Significantly reducing lead emissions from avgas-powered aircraft will require the leadership and strategic guidance of the FAA, as well as a “broad-based and sustained commitment by other government agencies and the nation’s pilots, airport managers, aviation fuel and service suppliers, and aircraft manufacturers,” according to a new congressionally mandated report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
“While efforts are underway to develop an unleaded aviation fuel that can be used by the entire gasoline-powered fleet, the uncertainty of success means that other steps also should be taken to begin reducing lead emissions and exposures,” the report adds.
General aviation aircraft powered by avgas are the single largest emitter of lead in the United States, as other major emission sources, such as automobile gasoline, have been addressed, the report continues.
Lead is added to aviation gasoline to meet the performance and safety requirements of a sizable portion of the country’s gasoline-powered aircraft. When emitted from aircraft exhaust, lead can be inhaled by people living near and working at airports. Lead exposures also can occur from exhaust deposited on soil and other surfaces, spills and vapor emitted during refueling, and contact with residue left on aircraft engines and other components. Even at low exposures, as measured by blood lead levels, lead has been linked to harmful effects, such as decreased cognitive performance in children.
“Because there is no known safe level of lead in the blood, there is a compelling reason to reduce or eliminate lead emissions from small aircraft,” said Amy R. Pritchett, professor and head of the department of aerospace engineering at Pennsylvania State University and chair of the committee that wrote the report.
The report also notes that gasoline-powered piston-engine aircraft perform “critical societal functions, including medical airlifts, aerial firefighting, business transport, crop dusting, pilot training, and search and rescue. They are also commonly used for personal and recreational flying, and are critical for meeting transportation needs in rural and remote regions.”
About one-third of all gasoline-powered aircraft, which include some of the most heavily used small airplanes and helicopters, require leaded gasoline to provide needed octane levels. Due to the small market for aviation gasoline and limited fueling infrastructure at most of the country’s more than 13,000 airports, leaded aviation gasoline is usually the only fuel available to operators of small aircraft, the report says.
To reduce the environmental health risks caused by aviation lead, the FAA should coordinate efforts to reduce emissions and exposures in multiple ways, according to the report.
“The FAA should work with other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and organizations within the aviation community to initiate campaigns for education, training, and awareness of lead hazards and mitigation measures targeted to pilots, airport personnel, and aircraft technicians,” it advises.
A concerted effort also is needed to motivate fuel refiners to reduce the amount of lead added to high-octane aviation gasoline, according to the report.
“The FAA should explore policy options to achieve this, while prompting airports to add the fueling infrastructure needed to dispense more unleaded gasoline,” the report advises. “The recertification requirements for aircraft that do not require high-octane fuel also should be eased, encouraging pilots to use lower octane unleaded fuel.”
The report further recommends that a goal and time frame be established, potentially with congressional direction, for all future aircraft that burn gasoline to be able to use unleaded fuel.
The report emphasizes that the elimination of lead from all aviation fuel should remain a priority while these efforts to sustain progress in reducing aviation lead emissions and exposures continue.
“The FAA should continue to collaborate with the aviation industry and fuel suppliers in the search for a high-octane unleaded fuel that can be used by all gasoline-powered aircraft,” the report stresses. “The FAA also should collaborate with other government agencies, such as NASA, to promote the development, testing, and certification of emerging lead-free propulsion systems for small aircraft applications, including battery and hybrid electric systems.”
The study — undertaken by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Committee on Lead Emissions From Piston-Powered General Aviation Aircraft — was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The National Academies are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln.
It’s plain and simple MONEY!
TEL works.
GM knew it was dangerous in the 30s.
TEL is CHEAP.
Operators and pilots won’t change anything until they have to.
The only way lead will go away is if the Feds simply outlaw it.
Either ban it or ignore it. This cat and mouse game is embarrassing and childish.
For the record I’m a GA pilot and aircraft owner.
I’ve been listening to this BS for 30 years. It can be done.
It’s astounding that this neurotoxin is still allowed anywhere. You guys do not have liability protection. As the last remaining sort of aerosolized lead in the world, anyone burning leaded gasoline will eventually find themselves personally liable for the brain damage to children in the area of the airport; airports and airplane operators have been skating for a long time because there were larger sources of lead out there, but this won’t last long as lead paint and leaded pipes are being removed too.
If necessary, retire the 1/3 of the fleet which won’t run without the neurotoxic fuel. Anyone flying with leaded gasoline, or worse, selling it, is personally at huge financial risk. The FAA’s delays don’t constitute any form of liability protection. It’s a stupid risk to take.
The problem with installing MoGas tanks at airports is that most areas must comply with Governmental regulations in installing them. It isn’t any longer just an issue of burying a new tank in the ground. Any gas station owner can attest to that. And in many cases, installing a new above-ground tank is now illegal. It’s a real conundrum.
2/3 of all GA aircraft can use mogas. Mogas has no lead so why don’t they? First it is drummed into their heads that mogas is bad for the engines, nonsense. Secondly you have to buy a STC to use it in certified aircraft. Many won’t. Most airports do not carry mogas, so their thinking is if I only have the equipment for one it will be a fuel everyone can use.
I have a STC for my airplane that allows non-ethanol mogas. It is readily available at any number of gas stations in my area as well as marinas. Currently I truck it in in a fuel trailer and store the fuel off site. I pay about $2.50 per gallon with regular gas about $2.09. Avgas is $4.75.
The only advantage of avgas to me is it does store longer.
It is the ethanol in regular car gas that is the culprit. Ethanol being a solvent attacks various synthetic and natural rubbers, o rings, gaskets etc. It also absorbs water and separates from the fuel, called phase separation, which can contain acids and attack aluminum as well. It can also quickly clog and degrade fuel left in lines, tanks and float bowls as well as clogging fuel pumps. So plain and simple NO ETHANOL. Get the ethanol out and you would be fine. There are some non approved fuel stabilizers in the market that can stabilize the fuel for storage of up to a year or more.
So what is the solution? If we really want the lead out then we must look for the Federal Government to set basic standards and financially help airports to have the storage and dispensing equipment for mogas. This would also have the benefit of cutting the cost of fuel in half overnight. For those who require the higher octane and/or lead, lets us research additives. In the marine industry when lead was taken out of fuel, a company Valvtec had an additive to prevent valve problems in the older engines. I don’t know if this particular additive is feasable for aviation, but it was a solution for boats. You can get Valvtec mixed fuel at many marinas today.
My home airport simply won’t spend the money to put in new tanks and pumps. All of the local gas stations have 3 or 4 tanks and pumps. All that is needed is new tanks, the pumps could handle both mogas and avgas. They are also afraid of losing the large profit margin of avgas. If mogas was available then the price of leaded avgas would probably go up.
So the short of it is 2/3 of general aviation is subsidizing the aircraft that can’t use current mogas.
My understanding is there is only one producer of TEL. What would happen it they closed shop tomorrow? We better prepare now.
Ethanol is a GREAT fuel, use the proper tanks/bladders lines pumps etc and you have 100+ octane fuel that is half the cost of 100LL.
Most folks complaining about ethanol have never ran it. Ethanol is VERY tolerant of WIDE mixture and timing variances.
Go RUN it in something and see for yourself!
The article somewhat overstates the actual health effects from airport lead emissions when it states: “When emitted from aircraft exhaust, lead can be inhaled by people living near and working at airports.” EPA’s 2020 report contradicts this statement: “EPA’s modeling and monitoring data indicate that lead concentrations at and near airports are typically well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead (lead NAAQS). Among the more active airports in the United States, there are a few where lead concentrations may be above the lead NAAQS, in very close proximity to where aircraft conduct pre-fight engine checks. For the vast majority of airports, these small areas with lead concentrations potentially above the air standard are within the fence line of the airport and not accessible to the public, in all but a few instances. Lead levels dissipate quickly with distance from piston engine aircraft exhaust. Thus, within 50 meters of the high concentration area, lead levels were uniformly below the lead air standard.” https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100YG46.pdf
The reality is that removal of lead from motor vehicle gasoline reduced lead in the air by 98 percent between 1980 and 2014. That was the low hanging fruit. Eliminating the remaining lead sources in the environment in effect become a lower priority.
Nicely said. However once should keep in mind that the NAAQS threshold is somewhat arbitrary in the sense that it’s been shown that there’s no “safe” amount of lead below which it’s fine – in all cases the more lead the worse. So even though I fly planes that use 100LL I’ll still be happier when we get to a zero lead solution.
Also, keep in mind they only mention lead in the air. They do not mention that the soil located underneath a busy GA airport may become polluted as well. For most that may not be a biggie, but for a family with young kids that play in the yard?
You want this to happen during a Harris Biden administration? It’s fun to dream.
You know that the Trump administration was the one that slowed research on unleaded fuels, right? I don’t like either of them but at least know what you’re talking about. Sounds like someone got too much exposure to lead fuel.
There’s more to the story.
The examples of Santa Monica Airport and, now Reid-Hillview Airport, both in California, being closed are due to community agitation, and the commonly offered basis is that “small airplanes are belching fuel over the community, killing our kids”.
I once actually took the time to determine the volume of lead emitted at Santa Monica from pattern and arrival and departing aircraft, and the actual lead emission was so minuscule as to be irrelevant. The place of greatest lead concentration is in the runup area. Even then, it’s low and is isolated from population. The other criticism is that the people flying these small planes don’t live near the airport, but in (imaginary) mansions and they drive to the airport.
The point being, it’s a wedge that is strongly used to criticize GA and it needs to be dealt with. Having lead free fuel at GA airports is an overhead that fuel vendors cannot sustain, and in this era of government printing money and throwing it out the door it seems that having government subsidy for providing unleaded fuel is warranted.
Pete Buttigieg is our new (ugh) transportation secretary and knows zilch about aviation, but its’ his call. While I believe he isn’t smart enough to put the cap back on a toothpaste tube, he could organize unleaded fuel availability.
Too bad you had to put partisan politics into an otherwise interesting opinion piece. Lost credibility there. I guess the last Secretary knew all about General Aviation?
Shhhhh! I heard a Snowflake!
A British company is selling lead fuel additives that are banned because of their dangerous effects on human health – to the last remaining countries in the world where they are still legal.
The Cheshire-based firm Innospec Ltd is believed to be the last place on the planet that still makes tetraethyl lead, or TEL, which has been linked to an array of severe health problems,
Greenpeace, which highlighted the firm’s continued production of the toxic additive, called for the Government to ban its sale, saying allowing the export of such a dangerous substance was “unacceptable”.’
A spokesperson for Innospec, a subsidiary of a US firm, told The Independent research reporter it had been working with countries to gradually phase out use of TEL in fuel and now only Algeria was left. He said they were unclear at what stage the process had reached in Algeria and appealed for information.
Rebecca Newsom, a senior political adviser at Greenpeace, said campaigners had been asking the UK Government to stop dangerous lead exports” since 2013.
“So it is deeply concerning that this is taking so long to end,” she said although leaded fuel sales accounts for less than one tenth of One Percent !
“British businesses should be held to the same safety standards for all their products – wherever they are sold.
“Allowing the export of this dangerous substance, despite having rules at home to protect our own children, is unacceptable.
“As we approach post-Brexit trade negotiations, we need reassurance from the Government that it takes chemical and environmental regulations seriously – at home and abroad.”
.
“The evidence for the effect of lead on cognition is overwhelming and robust. And lead in fuel is the largest contributor to lead in air. This is why leaded petrol was phased out in many countries,” he said.
“There is a direct causative link between lead in blood and decrements in cognitive abilities. And if it is vehicle emissions contributing to the air lead concentrations how do you avoid exposure? It gets everywhere and even into your home. “Lead is a substance with fantastic properties, hence its continued use in batteries and many other applications. But with so much evidence about the health effects of lead in children it is quite wrong in my view to contribute, in any way, to lead entering the air in an uncontrolled way as happens through fuel combustion.”
Innospec’s website says it is “the world’s only manufacturer of tetraethyl lead products”, although a company spokesperson said it is very likely that it could be secretly made in China.
“TEL was designed to increase octane quality of gasoline, deliver superior engine performance and reduce engine maintenance,” Innospec says. All piston powered military aircraft ran on leaded gasoline until jet power was developed running on Jet A.
“It remains an essential aviation gasoline where the engines are certified to run on leaded hi octane leaded gasoline only and is still used in a small number of countries in motor gasoline where it provides refineries with an economic means of improving the quality of gasoline. “With over 60 years’ heritage of producing octane boosters, our knowledge of these products is unrivaled.”
The firm’s spokesperson told The Independent that it had been working with countries as they shifted to unleaded fuel over the years.
He said only Algeria was left and added: “We are a little mystified as to where their program. is. The communications are not good.
“We are just waiting until the final changeover happens.”
The spokesperson said if the company stopped selling TEL to Algeria, vehicles there would grind to a halt.
“All we do is we respond to their request if they send us an order and the money,” he said.
“We try to get in contact with them to find out if they need any more or if that’s it. We want to plan for the scale-down of that plant.”
There is WAY too much money and WAY to much emphasis on unleaded AvGas, when it’s usage is less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all gasoline consumption in the country! And there are too many unknowns regarding continued airworthiness of engines never designed to burn Tree Hugger Juice!
Lead TEL) is an important ingredient used to increase Octane rating.
It has no negative affect on fuel tank sealants and component gaskets and seals.
We must not allow the introduction of any substance that will attack fuel tank sealants the way that alcohol does. “Out of the data base” is not something I want to fly with.
Keep TEL in.
So they want pilots to help with the lead in avgas problem. Well, first there is already a no-lead fuel available from GAMMI Inc. Pilots will use it, get the FAA to issue the blanket STC for use in certified a/c and pilots will use it.
OR
Over the next 8 years, convert all a/c that have engines that require 100 octane low-lead fuel to equivalent HP Diesel engines. The FAA or EPA should provide a rebate for the difference between purchasing and installing a new gas engine and purchase/install/modify the a/c for diesel application. That is how you get pilots to help.
It sounds to me that it’s nothing more than greed ! It always has and always will be. Back n the 50’s 100 leaded gasoline was selling for 0.39 cents a gallon just a few cents over regular and ethyl gasoline, aviation engine’s came to play and someone (greedly) wanted to make a fast buck, so they convinced gasoline mfg. co.s to call it 100low lead and raise the price $2.00 per gallon and it has been that way ever since. We used to use 100 octane leaded fuel in drag races in the 50’s you could buy all you wanted for 0.39 cents a gallon . Today seems like to me is that no one has come up with a good enough way to tell people that you are still getting the same fuel but for 500 percent more money. I also think that 94 lead free auto fuel works just fine in aircraft engines, all this year after year and not coming up with workable fuel is a bad excuse if you ask me. 94 unleaded fuel is just that, and as far as ethanol that is another way of some one paying off someone to add that stuff in to regular fuel, it does nothing to enhance the quality of fuel, in fact it caused the fuel to burn faster thus you consume more fuel unnecessarily making more profit for the seller. Greed, Greed, Greed!!
One of the major problems with the transition to a 100 octane no-lead avgas is the low demand compared to other fuels such as auto fuel, which can require ethanol, making it unusable for aircraft internal combustion engines. To address the low avgas demand issue, the next generation no-lead avgas would need to be used in other capacities such as a replacement of ethanol for auto fuel. This would greatly increase the production levels and profitability of the no-lead avgas. The production of this fuel would involve corn ethanol being replaced with a corn-based (avgas) biofuel, thus, keeping the corn agriculture industry involved with a biofuel additive in autogas while also eliminating the negative issues caused by ethanol in auto fuel. Swift Fuels has created many aviation approved fuels and are ready to take the next step to supply the avgas industry with a no-lead biofuel to meet the demands for aviation. Here is a link to their website: https://www.swiftfuels.com/
In adults, lead blood levels up to 10 mcg/dL are considered normal. Anywhere from 10 to 25 mcg/dL is a sign that you’re regularly exposed to lead. At 80 mcg/dL, you should consider treatment. Levels lower than 80 mcg/dl with symptoms may also indicate a need for treatment.
70% of piston aircraft could already be using fuel without lead. Why aren’t they?
Some of us do use unleaded fuel. Others likely would if it were more available.
Availability is hindered by the political clout of the minority that uses the majority of the avgas. Another issue is that so many owners believe that 100LL is “better” for their airplane,despite the airplane not being certified with 100LL.
For almost 50 years intelligent humans, some of whom worked in government, have been trying to get the lead out, with little progress.
Todd Petersen, George W. Braly of GAMI, and Lars Hjelmberg of Hjelmco Oil (sweden) collectively have close to 150 years of experience in aviation and fuels. If you want a consensus, and leave out discussion with these GIANTS, everyone will lose.
Petersen, is the auto fuel STC guru (38 years), including water ethanol injection for “100 octane” engines. Braly has contributed to massive reductions in lead emissions by promoting lean of peak (up to 20% reduction in fuel use results in 20% less lead pollution) operations for over 20 years. Hjelmberg has been distributing and selling ASTM D910 unleaded avgas for 40 years now. If we wait much longer, we will have a major brain drain on our hands.
I downloaded and read the “Consensus Study Report” (CSP) and was extremely disappointed by the lack of research used to present the state of AVGAS. A typical waste of money by government. The valuable information could have been condensed to about 20 pages. I purchased a Swift fuel forever STC and wish UL94 was more readily available, however it feels like the author was paid to promote Swiftfuel.
Marcellette Cloche published her masters thesis titled in part “Hot Topics in Aviation”, in 2010. http://www.hjelmco.com/upl/files/41143.pdf This document provides an honest and complete overview of unleaded aviation fuel at the time of publication and is still relevant today. Swift’s 94UL was not really in the game at that point, but Ms. Cloche’s document can add quite a bit of understanding to the issue.
Timeline of Lead Phase-out
1970: Congress passes the Clean Air Act. The EPA is formed and given the authority to regulate compounds that endanger human health.
1973: EPA mandates a phased-in reduction of lead content in all grades of gasoline.
1974: EPA requires availability of at least one grade of unleaded gasoline, in order to be compatible with vehicles equipped with catalytic converters.
1996: EPA bans the use of leaded fuel for on-road vehicles (leaded gasoline was down to 0.6 percent of 1996 gasoline sales).
20 years of new vehicle production had minimized the “valve recession” risk, due to better valve and seat materials. After 45 years in the industry, I have seen only one burned valve in an automobile engine built since 1980, ( a turbocharged engine without hydraulic lifters) I suspect a valve clearance issue. In the mid 70s valve issues were relatively common. Unleaded fuels dramatically increase engine life, and could reliably add 50% to aircraft piston engine TBO.
Particulate emissions are completely ignored by CSP, and a not insignificant amount of lead in fuel ends up in the engine oil. http://www.hjelmco.com/files.asp?f_id=2419
I personally believe the best interim solution is regulation mandating a single ethanol free “premium” “marine” grade of fuel modeled on Hjelmco’s 91/96 or Swift UL94. These would have an automotive anti-knock index of around 98 and should be sold for on road use as well. These fuels should be able to be pushed through existing oil pipeline infrastructures.
A federal mandate to preempt 99% of the LOCAL red tape associated with adding a fueling infrastructure (at federally supported airports) for unleaded fuel would put costs closer to $50K. https://www.ufuel.com/aviation.phtml
From the article, 2/3rds of the GA aircraft can use a lower octane gasoline. I’ll assume that is referring to the low compression, non-turbo aircraft, which number about 140,000 of the 212,000 registered GA aircraft.
My Cessna has the auto gas stc for 87 octane gasoline, but cannot contain alcohol. There is no E0 fuel available in California.
So, why not require states to offer 90+ octane , E0 fuel for aviation use ?
That would result in about 56 million gallons of unleaded fuel that would replace that amount of 100LL ?
Not to mention the savings of $1 to $2 per gallon…!
A similar situation was circumvented in one of the New England states,I don’t remember which, some years ago. Perhaps someone will know what state it was.
The state had required all on-road gasoline to be oxygenated with ethanol.The state then made the distinction that gasoline sold on the “air side” of an airport was “aviation gasoline” not subject to on-road tax and therefore not required to contain the otherwise required ethanol.
Have you checked with a marina for gasoline? Here in Michigan the marinas were the first to have non-ethanol gasoline years before it was again available at filling stations.
Some gas stations sell ‘race fuel’ which is 92 to 94 octane, and charge $6 to $9 per gallon, vs the $4.65 for 100LL in CA.
Other fuel stated as ‘pure gas’ is 100LL.
So, there is no acceptable unleaded , E0 fuel in CA.
The solution is simple, Jim … move out of CA. I did it >20 years ago and have lived happily ever after since. Your net income will go up while your cost of living will go down, too.
The reason your Cessna can’t tolerate Ethanol has to do with the fuel lines and fuel filters. If you changed them out you can use premium gas from any gas station. We had a Flight Design SLSA which had the proper fuel system for Ethanol. We built a small fuel trailer made from aluminum and certified by the DOT for auto fuels. It was also legal to store some gas in the hangar with it since it was vented properly. I am guessing most don’t want to go to that level of trouble just to help the environment.
The auto fuel stc on my Cessna states ‘no ethanol.’
There are a number of research papers that warn of rapid corrosion of most aluminum alloys, which is worse if the alcohol absorbs water .
So, to safety use E10, the aluminum fuel tanks would have to be replaced, along with the aluminum fuel lines and the aluminum fuel selector valve , the aluminum gascolator and the aluminum fuel fittings.
None of that will be allowed on a certified aircraft, and using E10 in an experimental is unsafe , even if legal.
So, I’ll be burning 100LL until an E0 fuel is developed.
This subject has been going on for at least the 38 years I have been flying.
It was completely removed from autogas in 1996, so that’s 34 years now.
Then MTBE was used, but if it leaked, it contaminated the ground water.
Now we have ethanol, derived from fermented corn .
Most new avgas tanks are above ground, so why can’t avgas use MTBE, which is derived from nat. gas. ? and the spill pan contains any leaks.
oops…make that 24 years since TEL was gone from auto gas.