To RCAA Home Page
To RCAA Library Page

Truth in Aviation, The Newsletter of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs
Vol. 5, No. 3 Winter 1999

 

Inside:

[Page 1]
Conveyor Belt Issue Stirs Crowd ** Third Runway Still "No-Go" As Wetlands Stall Project ** IN BRIEF
[Page 2]
Decade in Review ** What's Ahead for 1999? Fearless Forecasts from TIA's Editors
[Page 4]
Highline School District Study Sets Noise Standards ** Will Sea-Tac's Third Runway Fly Without Airline $$$? ** Threat of Litigation Holds Back New Air-Cargo Leases at BFI
[Page 5]
Community Outreach Co-ordinator Sought ** C.A.S.E. Monthly Meetings ** RCAA Needs You!


[Page 1]

In Brief

The Decade in Review

It's been over ten years since the Port first decided to try to expand Sea-Tac, including a third runway. What's the outlook for this huge project?
See article on page 2


Seattle Neighborhood Sues King County

The Georgetown neighborhood in Seattle has sued the County over failure to write an EIS for King County Airport expansion
See article on page 4


Floatplane Hearing Set

On Wednesday, February 24, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers (Municipal Building 4th & Cherry, 9th floor) a Seattle City Council Committee will hold a public hearing on the temporary moratorium on seaplane operations or facilities on the downtown Seattle waterfront. The proposal forbids issuance of permits for seaplane operations on the Downtown harborfront, pending further study. The application of Kenmore Air is unaffected.

CASE Election

The following are the newly elected officers of C.A.S.E. for 1999:

  • Larry and Candy Corvari--Co-presidents
  • Arlene Brown and Claudio Parazzoli--Co-Vice Presidents
  • Wally Meyers--Treasurer

The post of Secretary remains to be filled. Board Members include: Audrey Richter, Pat Pompeo, Helen Kludt, Peg Springer, Minnie Brasher, Debi Wagner, Rod Blalock, Jim Bartlemay, and Dan Caldwell (a new member).

Conveyor Belt Issue Stirs Crowd

On January 14, an overflow crowd attended the Des Moines City Council meeting to express continued opposition to a proposal to construct a five-mile conveyor belt over the Des Moines beach, up through Beach Park to Sea-Tac Airport. The purpose of the conveyor belt would be to haul 18 million cubic yards (27 million tons) of fill for the third runway from Maury Island to the Airport. The proposal was thought a dead issue when the Port’s own poll last year showed that Des Moines residents opposed it by nearly two to one.

The idea apparently revived when one Port commissioner opined that the Des Moines City Council could be bought off. In December, the Port put out "feelers" to ACC about discussions of a possible settlement, in hopes that the Port could cut a deal to make a large cash payment to Des Moines or ACC in return for approval of the conveyor and dropping all lawsuits. Although Des Moines is a member of ACC, the ACC cannot commit the city to any deal nor can it bind citizens groups involved in the runway fight. At the CASE meeting on January 6, Council members Terry Brazil and Bob Scheckler pledged continued opposition to the proposal.

CASE co-president Larry Covari said, "We were encouraged by the big public turn-out and favorable atmosphere at the Des Moines City Council on the 14th. We believe the City will not do any back-door deal with the Port. If the Port wants to end these runway wars, it will have to commit to a new course of action, one that will preserve the airport communities, not wreck them."

Third Runway Still "No-Go" As Wetlands Stall Project

Sea-Tac’s third-runway project remains at a total standstill, while the Port of Seattle attempts to solve legal problems related to wetlands permits, with no end in sight. As we reported in our Fall issue, the Port of Seattle announced in September that it needs to fill at least 8 more acres of wetlands for the third runway, a significant increase from the 11.42 acres mentioned in filings with the Department of Ecology and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Port has released no figures since its initial report, but wetlands continue to be found by Port consultants surveying land in the acquisition area west of the airport. Unofficial reports put the present total at 25 to 30 acres. The Port has told Jonathan Freedman of the Corps that it expects to complete the survey in February 1999. This seems optimistic, considering the present pace, in part because some homeowners refuse to let the Port on their properties until acquisition is settled.

The property acquisition project is behind schedule as well, although recent increases in Port offers have speeded it up lately. According to the Westside property owners’ group, "Westside Citizens for Fair Acquisition", to date, of more than 400 properties to be acquired, the Port has made offers on 293 parcels and 210 offers have been accepted by owners. A few cases in litigation have been settled, with owners receiving tens of thousands more than initially offered. Other cases have trial dates ranging from Summer 1999 into the next year.

Port plans call for an extremely steep wall for the runway embankment (see diagram, pg. 1). Normal engineering practice calls for such a wall to have a slope ratio of 2.8 to 3:1. The design is for a 2:1 slope. Any of the several reviewing agencies may require the embankment to meet usual standards, which could result in relocation of Miller Creek—requiring a new round of permits, and costing the Port many months and millions more.

Before the Port can fill wetlands, it needs a Section 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 401 certification from the State Department of Ecology. Ecology issued the 401 certification this Summer, then negotiated a withdrawal of the Port’s request for it in late October, because of the discovery of additional wetlands. The Corps will not act on the 404 permit till the 401 certification is granted. When the Port will re-apply to Ecology is anybody’s guess.

Ecology estimates that the Port so far has found 20-30 acres of wetlands. The Auburn replacement site proposed by the Port contains only 28 acres, and the Port must provide replacement wetlands at a ratio of at least 2 new acres for every 1 acre filled.

CASE Appeal Goes Forward

The Port’s recent "Declaration of Non Significance" for building the new wetlands, was appealed by Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion. On December 18, Superior Court Judge Jarvis denied the Port’s motion to dismiss CASE’s lawsuit for lack of standing. The Court found that the Auburn mitigation decision is directly related to the airport expansion plan and that CASE has standing. As a result of this ruling, Ecology may require a supplemental EIS on the wetlands section of the Auburn replacement EIS, something the Port hopes to avoid.

Highline Water District Cries Foul

Meantime, a surprised Highline Water District discovered that the Port had claimed that Highline water could be used to meet 401 certification requirements. Not so. "Highline Water District possesses the existing water rights," says the water district, in an appeal taken to the State Pollution Control Hearings Board. That water does not belong to the Port. If the Port could expropriate such a large amount, the District would need to replace it with more expensive water from other sources, resulting in greatly increased charges to the District’s 70,000 residents—another new cost of the third runway project, to be passed along to innocent bystanders.


[Page 2]
What's Ahead for 1999? Fearless Forecasts from TIA's Editors

For people concerned with Sea-Tac Airport, the year ahead will largely be a repeat of 1998. Problems with financing, property acquisition, schools, wetlands, fish, erosion, and water pollution will plague the third-runway project.

Property acquisition

The Port will continue to buy homes, businesses, & vacant land needed for the third-runway to the west of the present campus. Some owners dissatisfied with Port offers will fight for fair appraisals in court,& some of those cases will come to trial. The year will end with the Port not being in control of all the land needed for the runway.

Wetlands & stream issues

The Airport will resubmit its application for a "401 certificate" from the Department of Ecology, which will be granted, with very stringent conditions, & which will be appealed by both the Port & by concerned citizens. The appeals will probably still be pending at the end of 1999. In the Spring, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will hold a full-scale hearing to consider a renewed application for a "section 404 permit" to destroy wetlands in the headwaters of Miller Creek with runway fill. A huge crowd will turn out (again) to tell the Corps (again) why this is a bad idea. While the Corps is considering the matter, & waiting for resolution of the "401" appeal, at least 10 acres of wetlands will be "discovered" (again), setting the process back to zero (again). The North Employee Parking Lot will suffer severe erosion (again) — at least twice. Ecology will fine the Port 10 cents the first time,& in a punitive fury, will double the penalty to 20 cents the second time. Port will announce that the problem is now under control (again) and appeal the fines.

Fish

Puget Sound salmon will be found endangered, requiring yet another review of potential damage to Miller & Des Moines Creeks.

Dirt-hauling

The Port will struggle to find a way to move the 18 million-plus cubic yards still needed for the runway embankment. Conveyor-belt wannabee Henry R. Hopkins, will press hard to use Des Moines Beach Park as a conveyor site. Des Moines City Council will turn down an offer of "lots" of cash in return for permitting the conveyor, & the Port (or Mr Hopkins) will sue the city. Some ambitious soul will propose a jet-fuel pipeline through Des Moines to the airport (just kidding...or maybe not).

Health

Studies in other places will confirm a high incidence of cancer and respiratory disease near busy airports.

Noise

European authorities will tighten the rules on noisy aircraft and night-time flights; the FAA works vigorously to loosen them.

Schools

The Port will continue to refuse financial aid to the Highline School District to deal with second-runway noise.

Present lawsuits

The anti-runway litigation filed several years ago will go on working through higher courts, but with much lower lawyer bills.

Financing

The Port will ask FAA & Congress for more money, without success. Major airlines will balk at proposed new, higher rates to use Sea-Tac. The Port will start to hint about raising its real-property tax levy. Some in the Seattle Chamber of Commerce will begin to think again about the wisdom of the third runway project.

Construction

The Port will continue to claim that the runway is under construction, but on New Year’s Day 2000, the site of the runway (12th So.) will look like it did on New Year’s Day 1999— minus a few more houses, but still no construction activity. (See photo.)

Politics.

Bill Clinton will…

The Decade in Review

Third runway—not in use, not built, not under construction, behind schedule, over budget.

Sea-Tac’s third runway was supposed to be in operation in 1996. Here we are in 1999, with no planes landing on 12th Avenue South, the site for the runway. Why? Truth in Aviation reviews the past decade. The history of the third runway is a classic case of "project creep". It is the tale of how one simple quick-fix element of a larger plan for dealing with regional increases in air travel has turned into a massive expansion program for Sea-Tac Airport alone, with out-of-control costs and missed target dates. Most of the original regional plan for dealing with growing air travel has been abandoned.

Port of Seattle plans for a third Sea-Tac runway date back to 1987. Before then, the Port denied any intention to expand. Let’s start with the previous Airport Master Plan.

1985: No new runway

Sea-Tac’s Master Plan says that it is not looking to undertake another runway because of massive environmental impacts.

1987: New runway due in 1996
The Port has a change of heart, announces its expansion proposal, including a third runway, saying that the runway would be in operation in 1996. Without it, the Port claims, massive delays costing the airlines millions would occur. Projected cost $2.4 billion. The Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) Air Transport Advisory Committee (PSATC) votes against Sea-Tac expansion. Port spokesman says the planners made a mistake in revealing the high cost.

1989: Four-post plan proposed
FAA proposes plan to permit flights far outside existing corridors, as trial run for third-runway conditions.

1990: Third runway off
Port Commission authorizes purchase of land west of Airport, denies that it has plans for third runway. Port ends noise mediation process, FAA institutes four-post plan next business day. Seattle neighborhoods sue FAA.

1991: Court OKs four-post plan
U.S. Court of Appeals rules that FAA can excuse itself from complying with environmental laws for flights above 3000 feet.

1992: New runway due in 1997
A newly-formed PSATC, partly funded by the Port, issues its "Flightplan" study, supporting a third runway. The plan is for phased implementation of a multiple airport system including the addition of a dependent runway at Sea-Tac, introduction of scheduled air carrier service to Paine Field, and identification of a two-runway supplemental airport site in Pierce County for development by the year 2010, or failing that, finding a suitable site in Thurston County. Flightplan says 100 acres of wetlands will be filled. The cost of the 7000-foot Sea-Tac runway is set at $229 million and the runway’s opening date is fixed for 1997.

1993: Runway gets planners’ OK with conditions
Port argues that the delay problem is so urgent that the third runway must come before other portions of the multiple airport plan. PSRC (formerly PSCOG) votes to approve third runway with conditions: siting of another new airport in the four-county area, provided alternatives and demand management can be shown by an independent panel not to do the job and "real noise reductions" on the ground can be shown.

1994: Planners abandon multiple-sites condition
PSRC adopts resolution 94-01, abandoning further studies of supplemental sites in response to opposition of communities near those sites.

1995: Rail out; rail in
PSRC independent expert panel rules out rail as an alternative due to lack of commitment by State DOT. Shortly thereafter, State DOT releases study touting massive investment in improving rail travel along I-5 corridor.

1996: Runway completion date slips to 2005; longer runway; cost jumps
Port/FAA draft EIS released, calls for third runway, new terminal to support third runway, new ’people mover’ system to support new terminal, lengthening of main runway, & a host of other expansion projects. Length of runway increased to 8500 feet. Its cost is projected at $405.6 million. Finish date now set as 2005.

1996: Expert panel vetos runway
PSRC independent expert panel rules that Port has not provided "meaningful and significant" reductions in noise, vetoing a third runway.

1996: Planners abandon noise-reduction condition
New PSRC executive committee under pressure from the Port and leadership of Pierce and Thurston Counties arrange behind closed doors to override previous resolution, ignore expert panel, and vote to build the runway but to drop supplemental airports and Paine Field. Port/FAA begin writing Environmental Impact Statement.

1997: Port/FAA release EIS, & "approve" it (claiming victory)
EIS is issued, described by the Port as the best EIS ever written and by critics as "10 pages of information and 1990 pages of padding". Only 11.42 acres of wetlands to be filled! EIS uses 600,000 operations for benefits and 400,000 for impacts. EIS writers refuse to consider impacts past year 2010 (date of first operations still set for year 2005). Only reason given for new runway is to reduce delays in landing during poor weather. ACC appeals. Port appoints hearing examiner to hear appeal (claiming victory when the examiner finds for the Port).

Sea-Tac neighbors remember cancer victims. August, 1998.

1997: Runway costs jump again
Cost of 8500-foot runway alone grows to $587 million. State-sponsored study estimates impact costs in Highline area at $2.95 billion, not including city of SeaTac or schools: Highline School District will be forced to close 4 schools and to insulate 26 others. The Port claims the study is "flawed" because it is incomplete (!) and because the consultants, unlike the Port, used 600,000 operations for both economic benefits and impacts. King County Council orders study of impacts north of Highline area.

Port asks FAA for grant of $261 million for runway, gets promise of only $161 million. Port tells airlines it plans to use future passenger charges to pay for third runway, thus solving the arrival-delay problem. United, America West, and Delta question the need for the runway.

Port moves 300,000 yards of fill dirt from one part of Airport to another, claims runway construction underway. Port begs FAA for more third-runway money.

1998: Runway costs jump again
Port sells revenue bonds based on future passenger charges to obtain $114 million for runway; interest and costs will add another $256 million to total. Port "finds" another 8-10 acres of wetlands, is forced to withdraw application for State OK of wetlands work; Corps of Engineers also holds up its approval.

Federal appeals court rules that in writing airport EISes FAA has "discretion" to exempt itself from statutory duty to estimate long-term adverse impacts of runway.

With great difficulty, Port moves another 830,000 yards of fill—only 18,740,000 yards to go! Port tells State DOT that no dirt will be moved in 1999.

Photo 12th Ave. Jan. 1999
Show me the runway! 12th Ave. (centerline of the proposed runway) in January of 1999. New runway would require fill as high as the top of the hill in the distance.


[Page 4]
Highline School District Study Sets Noise Standards

Scientific noise studies confirm that there is a serious but curable noise problem from Sea-Tac overflights in at least 15 Highline schools, according to District Superintendent Dr. Joe McGeehan. Applying recognized noise standards, consultants BBN Technologies, of Canoga Park, California, have found that insulation and air-conditioning systems will be needed widely in the District’s 33 school buildings.

These studies, directed by Dr Sanford Fidell, were the first phase of the District's program to deal with noise suffered since the second Sea-Tac runway opened in 1972. Next will be detailed architectural and engineering work to define the exact work needed in each building, and the cost of such work. Portables will probably be excluded from noise treatment, because very little can be done to improve them and because, the Distract says, portables are not part of its long-term plan for educating students at schools that are impacted by aircraft-related noise. Consultants for the second phase of the study have not been selected.

Standard for Noise Interference Set

Dr McGeehan commented, "The Fidell study puts on paper — for the first time — an independent evaluation of what’s going on in our schools each and every time a plane goes over. In the past there have been computer generations and lots of estimations." Dr Fidell and his associates determined that noise is excessively disruptive if the student incorrectly hears

10 percent of the words used in the classroom.

Once cost estimates are complete, the goal is to work with the Port of Seattle and other public agencies to finance the noise improvements Call 206-433-2331 for copies of the study (or borrow a copy from the RCAA library).

Will Sea-Tac's Third Runway Fly Without Airline $$$

Desperate for funds for major construction projects, including the third runway, Sea-Tac Airport staff told the Port Commission on November 5, 1998, that the long-standing partnership between Airport and airlines will be scrapped, so that the Airport can have complete control over future construction and future income – including fees charged to air carriers. The new arrangements will be effective after December 2001, when present leases end. The new lease arrangement would allow the Port to impose huge increases in fees on airlines, and at the same time remove the traditional participation of airlines in decision-making about major construction. Port staff have projected a need for $1.2 billion for capital expenditures through 2003, of which nearly $500 million would come from unidentified "future revenues". March was suggested at the Port meeting as time to begin discussions with the airlines.

Airlines Pick Up Deficits

Over the last 28 years, most of Sea-Tac's airlines have operated under a Basic Airline Lease Agreement (BALA) effective January 1970, defining the operational and financial arrangement between the Port of Seattle and Sea-Tac airlines.

Under this BALA agreement, operating income from most revenue sources at the Airport, including parking fees, rental and concession income, &c, are used to pay for the operating and maintenance expenses and debt service for airline-approved projects at Sea-Tac. If operating costs (including costs associated with capital projects) increase, then the landing fees paid by the airlines increase. The agreement thus provides that the airlines "break even". At present, all projects at Sea-Tac requiring major capital expenditures must be approved by a majority of the airlines operating under the basic lease (BALA) agreement. The limits the Port's ability to control and direct projects undertaken at the airport. Staff noted that the airport and the airlines "do not always share the same priorities for airport improvements."

Two Major Challenges

In November, Port staff identified the "two major challenges" now driving the Port’s business plans at Sea-Tac: first, preparing for new airline agreement beginning in the year 2002; second, generating sufficient capital capacity to support the Port’s large ongoing capital program.

Major Capital Needed

The Port’s "Draft Plan of Finance" for the year 1999 through 2003 notes the Port’s Capital Program devoted to Sea-Tac airport "will be funded through a combination of Passenger Facilities Charges (PFC’s), FAA grants, net income, existing and future revenue, and PFC bond proceeds and commercial paper." Total capital expenditures for the 5-year period are estimated at $1.2 billion dollars. However, the funding for $496 million of this amount (or 41% of the total) would be based on "future revenue bonds or commercial paper". Details of this future revenue were not identified in the "Draft Plan", but evidently the major source will be higher fees to airlines.

Port staff also recently revealed that costs for currently planned Port projects plus a number of newly identified "infrastructure" projects require issuing over $200 million in revenue bonds in 1999 alone. The type of bonds have not been identified. Major capital projects include a new parking garage, the third runway, Concourse A, seismic improvements of the terminal building, construction of a $12.9 million lagoon associated with the Port’s waste water (IWS) facility, and costs associated with Y2K. A staff memo notes that only the parking garage and Y2K projects have airline approval.

Decaying Infrastructure

At an October 8 Commission meeting, Port staff reported the results of a recent assessment of basic utilities that support the terminal, airfield, parking garages, rental cars, etc. The study found many of the existing power, water, sewer, and other systems at Sea-Tac, first built in the 1940s have reached or exceeded their useful life, and are in need of major renovation or replacement. For example, the airport’s electrical distribution system is inadequate to provide the estimated 70% capacity increase needed to support the Port’s Master Plan projects, requiring a $35 million investment. Chilled-water, sewer and other mechanical systems also need major work. Total cost of those improvements is currently estimated at $89.3 million dollars.

New Funding Challenges

One of the capital programs, "Airfield Business Strategies", is to "Gain agreement and funding for Highline Schools", resolving its dispute concerning sound insulation. No funding has been designated by the Port for this program.

Threat of Litigation Holds Back New Air-Cargo Leases at BFI

Ambitious plans for continued expansion of air-cargo operations at Boeing Field (King County International Airport) appear to have been put on the back burner, as the result of one lawsuit on file and the threat of a second. The Airport has been authorized by the County Council to put the expansion plan into effect by granting very long-term leases of Airport buildings and other facilities to cargo operators. However, as of January 6, Airport staff confirmed to the Council that no new leases have been entered into, and none are being negotiated. One reason offered for lack of lease activity is environmental contamination of a key site.

The Georgetown Crime Prevention and Community Council filed suit on August 12. The Community Council charged that the County was acting without first doing a proper environmental review. At the time, the Airport had not even begun the scoping process for environmental studies The County has filed an answer to the complaint, alleging that Georgetown was too late in bringing suit, and also alleging that it was premature to sue at this time. A trial date of 3 January 2000 has been set by the court, according to Georgetown’s attorney, Anthony Reifers. A notice of lis pendens covering the whole airport has been filed by Mr Reifers. "Georgetown is in this for the long haul," said Reifers. "The residents of Georgetown are absolutely committed to ensuring that environmental justice is finally achieved for the community of Georgetown, and my office is committed to championing their interests zealously."

Lifting Moratorium Prompts Threat of Second Suit

Air-cargo operations at Boeing Field are constrained by the availability of building space in which to process cargo. Aside from Boeing Co. facilities, most buildings on and adjacent to the landing field are owned by the County, managed by the Airport, and leased to aviation-related users. The Airport intends to expand its cargo operations by preferentially leasing to air-cargo operators on long-term agreements as leases come up for renewal. The Council had imposed a moratorium on new leases in 1995, but in 1998, under the leadership of Dwight Pelz (D., 5), the Council started the process of switching from existing tenants to the preferred, but much noisier, air-cargo firms.

As repeal of the moratorium became a certainty, the Magnolia Community Club announced on October 6 that it would retain counsel to sue the County seeking to prevent any new long-term leases pending environmental review. The Council's response was to lift the moratorium and authorize new air-cargo leases on October 12, with no environmental review.

A five-year study of noise mitigation methods was touted by Councilmembers as a cure-all for the ever-growing noise from the cargo craft. Magnolia has now retained Peter Eglick as their lawyer, but no suit has been filed, as of this date.



[Page 5]
Community Outreach Co-ordinator Sought

The Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA), is seeking a part-time public outreach co-ordinator to facilitate public participation and involvement in issues of concern to citizens affected by proposed airport development projects, including environmental, socio-economic, and economic development issues in neighboring communities.

Applicant's experience must include organizing and co-ordinating public participation and fostering community awareness in issues. A demonstrated ability to work with affiliated community organizations as well as elected representatives is essential. Send resume in confidence to: RCAA, 19900 - 4th Avenue SW Normandy Park, WA 98166-4043.

C.A.S.E. Monthly Meetings

C.A.S.E. Monthly Meetings
First Wednesdays
ERAC Building
15775 Ambaum S.W. in Burien
First Wednesdays
7-9 pm
ERAC Building
15775 Ambaum S.W.
in Burien

RCAA Needs You!Your contributions are vital.
NAME (Please Print)____________________________________________________________
ADDRESS:____________________________________________________________________
CITY:________________________________________________________ZIP______________
Home Phone:____________________Work Phone:__________________FAX:_____________
E-mail:__________________________
_____Please send me_____ "No Third Runway" Bumper Strips. (No contribution required.)
_____I want to contribute $______________.
_____Please phone me about volunteering______________.
_____Please add my name to the e-mail update list. E-mail:________
Or email us at rcaa@earthlink.net and put "subscribe" in the Subject: line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regional Commission on Airport Affairs
http://www.rcaanews.org/rcaa
19900 4th Ave. S.W.
Normandy Park, WA 98166
(206) 824-3120 FAX: (206)824-3541

Truth in Aviation is published by the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs, a coalition of citizens groups concerned with airport expansion & air transportation issues.Closing Date this issue: Jan 22, 1999

Officers:
Al Furney (Des Moines), President
Rose Clark (Burien),Vice-President
Phil Emerson (Manhattan), Sec'y-Treasurer
Board Members:
Jamie Alls (Seattle)
Jim Bartlemay (Des Moines)
Larry Covari (Normandy Park) CASE
Clark Dodge (Normandy Park)
Dennis Hansen, M.D.(Burien)
Jeanne Moeller(Des Moines)
Len Oebser (Des Moines
Jane Rees (Seattle)
Office Administrator:Chas Talbot
Newsletter Editors: Beth Means & Chas Talbot
http://www.rcaanews.org/
E-Mail: rcaa@earthlink.net
Permission to copy for non-commercial purposes granted.