What WA plans for the largest remaining source of lead pollution threatening kids

Airports and pilots are eager to get rid of leaded aviation fuel, but some worry that a new Washington bill is putting the cart before the horse.

The Federal Aviation Administration already has a plan to phase out 100-octane “low lead” aviation fuel that’s commonly used in small planes seating 2 to 10 people.

The Environmental Protection Agency has called it the largest remaining source of lead pollution in the air and can endanger young children’s health and others.

The FAA’s target to phase out leaded fuel is 2030, but House Bill 1554 introduced in Washington this legislative session would put a state deadline to begin the transition in 2026.

Experts are concerned about the logistics of making that happen, considering the FAA only approved an alternative fuel last September.

Currently only European processors make the 200 million gallons of leaded aviation fuel used in the United States by more than 226,000 aircraft each year.

While that is a fraction of the amount of jet fuel or unleaded fuel for cars, organizations like the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) are concerned about how to make replacing that fuel financially viable for processors.

Feasibility concerns

Richland Airport Manager Quentin Wright said that they’re eager to shift away from leaded fuel, but doing so isn’t as simple as just creating a deadline.

“The FAA has been working on this for at least 20 years, probably longer based on pressure from the federal government. Lead has been used as a cheap and effective octane booster,” Wright said.

“One of the requirements that the FAA is implementing is that this new unleaded fuel would be a direct replacement and would mix in without issues. It’s got to be a direct replacement and can’t require modifications,” he said.

The proposed bill would require the change over for airports near cities under an EPA cleanup plan, overburdened by pollution or with a population of more than 700,000 by Jan. 1, 2026, and then by Jan. 1, 2028 for airports near urban growth areas.

Tri-Cities area airports would likely fall into the latter category. Rural airports would have a 2030 compliance date.

The Richland airport uses about 100,000 gallons of 100LL fuel per year. Finding a supplier to replace that amount of fuel, years ahead of a national plan could be tricky.

“(State legislators) are trying to go above and beyond the federal government right now to put in restrictions before that 2030 date, so we do have concerns we will have an arbitrary date set we have to abide by,” Wright said.

“The problem is, it’s going to take a long time to scale up that market, so it’s got to be something that happens over time where we’re mixing fuel,” he said. “At the same time there may not be an unleaded option available (by the state’s proposed deadlines).”

Currently a 94-octane fuel has been approved for many engines, but the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association estimates that 60% to 70% of fuel consumption of the 100-octane leaded fuel is by planes that will need 100-octane alternative.

The Richland airport carries 100LL and Jet A fuel.

General Aviation Modification Inc., which developed the replacement 100-octane unleaded fuel that can be safely mixed with the “low lead” to phase out the product, told the association that supply chain infrastructure issues are still a major consideration that needs to be factored in a roll-out of the product.

They also said that the cost of the product could be higher if production of small batches are required.

Safety concerns

Last year Santa Clara County, Calif. attempted to enact an immediate ban on leaded aviation fuel, and both the FAA and aircraft owners organizations stepped in to oppose it.

One of the primary concerns from the owners association was the viability of intermixing fuels and whether planes coming into the airport still using leaded fuel could safely refuel, because the change would have forced small planes to use the 94-octane unleaded fuel.

In a November 2022 news release, the AOPA said that “rushing the removal of 100LL is a critical safety issue. Many of the 220,000 piston engine airplanes and rotorcraft in the current fleet require higher-octane 100LL fuel to fly safely. Putting the wrong fuel into an aircraft can cause catastrophic engine failure.”

A representative for the association told the Herald it’s incumbent that pilots know what fuel is going to be available at their destination airport, and to plan their flights accordingly. That could be particularly important for airports like Richland, which see frequent flights from Oregon and Idaho.

He said that it’s difficult to assess whether a sufficient supply of the new unleaded fuel can be scaled up for statewide use within two to three years.

“GAMI is busy commercializing its G100UL fuel, and other fuels are making progress toward FAA approval,” the representative said. “It’s difficult to predict a specific timeline with so many factors involved, but the general aviation industry is working hard with fuel manufacturers to enable this transition as fast and safely as possible.”

Once properly rolled out, the representative said a higher at-the-pump price may be offset by reduced maintenance costs.

“While some reports say that 100UL will carry a small cost increase, studies show that engines using the newer fuels may be able to fly longer between maintenance, lowering some operating costs.”