EPA update

Well, I did hear back from the EPA concerning a local GA airport's efforts
to get an exemption from regulations concerning fuel storage. You see,
one of my most annoying local airports sits atop an important aquifer that
supplies the whole region with groundwater. The local FBO's (who control
the airport board) want a certain regulation concerning fuel storage
voided so that they don't have to pay the cost of constructing a storage
area (and probably because they want to put hangars there, to generate
more profit).

Anyway, the EPA was already on to it. Their response was encouraging.
Here it is (with some minor blackouts -- don't want the poor EPA person to
receive threats from some of the whacko pilots, you know, so I blacked out
a few words...)


"skylune" (my real name was on the letter:

Thank you for the e-mail on August 3rd concerning xxx Airways, a
Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at the municipal airport in xxxxxxxxxxx. The
regulations that xxxxx referred to are the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulations, which are a part of the Clean Water
Act. Specifically, the regulations require the FBO to provide
secondary containment around their fuel trucks at night under their
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan.

EPA-New England's Regional Administrator had recently received a letter
from Senator Judd Gregg, wherein he forwarded two form letters from
members of the aircraft refueling industry in New Hampshire. xxxxx
had sent one of those letters to Senator Gregg. Similar form letters
had been received at EPA headquarters in Washington DC from aircraft
refueling companies around the country.

This industry is taking exception to EPA's publication, in July of 2002,
of revised SPCC regulations. In the preamble to the regulations, EPA
re-stated its position that airport refueler trucks have always been
considered "mobile and portable tanks" under the SPCC regulations.
The refueling industry has disputed this since the regulations became
effective in 1974, and the debate was re-ignited.

You are correct to be concerned about fuel spills contaminating the
xxxxx aquifer, the main source of drinking water in the xxxxx
area. Such fuel spills, whether from fixed bulk storage tanks, or fuel
trucks left full of product overnight, have the same devastating effect
on groundwater quality. Rest assured that the EPA-New England region
is inspecting airports for SPCC compliance, and enforcing the
regulations at FBO's.
xxxxxx
Regional Spill-SPCC Enforcement Coordinator
xxxxx
xxxxx.gov


Nice job Senator. But I wrote that Senator at the same time, as well as
my other US Senator, Congressman, and state reps urging them to NOT relax
any EPA regulations for the financial benefit of the FBOs.

Has there ever been a case of a non-trivial fuel spill from an airport
refueler truck? Ever?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I don't know.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wet the bed, took a bite of
skunk cabbage and gloated:

Well, I did hear back from the EPA concerning a local GA airport's efforts
to get an exemption from regulations concerning fuel storage. You see,
one of my most annoying local airports sits atop an important aquifer that
supplies the whole region with groundwater. The local FBO's (who control
the airport board) want a certain regulation concerning fuel storage
voided so that they don't have to pay the cost of constructing a storage
area (and probably because they want to put hangars there, to generate
more profit).

Anyway, the EPA was already on to it. Their response was encouraging.
Here it is (with some minor blackouts -- don't want the poor EPA person to
receive threats from some of the whacko pilots, you know, so I blacked out
a few words...)

(snip)

Nice job Senator. But I wrote that Senator at the same time, as well as
my other US Senator, Congressman, and state reps urging them to NOT relax
any EPA regulations for the financial benefit of the FBOs.

Now, all they have to do is put some retroactive birth control pill into
"Skylune's" water supply! This guy is a real horse's ass!

How freaking stupid.
Let the FBO sale the fuel. Even if the truck accidentally dumped the whole
truck it wouldn't hurt the ground water.
I would be more worried about someone's septic tank.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Well, I did hear back from the EPA concerning a local GA airport's efforts
to get an exemption from regulations concerning fuel storage. You see,
one of my most annoying local airports sits atop an important aquifer that
supplies the whole region with groundwater. The local FBO's (who control
the airport board) want a certain regulation concerning fuel storage
voided so that they don't have to pay the cost of constructing a storage
area (and probably because they want to put hangars there, to generate
more profit).

Anyway, the EPA was already on to it. Their response was encouraging.
Here it is (with some minor blackouts -- don't want the poor EPA person to
receive threats from some of the whacko pilots, you know, so I blacked out
a few words...)


"skylune" (my real name was on the letter:

Thank you for the e-mail on August 3rd concerning xxx Airways, a
Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at the municipal airport in xxxxxxxxxxx. The
regulations that xxxxx referred to are the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulations, which are a part of the Clean Water
Act. Specifically, the regulations require the FBO to provide
secondary containment around their fuel trucks at night under their
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan.

EPA-New England's Regional Administrator had recently received a letter
from Senator Judd Gregg, wherein he forwarded two form letters from
members of the aircraft refueling industry in New Hampshire. xxxxx
had sent one of those letters to Senator Gregg. Similar form letters
had been received at EPA headquarters in Washington DC from aircraft
refueling companies around the country.

This industry is taking exception to EPA's publication, in July of 2002,
of revised SPCC regulations. In the preamble to the regulations, EPA
re-stated its position that airport refueler trucks have always been
considered "mobile and portable tanks" under the SPCC regulations.
The refueling industry has disputed this since the regulations became
effective in 1974, and the debate was re-ignited.

You are correct to be concerned about fuel spills contaminating the
xxxxx aquifer, the main source of drinking water in the xxxxx
area. Such fuel spills, whether from fixed bulk storage tanks, or fuel
trucks left full of product overnight, have the same devastating effect
on groundwater quality. Rest assured that the EPA-New England region
is inspecting airports for SPCC compliance, and enforcing the
regulations at FBO's.
xxxxxx
Regional Spill-SPCC Enforcement Coordinator
xxxxx
xxxxx.gov


Nice job Senator. But I wrote that Senator at the same time, as well as
my other US Senator, Congressman, and state reps urging them to NOT relax
any EPA regulations for the financial benefit of the FBOs.

Buried home heating oil tanks are the environmental time bomb. In
theory, the stuff in the septic tank is biodegradable.

"Aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
How freaking stupid.
Let the FBO sale the fuel. Even if the truck accidentally dumped the
whole truck it wouldn't hurt the ground water.
I would be more worried about someone's septic tank.

Has there ever been a case of a non-trivial fuel spill from an airport refueler truck? Ever?
I don't know.

The answer is no. There has never been such a spill. Ever.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Has there ever been a case of a non-trivial fuel spill from an airport
refueler truck? Ever?

Jose
--

And why would the truck require secondary containment when "parked
overnight" but not when parked during the day or while moving? Why don't
aircraft (some of which can hold more than the fuel truck) require secondary
containment?

Mike
MU-2

This has nothing to do with fuel storage. It is simply another jab at
aviation.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

You see, one of my most annoying local airports .................

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
I don't know.


He has stated that he doesn't care. He's simply trying do anything to
increase the cost of aviation for everyone because some guy flies his mooney
too low.