Current Events

Jet Air Pollution

Current Events

Above: The date and time you logged onto this page.

How harmful are these fumes?

Jet pollution... we need complete studies!

On this page we will put current items dealing with all aspects of airport pollution.

Below are two different surveys from two opposite sides of the Santa Monica Airport; one from the Mar Vista Community Council in Los Angeles and the other from the Friends of Sunset Park in Santa Monica. Each group had fewer than 400 voters participating.

____________________

RESULTS OF 'STRAW VOTE' QUESTIONS ON THE MARCH 15, 2005
Mar Vista Community Council BALLOT
(The top three items of concern to stakeholders who voted are noted in the left margin)

(1) Should there be a 6 month moratorium on all new construction in order to reassess planning for traffic and other impacts of new construction on our community?
YES 233 (71.69%), no 70 (21.5%), no opinion 22 (6.77%) - 325 total votes

(2) Should the reconfiguration of LAX be stopped?
YES 176 (54.66%), no 100 (31.0%), no opinion 46 (14.3%) – 322 total votes

#3-(3) Should the MVCC oppose the use of jet airplanes at Santa Monica Airport?
YES 252 (76.36%), no 60 (18.0%), no opinion 18 (5.5%) – 330 total votes

(4) Should public recreation facilities at North Venice Little League's site be expanded?
YES 154 (48.4%), no 88 (27.67%), no opinion 76 (23.9%) – 318 total votes

(5) Should LAUSD be broken up?
YES 183 (56.66%), no 93 (28.8%), no opinion 47 (14.55%) – 323 total votes

#2-(6) Should all of our major intersections be updated with left-turn arrows?
YES 270 (82.3%), no 47 (14.33%), no opinion 11 (3.35%) – 328 total votes

#1-(7) Should the Expo light rail line be expanded into Santa Monica by way of the existing right-of-way as soon as possible?
YES 280 (86.2%), no 28 (8.6%), no opinion 17 (5.2%) – 325 total votes
(8) Should Westside Village (Zone 1) be part of Palms Neighborhood Council instead of Mar Vista Community Council?
YES 124 (37.5%), no 116 (35.0%), no opinion 91 (27.5%) – 331 total votes

(9) Should the Stewart Avenue Gate at the Santa Monica Airport be permanently closed except to emergency vehicles?
YES 153 (47.2%), no 83 (25.6%), no opinion 88 (27.2%) – 324 total votes

(10) Should the Westdale Courtyard apartments on National be allowed to be converted to condos?
Yes 91 (27.9%), NO 174 (53.4%), no opinion 61 (18.7%) – 326 total votes

(11) Has the neighborhood council system in LA been successful to date?
YES 157 (49.5%), no 33 (10.4%), no opinion 127 (40.1%) – 317 total votes

(12) Should the Pledge of Allegiance be recited at the start of the Board meetings?
YES 156 (46.99%), no 112 (33.7%), no opinion 64 (19.28%) – 332 total votes

(13) Should a DASH bus route go through the Mar Vista Community Council area?
YES 219 (67.59%), no 44 (13.58%), no opinion 61 (18.8%) – 324 total votes

____________________

Santa Monica Airport items are highlighted in yellow below.

Santa Monica Mirror – March 23-29, 2005

Friends Of Sunset Park Survey Expresses Views of Residents on Variety of Issues

Hannah Heineman, Mirror staff writer

Friends of Sunset Park (FOSP), a Santa Monica neighborhood organization, conducted a 35-question survey in response to the City’s request for residents’ views of and aspirations for Santa Monica as part of its revision of the land use and circulation elements of its General Plan.

By conducting the survey and distributing the results to City officials, the organization’s aim is to ensure that the views expressed are reflected in the revision.

The land use element dictates the distribution of different types of buildings (housing, business, industry, open space, etc.), while the circulation element sets out the location of existing and proposed roads, highways and other modes of transportation.

FOSP mailed the survey to approximately 600 households, and distributed 7,000 flyers, and received 324 responses.

The Executive Summary of the survey results states that residents “are looking for the City and its leaders to begin paying more attention to the concerns of its citizens. That the focus needs to be less on the City’s image as an influential business center within the Los Angeles Basin and more on it as a community of residents. The residents want you to refocus your energies on the small-town atmosphere that we were known for years ago reminiscent of Santa Monica’s days as a beach community. Yes, we want to be an urban community that makes a difference in Southern California and the country but we do not want to give in to the pressures of growth and an expanding population and become like everywhere else in Southern California and the nation. We want a Santa Monica that is unique because it has stood against these pressures and not turned into yet another indistinguishable gentrified community on the sea.”

The report also notes that the two biggest issues “in Sunset Park involve … the airport and the college. Most wanted Santa Monica Airport closed down and redeveloped into parks and open space, mixed-use development, and a lesser number of respondents in housing and schools. However, a substantial number of people are willing to continue to cohabitate with the airport as long as the jet traffic is either eliminated or controlled to our satisfaction.”

Seventy-seven percent of the respondents “would support an enrollment cap at the college, and 81% of the respondents do not want the college given access to Airport Avenue for its Bundy Campus.”

Another major issue in Sunset Park is traffic. 59 percent “support the traffic calming measures that the City has implemented.” A larger majority, 76 percent, supports “a city-funded traffic plan focused on reducing cut-through traffic in Sunset Park.” 46 percent “of the respondents want the old industrial core of the city to be down zoned.”

When it comes to large-scale development, 85 percent of the respondents supported requiring voter approval for large-scale new development “if the City bureaucracy remains unresponsive to community concerns” on the question.

Addressing crime and safety, “Residents generally felt safe although noticeably less so at night (56%).”

Respondents also expressed an interest in creating “a town center of sorts in Sunset Park that is currently lacking [on Ocean Park Boulevard]…akin to Main Street in Ocean Park or Montana Avenue in the northern portion of the City.”

Seventy-two percent of those who responded to the survey favored replacing the current street trees with trees with larger canopies.

Another element that garnered strong support, 86 percent, was the Exposition Light Rail system. However, only 53 percent favored “a higher density development near the rail line.”

When questioned about the future of downtown, “the greatest support … was for more performing arts venues e.g. live theatre, music and dance.”

Respondents also favored more resident-serving retail in downtown Santa Monica and continued growth of the tourist industry. 50 percent were open to “modest growth in residential development” in the downtown area, but 86 pereent “were against the original proposal for the redevelopment of Santa Monica Place.”

Seventy-three percent expressed some concern about the issue of homeless.

The survey results were submitted this week to the City Council, the Planning Commission, the City Manager and officials in the City’s Planning and Community Development Department, and FOSP will be posting summary-level results on-line in the near future at www.friendsofsunsetpark.org.

____________________

February 22^nd, 2005

For Immediate Release

Contact: Jack Saporito, +1 847-506-0670 Cell: +1 847-922-2692

Source: Mothers Against Airport Pollution

GRAVE DANGER FOR EXPECTANT MOMS NEAR AIRPORTS

Arlington Heights, IL-The Mothers Against Airport Pollution are issuing a dire warning to expectant and new mothers.

It has now been confirmed with certainty that pregnant women who live near high industrial sources of pollution should protect themselves from breathing the contaminated toxic air in order to protect their unborn children. Evidence was also found that children born outside of and moved into the hotspot zones in infancy also had elevated rates of cancers.

This is of particular concern regarding airports, since areas around airports in the United States are located generally within heavily populated areas.

Airport and aircraft related operations are among the worst producers of the specific toxic chemicals listed. And unlike ground-based sources, aircraft contaminate our breathing air from overhead, exposing people living many miles away from an airport to these deadly poisons and particulate matter.

Researchers have now linked the breathing of cancer-causing compounds during pregnancy to a direct increase in the risk of childhood cancer. In fact, they believe nearly all child cancers and leukemia can be traced back to a mother's inhalation of toxic substances during pregnancy.

The peer reviewed study demonstrates that there are significant birth proximity relative risks when expectant mothers are exposed to "hotspots" of carbon monoxide, PM10 particles, VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds), nitrogen oxides, benzene, dioxins, 1,3-butadiene, and benz(a)pyrene.

The study confirmed that the places of children with cancer are often sites of industrial combustion, VOCs, and associated engine exhausts.

According to the study, "Newly identified specific hazards include the known carcinogens 1,3-butadiene, dioxins, and benz(a)pyrene. The mother probably inhales these or related materials and passes them to the fetus across the placenta," other sources cannot be excluded: breast milk or preconception contamination or pollution effects in early infancy.

Smaller airports are not exempt, since aviation gas still contains the additive lead. In addition, more than 5,000 general aviation airports plan to start accepting jet operations in the near future. Jets burn more fuel and release more toxins. In another study, according to data from the Los Angeles School District on Santa Monica Airport, just about 15 jet operations a day cause a significant increase in cancer risks.

According to USEPA and Illinois EPA figures, Chicago O'Hare airport's aircraft alone, emit more VOCs than those from all Illinois electric power generating plants combined, with Carbon Monoxide emissions as much as 60% of that total!

The peer reviewed study, "Evidence Based Public Health Policy And Practice: Childhood cancers and atmospheric carcinogens", by E. G. Knox was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, (doi:10.1136/jech.2004.0216752005;59;101-105).

For more information on what you can do, contact Mothers Against Airport Pollution at: 630-415-3370.

-END-

==============

Editor's note:

"Controlling Evidence Based Public Health Policy And Practice:

Childhood cancers and atmospheric carcinogens."

http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/59/2/101

----------------------

Airport-Related Air Pollution (study conducted by 8 US states, many new findings including finding that the Federal Aviation Industry and United Nations (ICAO) are grossly underreporting ground emissions.)

http://64.2.134.196/workgroup/aircraftport/Aviation_Final_Report.pdf

Toxic emissions from the airports studied are high when compared with emissions from the largest stationary sources in each of the three states. While improvement is needed in the method used to calculate toxic emissions from aircraft, the inventory provides a rough approximation of emissions, indicating that toxic emissions from aircraft greatly exceed those of the largest stationery sources in the three states. (Pp. II-13-14)

Table 1. 1999 Aircraft Emissions at the Airports of Study (Pp. II-11-14)

Tons/Year

Logan Bradley

Manchester

Oxides of Nitrogen 2,664.1 676.5 187.5

Hydrocarbons 562.1 102.0 35.4

1,3-butadiene 10.7 1.8

0.6

Benzene 15.7 3.1

1.2

Formaldehyde 82.1 12.9 3.7

Acetaldehyde 25.3 3.9

1.1

-------------------

Yet another similar type New York City study confirms Childhood cancers and atmospheric carcinogens findings:

"When their babies were born, researchers found about 50% more genetic abnormalities in infants whose mothers had higher levels of exposure to toxics caused by burning fuels such as gas and coal, researchers said yesterday."

"We already knew that these air pollutants significantly reduce fetal growth, but this is the first time we've seen evidence that they can change the structure of chromosomes in [the womb]," said Dr. Frederica Perera, director of Columbia's Center for Children's Environmental Health."

Source: Urban Air Pollution Linked To Childhood Cancer In NYC Study. NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, 2-16-05. (From the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention.)

____________________

Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution News Item

Los Angeles, California

Regarding Santa Monica Airport:

Santa Monica Task Force On The Environment requests a delay in development of the Airport Park Project until a Human Health Risk Assessment Can Be Completed:

For over a year, the CITY OF SANTA MONICA TASK FORCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT has taken on the issue of air pollution impacts on residential areas coming from idling jets at Santa Monica Airport in response to a number of residents’ concerns. The Task Force appointed a subcommittee to deal with the issue. Many residents formed a new umbrella group, “Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution” (CRAAP), to focus on the negative environmental and safety impacts coming from Santa Monica Airport. CRAAP founder, Martin Rubin, also started a website, jetairpollution.com, devoted to these concerns.

At the June 14^th Task Force meeting, The Task Force unanimously adopted the following motion:

"The Task Force on the Environment recommends that City Council authorize and fund a human health risk assessment prior to the construction of Airport Park to evaluate the potential health impacts due to localized air pollution exposure on people using the park."

Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution backs this motion, and feels that the study should expand the study to include the risk to people who live in the neighborhoods that receive the brunt of the idling jet emissions.

Also of interest is, Task Force member, Susan Mearns’ Airport Subcommittee report:

Susan Mearns reported on the May 24 environmental workshop convened by the Airport Commission regarding Santa Monica Airport. She expressed disappointment that the staff presentations at the workshop didn’t directly address local air quality issues at the airport. She also noted that an air monitoring study proposed by the City’s toxicological consultant at the workshop was inadequate and will miss many pollutants of concern. Members of the public Marty Rubin and Stacy Brown both recommended that if a modeling study is undertaken that it must be comprehensive and involve collection of local air samples adjacent to the airport and in surrounding areas.

On the agenda for the Monday, July 19^th, 7pm Task Force meeting, is item VII, “Discussion and Recommendations Regarding Actions Taken By City Staff and/or City Council Regarding pursuit of Grant Funding to Conduct Air Monitoring at Santa Monica Airport (20 mins)”. Task force meetings are held at the Ken Edwards Center, 1527 4^th Street, Room 103, Santa Monica, CA.

For more information, and to see the agenda and minutes go to the Calendar page of our website and click the Environmental Task Force on July 19^th.

__________________

SM Task Force on the Environment meeting - June 14,2004

Mark Gold, Chair of the Task Force, voiced his frustration with the City of Santa Monica. He told me that although the Task Force agreed with our desires to have Santa Monica Airport air quality issues looked into, he said that we need to take the matter directly to the SM City Council. He compared the efforts of the Task Force to have SM Airport air quality issues addressed by SM City Council to the efforts of the Task Force to have the fluoridation of SM water concerns addressed. The Task Force did not have their input responded to by City Staff or City Council. I feel that the SM Environmental Task Force has taken this issue on and they have tried to move it forward several ways. The City representatives continue to sit on, side step, or postpone each of the Task Force efforts. This is shameful behavior from a city known for being in the forefront of addressing environmental issues. In the meantime, communities surrounding SM Airport continue to be subjected to toxic jet emissions, which only get worse as the number and size of jets using SM Airport increase.

___________________

SM Task Force on the Environment – May 17^th meeting.

After well over a year of nothing concrete being done regarding the air quality issue at SM Airport, members of the SM Environmental Task Force felt like they had let the communities around the airport down.

From the MINUTES APRIL 19, 2004 MEETING OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TASK FORCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT: Subcommittee Update
#################

Brian Johnson presented an update regarding the efforts to address air quality issues at the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). He noted that SMO staff have been working with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to include SMO in SCAQMD’s planned MATES 3 air monitoring study. SMO is currently on the “alternate” list of monitoring sites for the study. As it appears likely that the MATES 3 study will not be a feasible option for completing detailed air monitoring at SMO, the Task Force passed the following motion:
"The Task Force on the Environment recommends that City apply for an EPA 'National Air Toxics Community-Based Program' grant to fund an air quality study at the Santa Monica Airport to better quantify air quality impacts related to the airport operations."

The closing date for the EPA grant is May 17, 2004. The Task Force asked staff to provide an update on action taken on this recommendation at the May 17 Task Force meeting.
#################

At the May 17, 2004 meeting of the Task Force, Brian Johnson, SM City Environmental Programs Manager, reported that a meeting is being planned between Airport Staff, the City Attorney, and City representation to discuss the feasibility of applying for an EPA 'National Air Toxics Community-Based Program' grant to fund an air quality study (missing the deadline for the closing date for the EPA grant). In the discussion about this, Kevin McKeown, Santa Monica Mayor Pro-Tem and member of the Green Party, asked why the City would want to do such a study. Mark Gold, Chair of the Task Force replied that he might want to know if his son would develop asthma playing at the proposed new Airport Park. Kevin replied back, words to the effect that the City’s Attorney did not want the City to pay or request funding for a human health risk assessment that would more than likely be used in litigation against the City.

_________________

From the MINUTES

APRIL 19, 2004 MEETING OF THE

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

TASK FORCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Subcommittee Update

Brian Johnson presented an update regarding the efforts to address air quality issues at the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). He noted that SMO staff have been working with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to include SMO in SCAQMD’s planned MATES 3 air monitoring study. SMO is currently on the “alternate” list of monitoring sites for the study. As it appears likely that the MATES 3 study will not be a feasible option for completing detailed air monitoring at SMO, the Task Force passed the following motion:

"The Task Force on the Environment recommends that City apply for an EPA 'National Air Toxics Community-Based Program' grant to fund an air quality study at the Santa Monica Airport to better quantify air quality impacts related to the airport operations."

The closing date for the EPA grant is May 17, 2004. The Task Force asked staff to provide an update on action taken on this recommendation at the May 17 Task Force meeting.

LAX Expansion

A letter from

CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN

36^TH District, California

Dear Neighbor:

Last week, Mayor Hahn and Los Angeles World Airports released its final draft EIR/EIS for the LAX Master Plan. I am gravely disappointed with the final product and consider it a failure for everyone who uses, lives near, or appreciates the economic significance of Los Angeles International Airport.

I was saddened to see that after receiving more than 3,000 comments from public officials and concerned residents, the mayor and airport officials made no substantive changes to their plan. They turned a deaf ear to you, to me, and to countless others who want to see LAX fixed right and fixed now.

I remain deeply concerned that Alt D does not adequately address security concerns. Any proposal billed as "the Enhanced Safety and Security Alternative" must insure that every dollar spent on security is being used to its maximum benefit. Mayor Hahn and LAWA officials have repeatedly refused to hire a reputable firm to perform a cost-benefit analysis examining security improvements at LAX, including the need for and location of an off-site passenger facility.

Surely area residents would benefit from an analysis that could demonstrate Alt D's security safeguards could be achieved with less effort and money - or that additional protections could be won for the same amount of money with a modified design. Supervisor Knabe and I are urging the City Council to commission such a study to better inform its deliberations in the coming months.

I also see no reason to believe the Mayor's contention that Alt D constrains growth at LAX to 78 MAP. The plan contains absolutely no verifiable means of limiting growth at LAX. Absent such constraints, commitments to a regional aviation system are non-existent. And we all know that any long-term solution requires an aggressive and immediate build-out of a regional system of airports to reduce the burden on LAX and surrounding communities.

It is still entirely possible to salvage this EIR/EIS and proceed expeditiously with modernizing and securing LAX. I have called on the council to modify and approve an EIR/EIS that includes a first phase of immediate safety, security, and traffic improvements; and a second phase with enforceable constraints on facilities that limit growth to 78 MAP and promote a regional build-out.

I am also deeply concerned by our Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski's airport proposal. While I share her goals and laud her commitment, I cannot support her process. The first step of her proposal requires adoption of an unmodified version of the mayor's EIR/EIS - which I simply cannot support. And while Councilwoman Miscikowski hopes to defer or halt the more onerous aspects of Alt D through technical changes in city planning documents, those documents are too easily amended to provide the ironclad commitments we need for security and capacity constraints.

The sensible solution is for the Los Angeles City Council to amend the Mayor's EIR/EIS to reflect the changes you and I have been demanding for the past year. Supervisor Don Knabe, former El Segundo Mayor Mike Gordon and Los Angeles City Councilman Jack Weiss have joined me in this call. I invite you to do so as well.

I look forward to continuing to work with you on a sensible solution to the problems of modernization, security, and capacity constraints at LAX.

Regards,

JANE HARMAN

Member of Congress

___________________

Teterboro air study accord is reached

Thursday, March 25, 2004

By DANIEL SFORZA

STAFF WRITER

A coalition of North Jersey towns has reached an agreement in principle with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to begin a study of the air near Teterboro Airport.

The Coalition for Public Health and Safety filed suit against the Port Authority in May 2002 to force the agency to conduct a study that would determine the effect of jet fumes on the surrounding towns. Last year, Governor McGreevey, who jointly oversees the bi-state agency with New York's governor, announced that his state and the Port Authority would fund the $450,000 study, ending the lawsuit.

However, legal wrangling over who would do the work delayed the agreement until Wednesday.

"This is everything we worked for," said Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan. "This is a big step for people who live around the airport. We will really get a handle on what the real health impact is from all this pollution at the airport, which is very important."

The state will pay $150,000, and the Port Authority will kick in $300,000. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection will oversee the work.

"The important thing to remember is we are doing this as part of our responsibility to be a good neighbor to the people who live and work near Teterboro Airport," said Port Authority spokeswoman Tiffany Townsend. "Air quality is an issue we have been concerned about for a long time, and under the direction of Governor McGreevey we are doubling our efforts."

All sides have not yet signed off on the agreement, but they are expected to do so soon.

The study, which is expected to begin this summer, will take up to 18 months to complete, although it could finish sooner. Four monitoring stations will be set up around the airport's perimeter to test levels of pollutants.

Environ of Princeton will do the work. The firm did a much smaller $47,000 study over two days in 2001 that found high levels of chemicals in the air, but couldn't pinpoint the source.

The new study is expected to identify where the toxic substances are coming from - the airport or from automobile and truck traffic on two busy highways, Routes 17 and 46, that border Teterboro.

"I hope to put this thing to rest once and for all as far as what is coming out of the sky as far as your toluene levels, your benzene levels," said Carlstadt Councilman Craig Lahullier. "Our study plans on pinpointing the source. It's not going to be what's in the air, but where it's coming from."

Residents were also pleased.

Hasbrouck Heights resident Carol Skiba said: "I am very pleased Governor McGreevey stepped up to the plate on the issue of environmental impact and diminished quality of life for the residential communities surrounding Teterboro Airport. It is very reassuring that the concerns of the residents are finally being heard and addressed."

E-mail: sforza@northjersey.com

__________________

______________________________

My comments on the Stage 4 Aircraft Noise Standards; Proposed Rule

My comments on the Stage 4 Aircraft Noise Standards; Proposed Rule are aimed primarily at the continued lack of regard for the environmental impacts that aircraft under 75,000 pounds have on a large section of American society. I am also very concerned with the environmental impacts of air traffic regardless of their weight.

Under Stage 4 Operation

Section 91.851, Section 91.853, and Section 91.855 state that these rules apply to airplanes over 75,000 pounds.

The huge increase in Commuter Jet traffic (that use fractional jet ownership and other unscrupulous methods to circumvent commercial flight classification) has dramatically increased already intolerable levels of noise and air pollution to the countless American citizens that live around the smaller General, Regional, or Business Aviation Airports. These commuter jets are almost entirely under the 75,000 pound weight, making them exempt from your proposed regulations.

It is reprehensible that air traffic is exempt from standards and regulations other industries must abide by. Who benefits from these exemptions? Certainly not the citizens who endure the noise of aircraft operations around the clock, seven days a week. Certainly not the citizens who are forced to breathe the toxic emissions from idling jets and other aircraft emissions.

Compare Economic Evaluation and Environmental Analysis

There is approximately ten times the space allotted to the economy versus the environment in the Proposed Rule, you are carrying over to Stage 4 the blatant environmental injustices that already exist. Is it not a fact that the economy and the value of the dollar would suffer tremendously when our air, water and soil are ruined by thoughtless contamination? And what about the basic quality of life we Americans are guaranteed? The noise in the skies is ever-increasing. It is becoming the background noise. To believe that an ever-increasing number of aircraft operations are necessary for our economy to grow lacks logic. We need to invest in cleaner, safer, more economically sound, and more sustainable forms of transportation that do not unfairly impact the lifestyles of our fellow Americans.

I agree with the US-CITIZENS AVIATION WATCH ASSOCIATION in calling for the ICAO to change its mission from protecting the air transport industry to a mission of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the global populace first, above industry profits.

I agree too that the United States should be a leader on these environmental and public health matters.

Martin Rubin – Co-founder of: Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution

E-mail: jetairpollution@earthlink.net

__________________________

What happened at the October 27^th, 2003 Santa Monica Airport Commission meeting?

The October 27^th meeting was encouraging in a number of ways for our communities affected by air traffic in and out of Santa Monica Airport, especially those of us who live close by to the east of the airport. There was a good representation from east of the airport (five from Barry Ave.) speaking about how they are bothered by jet fumes, noise, and safety concerns.

I will summarize some pertinent items from the meeting as I understood them. If anyone attending the meeting wants to add or correct anything, please contact me.

One item of potential significance was brought up by Commissioner Gebman. Commissioner Gebman, who works for the Rand think tank, made the first proactive proposals (other than the new noise ordinance) that would potentially help our communities deal with airport impacts. At this meeting he proposed that airport legal staff look into how the language of the Federal Law regarding aviation might be changed to better balance the role of aviation and their impacts on residents living in close proximity to airports. The law he is referring to is TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION. I will give you the links to this document in case you wish to look at it. You are encouraged to do so, so that we may give our suggestions to what might be changed, added, or removed. I invite you to participate in this discussion at the November 24th Commission meeting. You will hear what the airport staff, what the Commissioners, and what the public (including your input) have to say.

Link to complete index:

* TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

Link to a significant page:

* SUBTITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER 1—ORGANIZATION Sec. 106.

Federal Aviation Administration

Link to another significant webpage:

*   SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS PART A--

AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY subpart i—

general CHAPTER 401--

GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 40101. Policy

After we all study the document, and we give our input, then we will need to have our Congressional Representatives make these much needed changes to the law that the FAA must follow.

As it stands the FAA is concerned with the safety of air traffic, and promoting the growth of air traffic (seemingly, a contradiction). The environmental concerns, that so many individuals and groups have around the country and around the world, do not seem to have any effect on their decisions. As a result, we live with an ever-growing problem of air pollution, noise pollution, and safety concerns that are unreasonable, unjust, and inhumane. I feel that, though this may be quite a challenge, it is precisely what needs to happen. Thank you Dr. Gebman.

The item that I had sent e-mails out about, regarding public access to information about aircraft operations, was addressed a few times throughout the meeting.

The agenda item “3b - Information Item: Public Requests for Information Concerning Aircraft Operations” was pulled from the Consent Calendar by Commissioner Grossman for discussion. The result was that staff agreed that they need to document precisely how different requests for information are tended to. Staff agreed that this would be necessary so as to avoid the appearance of being arbitrary. That is giving information to those they want to, and not to those that they don’t want to. My understanding is that airport staff will come back with the details. How it affects requests like the one I had, I did not understand. However…

Later on Commissioner Grossman requested that an item be put on a future agenda addressing the “Maintenance of a Public Log of Aircraft Operations”. Commissioner Gebman seconded this request and no further vote was necessary for this to move forward as a future agenda item.

If this log contains accurate or even fairly accurate records of idling times of specific aircraft engine types, then there would be no need for the public to call in for this information. All we are trying to do is have the airport supply information that can be used to show the extent and magnitude of air pollution on the surrounding communities. This is very important, and it should be started as soon as possible (A Priority Item). It will be on the January, 2004 meeting agenda.

Under item 7d. Discussion of Airport Commission Agenda Items, Topics and Issues for the Following Six Month Period, Commissioner Grossman strongly expressed his wishes to have environmental issues moved forward. He suggested that they be looked at more often (every two months) also. This is a much needed move in the right direction. Our concerns have been overlooked and put on the back burner for many years. It is high time that our voice is heard! My thanks to Commissioner Grossman!

I feel strongly that we are beginning to move forward in the right direction. We will continue our outreach (we have only just started) to inform the neighborhoods affected by air traffic to and from Santa Monica Airport about what we are doing. As our “Concerned Residents about Santa Monica Airport” group grows, our voice will get stronger, and we will be heard.

I ask those of you who are able to, to come to the last meeting of this year, Monday, November 24^th, 2003 at 7:30pm. Mark it on your calendar. I appreciate that we had a good turnout for this meeting. I know that it made a difference!

Remember, this is a health and quality-of-life issue that we are fighting for: clean air, a fair level of peace and quiet and the peace of mind that you will not have a plane crash into your home.

Thank you for your interest,

Martin Rubin: your website manager

Sept.    , 2003

TO: Docket Management System

        US Department of Transportation

        Room Plaza 401

        400 Seventh St.

        Washington, DC 20590-0001

FROM: ___________________________



             ___________________________

             ___________________________

RE: FAA Docket Number FAA-2003-15495

        Weight-Based Restriction at Airports: Proposed Policy

As a resident in close proximity to a general aviation airport, I am appalled at the FAA Proposed Policy regarding the Weight Restrictions.

Safety should ALWAYS be the FAA’s primary policy. Forcing General Aviation Airports to accept Aircraft heavier than the capacity of the runway and airport design defies all logic.

Not only does this jeopardize the physical aspects of the airport, it endangers the lives of the aircraft occupants and all the residents in the flight path.

It is frightening that the FAA is putting business interests before safety and surely exhibits a conflict of interest.

In addition, this proposal places an unfair financial burden of runway maintenance on Airport Operators forced to accept aircraft beyond the capacity of their runway design.

I urge that this policy not be implemented and the FAA use their extensive resources to promote more safety and security policies at all airports.

Additional Comments:__________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

*This is an interesting video.

Cincinnati TV WCPO-9

Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky Airport

July 31: Creek Pollution

Reported and Web Produced by: I-Team

Updated: 07/31/03 22:52:15

See the video at: www.wcpo.com http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/iteam/2029d5e3.html

***For a complete listing of the ARB, California Air Resources Board, Chairman's Series and the related documentation for each one of the series
click here ***

* Next Item -
Information Items about the AQMD:
Item #1:
Options Being Considered for Reducing Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution
(Suggestions from AQMD, Industry, Environmental/Community, and Local Government Representatives)

....Expansion/Improvements of Existing Programs....

1.Analysis and Mitigation for Stationary and Mobile Sources**
(Example: working with local governments and planners to minimize cumulative exposures)

2.Develop Additional Mitigation Requirements for Facilities in Heavily Impacted Areas**
(Example: this would require those sources in high risk areas to take additional steps to mitigate public health exposures to emissions from the facility)

3.Improve Emissions Inventories, Data and Analysis Tools
(Example: develop better analytical methods with which to measure and evaluate health risks from exposure to air pollution)

4.Develop and Incorporate Health and Distance-Based Sitting Criteria Into Source Specific Rules**
(Example: develop regulatory standards to incorporate requirements for locating equipment near residences or sensitive populations)

5.Provide Additional Enforcement to Highly Impacted Areas**
(Example: increase compliance and enforcement efforts in high risk areas by requiring higher field presence by air quality inspectors and more frequent inspections)

6.Develop Programs Targeting the Sources Contributing to Health Risk Problems**
(Example: develop regulatory programs that focus on those sources contributing to increased exposures in high risk areas and develop measures to reduce exposures on a localized level)

7.More stringent Requirements for New and Existing Sources**
(Example: more stringent risk limits for new and existing equipment emitting air toxics)

8.Elevated Scrutiny for Permit Applications, Modifications, and Renewals in Highly Impacted Areas **
(Example: for equipment located in areas of high public health risk, increased scrutiny of the equipment during permitting and permit renewal would be required to ensure such equipment is not contributing significantly to such risk)

....New Programs....

1.Back-Up Generator Requirements**
(Example: develop rule to reduce emissions from diesel back-up. generators)

2.Multiple Violation Provisions for Areas of High Health risk**
(Example: create a program that would require emissions and public health risk reductions from facilities in areas of high health risks that have been issued multiple air pollution violations)

3.Odor Abatement**
(Example: develop program for addressing exposure to odors or other nuisances)

4.Develop and Launch Pollution Prevention Initiatives**
(Example: when developing regulatory and non-regulatory programs, AQMD would seek to implement all applicable pollution prevention measures)

5.Industry-Wide Reductions **
(Example: implement industry-wide emission reductions for heavy polluting sectors)

6.Identify and Address Non-Cancer Risks**
(Example: develop a program that not only seeks to reduce cancer risk, but also seeks to reduce chronic and acute non-cancer or other public health exposures)

....Planning Tools....

1.Toxic Emission Reduction Goals **
(Example: adopt goals for reductions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs))

2.Identify High Risk Areas **
(Example: define areas of concern based on unusually high levels of cumulative health risk and identify sources contributing significantly to that risk and use this information to develop specific measures to reduce public exposure)

3.Conduct the third Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin
(Example: this project would reassess the current level of public health risk in the Basin as compared to previous studies to measure the effect of recently developed programs to reduce air toxic emissions.)

....Funding Mechanisms....

1.Neighborhood Air Toxics Abatement Fund**
(Example: creation of a fund that can be used for local programs to reduce public exposures to air pollution)

2.Additional Funding for High Priority Mobile Source Reduction Projects **
(Example: support or match funds for mobile source related projects that would reduce public exposures to air pollution)

** Development or implementation of these options (or portions of these options) could occur within one year.

Item #2:

FACT SHEET on South Coast Air Quality Management District Efforts to Address Cumulative Health Impacts From Air Pollution Emissions.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) is currently seeking input on a program that address cumulative health impacts from air pollution. This program is part of a comprehensive set of Environmental Justice (EJ) initiatives.

Who is the AQMD?
The AQMD is the air pollution control agency for the four-county region including Orange county and parts of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. AQMD is primarily responsible for controlling emissions from stationary sources of air pollution. These can include anything from large powerplants and refineries to the corner gas station and dry cleaner. Authority for regulating emissions from vehicles is primarily the responsibility of state and federal governments.

What is Environmental Justice (EJ)?
The AQMD has an Enhanced Environmental Justice Work Plan. In October 1997, the AQMD Governing Board defined EJ as "... the equitable environmental policymaking and enforcement to protect the health of all persons who live or work in the AQMD, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution."

What is the AQMD doing to address cumulative impacts?
AQMD has many existing and ongoing programs that reduce air contaminants. We are working to identify additional policy or regulatory approaches to enhance these efforts. A Working Group, composed of members representing other regulatory agencies, local government, environmental/community organizations, and industry is helping the AQMD staff identify issues and various approaches to address cumulative impacts from sources of air pollution. In addition, the AQMD will be holding five (5) Community Forums through out the local area to seek community input.

What are the objectives and how can you help?
The Working Group is helping AQMD address cumulative impacts. You can help identify and prioritize areas of concern and make specific suggestions on policy, regulatory reform and incentives to help further improve the air quality in neighborhoods with the most need for improvement.

For more information, please visit the AQMD web-site at: http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/CIWG.htm

Next item:
**REPORT**
Study of Toxins Says U.S. Children Are at High Risk
[HOME EDITION] Marla Cone; The Los Angeles Times; Feb 1, 2003; pg. A.16 Check L.A.Times.com to obtain copy.

Next item:
**REPORT**
Very high levels of ultrafine particles near Freeways!
http://ens-news.com/ens/oct2002/2002-10-18-09.asp

Freeway Neighbors Exposed to Air Pollution
LOS ANGELES, California, October 18, 2002 (ENS) - People near freeways are exposed to 30 times the concentration of dangerous particles than normal background concentrations of these pollutants, two new studies show.
See also: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/sph/pr/pr_zhuhinds.pdf
The studies from researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) examined exposure levels for people who live, work or travel within 165 feet downwind of a major freeway or busy intersection.

The studies - published in the "Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association" and in "Atmospheric Environment" - show that proximity to a major freeway or highway increases exposure to "ultrafine" particles - tiny particles less than 0.1 micrometers in diameter, which are linked to neurological changes, mild pulmonary inflammation and cardiovascular problems.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now regulates particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, and ultrafines represent the very smallest particles inhaled by the public.

Motor vehicle emissions represent the most significant source of ultrafine particles. Moreover, recent toxicological studies have shown that ultrafine particles are more toxic than larger particles, potentially leading to increased mortality and illness with increased exposure to particulate matter.

"We believe this is the first study conducted in the United States that provides a detailed spatial profile of ultrafine particles near freeways," said William Hinds, a professor of environmental health sciences in the UCLA School of Public Health, who co-authored the studies with Yifang Zhu, a doctoral candidate in the School of Public Health.

The studies, conducted through the Southern California Particle Center and Supersite (SCPCS), assessed the size distribution and concentration of the tiny ultrafine particles near major freeways.

The first study focused on Interstate 405, one of the nation's busiest freeways, with 93 percent of the traffic composed of gasoline powered cars. The second study looked at the 710 freeway, which has more than 25 percent of its traffic derived from heavy duty diesel trucks.

By measuring the number of particles and their size at varying distances from the 405 and 710, Hinds and Zhu concluded that the number of ultrafine particles downwind near both freeways was about 25 to 30 times greater than the number upwind. The number of ultrafine particles dropped with increasing distance from the freeway, falling to 30 percent of peak concentration at 330 feet.

The rapid decrease and dilution in particle concentration was due to several factors, including atmospheric dispersion, coagulation, and wind direction and speed.

Both Hinds and Zhu concur that better understanding of the size and concentration of ultrafine particles is vital, particularly in a city with 85 million vehicle miles traveled on its freeways on an average day.

"The objectives of the study include providing scientists with a way to predict exposure concentrations to ultrafine particles near freeways in order to facilitate health studies and provide data for the development of an air-quality standard for ultrafine particles," Zhu said.

The studies also examined the concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), black carbon (BC) and particle mass. Like ultrafines, CO and BC concentrations decreased by 70 to 80 percent within the first 330 feet downwind of the freeway, confirming the notion that vehicular exhaust is a major source of these pollutants near a major roadway.

* * *

*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
purposes only. ***

Next item:
**SM CITY COUNCIL VOTES TO SUPPORT AIRPORT NEIGHBORS**
SM City Council voted to approve Airport Staff's recommendation for Aircraft Conformance to B-II Standard and Runway Safety Area Designation in concept and instructed the City Manager and Staff to:

1) conduct a legal, environmental, and operational review of this recommendation and

2) an engineering review and analysis of implementing runway safety areas.
This process will probably take several months. We will update you with the progress.

CITY MANAGER SUSAN MCCARTHY HAS REQUESTED ALL EMAILS SENT TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS SUPPORTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BE COPIED TO HER
City Manger Susan McCarthy wants to catalog for the record the support from the community for this recommendation. The City may use this data when lobbying for support from other elected representatives and in their meetings with the FAA regarding this issue.
If you sent an email to City Councilmembers supporting this issue and did not already copy Ms. McCarthy, please forward a copy to susan-mccarthy@santa-monica.org If you haven't sent a support email, it's not too late...

** DETAILED INFORMATION **
To: City Council From: City Staff

Subject: Request that City Council Approve in Concept a Proposed Aircraft Conformance Program and Designation of Runway Safety Areas at Santa Monica Airport and Direct Staff to Evaluate the Implications of Implementation Introduction.

This report recommends that the City Council discuss and approve in concept a proposed Aircraft Conformance Program (ACP) and the designation of appropriate runway safety areas to ensure continued safe, compatible Airport operations. If approved in concept, the City Council should direct staff to thoroughly explore the implications of proceeding to implementation.

Background:
Santa Monica Airport is designed and is currently rated to handle aircraft with approach speeds of less than 121 knots and wingspans of less than 79 feet. However, the number of faster turbine aircraft using the Airport has increased rapidly in recent years and now exceeds 6,000 takeoffs or landings annually. In response to this changing reality,
staff initiated a review of the facility's operational design to determine its compatibility with the emerging aircraft fleet mix. The Santa Monica Airport Design Standards Analysis was conducted by Airport staff and the aviation planning firm Coffman Associates. The design standards analysis reviewed:
€ the shift in the aircraft fleet mix using the Airport toward larger and faster aircraft
€ the relationship between the performance criteria of these larger, faster aircraft and the design/operationaI limitations of the Airport's physical plant.
€ past and current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Design Standards
€ overall aircraft operations to ensure the Airport's compatibility with the emerging mix of aircraft using the facility.
The analysis of the operational data collected confirmed that there are increasingly larger and/or faster aircraft operating at the Airport. These aircraft are not compatible with the Airport's designated FAA design standards airport reference code. The Airport's FAA reference code is B-II(two) and is based upon the critical design aircraft identified in 1984. Airport facilities were designed and constructed to accommodate B-11 compatible aircraft. That designated category of aircraft had approach speeds of less than 121 knots and wingspans of less than 79 feet.

The analysis concluded that:
1) there has been a significant trend in recent years towards greater numbers of faster/larger/heavier aircraft that are incompatible with the Airport's FAA reference code of B-11.
2) the Airport lacks sufficient runway safety areas- per current FAA design guidelines. Runway safety areas are clear areas at runway ends which provide a margin of safety in the event of an emergency.

Discussion:
The Santa Monica Airport Design Standards Analysis resulted in a recommendation to implement a specific program to accommodate only those aircraft that are compatible with the airport reference code of B-II as identified in the 1984 Agreement and defined by the current FAA Airport Design Standards (hereinafter referred to as the "AircraftConformance Program" or "ACP"). Additionally, the analysis recommended the designation of runway safety areas by displacing the landing thresholds 300' at either end of the runway consistent with the Airport's reference code of B-II. This change would create runway safety areas at both ends of the existing runway without shortening the runway itself.

Airport Commission Review and Recommendation:
At its meeting on May 20, 2002 the Airport Commission considered the information and analysis contained in the Design Standards Analysis and unanimously voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council supporting the establishment of a program that would preclude incompatible aircraft from using the Airport and requested that staff conduct an engineering review and analysis leading to the designation of appropriate runway safety areas. Additionally, the Commission recommended that staff return at a subsequent meeting to discuss potential ACP enforcement scenarios.

During its July 22, 2002 meeting, the Airport Commission supported the implementation of a proposed Aircraft Conformance Program and also discussed potential enforcement procedures. The Commission requested that staff forward the recommendation to City Council for adoption.

FAA Notice of Investigation:
On October 8, 2002 the FAA served the City a 14 page Notice of Investigation (NOI) regarding "the legality of the Santa Monica Airport Commission's apparent decision to recommend that the Santa Monica City Council adopt and implement the Airport Conformance Program". The NOI further advised that the FAA may issue a determination, among other things, that the City is:
I ) not in compliance with 1984 Agreement
2) not in compliance with certain FAA Grant Assurances
3) not in compliance with Federal Law
Additionally, the NOI invites the City to participate in good faith efforts to informally resolve the matter. City staff was surprised by the notice because, prior to its issuance, discussions with the FAA regarding the conformance program had been on-going; and the FAA gave no indication of any plan to initiate formal proceedings. Once the proceedings were initiated, the City Attorney and City staff prepared a written response to the NOI rejecting the assertions made by the FAA regarding the ACP and inviting the FAA to continue to discuss the matter. That response was filed on November 7, 2002.

Budget/Financial Impact:
There are no budget or financial impacts of approving in concept and directing staff to return with evaluation of implications of implementation at this time.

Recommendations:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the information and analysis contained in the design standards analysis presentation, approve the Aircraft Conformance Program and runway safety area designation in concept and instruct the City Manager and the City Attorney to:
1 ) continue to meet with the FAA in an effort to resolve the matter
2) conduct an in-depth review of the legal, environmental and operational consequences related to the implementation of the Airport Commission's recommended Aircraft Conformance Program
3) conduct an engineering review and analysis leading to the implementation of appropriate runway safety areas within the current Airport boundaries at an estimated cost of $25,000.

Prepared by:
Jeff Mathieu, Director of ResourceManagement/Airport Manager
Robert Trimborn, Airport Director

This is a NEW Website,and how effective we are is up to the collective efforts of all of us.The investment of time does not have to be great, but if we invest our time and efforts wisely, the returns can be enormous. Get involved, get on our contact list to be informed, E-mail your suggestions, collect data on fumes from jets, call the airport staff, call city officials from both Santa Monica and Los Angeles, and know that we have a right to fresh air!

To contact us, send your message to:
jetairpollution@earthlink.net