iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Aviation Fuel's Toxic Lead Emissions Draws Lawsuit Against EPA

Posted: 03/12/2012 11:41 am

Leaded Fuel

Last Wednesday, the environmental advocacy group Friends of the Earth filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, challenging the agency's failure to regulate lead emissions from aircraft that burn so-called avgas, which now accounts for approximately half of the country's airborne lead.

Nearly 200,000 airplanes and helicopters in the U.S. continue to fly on fuel containing lead, despite the toxic metal's known health risks to the children living, playing and breathing below.

"Everyone thinks that since lead has been removed from automobile gasoline, even NASCAR, the problem is gone. But aviation gasoline is still a big problem," said Marcie Keever, legal director for Friends of the Earth. "We are particularly concerned about the impact of lead on the health of children."

After Friends of the Earth discovered in 2003 that avgas had "basically been ignored in all attempts to get lead out of fuel," said Keever, the group sent a letter to the EPA. They followed that with a petition, then a notice of intent to sue and now a lawsuit.

The EPA told The Huffington Post that they would evaluate the suit and respond accordingly. The agency also noted that, in April 2010, they responded to the original Friends of the Earth petition with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). They are currently collecting relevant data that, the EPA said, "is necessary before determining next steps."

More than 3 million children attend school in close proximity to the some 20,000 airports where avgas may be used. In general, the airplanes that fill up on this fuel run on piston engines, much like cars, and tend to be smaller and older machines than today's commercial airliners or military jets.

In 2010, the EPA identified 16 regions in the United States that fail to meet clean air standards for lead. Each one of these regions either contains or is next to an airport that uses leaded avgas. A study out of Duke University in 2011 found that the closer a child lived to a North Carolina airport with avgas, the more lead was likely flowing through that child's blood.

There is no safe level of lead exposure, according to the EPA. Even in small doses, inhaling or ingesting the metal could damage a child's brain and lead to learning disabilities and decreased intelligence.

"Brain development is delicate in terms of its timing. Once that's been disturbed, it's not clear that a child can recover from it," said David Bellinger, a professor of neurology at Children's Hospital Boston. "Preventing exposure is the best strategy."

What's more, the metal doesn't dissipate in the environment. Lead spewing from a plane may eventually settle onto a ball field, a swimming hole or a family's vegetable garden. "We know more about lead than any other environmental chemical, yet we just keep learning that both the range of bad things it does and the levels at which it does those bad things keeps surprising us," added Bellinger.

Benet Wilson, spokesperson for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association said the group is working with the EPA and the Federal Aviation Administration to transition to an unleaded avgas. "The issue is that we have a lot of aircraft out there that can only use this particular fuel," she said. "People are still flying planes that date back to 1930s and 1940s."

Overall, about 70 percent of these airplanes could use unleaded fuel safely. However, the other 30 percent of the fleet currently do need the leaded gasoline in order to operate, according to Jens Hennig, vice president of operations at the General Aviation Manufacturers Association. He added that this smaller proportion of planes consumes 70 percent of avgas.

Even for the planes that could use an unleaded fuel, making an unleaded alternative available is not simple. General aviation airports tend to house two fuel tanks: one with jet fuel for turbine-powered planes, and another with avgas. "Suddenly introducing a third flavor of fuel would add significantly to the complexity for fuel service providers," Hennig said.

But some aviation groups, including the Aviation Fuel Club, are working to make such an alternative fuel available at airports around the country in an effort to limit this potential source of lead exposure for airport workers, airplane pilots and passengers, along with everyone else in the surrounding community, including children.

Of course, many children in the U.S. continue to be exposed to lead via paint and water pipes, among other sources.

"Lead keeps popping up in unexpected places, which is why it's such a persistent problem," said Bellinger. "You can make a decision in Washington to take lead out of gas or paint, but there are a lot of other pathways that we need to pay attention to in order to address the problem completely."

FOLLOW GREEN

Last Wednesday, the environmental advocacy group Friends of the Earth filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, challenging the agency's failure to regulate lead emissions from...
Last Wednesday, the environmental advocacy group Friends of the Earth filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, challenging the agency's failure to regulate lead emissions from...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 73
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
Mister Grumpy
An Angry American
09:43 AM on 03/13/2012
It's all part of the GOP's plan to dumb down Americans.
05:26 AM on 03/14/2012
LOL
No need
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
04:35 AM on 03/13/2012
Now if the US could only figure out how to build and use high speed rail to connect between geographically close cities, it would save on avgas.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
09:05 AM on 03/13/2012
Turbine fuel - avtur/Jet-A - contains no lead, it's just in avgas for piston engines.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
01:26 AM on 03/13/2012
Ironically the problem will go away on its own. There is only one company in the world that makes TEL, in a 30 year old plant in England. They don't make it for the GA aircraft in the U.S. since we are an utterly insignificant market. Leaded avgas represents less than 200 million gallons of avgas product per year and is steadily declining. They make it for the refineries in the third world that still make leaded gasoline. But those refineries are being converted to unleaded gasoline production and diesel under a push from the U.N. The conversion will be completed within the next couple of years and then there will be no economic reason for the plant to exist. Their production volume has been declining every year, just like the production of leaded avgas in the U.S. The supreme irony for aviation in the U.S. is that we will probably lose our leaded avgas about the same time there is no more ethanol free gasoline produced because of the unintended consequences of the federal RFS mandate in EISA 2007. The 70-80% of GA airplanes that can use auto gas must have fuel with no ethanol in it. The perfect storm for General Aviation in the U.S.
11:41 PM on 03/12/2012
Tetraethyllead just bad stuff !
10:00 PM on 05/22/2012
No it's not
11:40 PM on 03/12/2012
Our love of flying, in biology lead sulfates, even in the children who breathed in the lead. Biology is not concerned about the opinions of experts, we let the children speak sentences for themselves once the nasty lead is eliminated, detoxified, from their bodies.
We let our passions kill our kids, Oh I did not know?
Lead is never bio friendly to our biology, just as mercury and aluminum which could be in the chem trails, who knows our love for war has been demonstrated too often.
Back to kids, those lost in their own minds after a vaccination are different from the kids who just slip into stupidity, once bright, now slow and unresponsive, no drive, no desire to play, just sit getting poisoned by those who love their passion.
Find a way to keep your airspeed up and not kill our kids. A different fuel? How about compressed air? fuellessusa,com
Flip the timing introduce the compressed air via the spark plug holes and need you will need less power because compressed air weighs how much less than liquid fuel.
Solutions are what we need, thank you for pointing out the EPA is childless, evidently?
Imagine low long your engine can go without the fires within?
Lead poisoning in seniors mimics Alzheimer's but is more than chemical debris at the blood brain barrier, it is a poison.
Got Sulfur?
wstan101
One option, defeat the left!
08:24 AM on 03/13/2012
How about a long tube connected to the southend of cattle and then burn methane, that would save 1,000,000 lives anually and take away one more thing for you environvmentalist whacko's, you see I too can faulsify the numbers just like the idiot's on the left.
05:29 AM on 03/14/2012
Actually they never had enough lead in their diet.
10:02 PM on 05/22/2012
Wow you are so ignorent, the amout of lead dispelled by GA aircraft is not 1/10000 of one % on a single volcanice eruption , give me a break lady.
07:28 PM on 03/12/2012
This is a serious situation but I am tending to think that the chemtrails with their chemicals and morgellons are a bit more serious a threat to us... http://aircrap.org/proof-of-morgellons-fibers-in-chemtrails/331274/
I am sure a lot of tax dollars could be saved if we all stood up against the government for allowing the tax moneys to be spent on chemtrails... People who want to control would not want that to happen.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
09:09 AM on 03/13/2012
Dude - there are no chemtrails. It's a bizarre crackpot conspiracy theory. Jet trails are nearly all water, with a little tiny bit of sulphur, nitrogen, carbon and unburned hydrocarbons in it.

There are no black helicopters either - other than that all helicopters look kind of black against the sky.
10:04 PM on 05/22/2012
Im so tired of you uneducated chemtards pretending to not be brain damaged . You assholeeeese the increase in CONTRAILS is directly proportionant to then increase in jet traffic 0_0
06:45 PM on 03/12/2012
Remember that ALL cars burned leaded fuel until 1979. That means all of our elected officials in Washington were breathing air with lead in it. They seem to be doing OK.
10:56 PM on 03/12/2012
hear! hear!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
04:33 AM on 03/13/2012
Ha! Your sense of humor is under-appreciated.
04:12 PM on 03/12/2012
First off, this is not news: FAA, EPA and private industry has been working to find a suitable replacement fuel for many years. Progress is being made, but because of the safety issues, approval of any new fuel by the FAA is going to take lots of time (and money). They have to make sure it works in every airplane and will be a drop-in replacement for leaded avgas. Two private companies have developed a drop-in replacement, but FAA approval is taking a long, long time.

Meanwhile, the number of airplanes that use leaded avgas and the number of hours those airplanes fly is declining every year, so the problem is getting better on its own.

In addition, about 70% of light aircraft could use existing 91-octane unleaded car gas if it met the stringent quality control requirements that avgas does. But, IT CANNOT CONTAIN ETHANOL. Lots of small planes had already switched to car gas, but now Congress and most states have mandated that all car gas have 10% ethanol. So pilots can't use car gas anymore. That makes a lot of sense, huh? Thank your farm-state Congresspersons.

This issue will get fixed, with our without Fiends of the Earth. We're working as fast as we can. Stupid lawsuits aren't going to make it go faster.
photo
dwilson424
If you disagree teach me
04:33 PM on 03/12/2012
Thank you

#1
photo
blackwind
Relax, nothing is under control
07:36 PM on 03/12/2012
Without lawsuits, most environmental protections amount to no more than a little ink on some paper somewhere. Lawsuits are what makes this "system of laws" work. There's nothing at all "stupid" about seeing the laws enforced. What good are they if they aren't enforced?
05:31 AM on 03/14/2012
Really?
Sue for your bill of rights lately?
04:05 PM on 03/12/2012
"Old lead-based paint is the most significant source of lead exposure in the U.S. today." EPA Most of the lead exposure is from old flaking lead paint pre-1978.

As recently as mid-2011 Avgas is now less than 0.1% of gas consumption in US. Only 1 grade 100 LL (100 octane low lead) is gasoline. It has less than 2 grams lead/gal.

Back in 1960 about 5-10% of the total US gasoline consumption was avgas with as much as 8 gm lead/gal. Automobile gas in 1960 was 2-4 gm lead/gal.

The only aviation fuel that has lead is used in piston powered propeller planes, not jets. Jets, turbine powered prop planes and nearly all helicopters use JetA fuel which has no lead and is closer to kerosene.

Most planes that depend upon higher octane avgas are used to fly small cargo loads into small airports.

The 6 or 8 cylinder piston engines in these planes cost about $50-90,000. A comparable turbine engine costs $300-500,000+. The turbine engine uses about 25-75 gallons of Jet A per hour - about TWICE as much per hour as the avgas piston plane.

One of the old planes can be bought for $60-250,000. (a 50 year old single engine Cessna 182 with a lot of hours can be pretty cheap). A new single engine turbine Cessna Caravan, one of the cheapest you'll find, is $3 million.
05:49 PM on 03/12/2012
aviation is now only available to wealthy people. It's not a complaint, just a fact of life.
05:59 PM on 03/12/2012
Not true. While it's true, fewer and fewer "middle class" folks can afford the $5-10,000 per year a private pilot needs to spend to stay a current and safe pilot, that's true of many formerly middle class endeavors/hobbies. Fact is, with a declining middle class, lots of recreational activities will decline. As will tourism in general.

But, rest assured, I know plenty of middle class pilots. Many co-own small, older airplanes to make it more affordable. Others build their own planes. Flying clubs are also becoming more popular. I am currently helping 4 pilots buy a 35-year-old airplane that burns car gas. They will be able to fly it for less than what they are paying to rent a less capable airplane.
09:48 PM on 03/12/2012
Well, some of us are crazy enough to do it without being wealthy. It's true, as Marc writes, that for about $5K a year I can stay current renting an old Cessna 150 or Piper Cherokee 140B. But the average pilot spends $10K a year. Cheaper than some of my neighbors' fishing and golf hobbies.

Some of us actually build "experimental" aircraft, mostly all aluminum or fiberglass from kits. These are stronger, more versatile, more energy efficient than the old Cessnas & Pipers. For $25K I can build a decent 2 seat all aluminum Sonex that will do 125-140 mph cruise. Or for $60-80K a 2 seat Vans RV-7 that is full aerobatic, IFR, 200mph cruise, all aluminum with a flight deck that is newer than a Boeing 787.

Several of us are looking at the all-electric aircraft as the wave of the very near future. See http://www.pipistrel-usa.com/blog1/ the CAFE green flight challenge was 400 passenger miles per gallon. 4 person plane Pipistrel Taurus G4. Very impressive engineering
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
03:09 PM on 03/12/2012
Someone should be building lead free replacement engines for all of these aircraft that require lead. Children who are found to have lead inside of them should file a class action suit against the avgas producers. Each child should sue for a million dollars. This is organized child abuse.
04:06 PM on 03/12/2012
"Old lead-based paint is the most significant source of lead exposure in the U.S. today." EPA
04:15 PM on 03/12/2012
It's not the engines that need replacing...it's the fuel for the existing engines.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
04:31 PM on 03/12/2012
But the older engines can't use anything other than leaded fuel. They need to be replaced.
04:56 PM on 03/12/2012
It's the high compression engines that need the lead to prevent detonation. As the story notes, about 70% of avgas is used in these planes even though the are only about 30% of the total US plane inventory. That's because these planes are used for businesses to move cargo and people into and out of small airports.

There are a lot of very smart people who have been trying to find a solution for this for decades. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in the past few years looking for solutions ranging from algae & switchgrass to some really exotic chemicals that are literally hazards to contact with your skin.

The energy density of gasoline over kerosene (JetA), plus the lower cost of a piston engine vs a turbine engine are the primary drivers.

Most of the small general aviation planes you see flying have 4 cylinder lower compression engine and could work fine without lead. Some of the 6 cylinder engines could do so as well.

Some people have tried diesel engines that use JetA but these don't have the power even though they add weight. Additionally, they turn out to have more parts that have lower reliability and reduce safety due to unexpected mechanical failure in flight. I personally have explored these as a solution and been frustrated by their limitations as a replacement.
02:12 PM on 03/12/2012
First time I have heard about this. Disgraceful! Congress should be addressing this type of issue instead of arguing over contraceptives. Jeeze!

And when the idiot right latches onto proposed changes, screaming that their 'liberty' is being threatened again, we'll need them to show us where, exactly, in their 'pocket Constitution' it says that aircraft owners are entitled to pollute the atmosphere rather than upgrade their equipment.
04:22 PM on 03/12/2012
As a very liberal pilot I assert yours is not an accurate statement.

The General Aviation industry has been seeking and achieving improvements to minimize or remove lead in fuel. I've sat through a number of seminars by chemical engineers and engine designers over decades seeking a solution that minimizes lead exposure for people on the ground and to keep airplanes from falling out of the sky and killing people on the ground.

"Old lead-based paint (pre-1978) is THE MOST significant source of lead exposure in the U.S. today." EPA (emphasis added)

My exposure to lead from aviation gasoline, even though I live off the departure end of a busy general aviation airport, is far less than the lead exposure from my neighbor's peeling exterior lead paint on his 103 year old house. My 106 year old house is kept painted to minimize this problem.

Most of the children I read about at our local hospital who have lead exposure live in decrepit apartments and homes. They are daily exposed to high levels of environmental lead. We could ground ever plane and literally not improve their prognosis. If we want to do something that's where I'd start because it can have a substantial impact in a short period of time (months) rather than decades.
05:53 PM on 03/12/2012
With all due respect, you have forwarded a variation of the 'straw-man' argument. Leaded paint may very well be a more egregious source of poisoning for children, but that is irrelevant in a discussion about aviation fuel. (If I complain, for example, that my bank is gouging me with nuisance fees, it is irrelevant to point out that the insurance and cable companies are doing far worse.) As an editor, I would have instructed the author to either delete the last paragraph of her article precisely for that reason, or be required to note that leaded paint, etc. is subject to strict hazardous material protocols when it is encountered, while avgas is exempt.

In the late '60's car manufacturers claimed that unleaded gasoline would destroy the auto industry in this country. Congress mandated unleaded gas anyway, and guess what? Problem solved. If avgas was subjected to a federal tax, roughly doubling the price, and dedicated to lead remediation in the environment, what do you want to bet that those outdated engines would disappear in a very short time? And if the General Aviation industry has indeed devoted "decades" to this issue, I submit that their verdict has been pre-determined: time will eventually resolve the problem, as those polluting aircraft age out of the system. Unfortunately, some of the at-risk children will not live long enough to enjoy that blessed day.
10:05 PM on 03/12/2012
I politely suggest you used the strawman argument of the 1960's auto industry.

I work in the healthcare industry on de novo technologies. We're data driven. I would welcome data that shows a correlation between children's exposure to lead and proximity to airports. Does it exist? I'd welcome the links.

The in situ lead paint is the over riding problem. Literally this past year is the first that California EPA and building departments are requiring remediation and monitoring for removal of more than 32 sq ft of previously lead-painted surfaces.

But here in the SF Bay Area, with 6 million people, I can take you into hundreds of thousands of housing units where there are children exposed to peeling lead paint or chipped surfaces exposing lead paint. Those point sources are far greater sources of danger to those children than 100LL avgas. How much greater? I dunno, where's the data?

I'm not denying that limiting lead in fuel isn't beneficial. I'm arguing that the priorities are out of scale. We're deceiving ourselves into thinking that removing 100LL fuel will benefit the children living in those hundreds of thousands of housing units with in situ lead paint. Those at-risk kids are still at risk.
02:01 PM on 03/12/2012
Taking the lead out of aviation fuel will kill people.
cosmicdart
paragon of paradigms
03:12 PM on 03/12/2012
Then leave the lead in, but pay each child affected a million dollars for future medical expenses.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
06:29 PM on 03/12/2012
I don't think anyone's proposing to fill up the tanks for leaded-avgas-fueled engines with regular gas. That's the only way I can see it killing people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug MacKenzie
I refuse to live in FEAR
01:13 PM on 03/12/2012
Avgas went to "low lead" back in the '70s (that isn't the same as "Jet A" fuel). Considering the number of registered vehicles (not including trucks) in the US in 2009 was 254,212,610 and the TOTAL number of registered aircraft in the US in 2009 was 231,648, and the fact that aircraft engines are FAR more fuel efficient than anything on the road, I'd say this is a non-issue. Try going after the auto makers who whine about making vehicles more fuel efficient and less polluting. That's the low-hanging fruit, not aircraft.

Here's a link to the numbers: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
09:14 AM on 03/13/2012
It's not about efficiency, it's about lead emissions.

Those 254 million vehicles now emit almost no lead, as vehicle fuel is lead-free.
photo
tumbler snapper
Lawyer, engineer, author, adventurer
12:12 PM on 03/12/2012
100LL contains approximately 1-2g TEL per gallon. TEL, in turn, contains about 600mg of lead. So, a gallon of 100LL may contain about 1.2 g of lead.

We used to throw sampled fuel out onto the ground routinely, but I haven't done this for a long time. I suspect many others routinely do, however.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
06:31 PM on 03/12/2012
In terms of getting lead into the environment, spilling a couple of ounces on the ground isn't as serious as burning tens of pounds taxying about and leaving the ground.
photo
tumbler snapper
Lawyer, engineer, author, adventurer
06:41 PM on 03/12/2012
It's localized, gets into groundwater, and its more than a few ounces. We used to fill a gascan with the discarded fuel at my airport pretty quickly.