No, Sir, They Don't Like It

From NATA:

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met with key industry groups, including NATA, to discuss several outstanding Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule issues. Among them was recent inspections within Region V of mobile refueler operations at airports. In October, an NATA member-company received a letter from EPA Region V requiring containment for mobile refuelers parked at the end of the day, a judgment that EPA headquarters had approved that runs contrary to what EPA officials had told industry leaders.

The EPA and industry disagree on whether mobile refuelers are covered by this extension because the agency's interpretation is that mobile refuelers have always been covered under the "old" rule and, therefore, are not eligible for these extensions. The EPA has verbally recognized that clarification of these rules as they apply to mobile refuelers must be made. However, the letter sent by Region V clearly demonstrates the EPA does not actually intend to clarify or revise its position on applicability of the rule to parked mobile refuelers.

The agency, while realizing the difference in opinions over the applicability of the SPCC regulation, maintains that when a fuel truck is "parked at the end of the day" it is subject to the original 1974 regulation, requiring secondary containment. The EPA, while acknowledging that this is not practicable, also stated that whether containment is necessary for the daily operation of these trucks remains open for interpretation by the EPA, most likely by way of guidance rather than a regulatory solution.

When pressed for an answer on what fuel providers should be doing in the short term in response to the recent inspection increase, the EPA did not give a clear answer, but rather focused on a projected guidance release date in the summer of 2005, and a December 2004 response to aviation industry white papers that were submitted in May 2003.

"We are disappointed in the agency's unwillingness to work on this complex issue with the industry," stated Eric R. Byer, vice president of government and industry affairs. "A more assured solution to spill prevention would be to mandate a daily or periodic inspection procedure to ensure the integrity of tanks, piping and pumping systems, much like the industry does to ensure fuel quality. To require companies to install or construct large secondary containment areas for extremely low (and some might say non-existent) risk events is both unnecessary and misdirected."

FMI: www.nata.aero