|
In
August 2002, the State Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) rejected
the Port of Seattle’s proposal to use the Synthetic Precipitation
Leaching Procedure (SPLP) soils test as a means of approving importation
of polluted fill for the Third Runway project at SeaTac airport.
Why? Because the evidence showed that, for the Third Runway Project,
the SPLP was incapable of detecting certain extremely toxic pollutants
at levels which are prohibited under state water quality standards.
Bottom line: Using SPLP for the Third Runway project would allow
recognized pollutants to be released into our watersheds, creeks,
streams and aquifers.
The
State Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Port's appeal and
has
issued a schedule for filing briefs by the parties. The final brief
is due in early September. Not content with that, the Port of
Seattle
has pushed
Substitute House Bill 1876 and Senate
Bill 5787 in the legislature. The bills would allow them to
use the SPLP for testing contaminated fill. In other words, take
contaminated fill, use a test that doesn't measure known pollutants
to test it, and declare it "clean" because the pollutants
don't show up in the test.
These
intitial bills died for lack of action on March 19, but were revived
as SSB 5787 by the Senate Agriculture Committee (which has no local
members) passed to the Senate passed it to the floor in amended
form, which the Senate passed. It has now gone to the House of Representatives.
The House Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources substituted
its language for the Senate's, and the revised bill then went to
second reading. The rules committee has allowed it to go to the
floor calendar, and it is now the subject of extended discussion
in the Democratic caucus.
Environmental
groups State–wide have responded to this latest attack on the
environment in the Legislature. The South King County Group, Cascade
Chapter of the Sierra Club has set up a special webpage about it—
http://cascade.sierraclub.org/southkingcounty/Alert-ArsenicFillBill.htm
On
6 April, a joint letter of concern was sent to House Speaker Frank
Chopp (D-43) & the House of Representatives by seven environmental
groups—Cascade Chapter, Sierra Club; Washington Public Interest
Research Group; Washington Toxics Coalition; People for Puget
Sound; Washington Audobon; Waste Action Project; Sierra Club
Upper Columbia Group. The groups wrote:… “our organizations believe
it is inappropriate for the Legislature to move forward on SSB 5787”.
An
expert in the field filed a detailed
letter examining the problems with the bill.
Behind
Closed Doors
The
PCHB was established by the Legislature to act as judges on pollution
control issues. Its unanimous, 140-page
decision in the Third Runway case came after hearing two full
weeks of expert scientific testimony and poring over 50,000 pages
of transcripts and evidence.
The
battle has now moved from the open forum of the PCHB and the courts
to lobbying influential legislators behind closed doors by the Port.
The Port lobbyists' strategy apparently has been to portray the
board as "environmental extremists".
In
an Op-ed
published in the Post Intelligencer on March 5, Port Director
Mic Dinsmore and Commissioner Pat Davis claim that the PCHB received
NO testimony about the SPLP testing procedure before issuing its
order last August. The Port got the Seattle Times to
publish an
editorial claiming that the fill is clean, "natural"
dirt that just can't pass an extreme test.
Photo
of what the Port claimed was “clean fill”
taken Wednesday, August 9, 2000 on S. 192nd Street,
near the entrance to the Tyee Golf Course.
Neither
claim is true. The Board's decision specifically refers to in
the transcript that Port that it used
the inadequacies of the SPLP test to approve dirty fill that would
not have otherwise qualify as clean. And the Board's decision only
applies to dirty fill that can't pass the test which acually measures
the contaminants that are not measured by the SPLP.
Will
The Port Pay for Viaduct?
Speaker
Chopp told the PI that he has discussed possible trade-offs
for this legislation with the Port. According to the Speaker, these
might include "noise-reduction measures at the Airport and
possible additional contributions to the cost of replacing the Alaskan
Way Viaduct". South End communities were outraged at the thought
that the headwaters of all of their creeks and water basins might
receive 20,000,000 cubic yards of fill that could be laced with
undetected arsenic, heavy metals, organic solvents and other chemicals
in exchange for transferring highway money from one government agency
to another. The Port just raised taxes claiming it was broke. How's
it going to pay for a viaduct? Another big property tax increase?
The
Big Hurry
Comments
from other legislators give a hint that the legislators believe
that the Port needs this legislation urgently for this year's construction
season. This is not true. The Port is under temporary federal court
order not commence the fill project.
In fact, from the taxpayer's point of view, it would be good to
hold off doing anything on a new runway for several reasons:
- The
FAA air capacity benchmark
study shows no delay problem at Sea-Tac and none projected
in the the near future.
- The
runway would be of value only during moderate bad weather at the
occasional peak period. (During really bad weather, the airport
closes completely, no matter how many runways are available.)
- GPS
technology is now being successfully used at San Francisco airport
to overcome similar weather problems. And GPS costs less the the
price of writing the EIS for the third runway. The runway itself,
if built, will the most expensive runway in US history.
The
Port has responded to the GPS argument saying that GPS cannot replace
all the functions of a third runway. They failed to detail which
functions or to show why GPS would not accomplish these goals, however.
They have published no studies comparing the costs & benefits
of the GPS system to costs & benefits of the proposed runway.
|