http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_23487563/epa-san-carlos-airport-has-high-levels-lead

Friends of the Earth sued EPA several years ago to compel EPA to make an official finding the lead in aviation fuel is an "endangerment" to public health. They lost that battle in court a couple of months ago. In the meantime, however, EPA decided to install monitors at airports throughout the U.S. The supposed purpose was to do background research on how to model airborne lead emissions from aircraft. Our county airport officials were assured that the results were for internal modeling use only, not to be published and that no conclusions would be drawn from them. Under this and other false pretenses, EPA installed monitors at 17 airports throughout the country, including 3 in the SF Bay Area (San Carlos, Palo Alto and San Jose Reid Hillview).

One of EPA's proposed monitor locations at San Carlos was outside of the airport and downwind from the runup area. That was a valid proposal, but that's not what EPA did. Instead, EPA put the monitor inside the fence, directly behind the runup area, less than 25' from aircraft exhaust. Propwash directly blasts into the orifice of the monitors. This placement violates EPA's own guidelines for monitoring air quality, doesn't sample air that the public is exposed to, and goes against the monitor manufacturer's own recommendations for placement of the air monitor.

Predictably, the monitor picked up lead levels in excess of EPA's recently-lowered exposure threshold. EPA installed a second monitor a few feet away. That monitor also had elevated results, but the data of the two monitors did not correlate. Rather than ask why the data were not consistent, or question whether it was responsible to place monitors directly into the prop wash of aircraft, EPA said they had to release the data to the public. EPA did agree to place another monitor northeast of the field. That monitor has not detected lead. Of course, that fact did not make it into EPA's press release.

The San Carlos Pilots Association, AOPA, the County of San Mateo, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District all objected to the placement of the monitor and all demanded that EPA not release the data, and acknowledge that the test location was faulty. EPA would not back down. They delayed release of the flawed data until last night.

Respected experts agree that EPA's placement of the monitor in the runup area is indefensible from a scientific standpoint. Monitoring results from the other airports are all below EPA's action threshold, except for McClellan Pallomar, where EPA also put the monitor directly behind the runup area inside the airport.

Despite this background, EPA issued a press release late last night stating there are elevated lead levels in the air around San Carlos airport. There's a decent quote from the airport manager, but the back story on how EPA has set out to screw San Carlos airport is missing.

The San Carlos Airport Pilots Association has been fighting this for many months. There's a lot more to the story. Suffice it to say that EPA is making a concerted effort to stir up panic about lead at KSQL, is ignoring feedback from all other stakeholders and is working the press for maximum effect.

This issue doesn't just affect San Carlos airport. It's EPA's attempt to drive the demise of 100ll regardless of the existing efforts the FAA and industry are making to come up with a substitute. In the process, EPA is propagating F.U.D. among the public based on data that is intentionally misleading. Let this be a warning to anyone who is asked to cooperate with EPA on any kind of "study."

CAVU

Gee, what a shock.

I really hate the EPA and their faulty tests. They did the same kind of thing testing for asbestos at one of my favorite riding places. They way they tested for it made no sense to anyone but them, then found asbestos levels to be higher than acceptable and closed the place down.

DirtyKid wrote:I really hate the EPA and their faulty tests. They did the same kind of thing testing for asbestos at one of my favorite riding places. They way they tested for it made no sense to anyone but them, then found asbestos levels to be higher than acceptable and closed the place down.

I'll bet you're talking about Panoche Valley.

Administrative law vs individualism. I remember when W was elected seeing a cartoon with one suited fat cat talking to another. The punch line was "Oh I'm so pleased we've finally got an oil man in charge of the EPA" Unfortunately it didn't do much good. Why are all these AGENCIES in charge of America?

Sorry. Not intended to force this into Hot Air

EB

That's the place. A total waste land, but they won't even let us dumb dirt bikers in there. It sucks when you can't even fight against what they say. Most people just think " oh it's the EPA, they must be right. " Its another bad mark for general aviation when they don't need it. Let alone in California.

DirtyKid wrote:That's the place. A total waste land, but they won't even let us dumb dirt bikers in there. It sucks when you can't even fight against what they say. Most people just think " oh it's the EPA, they must be right. " Its another bad mark for general aviation when they don't need it. Let alone in California.

I spent years running up and down those roads during my mis-spent youth. No helmet, no face mask breathing deeply. I ain't dead yet. I think the aphid infestations at some times of the year back in there made it harder to breath than the dust. Hell, sometimes you couldn't even see!

EB