http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html The New York Times is withholding the addresses of the buildings at the request of city officials, who cited their importance to international telecommunications and their potential as terrorist targets. While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing the particular building. On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords. Without on-site fuel there are several "ordinary" disasters which would be worsened if the telecommunications infrastructure went dark. For example, during ice stores, hurricanes, etc we want telecom facilities to stay up for one, two or three days, depending on how long you believe it will take for the roads to be passible for fuel trucks or the power to be restored. On the other hand, storing 72-hours of fuel in a building is a lot of fuel. NORAD has a million of gallons of fuel to run for at least 30 days inside the mountain. Hospitals, police stations, etc have a similar problem. Natural gas, fuel cells, more batteries each have their own issues. Less fuel, more risk of a community's 9-1-1 service being interrupted. More fuel, more risk of a catastrophic building fire.