Request for Comment and Information; Draft Report to Congress on Potential Hazards to Aircraft by Locating Waste Disposal Sites in 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