az_gila

az_gila

Well Known Member
Just released by the EPA - proposed control of 100LL fuel to eliminate lead...

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480ae298f

It will be interesting to see where this leads.

Read the 29 page PDF file yourself and look at the details.

I see tests at only 5 airports:

Santa Monica municipal airport in Santa Monica, CA,
Van Nuys airport in Van Nuys, CA,
Chicago O’Hare airport in IL,
Toronto Buttonville municipal airport in Ontario, Canada,
and Destin airport in Destin, FL

Every one of them passed the new, reduced airborne lead levels set in 2006 (page 2, column 3) including the one at Santa Monica Airport right on the Bundy Rd. blast fence at the run-up area.

Everything else is then extrapolated via computer modeling, and compared with background levels.

It sounds a little like one of the other science debates going on that relies completely on models and not real data...:)

I encourage everyone to read it in detail.

This version might be easier to read than the official web link above -
http://www.regulations.gov/search/R...ae298f&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf
 
Last edited:
Gil,

I think its interesting that no mention is made of the fact that Tornado Alley in Oklahoma has a patent on 95 UL and claims to have successfully tested 100 UL. After talking with them at Oklahoma and again at Sun n Fun it will be awhile before avail. They are not refiners nor haulers. It would take a major fuel producer to step up and develop the system at considerable expense. You would think the EPA would encourage the gov't to step in and pretend its a bank. Unfortunately, I fear that would lead to a mandate that the fuel include the dreaded ethanol since they are planning to bail out the failing ethanol industry anyway. I would rather they just go ahead and give the farmers the subsidy and keep it out of our fuel.
 
100 LL

And this from the FAA this morning:

"EPA Issues Proposed Rulemaking for Leaded Avgas
On April 28, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), the first step in a process that may lead to standards mandating GA?s transition to unleaded avgas. This action allows the public to comment on the current data being considered to develop standards to control lead emissions from piston-powered aircraft.

Avgas is the only remaining transportation fuel in the United States that contains lead. FAA is committed to continue working with the GA community to test, adopt, and certify a new aviation gasoline fuel standard. In addition, FAA established a GA alternative fuels program at the FAA Technical Center to continue research of unleaded aviation fuels and has issued many supplemental type certificates (STCs) to allow aircraft with lower-performance engines to operate with unleaded automobile gasoline.

Despite ongoing research, currently there is no definitive replacement for unleaded avgas available that will meet the needs of all GA aircraft. EPA will use data gathered through this comment-seeking process, as well as work with FAA and industry, to decide whether to enact restrictions on the use of leaded avgas. EPA estimates that lead emissions from aircraft using leaded avgas accounts for approximately half of the national inventory of lead emitted to air.

EPA will accept public comment on the ANPRM until June 28, 2010. To view the ANPRM and to provide comments, go to www.regulations.gov and search Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294."
 
....and of course it just now dawned on the EPA and the FAA that a problem was perched on the horizon.
 
Peterk said:
Gil,

I think its interesting that no mention is made of the fact that Tornado Alley in Oklahoma has a patent on 95 UL and claims to have successfully tested 100 UL. After talking with them at Oklahoma and again at Sun n Fun it will be awhile before avail. They are not refiners nor haulers. It would take a major fuel producer to step up and develop the system at considerable expense. You would think the EPA would encourage the gov't to step in and pretend its a bank. Unfortunately, I fear that would lead to a mandate that the fuel include the dreaded ethanol since they are planning to bail out the failing ethanol industry anyway. I would rather they just go ahead and give the farmers the subsidy and keep it out of our fuel.
Click to expand...

Farmers do not get the ethanol subsidy. It is a tax break to ethanol plants & just another place for farmers to go with their grain crops if there is a price advantage over the local elevator or cattle feed lot. It all depends on the grain market prices & local bases.

Shannon Evans
 
Thank you Shannon for the info. Unfortunately, ethanol is not a desirable additive to any fuel. While it raises octane levels, it lowers efficiency, absorbs water and attacks many of the materials used in current engines. It is an industry in trouble due to lack of demand. As a grain product I can't only assume it is supported by corn growing states. Interestingly enough, it is virtually impossible to find non-ethanol gasoline in midwestern states while still readily available in the south (though each distributor is pressured to add it their load). No, I am not opposed to the farming community and I apologize for making a subsidy an assumption. I would prefer obviously that the ethanol opportunity be eliminated from the options available to grain producers.
 
so,.. what happens if....

the old lineboys and you guys older than me.... that have been flying since you could reach the pedals... gave some blood for lead testing? Of course... don't know how they would adjust for years before removing lead from auto gasoline.


Overall,... it seems to me we need to stop putting lead into the atmosphere,.. ok,.. but... some of the numbers look like a bit of a stretch to make it to be a problem.... if we are not careful they will remove the HAZMAT known as asphalt
 
Gotta have...

thinkn9a said:
.....
Overall,... it seems to me we need to stop putting lead into the atmosphere,.. ok,.. but... some of the numbers look like a bit of a stretch to make it to be a problem.... if we are not careful they will remove the HAZMAT known as asphalt
Click to expand...

...a problem before we can save the world....:)

It's interesting that the 2006 10x reduction of maximum allowed airborne levels of lead didn't do the trick.

Obviously they should have gone for 100x....:rolleyes:
 
100LL Update from AOPA

Heat shields up please.

http://www.aopa.org/aopalive/?categ...7c4TpypB&WT.mc_id=100611epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan

Link to AOPA video from AOPA regarding status of a replacement fuel and the regulatory process currently underway. A very informative overview. 167,000 GA aircraft in the fleet, at least 30% of them require high octane to prevent detonation and potential preignition, followed by catastrophic engine failure and possible off-field landing practice.

Suggest multi-point EGT/CHT instruments in kits being built, to better manage whatever we end up with.

Montanamike RV6 N918MB Phase I-8.5 to go
 
Responding to ANPRMs like this from EPA are part of my day job. I will be posting bullet points that you can take and submit as comments to EPA on this. We need to be heard.

TODR
 
Didn't I read where GAMI's unleaded fuel has been tested on their dyno using turbocharged Lycoming and Continental sixes already with complete success and no reduction in manifold pressures?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.