[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27805-27808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12899]
[[Page 27805]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Request for Comment and Information; Draft Report to Congress on
Potential Hazards to Aircraft by Locating Waste Disposal Sites in
Vicinity of Airports
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Request for comment regarding Report to Congress on the
potential hazards to aircraft by locating waste disposal sites in the
vicinity of airports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice requests comment to help fulfill a requirement in
Section 203 of the Airport and Airway Safety Capacity, Noise
Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
581).
Section 203(b)(2) directs the Secretary of Transportation to
conduct a study to determine whether a municipal solid waste facility,
located within a 5-mile radius of the end of a runway, has the
potential for attracting or sustaining bird movements (from feeding,
watering, or roosting in the area) and poses a hazard to runways or
approach and departure patterns of aircraft. The Secretary of
Transportation has directed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
to conduct this study.
This notice solicits comments from the public on a draft report, as
directed by Congress. The FAA believes a wide-range of public views
will be beneficial in developing a comprehensive final Report to
Congress.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 26, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send all comments in triplicate to: Airport Safety and
Compliance Branch, AAS-310, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benedict D. Castellano, Manager,
Airport Safety and Compliance Branch, AAS-310, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
maintains that there exists a potential safety hazard when a waste
disposal site is located within 5,000 feet of a runway used by piston-
powered aircraft and within 10,000 feet of a runway used by turbo-
engine aircraft. Additionally, when a waste disposal site is located
within a 5-mile radius of a runway, such site may be incompatible with
aircraft operations when the site attracts or sustains hazardous bird
movements from feeding, watering, or roosting areas into or across the
runways and/or approach and departure paths of aircraft.
In conducting the study mandated by Congress, the FAA examined the
history of birds striking aircraft and reviewed several scientific
papers published on the subject of landfills and birds. A draft report
has been developed which outlines Federal regulations and policies on
the subject, and discusses the basis of FAA criteria for siting of
landfills. The report contains FAA's findings and future concerns. It
includes a recommendation for continuing the current policy to object
to the establishment of waste disposal sites within the criteria
specified above.
All comments received on this draft report will be fully considered
in the development of the final report, to be submitted to Congress.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 1995.
Ray Uhl,
Acting Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards.
Draft Report on the Potential Hazards to Aircraft in Locating Waste
Disposal Sites in the Vicinity of Airport
Purpose
This report is submitted to Congress in response to Section
203(b)(2) of the Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise
Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992 which directs
the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study to determine whether
a municipal solid waste facility, located within a 5-mile radius of the
end of a runway, has the potential for attracting or sustaining bird
movements (from feeding, watering, or roosting in the area) and poses a
hazard to runways or approach and departure patterns of aircraft.
Scope of Report
Because most wildlife movements are seasonally influenced, a
complete study of the issues presented would require that researchers
document all wildlife activity for at least 1 year. In order to produce
more credible information, at least 3 years of study data would be
necessary to calculate valid statistical averages. Given the limited
time frame specified in the Act for completing this study, it was not
considered feasible to formulate and carry out a fully scientific
research project to address the issue of siting landfills near
airports. Instead, this report was developed from historical data, past
studies, and research on the incidents and accidents involving bird
strikes and aircraft, and on the potential of solid waste disposal
sites to attract and sustain bird movements.
Aircraft Bird Strikes Historical Background
It is generally agreed that birds and aircraft are not compatible
even though they share the common thread of flight. Bird strikes with
aircraft were recorded as early as 1912, when a Wright Flyer crashed
after striking a bird off the Pacific coast. Calbraith Rodgers, the
pilot who drowned in the crash, became the first aviation fatality
attributed to a bird strike.
Developments over the last 80 years have brought aviation to
unprecedented levels of sophistication. However, this increased level
of sophistication has not provided aircraft with an immunity to damages
resulting from strikes with wildlife. Modern aircraft carry more
passengers at greater speeds than ever before, thus increasing the
potential for catastrophe. At high speed, even small animals become
damaging projectiles to large aircraft. According to V.F.E. Soloman, a
noted Canadian bird hazard specialist, a 4-pound bird struck at 260
knots exerts a force of 14 tons; at 520 knots, the force becomes 57
tons.
Bird strikes have been responsible for more than 100 deaths in the
United States. Some of the more notable accidents that were attributed
to bird strikes included: On March 10, 1960, a Lockheed Electra
departing Boston's Logan Airport struck starlings and crashed,
resulting in 62 deaths. In 1973, a Learjet departing Dekalb-Peachtree
Airport in Georgia struck a flock of cowbirds (small blackbirds) and
ingested them into the engines. Both engines sustained compressor
stalls, causing the aircraft to crash, killing all seven on board. On
November 12, 1975, a DC-10 departing John F. Kennedy Airport ingested
gulls on takeoff roll, aborted the takeoff, caught fire, and was
completely destroyed. The accident resulted in a number of injuries,
but no deaths. Fortunately, the 139 passengers, who were airline
employees, were able to evacuate the burning craft quickly.
Although it has been argued that these accidents are no longer
relevant and that modern aircraft have become more resistant to damage
and disaster from bird strikes, this is not the case, In 1988, in Bahar
Dar, Ethiopia, a Boeing-737 on takeoff struck a flock of speckled
pigeons and crashed, killing 35 passengers and injuring 21 others.
The reports that followed the incidents mentioned above noted that
birds had been attracted by either waste disposal operations or by
trash on or about the vicinity of the airport. Following the 1973
Learjet crash, the [[Page 27806]] National Transportation Safety Board
recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ``implement
a procedure for more stringent and continued surveillance of all
facilities subject to the provisions of the Airport and Airway
Development Act and impose timely sanctions against operators of
facilities, which receive federal aid and do not fully comply with the
requirements imposed upon them by the provisions of this act.'' A
provision in the Act specifies that grant recipients, to the extent
reasonable, maintain compatible land uses around an airport.
Whether or not a catastrophe results, bird hazards can be
responsible for unnecessary risk and expense. The FAA receives an
average of 2,000 bird strike reports each year. This reporting system
is voluntary and does not reflect the total number of strikes or cost
estimates of damage to aircraft or the aviation industry. It is
generally accepted that more than half of all strikes go unreported.
Far less information is received on cost estimates. Information
regarding the amount of damage is seldom reported because pilots
normally fill out the strike report before the actual extent of damage
is determined.
However, damage to aircraft from birds can be severe and costly.
According to a recent Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for John F.
Kennedy International Airport, after ingesting 1 bird, a Boeing-747
aborted its takeoff, blew 10 tires, and damaged the brakes while
stopping. The resulting damage from this one incident cost the airline
$200,000. Additionally, the EIS reported that between 1979 and 1993,
bird strikes caused 46 instances of engine damage, 22 instances of
nonengine damage, and 51 aborted takeoffs (USDA 1994).\1\
\1\ Final Environmental Impact Statement, Gull Hazard Reduction
Program, John F. Kennedy International Airport, United States
Department of Agriculture, May 1994, pp. 1-7, 1-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landfills as Attractions to Birds
A number of scientific papers have been published regarding the
association of birds and waste disposal operations. It is generally
accepted that large numbers of birds commonly frequent landfills in
search of food. In a recent study conducted by the United States
Department of Agriculture's Denver Wildlife Research Center (DWRC) for
the FAA, 699,477 individual birds of 42 species were recorded at 3
landfills in 958 observation periods (Belant et al. 1994).\2\ Although
gulls may be found at inland landfills, they are one of the more common
bird species associated with coastal landfills. Additionally, crows,
starlings, blackbirds, pigeons, sparrows, and vultures have been
documented as common visitors to most landfills regardless of the
location (Lake 1984).\3\
\2\ Jerrold L. Bellant et al., ``Gull and Other Bird Abundance
at Three Mixed Solid Waste Landfills in Northern Ohio,'' DOT Interim
Report, DTFA01-91-Z-02004, (1992), p. 23.
\3\ David W. Lake, ``Airport Bird Hazards Associated With Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities,'' Proceedings: Wildlife Hazards to
Aircraft Conference and Training Workshop, (1984), p. 221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bird populations that impact human health and safety have been less
understood and documented. However, in 1971 the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) released a report that surveyed land disposal
sites reporting bird aircraft hazards. In the discussion section on
page 26 it stated, ``there is little doubt that improper solid waste
disposal sites in many areas of the country contribute to the bird/
aircraft strike hazard at airports.'' Furthermore, it was stated in the
summary and conclusions that, ``analysis of judgments following two
lawsuits resulting from aircraft/bird strike accidents indicated a
strong possibility that both government and a disposal site owner could
be liable for an accident attributed to birds if the disposal site was
knowingly attracting birds and contributing to the risk of bird/
aircraft collisions'' (Davidson et al. 1971).\4\ Considering the
reports referenced above, FAA believes there is enough information
available to support the conclusion that landfills are attractive to
birds and that a potential hazard will exist whenever numbers of birds
are drawn into or across air traffic corridors.
\4\ George R. Davidson, Jr. et al., ``Land Disposal Sites Near
Airports Reporting Bird/Aircraft Hazards,'' Open-File Report, (TSR
1.6.004/0), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA has initiated research to understand, identify, and manage
potentially hazardous wildlife populations better on or near airports.
Actual research is being completed under a contract with DWRC. DWRC is
recognized as one of the most experienced organizations in the field of
nuisance wildlife management. Although wildlife hazard research is
currently underway, it remains in preliminary stages. This preliminary
research will establish a solid data base that will be used for later
comparisons.
More research is also needed to assess the effectiveness of
wildlife control techniques. It is common for operators of waste
disposal facilities to include wildlife control techniques in proposals
to locate or expand operations in the vicinity of airports. These
techniques include the use of pyrotechnic devices, broadcast bird
distress calls, and as a last resort, lethal control. Although these
controls are often presented as being sufficient to offset any wildlife
attraction caused by the landfill activity, there is little
documentation that these controls will significantly mitigate the
attractiveness of a landfill to birds over an extended period. Thus,
there is no assurance that such efforts would actually alleviate a bird
hazard near an airport should one arise after the landfill is
constructed. There exists ample information regarding bird dependence
on landfills. Conversely, there is little information documenting
successful long-term mitigation of the problem.
Landfill Siting Near Airports
Locating a waste disposal site, particularly in and around urban
areas, has become a very serious problem for most communities, from
both physical and political viewpoints. As a result, there has been an
increasing need to expand existing sites and establish new waste
disposal facilities and landfills. A proposal to establish such a
facility close to a populated or recreational area will, in most cases,
result in considerable controversy and public opposition. Landfill
proponents often consider or select sites located at the end of runways
or in the vicinity of airports as solutions to these issues. These
locations are often near, but outside, population centers; are noise
impacted or otherwise unattractive for building development; provide
readily available and inexpensive land; and generally provide a
location with good road access. As a result, these sites stand a much
greater chance of being accepted by the public for landfill use.
Because of its concern that the attractiveness of these landfills to
bird populations has a potential to impact the safety of aircraft
operating to and from airports, the FAA has taken a number of actions
and established policies and procedures to evaluate the impact of
potential landfill sites adjacent to airports.
Federal Regulations, Policies, and Procedures
A. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 139. Airports which serve any
scheduled or unscheduled passenger operation of an air carrier that is
conducted with an aircraft having a seating capacity of more than 30
passengers are required by Federal Aviation Regulations Part 139 to
have an airport operating certificate from the FAA. This certificate is
only granted after the airport is inspected by an FAA airport
certification inspector to ensure [[Page 27807]] that all minimum
safety standards of Part 139 have been met. Under Section 139.337, all
operators of certificated airports shall provide for ``the conduct of
an ecological study, acceptable to the Administrator, when any of the
following events occurs on or near the airport: (1) An air carrier
aircraft experiences a multiple bird strike or engine ingestion. (2) An
air carrier experiences a damaging collision with wildlife other than
birds. (3) WIldlife of a size or in numbers capable of causing an event
described in paragraph (a) (1) or (2) of this section is observed to
have access to any airport flight pattern or movement area.'' Based in
part on this study, FAA may require the airport operator to formulate
and implement a wildlife hazard management plan.
B. Order 5200.5A, Waste Disposal Sites On Or Near Airports. FAA
issued Order 5200.5 on October 16, 1974, to provide internal guidance
regarding FAA's official position on siting landfills near airports in
an effort to reduce potential airport/wildlife hazards. The current
Order 5200.5A, ``Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports,'' and the
original Order 5200.5, contain criteria concerning the establishment,
elimination, or monitoring of landfills, open dumps, waste disposal
sites, or other similar facilities on or in the vicinity of airports.
Orders, such as 5200.5A, are internal directives that provides guidance
to FAA employees. Advisory circulars are public information and may be
instructive to those who receive grants from the FAA. These orders and
advisory circulars have no authority over facilities located off
airport property. Also, FAA has no authority to approve or redirect
land use outside of the airport perimeter. For airports that receive
Federal funds, the owner, operator, or grant recipient must comply with
terms of the grant obligation to the extent reasonable to restrict the
use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to
activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations.
However, in most cases landfills are located outside the airport
property and are often beyond the airport owner's jurisdictional
control.
Order 5200.5A sets forth the policy that waste disposal sites are
incompatible with aircraft operations when located within those areas
adjacent to an airport that are defined through the application of the
following three criteria: (1) when located within 10,000 feet of any
runway end used or planned to be used by turbine-powered aircraft; (2)
within 5,000 feet of any runway end used by piston-powered aircraft;
and (3) when located within a 5-mile radius of a runway end, such that
it attracts or sustains hazardous bird movements from feeding,
watering, or roosting areas into or across the runways and/or approach
and departure paths of aircraft. Although frequent movements of birds
across aircraft approach and departure paths could be a safety concern
beyond the 5-mile radius, this distance was considered a reasonable
limit for application of the FAA criteria. The earlier version of the
FAA order had no such limit.
C. FAA Notification Requirements. To assist FAA in its ability to
monitor the siting of landfills near airports, the Congress in 1992
enacted legislation to amend the Federal Aviation Act to allow the
Secretary of Transportation to require that persons proposing to
establish sanitary landfills notify the Secretary when such notice will
promote safety and the efficient use or preservation of navigable
airspace. A proposed FAA regulatory amendment will establish an area
within a 5-mile radius from an airport for requiring such a
notification.
D. EPA Notification Requirements. Because of safety concerns and a
lack of jurisdiction, FAA actively sought the assistance of the EPA to
consider airport safety concerns when processing landfill siting
permits. FAA suggested that the criteria in Order 5200.5A be
incorporated into EPA's revision of its solid waste disposal
regulations. As a result of FAA comments, the EPA adopted a regulatory
requirement in the Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria, 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Section 258.10, that landfill owners or operators
notify the affected airport and appropriate FAA office whenever they
intend to expand or propose a new landfill within 5 miles of an
airport. However, EPA chose not to prohibit landfill operations within
the 5,000 and 10,000 foot distance criteria identified by FAA. Instead,
it required operators within these areas to demonstrate to the State
agency having the authority to issue the permit that the operation does
not pose a bird hazard to aircraft.
Basis of FAA Criteria for Siting of Landfills
FAA believes that any open household or putrescible waste disposal
activity within 5,000 feet of a runway serving piston-powered aircraft
and 10,000 feet from a runway serving turbine-powered aircraft is
incompatible with safe aircraft operations. Outside this criteria but
within 5 miles of the runway edge, FAA will review proposed landfill
locations on a case-by-case basis. Under these circumstances, if the
site falls directly under the approach or departure path or has the
potential to increase birds in the active airspace, FAA will generally
consider the site as being incompatible with the airport. If the site
were located between the 10,000-foot limit and the 5-mile limit away
from the approach or departure path and would not likely attract birds
across the active airspace, FAA will not consider the site
incompatible. During this case-by-case evaluation, factors such as the
native bird populations, local geography, and the airport traffic
patters are considered.
The distance used in FAA's guidance is based on several factors.
Bird strikes are voluntarily reported to FAA from ground level to
several thousand feet above ground level (AGL). Most bird strikes occur
below 500 feet with numbers diminishing to insignificant levels above
3,000 feet. Based on normal performance characteristics, departing
aircraft should be at approximately 500 feet AGL after traveling 10,000
feet from the runway end and approaching 3,000 feet AGL at 5 miles.
These distances and altitudes form the basis for the minimum criteria
designated for a turbine-powered aircraft.
Criteria for piston-powered aircraft specifies a lesser distance of
5,000 feet due to different performance characteristics. These aircraft
are slower and make more noise relative to a bird's ability to respond.
The engine noise and slower airspeed allow the operator and bird more
time to react and avoid striking each other. Additionally, piston-
powered aircraft do not have engine intakes that can ingest birds.
The 5-mile area is specified in Order 5200.5A to allow FAA the
opportunity to review the traffic patterns, geography, and
juxtaposition of the proposed landfill site and airport. As birds do
not respect minimum distances, this review provides FAA an early
opportunity to comment on proposed disposal sites in critical air
traffic areas immediately outside the 5,000 and 10,000 foot zones. The
review also takes into account existing numbers of birds in the area
and other natural, man-made, or geographical features such as refuges,
water reservoirs, or coastlines that may be located across air traffic
paths from the proposed disposal site. As a note of reference, the 5-
mile radius is also used in other countries, such as Canada, which
restricts landfill development within 8 kilometers, or 4.8 miles of an
airport reference point.
Future Concerns
There are indications that bird species with the greatest potential
to create wildlife hazards on airports are [[Page 27808]] increasing
and that future resolutions to these hazards may become more complex.
Certain species that frequent landfills, such as ring-billed gulls, are
increasing in unprecedented numbers. At the same time, the public is
becoming more involved in wildlife management issues. The National
Environmental Policy Act may require public involvement in the solution
of a wildlife-related airport safety problem. The public's involvement
may be costly and time consuming, resulting in a trade-off of accepting
potential hazards while possible solutions are debated.
The likelihood of bird strikes may be further exacerbated by design
changes to modern aircraft, which incorporate larger inlet engines to
achieve reduced noise levels. These larger, quieter engines give birds
less warning and require them to avoid a larger surface area.
Findings
1. FAA believes that current data is insufficient to permit an
accurate and consistent quantification of the risk created by locating
landfills within 5 miles of an airport. Although a quantified risk
assessment is not available, the potential hazard of bird strikes has
been established in reports following aircraft accidents.
2. FAA believes that landfills constitute a potential hazard to
aviation if located within 5 miles from a runway end for the following
reasons:
a. Bird strikes in the vicinity of waste disposal activities
located within 5 miles of an airport have been a factor in numerous
accidents, some involving loss of human life.
b. Bird activity is generally recognized to occur at altitudes that
brings it into the path of aircraft during approach and departure
operations, the most critical time for aircraft performance.
c. Modern aircraft, with quieter engines and larger engine inlets,
increase the potential for bird strikes due to the reduced warning
resulting from quieter engines with greater frontal areas which combine
to increase the chances of birds being struck or ingested.
d. Bird mitigation techniques, although offered as a solution, have
not been proven effective over extended periods of time. In addition,
future mitigation programs will become more complicated and require
more time to implement, resulting in a trade-off of potential hazards.
e. Landfills are intense attractants to birds. When located in or
adjacent to airspace used by aircraft, a potential hazard will result.
3. As total bird control is not possible, the best solution is to
restrict actions on or in the vicinity of an active airport to reduce
bird attractions.
4. The distance criteria contained in FAA Order 52.005A serve as a
reasonable basis for determining the incompatibility of a landfill site
with airport operations.
Recommendations
Although not a solution to all airport-related bird hazards,
locating intense attractions to wildlife, such as landfills, outside
the areas specified by the FAA reduces the risk of a potentially
hazardous collision between aircraft and birds. Progress has been made
toward this goal by the EPA. Although EPA stops short of prohibiting
landfills within the 5,000 and 10,000 foot areas designated by the FAA,
it does require that operators of existing municipal solid waste
landfills within those areas demonstrate to the State agency that
issues municipal solid waste permits that such units do not pose a bird
hazard to aircraft. Additionally, proponents of new or expanded
landfill sites within 5 miles of an airport must notify the affected
airport and the FAA of their intentions.
In an effort to enhance aviation safety. FAA recommends that no new
or expanded municipal solid waste or putrescible landfill be located
within the FAA specified 5,000 and 10,000 foot criteria or in the
approach/departure areas within 5 miles of an airport if deemed
incompatible with safe aircraft operations.
[FR Doc. 95-12899 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M