-of-service first line apparatus. Apparatus should be retired from service at twenty years of age. Present practice indicates the recommended service periods and protocols are usually followed by the first purchaser. However, at the end of that period, the apparatus is either traded in on new apparatus or sold to another fire department. At this juncture, the unit may have one or more faults which preclude effective use for emergency service. These deficiencies include:

a. Inadequate braking system b. Slow pick-up and acceleration c. Structurally weakened chassis due to constant load bearing and/or overloading d. Pump wear

w

$$2

ISO 9001 Registered

Attachment 3

Insurance Grading Recognition of Used or Rebuilt Fire Ayyaratus Page 2 of 6

FUS has modified its application of the age requirement for used or rebuilt apparatus. Due to municipal budget constraints within small communities we have continued to recognize apparatus over twenty years of age, provided the truck successfully meets the recommended annual tests and has been deemed to be in excellent mechanical condition. The specified service tests are outlined below under the heading "Recommended Service Tests for Used or Modified Fire Apparatus". Testing and apparatus maintenance should only be completed by a technician who is certified to an appropriate level in accordance with NFPA 1071, Standard for Emergency Vehicle Technician Professional Qualifications.

Insurance grading recognition may be extended for a limited period of time if we receive documentation verifying that the apparatus has successfully passed the specified tests. If the apparatus does not pass the required tests or experiences long periods of "downtime" we may request the municipal authority to replace the equipment with new or newer apparatus. If replacement does not occur, fire insurance grading recognition may be revoked for the specific apparatus which may adversely affect the fire insurance grades of the community. This can also affect the rates of insurance for property owners throughout the community.

Table 1 Service Schedule for Fire Apparatus For Fire Insurance Grading Purposes

Apparatus Age Major Cities3

Medium Sized Cities 4 or Communities Where Risk is

Significant Small Communities 5

and Rural Centres 0-15 Years First Line First Line First Line 16 - 20 Years Reserve 2nd Line First Line 20 - 25 Years 1 No Credit in

Grading No Credit in Grading or Reserve2

No Credit in Grading or 2nd Line2 • 1

26 - 29 Years1 No Credit in Grading

No Credit in Grading or Reserve 2

No Credit in Grading or \ Reserve 2

30 Years + No Credit in Grading

No Credit in Grading No Credit in Grading

1 All listed fire apparatus 20 years of age and older are required to be service tested by recognized testing agency on an annual basis to be eligible for grading recognition. (NFPA 1071) 2 Exceptions to age status may be considered in a small to medium sized communities and rural centres conditionally, when apparatus condition is acceptable and apparatus successfully passes required testing. 3 Major Cities are defined as an incorporated or unincorporated community that has:

• a populated area (or multiple areas) with a density of at least 400 people per square kilometre; AND • a total population of 100,000 or greater.

" Medium Communities are defined as an incorporated or unincorporated community that has: • a populated area (or multiple areas) with a density of at least 200 people per square kilometre; AND/OR • a total population of 1,000 or greater.

5 Small Communities are defined as an incorporated or unincorporated community that has: • no populated areas with densities that exceed 200 people per square kilometre; AND • does not have a total population in excess of 1,000.

Services Provided by SCM Risk Management Services ISO 9001 Registered

Insurance Grading Recognition of Used or Rebuilt Fire Apparatus Page 3 of 6

Table 2 Frequency of Listed Fire Apparatus Acceptance and Service Tests Frequency of Test

@ Time of Purchase

New or Used Annual Basis @ 15 Years @ 20 Years

See Note 4

20 to 25 Years

(annually)

After Extensive Repairs

See Note 5 Recommended For Fire Insurance

Acceptance Test if new;

Acceptance or Service

Purposes Service Test if used & < 20 Years

Service Test Acceptance

Test Acceptance

Test Acceptance

Test Test i

depending on extent of :

repair ; Reauired For Fire Insurance Purposes

Acceptance Test if new; Service Test if used & < 20 Years

No Test Required

No Test Required

Acceptance Test

Acceptance Test

Acceptance or Service |

Test depending on

extent of ! repair

Factor in FUS Grading Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Required By Listing Agency

Acceptance Test

No No No N/A Acceptance

Test Required By NFPA See Note 6

Acceptance Test

Annual Service Test

Annual Service Test

Annual Service Test

Annual Service Test Service Test

Note 1: See: 'Service Tests for Used or Rebuilt Fire Apparatus' for description of applicable tests Note 2: Acceptance Tests consist of 60 minute capacity and 30 minute pressure tests Note 3: Service Tests consist of 20 minute capacity test and 10 minute pressure test in addition to other listed tests Note 4: Apparatus exceeding 20 years of age may not be considered to be eligible for insurance grading purposes regardless of testing. Application must be made in writing to Fire Underwriters Survey for an extension of the grade-able life of the apparatus. Note 5: Testing after extensive repairs should occur regardless of apparatus age within reason. Note 6: Acceptance Tests: See NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus

Service Tests: See NFPA 1911, Standard for Service Tests of Fire Pump Systems on Fire Apparatus, Article 5.1


db Insurance Grading Recognition of Used or Rebuilt Fire Apparatus Page 4 of 6

SERVICE TESTS FOR USED OR MODIFIED FIRE APPARATUS

The intent of this document is to ensure that all used or modified fire apparatus, equipped with a pump or used for tanker service, essentially meet the requirements of Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada (ULC) "Standard for Automobile Fire Fighting Apparatus" S515-04 or subsequent (current) editions of the Standard. Full adherence with the following specified tests is recommended when purchasing used apparatus.

1.) Weight Tests

1.1) Load Balance Test:

When fully laden (including a 460kg (1000 lbs) personnel weight, full fuel and water tanks, specified load of hose and miscellaneous equipment), the vehicle shall have a load balance of 22% to 50% of total vehicle mass on the front axle and 50% to 78% of this mass on the rear axle.

Distribution of mass of 33% and 67% respectively on the front and rear axles is preferable for a vehicle having dual rear tires or tandem rear axels.

For a vehicle having tandem rear axels and dual tires on each axle, a loading of between 18% and 25% on the front axle with the balance of mass on the rear axles is permissible.

2.) Road Tests

2.1) Acceleration Tests:

2.1.1) From a standing start, the apparatus shall attain a true speed of 55 km/h (35 mph) within 25 seconds for Pumpers carrying up to 3,150 litres (700 gallons) of water.

For apparatus carrying in excess of 3,150 litres (700 gallons) or apparatus equipped with aerial ladders or elevating platforms, a true speed of 55 km/h (35 mph) in 30 seconds should be attained.

2.1.2) The vehicle should attain a top speed of at least 80 km/h (50mph).

2.2) Braking Test:

The service brakes shall be capable of bringing the fully laden apparatus to a complete stop from an initial speed of 30 km/h (20 mph) in a distance not exceeding 9 metres (30 feet) by actual measurement. The test should be conducted on a dry, hard surfaced road that is free of loose material, oil and grease.


Insurance Grading Recognition of Used or Rebuilt Fire Apparatus Page 5 of 6

3.) Pump Performance Tests

3.1) Hydrostatic Test

Recent evidence of hydrostatic testing of the pump for 10 minutes at a minimum pressure of 3,400 kPa (500 psi). APPLICABLE TO NEW OR REBUILT PUMPS ONLY (see 3.3).

3.2) Priming and Suction Capability Tests

3.2.1.) Vacuum Test:

The pump priming device, with a capped suction at least 6 metres (20 feet) long, shall develop -75 kPa (22 inches of mercury) at altitudes up to 300 metres (1000 feet) and hold the vacuum with a drop of not in excess of 34 kPa (10 inches of mercury) in 10 minutes.

For every 300 metres (1000 feet) of elevation, the required vacuum shall be reduced 3.4 kPa (1 inch mercury).

The primer shall not be used after the 10-minute test period has been started. The test shall be made with discharge outlets uncapped.

3.2.2.) Suction Capability Test:

The pump (in parallel or series) when dry, shall be capable of taking suction and discharging water with a lift of not more than 3 metres (10 feet) through 6 metres (20 feet) of suction hose of appropriate size, in not more than 30 seconds and not over 45 seconds for 6000 L/min (1320 Igpm) or larger capacity pumps. Where front or rear suction is provided on midship pumps, an additional 10 seconds priming time will be allowed. The test shall be conducted with all discharge caps removed.

3.3) Pump Performance

3.3.1.) Capacity Test:

Consists of drafting water (preferably with a 10 feet lift) and pumping the rated capacity at 1000 kPa (150 psi) net pump pressure for a continuous period of at least 1 hour.

3.3.2.) Pressure Test:

Under the same conditions as in 3.3.1 above pumping 50% of the rated capacity at 1700 kPa (250 psi) net pump pressure for at least Zi hour


Insurance Grading Recognition of Used or Rebuilt Fire Ayyaratus Page 6 of 6

For additional information on the above noted tests and test procedures, the following documents provide useful data:

o Underwriters Laboratories of Canada (ULC) publication titled S515 Standard for Automobile Fire Fighting Apparatus, latest edition.

o Fire Underwriters Survey (FUS) publication titled Fire Stream Tables and Testing Data latest edition.

o International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA) publication titled Fire Department Pumping Apparatus, latest edition.

o National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1901 Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, latest edition.

o National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1911 Standard for the Inspection, Maintenance, Testing, and Retirement of In-Service Automotive Fire Apparatus, latest edition.

o National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1912 Standard for Fire Apparatus Refurbishing, 2006 Edition

For further information regarding the acceptability of emergency apparatus for fire insurance grading purposes, please contact:

Western Canada Quebec Ontario Atlantic Canada Risk Management Services Fire Underwriters Survey 3999 Henning Drive Burnaby, BC V5C 6P9

1-800-665-5661

Risk Management Services Fire Underwriters Survey 1611 Cremazie Blvd. East Montreal, Quebec H2M 2P2

1-800-263-5361

Risk Management Services Fire Underwriters Survey 150 Commerce Valley Drive, West Markham, Ontario L3T 7Z3

1-800- 268-8080

Risk Management Services Fire Underwriters Survey 238 Brownlow Avenue, Suite 300 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B3B 1Y2

1-800-639-4528


: aerial replacement funding - pbtechpbtech.org/clients/stalbert/attch/stalbertcc... · approval...

Documents