Engineers, environmental personnel, and aviation consultants implementing SPCC regulations never dreamed that fuel delivery vehicles used to fuel aircraft would be considered "mobile or portable oil storage containers," subject to secondary containment requirements.
In 2001-2002, however, much to the surprise of the industry, EPA regional offices began issuing Notices of Violation to FBOs, fuelers, and airlines for failing to install secondary containment around their parked mobile refuelers, even when refuelers were "parked" on the ramp or in the airport operations area.
NATA, ATA, AAAE, and ACI-NA provided information to EPA to demonstrate that the agency's emerging interpretation that refueler vehicles were mobile containers was news to the industry and, in the case of airport operations, impracticable.
EPA promulgated its final rule revising the SPCC regulations on July 17, 2002. The final rule did not address the portable or mobile storage container debate, but EPA regional offices did appear to recognize that installation of secondary containment for refuelers when they were fueling aircraft was impracticable. They also seemed to recognize that such containment was impracticable on the ramp when refuelers were in standby status. Yet, EPA continued to maintain that secondary containment was required for "parked" refuelers, even though almost all spills occurred during fuel operations, not when the trucks were parked.
Finally, in March, Craig Matthies-sen, an EPA associate director in the Office of Emergency Management, sent a letter to AAAE, providing EPA's final views on secondary containment for mobile refuelers. The letter states that mobile refuelers are "mobile or portable storage containers" subject to the SPCC rule requirements as originally promulgated in 1974, and that EPA has no plans to amend the SPCC requirements. However, it will issue comprehensive regional guidance in August 2005 that will address the flexibility in engineering design solutions to provide secondary containment for parked refuelers. Matthiessen's letter also provides the following key information regarding impracticability:
- When mobile refuelers are fueling, staged in operating locations so that they may initiate fueling, or traveling to and from aircraft, it may be impracticable for some facilities to meet the sized secondary containment requirement;
- Where it is impracticable, some facilities have used National Fire Protection Association design guidelines and/or good engineering design solutions to meet the sized secondary containment requirement;
- Good and reasonable engineering design solutions to provide secondary containment when mobile refuelers are not fueling, not staged, or not involved in fueling activity are based on site-specific conditions and will not be unilaterally specified by EPA; and
- While the applicability of design solutions must be evaluated by the facility owner and operator and certifying PE, facility owners and operators have some flexibility with regard to the secondary containment requirement.
As a result of EPA's response letter, persons in the industry with responsibility for health, safety, and environmental compliance issues have a lot of work ahead of them. It will be particularly difficult to implement EPA's position that "parked refuelers" must have sized secondary containment such as dikes or catch basins to contain spills from largest compartment of truck. (see 40 CFR 112.8(c)(11).
Because EPA recognizes that it is impracticable to install secondary containment around refuelers that are engaged in fueling operations, facilities with 24-hour operations may be luckier - arguably the refuelers are always engaged in fueling activity because they are always on standby status. However, if a facility determines that it is impracticable to install secondary containment during fueling operations, it must meet the following requirements: 1) the facility's SPCC plan must demonstrate the impracticability, 2) the facility must have an oil spill contingency plan in accordance with 40 CFR Part 109, and 3) the facility must have a "written commitment of manpower, equipment, and materials required to expeditiously control and remove any quantity of oil discharge that may be harmful, i.e. a contract in place with an emergency responder.
Environmental attorney Bonni F. Kaufman interprets the latest changes to the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Rule by EPA.
By John F. Infanger, Editorial Director Consultant perspective: EPA, the final rule, and mobile fuel trucks The Environmental Protection Agency is in the midst of making its final rule on Spill...