|
No
Green Light for Third Runway:
State Appeals Board Says Port Must
Do More To Protect Environment
A
state appeals board ruled today (12 August 2002) that the
Port of Seattle, operator of Sea-Tac Airport must meet new
environmental conditions if it plans to go forward with
its proposed third runway at the Airport. Previous conditions
laid down by the Department of Ecology in a certificate
issued under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act are
supplemented by heavy new requirements.
In
a case brought by two groups opposing the runway project,
the Pollution Controls Hearing Board (PCHB) ruled that several
new conditions had to be added to existing environmental
plans of the Airport in order to provide "reasonable
assurance" that State water-quality standards will
not be violated, if the project were built as planned.
At
an earlier stage, the PCHB had granted a stay of the effectiveness
of the certificate, on the ground that runway opponents
had shown a "likelihood of success" on the merits
of the appeal in several issues. In its final ruling today,
the Board ruled in favor of the opponents on most of those
issues. Here are highlights:
A steady and certain supply of supplemental water to
overcome low streamflow in near-by creeks.
The
Board said that the Airport is not legally allowed to impound
rainfall for this purpose without a valid water right (which
it does not have and probably cannot get). This was a key
issue raised by runway opponents, upheld by the Board—the
Port must now obtain valid State water rights to guarantee
that it will have an adequate supply of supplemental water
to add to near-by streams in Summer dry periods to keep
them healthy, as required by state water-quality rules.
New and improved plans to deal with the persistent contamination
of run-off from the Airport, which impacts local salmon-bearing
streams.
The
Board specifically held that the testing methods preferred
by the Airport were not satisfactory to provide accurate
data on the nature and extent of stream pollution. The Board
totally rejected claims by the Department of Ecology and
the Port that there no demonstrated violations of water
quality in streams coming down from the Airport. The Airport's
own testimony proved just the reverse. The Airport will
now be required to find ways to intercept contamination
by various metals, a problem shrugged off by the Department
of Ecology in granting approval to the project.
A better way of preventing contaminated fill from being
brought in, and tighter rules about what is acceptable
The
Board agreed with runway opponents that Ecology was allowing
too much contamination in fill material for the runway embankment;
this contamination can seep into local streams and groundwater.
Better testing methods for imported fill are now required,
and the limits for acceptable contamination are sharply
reduced. While the Port and Ecology were content with fill
contaminated by gasoline and other petroleum products, the
PCHB set a new limit of zero for such materials. Limits
for mercury, cadmium, lead, selenium, nickel, and chromium
were drastically cut by the Board. One small comfort for
Airport management: the Board did not require that they
find and remove contaminated materials previously delivered.
A better plan for replacing 22 acres of wetlands
More
than 22 acres of wetlands will filled or irreparably damaged
if construction proceeds. The Board agreed with critics
that the plans for mitigation did not restore important
wetland functions that would be lost forever. This was a
point discussed at length in the PCHB stay order as being
an issue on which critics would likely prevail—and
the final order confirms this initial ruling. The Airport
must now create new wetlands, or restore more old wetland
acreage, in the vicinity of the runway project. In an initial
reading of the opinion, it is not clear just how much more
acreage will be required, but it is significant. However,
the Board disagreed with the contention of many critics
that the supplemental wetlands replacement project in Auburn
was improper.
Larry
Corvari, President of the citizens' group Regional Commission
on Airport Affairs, said "This is a helpful ruling.
It puts some teeth back into our environmental laws. The
Department of Ecology caved in, but the Board did not. On
key points—water rights, stream contamination, and
fill contamination, the Board has come down on the side
of those who saw environmental disasters looming."
Mr.
Corvari continued, "The Airport persuaded Ecology to
approve the project first, and let the Airport fill in the
details later on. The way I understand the ruling, the Hearings
Board is requiring a lot more of the details to be spelled
out. And it's very significant that the Board repeatedly
mentioned that all the conditions should be enforced as
part of the Airport's new pollution permit. Here's the missing
enforcement mechanism, at long last."
Asked
whether the runway project can go forward after this unfavorable
ruling, Mr. Corvari said "Of course, that's up to the
Commissioners of the Port of Seattle. They can try, if they
wish, to meet these conditions. But they've spent $342 million
at least so far, and they have no cost estimates in hand
for the conditions imposed by Ecology, or for these new
requirements from the Board. This begins to look like a
project that will devour all the Port's money for a decade
to come. This would be a good time to mothball the runway
and look for a Plan B. Fortunately, there is such a plan
- pick the best site for a second regional airport - someplace
where the environmental problems are easy, not impossible,
someplace that isn't in the middle of a major metropolis,
someplace where the runway won't be knocked out in the next
earthquake. There are whole counties crying out for new
business, who would love to be considered for a big airport
project—counties with plenty of flat, dry land to spare."
On one issue of great concern to many, the Board accepted
the Airport's reassurances that the massive runway embankment
was highly unlikely to fail in a foreseeable earthquake.
The Board also chose not to use the highest standard for
seismic safety on the ground that the third runway would
not be "lifeline" [truly vital] facility. Therefore,
a less-onerous standard of frequency may be used. The Board
may have erred on this point, because their rationale is
that there are other near-by airports to take the slack
in case of earthquake damage to the third runway. But the
Nisqually Earthquake of 2001 should have taught us that
an earthquake that can do damage at Sea-Tac will do even
more damage to Boeing Field - the only airport near-by that
is in any way set up to take over major air-carrier functions
if Sea-Tac is crippled.
The appeal was brought by a coalition of local governments,
the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC). This group consists
of the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy
Park, and Tukwila, and Highline School District No. 401.
Part-way through the pre-trial proceedings, a citizens'
group, Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) joined
the appeal.
The Airport Communities Coalition was represented at the
hearing by Peter J. Eglick and Michael P. Witek, of the
Hellsell Fetterman firm, and by Rachel Paschal Osborn. The
intervenor, Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion, was represented
by Richard A. Poulin, who is associated with the Smith &
Lowney firm.
The
Department of Ecology was represented by Joan M. Marchioro,
Thomas J. Young, and Jeff B. Kray, all from the Attorney
General's office. The Port of Seattle was represented by
house counsel—Linda J. Strout, General Counsel for
the Port, and Traci M. Goodwin, Senior Counsel - and also
by two law firms; Roger A. Pearce and Steven G. Jones, from
Foster Pepper & Shefelman, and Jay J. Manning, Tanya
Barnett, Gillis E. Reavis, from Brown Reavis & Manning.
The
RCAA library contains a full record of the hearing on videocassettes,
with an index to the proceedings, which may be checked out
for use at home.
|
