New EPA Requirements for Aviation Fuel Trucks

Over the past few months, a number of aviation-fuel providers have been notified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that their fuel trucks are subject to regulation requiring so-called “secondary containment” while the trucks are parked. The EPA contends that these trucks are mobile or portable storage facilities subject to existing regulation and have been covered since the rules' inception in the early 1970s.

While aviation-fuel providers have routinely met other requirements of these regulations, the application of this particular requirement to fuel trucks is a new interpretation of these rules. Long-standing interpretations hold that airport-based fuel trucks are not storage facilities but transportation vehicles subject to DOT regulations. The application of these requirements to fuel trucks at airports raises a number of troubling questions.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 provides for the EPA to issue regulations preventing and controlling oil spills into our nation's waterways. The aviation industry takes its responsibilities for maintaining the environment and complying with these rules very seriously. For example:

  • Airport facilities have in place oil spill containment and control plans providing the equipment and manpower to address any spills likely to occur.
  • Aviation fuel trucks have redundant control systems to ensure that no unintended discharges occur.

In fact, NATA has been unable to find an example of spontaneous spill from an aviation fuel truck while it is parked. Requiring secondary containment for parked trucks is not supported by this industry's history of handling aviation fuels.

The physical requirements needed to comply with such a rule run counter to the safe and secure operation of airports. For example, it has been suggested that trucks must be parked in a bermed area to provide secondary containment. Vehicles would need to be parked in close proximity to each other, significantly increasing the damage caused by a fire on any one truck. In the unlikely event a spill did occur, fuel would pool near the vehicles, again raising the risk of fire.

Additionally, requiring trucks to be in such close proximity greatly increases their vulnerability to terrorist attacks. Best practices for safety and security specifically argue against these requirements.

Conclusions

  • Application of these requirements will cause a significant burden to airports, airlines and aviation service providers.
  • Airports face significant demand for land from a variety of users and the space required to meet these requirements will be difficult to find in many cases.
  • The financial burdens imposed by applying these rules will be significant especially considering the industry's excellent spill-prevention history.
  • The EPA's attempt to force airports and other aviation entities to comply with this new interpretation comes at a time when the industry is already facing enormous new costs to meet increased security requirements.
  • Many of the EPA's proposals for containment pose increased security risks at airports around the country.