October 21, 2002August 2, 2026

EXH AR015761: Direct Testimony of Chung Ki Yee on Behalf of Ecology — PCHB No. 01-160, ACC and CASE v. Ecology and Port Of Seattle

Notes

Direct testimony of Chung Ki Yee, Environmental Engineer 3 in the Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program, submitted in PCHB No. 01-160 before the Pollution Control Hearings Board. Yee was asked by Kevin Fitzpatrick of the Northwest Regional Office Water Quality Program (NWRO/WQ) in June 2001 to develop fill criteria for Port Of Seattle’s Third Runway project at Sea-Tac Airport that are technically consistent with Toxics Cleanup Program (TCP) policy and guidance and do not contradict the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). Yee used WAC 173-340-747(4) Fixed Parameter Three-Phase Partitioning Model to derive soil values for fill materials under Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification review. Appellants are Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) and 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