The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Aircraft Emission Study:

After numerous complaints by Santa Monica Airport Neighbors (especially those on the east end of the runway who are constantly assaulted by aircraft fumes), the SCAQMD agreed to conduct an emissions study at two local general aviation airports: Santa Monica and Van Nuys. The data collection phase of the study conducted by the SCAQMD was completed in February 2007. The goal of the study was to monitor average levels of air toxins in communities adjacent to these airports; however, the “time integrated (8-24 hour) sampling approach used in SCAQMD studies lacks the sensitivity to detect potentially large quantities of emissions from aircraft operations over repeated short time periods,” according to page 4 of a report on a recently completed study of community exposure to aircraft emissions at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX Study – see below). Furthermore, the SCAQMD does not typically measure one of the volatile organic compounds (acrolein) that was found to be elevated immediately adjacent to LAX.

Dr. Phil Fine of the SCAQMD presented the findings of the study to the SCAQMD Study Work Group at the Ken Edwards Center on October 18, 2007 and to the Santa Monica Airport Commission in the City Council Chambers on October 22, 2007.

Below is a brief synopsis of the findings, as presented on October 18:

The ultrafine particle measurements at Santa Monica Airport that were matched up with the City of Santa Monica’s augmentation study of aircraft activity shows definitive spikes associated with aircraft operations at the East tarmac and at Virginia Ernst’s house across the street from the E end of the runway. These spikes were not associated with automobile traffic because they were correlated with aircraft activity; furthermore, these changes were not seen on the west tarmac at the same time on the same day – which confirms that it was aircraft related.

Ultrafine particles are particles less than 0.1 of a micron in diameter (a human hair is 70 microns thick). This size of particle is considered by many health experts as one of the most toxic components of the complex urban air pollution mix. Ultrafine particles lodge deeply in the lungs and release toxic chemicals into the bloodstream, which can damage cells in other parts of the body, such as the brain and liver (scientific references are available upon request).

Average levels of ultrafine particles were 1,000-2,000 particles per cubic centimeter to 30,000-40,000 pt/cc; levels were at 3 million when planes took off. These were not all jets, but the jets tended to be higher. Virginia Ernst, who was also present at the meeting, claimed that during the period of sampling, jet idling and taxiing was noticeably diminished and increased again after the study was over.

Marty Rubin and Ping Ho were at the original meeting of the SCAQMD Work Group pressing for the inclusion of ultrafine particles in the monitoring, and the augmentation study came about as a result of the attempted passage of AB 2501, so the community has weighed in heavily on these important findings. The advantage of measuring ultrafine particles is that they are measured continuously, as opposed to periodically – as in the case of the other substances measured.

The main problem with ultrafine particle measurements is that there are as yet no health standards, but with the rate of research being generated, there may be some standards within the foreseeable future.

Airport influences on ultrafine particle patterns at Van Nuys Airport were not clear because they did not have monitors at the runway.

At Van Nuys, average lead levels near the airport are elevated, suggesting that lead may also be a problem. The data at Santa Monica Airport were a little complicated by the fact that they used two different kinds of instruments to measure lead and they still have to figure out comparability.

No other average levels for the substances that were measured in the SCAQMD study (carbon, benzene, or fine particle matter 2.5 microns and less in size) showed any unusual patterns around Santa Monica or Van Nuys Airports, in comparison to LA Basin averages. The SCAQMD has not completed analyses of other volatile organic compounds that they measured, but they do not expect to see significant differences in average levels of those substances compared to the LA Basin averages. They did not measure acrolein, which the LAX Study found elevated near the airport.

In response to a question by Marty Rubin on the possibility of a mathematical modeling study based on odors associated with aircraft activity, Dr. Jean Ospital explained that mathematical modeling (predicting impacts in the community based on data) is problematic with data that are not monitored continuously. (This makes a good case for modeling impacts of ultrafine particles, however.) Dr. Fine noted that they took 1-minute acute exposure “grab samples,” which means that the persons checking the instrumentation also noted the odor patterns in one-minute increments. Based on observations reported in the 2002 study entitled, “Santa Monica Airport: Is it Ruining Our Neighborhood Air?” (that can be viewed on this website), the SCAQMD will likely find an association between the odors and ultrafine particle levels.

LAX Study:

The LAX study found that the forcefulness of aircraft exhaust sends its hazardous pollutants much farther into the community than other sources, which tend to dissipate more easily in the wind. It found large elevations of fine and ultrafine particles, formaldehyde and acrolein immediately adjacent to the airport. It found elevated concentrations of ultrafine particles at both 600 meters east of LAX as well as 2-3 km east of the airport (with evidence that these emissions were aircraft related). Their findings inform us of what substances are worth measuring, in what units of time they should be measured, where they should be measured, and how they should be measured.

The Los Angeles International Airport Study _ “Monitoring and modeling of ultrafine particles and black carbon at the Los Angeles International Airport” _ was conducted by Dr. John Froines of UCLA, with support from the California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Click on the title “LAX Study” above in order to view the report.

The 1999 Santa Monica Airport Study:

A 1999 mathematical modeling study of emissions emanating from Santa Monica Airport, done by Bill Piazza for the Los Angeles Unified School District Office of Environmental Health and Safety, predicted excess cancer risk with roughly half the number of jet operations that are currently taking place at Santa Monica Airport. The current acceptable margin of safety for cancer is 1-in-a-million risk over a lifetime; the study found a 13-in-a-million cancer risk for areas immediately adjacent to the airport, particularly the “maximum exposed individual” south of the airport’s centerline and east of Bundy Drive. With anticipated increases in turbojet and piston activity to 10,000 operations per year, the risk was predicted to be 22-in-a-million and 26-in-a-million, respectively. The study also found that the amount of particulate matter in 1999 exceeded California standards.
Click on the title “The 1999 Santa Monica Airport Study” above to view the report.

Assembly Bill 700 (AB 700):

Several months ago Assemblyman Ted Lieu (West Los Angeles) introduced AB 700 in the State Assembly calling for a study of aircraft taxi and idle times at Santa Monica Airport in order to identify ways of reducing the community’s exposure to aircraft emissions. After the bill passed through the assembly and gained the support of Santa Monica Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, it moved on to the State Senate for approval. Meanwhile, the California Air Resources Board [experiencing its own internal political upheaval with the recent departure of its chair (who was fired) and its executive director (who resigned)] wrote a letter to the Senate NOT endorsing AB 700. Subsequently, in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the language of AB 700 was altered to require the establishment of a technical advisory committee " comprised of state and local officials who represent the airport and the areas immediately surrounding the airport, one or more representatives from any community group with an interest in the activities at the airport, and a single representative from each of the following entities: the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the State Air Resources Board, any pilot association, any environmental organization, any aviation business association, and Los Angeles World Airports. This advisory committee was to review existing scientific data and develop potential solutions to the aircraft emissions problem at Santa Monica Airport by January 2009, and report to the Federal Aviation Administration and the State Legislature. AB 700 made it through the many committees of the Assembly and Senate, but was finally rejected by the Senate Appropriations Committee behind closed doors on August 30, 2007.


To view the bill text, visit:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
For additional information see www.jetairpollution.com

SM Airport Proposed Safety Enhancements

Currently, our local Airport does not have Runway Safety Areas (RSA) despite the fact homes sit within 250ft of the runway. An RSA is a buffer zone at runway ends for use in the event of a runway overrun by a landing or departing aircraft. In a May 2000 letter, our Congressman Henry Waxman first asked the FAA for such Safety Areas at Santa Monica Airport. (view this letter and other Congressman Waxman’s correspondence with the FAA at http://www.house.gov/waxman/issues/issues_other_santa_monica_airport.htm
Progress on implementing these very important safety enhancements has been slow. The Santa Monica City Council approved in concept a Safety Enhancement Program entitled the Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) more than four years ago, in December 2002. The proposal included 300 foot RSA’s on each runway end and would have required aircraft to conform to standards consistent with the FAA’s own guidelines (Airport Reference Code’’s B-II Designation for Airports with Santa Monica’s dimensions). In other words, all faster, larger Class C and D aircraft (currently over 50% of the jet traffic) would be eliminated for safety reasons. The recommended FAA runway safety area for B-II class aircraft is 300ft. Such safety areas were to be created at the Santa Monica Airport by re-striping portions of the existing runway and declaring them to be safety areas. They would no longer be available for normal runway usage.

The City of Santa Monica submitted an official request to the FAA on Sept. 8, 2004 for both the ACP and the RSA. It took the FAA almost a year and a half to respond. The FAA’s letter to the City of Jan. 20, 2006, offered two alternatives. The first proposed building an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) only at the west runway end. EMAS is a type of collapsible concrete that “captures’‘ aircraft that overrun the runway. The second alternative was a modified RSA that would exist only at the west runway end. Neither option accommodated runway undershoots (landing short of the runway) or offered a safety area for the east end of the airport. They also did not limit use of the faster, larger Class C and D aircraft. To the contrary, is was evident that the options were designed to preserve access of these aircraft.

For several months City Staff met with FAA officials to work toward a consensus. An alternative version of proposed safety enhancements was presented by the FAA and the Santa Monica Airport Staff at a December 2006 meeting at the FAA’s Western-Pacific headquarters. The aviation stakeholders were invited. The general public was not. Even community members most impacted by the proposal were excluded.

The plan that emerged called for a 250ft EMAS in lieu of a full runway safety area on the west runway end only. This proposal did not eliminate faster, larger C and D class aircraft. The aviation interests were given two months to submit comments on this proposal.

The FAA and the airport staff were to present the proposal to the Airport Commission on March 26th, 2007. The public would then have one month to comment, after which the Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council, having considered all parties’ input.

In a surprise move, FAA representative Brian Armstrong announced at the March 26th Commission meeting that the FAA was pulling the offer of a proposed 250ft EMAS bed on the west runway end and replacing it with a less effective smaller 165ft bed! This move was obviously prompted by aviation interests’ negative reaction to the operational limitations outlined in the Dec. 12th proposal. The Commission, the public and the City Council expressed shock and anger that the FAA reneged on its agreement to accept comment from ALL the involved parties..

The public outcry prompted City Staff to arrange a meeting on June 12th with representatives from the FAA, Congressman Waxman’s office, and Congressman Harman’s office. The result: FAA Administrator for Airports, Kirk Shaffer, pledged to come up with another option.

Shaffer sent the latest offer to the city on July 31, 2007, and promised to make a detailed presentation to the City Council and the public at the Council’s Aug. 28th, 2007, meeting

In brief, the latest FAA proposal calls for raising the land up at each end of the runway to the level of the existing runway, then installing a 130-foot EMAS bed on each end of the runway. This proposed EMAS is SHORTER than those in the two previous offers. It would trim the useable runway by less than 150 feet.

A 130-foot EMAS is designed to stop planes going about 40 knots, and would somewhat slow down planes going faster, although a heavy jet going into such an EMAS at 70 knots would still be rolling at up to 50 knots when leaving the EMAS. It would then plunge into the street or houses.

The FAA made it very clear that the proposal is shaped by the desire to have little effect on the runway length and therefore minimum effect on the current operations at the airport. In fact, Shaffer stated, ““We believe that reducing runway length further to protect against an increasingly narrow set of conceivable circumstances in not warranted.” This ignores recent runway overruns involving private jets on runways like those at SM Airport. At one nearly identical Arkansas airport, two people died when a jet overran the runway and hit a house.
In addition, David Bennett, Director of Airport Safety and Standards, declared in his memorandum that additional measures would make the airport less safe and would have ``an increasingly adverse effect on normal operations at the airport.”
From Associated Press:

As for the protection of the residents closest to the runway ends, the FAA suggested the City purchase and remove those homes.

Funding options for the EMAS construction and site grading were not addressed.

FOSP encourages all Airport neighbors to attend the City Council Meeting on Aug. 28th. The Airport issue will be scheduled at the beginning of the meeting, 7pm, City Council Chambers, 1621 Main St, 2nd floor, Santa Monica. Free street and Civic Center lot parking available. See the Agenda posted on the City web site Thursday Aug. 23 for more information.

http://santa-monica.org/cityclerk/council/agendas/
FOSP Airport Committee has determined that the FAA’s proposed alternatives do not offer the level of safety that the Airport Staff’s original 2002 proposal for a 300ft RSA on each runway end and the elimination of the unsafe larger, faster aircraft would.

Complete text of Kirk Shaffer’s, FAA Associate Administrator for Airports, Letter and David Bennett’s, FAA Director of Airport Safety and Standards, Memorandum:
Insert links here

FAA Santa Monica Runway Analysis, July 7,2007

Santa Monica Runway Cover Letter, July 7, 2007

Join the SM Airport Contact List
If you are interested in SM Airport Issues you can be added to our notification list by contacting Cathy Larson, Friends of Sunset Park Airport Committee Co-Chair at fospairport@labridge.com or (310) 392-1907 with your name, email, street address, and phone number. Email updates go out every 4-6 weeks, snail mail several times a year depending on the issues.