Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EPA Lowers Air Lead Limits - Possible Avgas Impact  
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2293 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 3629 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

New regulations announced yesterday by the U.S. EPA reduces the acceptable level of lead in air from 1.5ug/m**3 (micrograms / cubic meter) to .15ug/m**3. A ten-fold reduction.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress...6f882852574e40051e01d!OpenDocument

The standards will begin to take effect in 2011, and states with areas in violation will have five years from that point to implement plans to meet the standards.

Given that Avgas now contributes approximately 29% of the total atmospheric lead emissions in the U.S., it seems likely that there will be an impact on Avgas production and availability.

It seems likely that areas with large GA communities will have difficulties meeting the new standards, especially near larger GA airports.

The GA community in the U.S. (and it's mostly in the U.S., since, with the exception of a couple of countries, there's very little leaded Avgas used in the rest of the world) continues to shoot itself in the foot on this issue by mostly pretending the issue doesn't exist (the odd whine and position paper excepted).

100LL is going the way of the dinosaur people, and we've known that for thirty years now, and yet have made essentially no meaningful effort to develop alternatives. Yes, there are a few research programs with modest funding, and a few engine manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to (slowly) develop diesels, despite a near complete lack of commitment from aircraft manufacturers and owners (and thus basically no economic demand).

Three decades of inaction have likely used up any moral capital we have on the subject. It was reasonable in 1978 to say, we don’t have an alternative, we need time to come up with one. But that was *30* years ago. The general public thinks poorly enough of us already. What happens when someone does a vocal job pointing out that a third of the lead their kids are breathing is from GA? You think there’s going to be much sympathy for the jerks poisoning the kids who *knew* this was an issue for thirty years, and have basically ignored it?

Just wait until some locality with a big GA airport and an atmospheric lead violation happens. The screams to shut it down will be heard over the oceans…

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22682 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 3619 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Thread starter):
Just wait until some locality with a big GA airport and an atmospheric lead violation happens. The screams to shut it down will be heard over the oceans…

It's important to realize that it's going to be quite a while until an airport causes an area to not be in attainment of the standard (and I'm not convinced that an airport alone will emit enough lead for nonattainment, even under the new, stricter standard). The monitoring network (as it exists now) does not focus on airports because under the old standard, airports-- even those airports which dispensed a lot of 100LL-- could not cause a violation by themselves.

A good example of this is in St. Louis, home of a primary lead smelter (in Herculaneum, Missouri) that is the primary source of airborne lead in the region and (accordingly), the primary reason that Jefferson County is nonattainment under the old standard (and a contributor to the fact that St. Clair County Illinois is not compliant with the new standard). Even though SUS sells enough leaded AvGas that airport management here is concerned, there is no monitoring anywhere near SUS, and without industrial sources of lead, SUS itself likely would not 'emit' enough lead to be a problem.

The EPA tends to move colossally slowly, and I suspect it'll be after 2011 before there's any meaningful airborne lead monitoring around airports, meaning that even if an airport dispenses enough 100LL to cause nonattainment, we're looking at probably close to 10 years before there's actually a need to eliminate it.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2293 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 3603 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
The EPA tends to move colossally slowly, and I suspect it'll be after 2011 before there's any meaningful airborne lead monitoring around airports, meaning that even if an airport dispenses enough 100LL to cause nonattainment, we're looking at probably close to 10 years before there's actually a need to eliminate it.

That's probably true, but the 2011 date is when EPA is supposed to have the monitoring program in place. Of course, I'm not going to bet money on them actually getting done by then...

Still, 100LL is headed for extinction*, and this tightening of standards will accelerate that. I think it’s fairly likely that we’ll start seeing restrictions in the next decade, and I have trouble seeing how there won’t be significant ones in the next three.

*With some very limited exceptions for flying historic aircraft.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22682 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 3552 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 2):
Still, 100LL is headed for extinction*, and this tightening of standards will accelerate that. I think it’s fairly likely that we’ll start seeing restrictions in the next decade, and I have trouble seeing how there won’t be significant ones in the next three.

 checkmark I think that's right. I was at a public hearing on this standard where Richard Hrabko (director of STL and SUS) testified, and he said that the amount of 100LL that SUS has sold has declined significantly in the past 5 years. I don't know exactly what's contributing to that, but I think that some (at least) ARE moving away from it.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineIllini_152 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 2 hours ago) and read 3504 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 3):

checkmark I think that's right. I was at a public hearing on this standard where Richard Hrabko (director of STL and SUS) testified, and he said that the amount of 100LL that SUS has sold has declined significantly in the past 5 years. I don't know exactly what's contributing to that, but I think that some (at least) ARE moving away from it.

More like the hours flown by piston aircraft is down significantly over that timeframe than anything else. Its NOT good news.



Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21425 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3470 times:

Wasn't there an unleaded avgas that was being researched pretty intensely (as in "close to marketable") over the past few years?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3143 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3434 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 3):
he said that the amount of 100LL that SUS has sold has declined significantly in the past 5 years. I don't know exactly what's contributing to

When I started working at an FBO at STL in 2002, 100LL was about $2.00 a gallon. The now-defunct FBO at SUS that I worked for was getting about $1.80 in 2001. It's now about $5.50 on the cheap side at SUS and $6.00 at STL if you go the the lower cost FBOs.

Not taking the astronomical rise in mx and insurance to the mix, you're looking at a $40 an hour increase just to fly a 172. That probably has a lot to do with it.



DMI
User currently offlineNorthwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3257 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 5):

As far as I am aware, there are 4x avgas replacements.

82UL

Auto fuel STC

Jet-fuel burning pistons

Aviation ethanol (don't know too much on this one)


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic EPA Lowers Air Lead Limits - Possible Avgas Impact
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Reverse Thrusting In The Air--possible? posted Wed Nov 17 2004 18:32:29 by 727LOVER
Is Clear Air Turbulence Related To Gas Bubbles? posted Wed Oct 15 2008 02:56:20 by GARUDAROD
Air Crash Investigations Season 5 Thread posted Tue Oct 14 2008 02:16:11 by Luv2cattlecall
How Fast Does Air Travel Out Of A Turbofan? posted Tue Oct 7 2008 21:38:31 by Triebwerk
Air Force One... Dirty? posted Thu Oct 2 2008 17:57:25 by ZANL188
Air Crash Question posted Sat Sep 27 2008 14:34:00 by Heathrow
Wooden Floors In Airliners, Possible? posted Fri Sep 26 2008 00:31:59 by LH4116
Composite Aircraft Long Term Environmental Impact? posted Sat Sep 13 2008 04:18:14 by Hypersonic
Mid Air Collision Avoided. posted Sun Aug 31 2008 01:09:06 by Readytotaxi
Cabin Air System As Infection Transport? posted Mon Aug 25 2008 16:58:26 by SashA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format