EXH0216018789

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

Sent: Wednesaay, October 18, 2000 9:05 AM To: Hellwig,Raymond;Ehlers, Pauia; Fitzpatrick,Kevin; Marchioro, Joan (ATG) Subject: SeaTac... Hi all -- want to provide you with a copy of the somewhat drafty notes I used for yesterday's discussion of the issues. I realize that mine is apparentlythe minority opinion on what the Port and Ecology need to do to meet 401 requirements, but I think it would be helpful for you to have these for a couple of reasons: * perhaps they are clearer in writing than through my verbal explanations; and, * while some of them may be "internally resolved throughconsensus (minus 1)", we are likely to hear these or similar issues raised during public review, andwill need to respond to them later in our401process. do hope this helps us towards a defensible decision. Please let me know if you have questions. Tom L. :l _x.=rrNo,_.. I / .e-J-o.,¢ 1 ECYO0000824 AR 018789 DRAFT October 17, 2000 TO: Joan Marchioro FROM: Tom Luster RE: Adequacy of Ecology's 401 review for proposed SeaTac expansion ] have identified several issues that need to be better resolved for Ecology to issue a defensible 403 certification that meets regulatory requirements. These issues involve two main 401-related concerns - ensuring that Ecology complies with state water quality standards and the federal Clean Water Act, and adequately identifying project-related impacts to ensure necessary mitigation is provided. The issues include the following: 401 Regulatory Requirements and Policies - • Interaction of 401 and 402: Ecology's current approach does…
V V