Leesburg advisers respond to resident complaint about lead in aviation fuel; staff cites federal timeline for unleaded replacement

The Leesburg Environmental Advisory Commission discussed a resident complaint about lead emissions from aviation gasoline used at Leesburg Airport and agreed to prepare a response summarizing the town’s position and steps under way.

Paul Schaffer (chair) introduced the agenda item and said the town had received an email from a nearby resident concerned about lead exposure from avgas (aviation gasoline) used for piston aircraft. Deb Moran (sustainability manager, Town of Leesburg) reported she had spoken with Scott Kaufman, the airport director, who told staff that federal and regulatory constraints currently require the airport to continue offering leaded avgas for some aircraft and that a federal program (FAA’s Operation Eagle) aims to certify a non‑lead aviation fuel by about 2030. Deb said the airport’s fuel contract includes a penalty if the vendor did not offer required fuel; she cited a $5,000‑per‑day enforcement level that staff mentioned in the meeting (as described by the airport director).

Town action and staff guidance: Commissioners directed staff to draft a reply to the resident explaining the current situation: that federal action is underway on an unleaded alternative, that the airport has a contract to supply required avgas and that airport staff have planned a ready tank for a new fuel once approved. Amy Mason (vice chair) volunteered to work with staff on the draft reply; Deb said she would forward Scott Kaufman’s notes and any supporting bullets for the commission’s response. The commission also discussed local air monitoring options; staff noted the town’s PurpleAir monitor measures PM2.5 (particulate matter) but does not measure gaseous lead levels.

Why it matters: Avgas contains tetraethyl lead in small quantities for certain piston engines; residents near small airports sometimes raise exposure concerns. Commissioners said acknowledging the complaint and explaining the federal timeline, the airport’s readiness plan and monitoring limitations would be the appropriate near‑term response.

Questions raised: Commissioners asked whether the town could commission an independent study; staff said a local study would be costly and that formal testing or a specific monitoring program would likely require a budget amendment and additional approvals. Commissioners suggested offering the resident a clear summary and monitoring‑related options such as reviewing PurpleAir PM2.5 data and considering whether to add a sensor closer to the airport if warranted.

Next steps: Amy Mason agreed to draft a reply using staff bullets from the airport director and to circulate it to commissioners for review. The commission agreed to include language that explains the federal timeline and the airport’s contractual readiness for an unleaded replacement rather than promising immediate local remedies.