May 30, 2001August 2, 2026

EXH AR017714: Email and Redline Revisions to Preferential Flowpath Technical Memorandum — Third Runway Construction

Notes

Email from Ching-Pi Wang (Port Of Seattle) to Paul Agid, cc Roger Nye, dated May 30, 2001, transmitting redline edits to the May 8th draft of the preferential ground-water flowpath technical memorandum related to construction of the Third Runway at Sea-Tac Airport. Attached redlined memorandum (From Port to Ecology, May 30, 2001) addresses preferential flowpaths via utility lines and perched zones, existing contamination conditions within the AOMA (Aircraft Operations and Maintenance Area), Qva aquifer contamination, MTCA compliance, and the SeaTac Runway Fill Hydrologic Studies (Pacific Ground Water Group, June 19, 2000). Document references Agreed Order of May 1999, contaminant migration distances (~550 feet), and requests narrative on underground utility depths relative to perched zone contamination.

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