City Legalizes Diesel Fuel Storage at 60 Hudson St. By Barry Owens The city has signed off on a list of safety enhancements promised by the owners of 60 Hudson Street that in turn allows for copious amounts of diesel fuel to remain in the building. The fuel stored in the building, as much as 80,000 gallons below ground and 6,400 gallons above, has long been a source of fear and anger among 60 Hudson's neighbors. The building's owner, GVA Williams, claimed difficulties in complying to city code requirements, particularly restrictions on the amount of fuel that it could store above ground. There are 15 tanks on six of the building's upper floors that hold 3,605 gallons of fuel, exceeding the 275 gallons per floor that is normally allowed, according to Department of Buildings (DOB) spokeswoman Jennifer Givner. Sixty Hudson Street houses equipment for telecommunications companies, which require the diesel fuel for backup generators. Last month GVA Williams won a variance from the DOB to keep the tanks. The code permits only one tank per floor, but the city will allow the tanks to remain if they are housed in separate, fire-proofed rooms, Givner said. Additional safety measures required by the city include fire sprinklers along the entire path where fuel is delivered into the building, a fire safety director on duty in the building at all times, and fuel delivery by certified handlers. Critics have argued that the fuel should not be stored above ground in the building at all. "It is nothing short of outrageous," said Tim Lannan, president of Neighbors Against NOISE, a community group that has long fought the building. "They've done this without even giving us the courtesy of acknowledgement of our concerns." He said he remains troubled that the owner's promise of more safety measures were enough for the city to grant a variance to a building that he and others consider to be a possible terrorist target. Burning diesel fuel is blamed for the collapse of 7 World Trade Center following the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. "This is a significant threat to the neighborhood and they are pretending as if this is a routine request for a variance," Lannan said, adding that his group would continue to "explore their options," which may include a lawsuit. "What if we didn't grant them the variance?" said Givner. "They would still have all this fuel there and they wouldn't have the enhanced safety measures. That would not be acceptable."