March 11, 2002August 2, 2026

EXH AR003052: Ecology’s Reply in Support of Motion in Limine Regarding WAC 371-08-475(7) — PCHB No. 01-160, ACC v. Ecology and Port Of Seattle

Notes

Ecology’s reply brief supporting its Motion in Limine to preclude Thomas F. Luster from testifying as an expert witness for Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) in PCHB No. 01-160. Filed March 11, 2002 with the Pollution Control Hearings Board, State of Washington. Argues that Luster, a former Ecology Senior Expert on water quality certifications and lead reviewer on the Clean Water Act Section 401 certification for the Sea-Tac Airport Third Runway project, is barred under WAC 371-08-475(7) from testifying as an expert for ACC because he took an active part in the investigation as a representative of the Department. Cites Luster’s pre-filed testimony admissions, facilitated meetings of October 2, 10, 13, and 27, 2000, memos dated October 9 and 18, 2000, and his reassignment on October 24, 2000. Respondents are State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle; intervenor/appellant is Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE).

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