AirTalk.org

Skylune · Guest

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.

Jose · Guest

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.

ORVAL FAIRAIRN · Guest

In article
<ab2a3dba084c5927f53f23cbed503e7c (AT) localhost (DOT) talkaboutaviation.com>,
"Skylune" <longislandsurfer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wet the bed, took a bite of
skunk cabbage and gloated:

Aluckyguess · Guest

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" <longislandsurfer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

sfb · Guest

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

"Aluckyguess" <Haha (AT) shaqloses (DOT) com> wrote

Jose · Guest

Mike Rapoport · Guest

"Jose" <teacherjh (AT) aol (DOT) nojunk.com> wrote

Steve Foley · Guest

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

"Skylune" <longislandsurfer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Steve Foley · Guest

"Skylune" <longislandsurfer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

ORVAL FAIRAIRN · Guest

In article <AZ7Re.9057$Yh6.8141 (AT) fe04 (DOT) lga>,
"Aluckyguess" <Haha (AT) shaqloses (DOT) com> wrote:

Steve Foley · Guest

Skylune has stated he doesn't care about the pollution, he's simply trying
to drive the aviation industry under.

He cares nothing about the people he is trying to unemploy.

He cares nothing about the financial losses that he is trying to burden
pilots with.

He is 'getting even' with pilots for not stopping one guy with a loud, low
flying mooney.

"ORVAL FAIRAIRN" <orfairbairn (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote

Skylune · Guest

Steve: You seem like a reasonable guy. It is not one guy in his mooney
that have really gotten under my skin. (Besides, that jerk seems to have
abandoned his daily 4:55 am training sessions..). Its the Mooney, the
Bonanza, the idiot in the Pitts, the twin Otter, etc. I think about 90%
of the pilots who fly by my summer home try to "fly friendly." There are
the 10% of idiots who create a damned racket nearly every weekend. And,
the idiots at the airport authority have treated me and others I know who
have complained about noise, with utter contempt. So, this is my little
way of hitting back.

Ironically, the level of GA traffic seems to have dropped off quite a bit
over the last two years (maybe I can retire to my summer home afterall!).
Maybe the rising cost of AV gas, rising rental costs etc. are taking a toll
(the silver lining in $70/bbl crude)?

Skylune out.

Steve Foley · Guest

Your 'little way of hitting back' is costing ME money. Where do you think
the FBO will get the money to pay for this secondary containment equipment?
You've touted the fact that you've reduced airport funding, so the only
source of funds left is from the FBO customers (ME).

The airport authority will turn around and show how they're being socially
responsible by making me pay for this equipment. As stated earlier, no
reported fuel spill has ever occurred that this equipment would prevent.
You're simply taking money from MY pocket because of the Mooney, the
Bonanza, the Pitts, The twin Otter and the etc.

Thanks loads.

"Skylune" <longislandsurfer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Skylune · Guest

Well how am I, who bought property about 5 miles from the airport about 15
years ago, specifically avoiding areas around both runways and in the
pattern, being compensated for pilots who want to engage in low level
flying? And for the airport that now means to expand to attract more
business??

I've gone to the meetings, and met the ridiculous "airport here first
argument." (Because of their age, almost all airports were there first.
Does that mean they can expand --with my taxpayer money and commercial
airline surcharges--without limit?) I have been treated with disdain by
the airport staff, and in a patronizing way by the moronic airport
consultant they hired to conduct a public meeting. On the (only three)
occassions I called to complain about a REALLY low, loud flier, I was
treated by disdain by the airport staff and the FAA. (Like anyone on the
ground can get an N number of a plane zoooming about 500 ft overhead....).
So I got fed up, did my research, and exercised my rights to express my
opinion. Never broke any laws, threatened, etc.

Everyone knows that voluntary noise abatement is a total joke. Why is it
that boats, motorcycles, cars, stereos, leaf blowers, barking dogs,
EVERYTHING, are subject to community noise ordinances except GA? Its true
that a leaf blower may make more noise up close (not more than the idiot
Mooney pilot, though). The difference is that my neighbors have respect
for one another, and we are not anonymous, unlike the looney Mooney pilot
who was flying every morning before five -- I guess he likes the smooth
air and how his plane could really rip at that hour......

As far as the EPA regulations, we all must abide by regulations we don't
necessarily agree with. I didn't write them, and I may not even agree
with them. Its the EPA that is costing you money on this particular
issue. And rising fuel prices are taking a toll on everyone.
Discretionary activities, like flying for pleasure (and most boating),
will of course take a disproportionate hit.

BDS · Guest

"Skylune" <longislandsurfer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote