Notes

A scientist retained by the Airport Communities Coalition writes to the EPA’s Acting Regional Administrator to dispute the agency’s initial response to a complaint about contaminated fill materials being accepted by the Port of Seattle for the proposed Third Runway project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The letter argues that MTCA Method A Soil Cleanup Levels are not appropriate fill standards and were never intended to be used to introduce contamination onto previously clean property. It also contends that the Port’s Soil Fill Acceptance Criteria lack statistically rigorous sampling approaches to identify contamination in candidate fill materials.

Sidebar On/Off

As the source for federal transportation grants, the Puget Sound Regional Council was charged with developing a system to meet the growing need for commercial aviation. When the search for a second airport failed, they authorized the Port of Seattle to build the Third Runway, with a mandate to develop a noise abatement and mitigation program. In their effort to stop the Third Runway, the ACC argued over every detail of the Port's efforts--including property buyouts and sound insulation. The dispute was meant to be settled by a three member Expert Arbitration Panel. This is their final report. It finds 2-1, that the Port's program was insufficient in several respects. Despite that, funding for the Third Runway was approved by the PSRC, and the 'Port Package' program, proceeded largely unchanged. Expert Arbitration Panel's final decision finding that the Port of Seattle had not shown sufficient reduction in real on-the-ground noise impacts to satisfy noise reduction conditions required for approval of a third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport. The majority decision concluded the Port's noise abatement programs were insufficient despite being impressive in scope.

continue...

V V

Notes

Message