The Environmental Protection Agency is suggesting it won’t necessarily hold the FAA to its self-determined target of 2030 to get rid of lead emissions from light aircraft. In a statement to AvBrief, the EPA said “the 2030 date is a goal that the FAA has articulated” and suggested we ask the FAA about any deviations to that plan (we have). In the meantime it appears content to follow the FAA’s lead and ensuring a smooth process to a replacement fuel. Here’s the full statement:
“EPA has and will continue to work closely with FAA and aviation stakeholders to evaluate practical, science-based steps towards a transition away from leaded aviation fuel – without compromising safety, affordability, or the viability of small aircraft operations. The 2030 date is a goal that FAA has articulated in FAA’s transition plan and the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act (to the extent practicable). We would refer you to the FAA for further comment.“
At AirVenture last month, former FAA Deputy Administrator Chris Rocheleau admitted that meeting the 2030 target would be tough and various discussions since have affirmed that. Innospec, the last recognized producer of tetraethyl lead, has suggested 2030 is not a hard deadline for it to end production, but it also hasn’t said how long it might be willing to keep making the highly toxic chemical. AvBrief has sent the EPA statement to principal aviation stakeholders and we’ll add their comments as they come in.
In 2023, the EPA issued an Endangerment Finding on leaded aviation gasoline emissions and that set in motion a formal process to mitigate the risk to human health posed by 100LL by compelling the EPA to set lead emission standards for aircraft. It does not ban 100LL. We asked EPA how it was doing on setting those emissions standards but did not get a response.
With the current administration in office the EPA is probably dragging their feet on this issue. Wait until the 2028 election. The EPA foot dragging may change.
This isn’t a new issue that’s come up during this administration.
While I don’t like needless govt interference generally, perhaps the best way forward regarding 100LL is to mandate that certified reciprocating aircraft built after Jan 1 2030 be compatible with 94UL (or pick your poison).
You’d be amazed how quickly manufacturers would find solutions, which no doubt could be back-ported to the existing fleet over time. A few years down the track, and much of the switch-over pain would be gone.
“We asked EPA how it was doing on setting those emissions standards but did not get a response.”
It’s unlikely we’ll get one. The EPA has lost about 30% of its staffing across all departments, but the neutering of the agency’s perceived authority was the deepest cut. It can be argued whether this was warranted or not, but it seems likely 100LL is safe for the foreseeable future.
Well, now we have certainty…
Would be nice if it wasn’t so expensive to put in an additional (i.e. third) pump at airports for those that can use unleaded fuels now. JetA, 100LL, 94UL. There are a few around that have something similar, but too far and between to be totally useful, and none in my area.
We were recently told to use $650K per tank when doing fuel distribution planning in South West Georgia. Not a lot of small airports can make that math math…
Maybe we’d be better off if the EPA would reconsider the ban outright. I’d prefer to run unleaded but if it’s not going to be readily available, aren’t we just creating chaos chasing a “desirable” result for appearance sake.
Why not do some studies of the impact, or lack there of, on ramp attendants who are exposed to leaded fuel all day long in their jobs. If as I suspect the finding is that the health hazard has been over-stated then let’s move the focus on to ATC upgrades & infrastructure rather than chasing this.
I’m all for that, except no matter how many studies are conducted, you’re still going to have the “Karen’s” around the airports crying the sky is falling!! Maybe the answer is go back to full leaded fuels. At least back then there wasn’t so much confusion over genders.
Presently known as the Environment Polluting Agcency.
NOTE Chris Rocheleau is gone, fired or quit. Bryan Bedford is in charge now and 2030 stands.
Kudos to Russ for his clarity and wording on this subject, “. . .it appears content to follow the FAA’s lead and ensuring a smooth process. . .” It is the perfect double entendre. Pb, leadership, or dead weight. The EPA-FAA-EPA ballgame is on.
@Higher-faster-unaffordable is right. Back in the 80s when 80 Octane fuel was becoming scarcer and 100LL was “the” replacement for both 80/87 and 100/130 aircraft engines leaned more toward higher compression, slower turning (O470R 230 HP with 2450 RPM/23″ cruise v. O470U 230 HP 2400/23″ 230 HP). Same with the C150 and C152s. A few more HP in the 152s was good, at the cost of adding leaded fuel. If we went one way in the 1980s, we can surely go back the other way, add some electronic ignition and engine sensors and have everything run (eventually) on 91UL/94UL or mogas 87 or 91 or 94. After all, Petersen and EAA have been doing it for decades on many engines.
Can the EPA cite any proven hazard to humans due to the current use of leaded fuel? I doubt it. More important, why don’t they vigorously support the most plentiful lead-free aviation fuel – ethanol-free, lead-free gasoline (aka mogas), available everywhere, except on airports.
Or in most of California.
Wait a few more years and this issue will be solved and closed. The next administration will have this fixed in a hurry. Enjoy the balooned prices for AVgas guzzling old aluminum while it lasts. Things ain’t gonna stay this way.
We’ll be using 100LL long after most of us hang up our certificates..
The AOPA and FAA has set up a program that is impossible to achieve so there will be no transition to a replacement for 100LL by 2030.
With that realization now known the time has come for another plan.
A plan B would be to first get the aircraft that can already burn unleaded fuel off 100LL.
The FAA could do a fleet authorization for the ASTM 91UL that is already been approved in Europe and Lycoming is already OK with its use. That way most aircraft could use the 91UL product without an STC.
This would require a second tank at most airports and with the cooperation with the EPA, the FAA and AOPA we could be up and running quickly.
Once this is up and running some of the Aircraft that might need an STC to use the UL 91 with minor modification would probably come on board and buy it because it will probably be the lower cost product.
It is unlikely a drop in product will ever be available to replace 100 LL. If that miracle did happen it could take over the tank used to despense 100LL. Most likely if that occurred it will be an expensive product, and those using 91UL will not want to use 100UL and would stay with the 91UL.
If for any reason an aircraft that required 100 LL was at an airport where 91UL was the only available Fuel it would be possible that a vile of Lead mix at fueling with 91UL could meet the need for that Aircraft to proceed on its way.