TagACC(1548)

The Pollution Control Hearings Board ruled largely in favor of community groups ACC and CASE in their challenge to Sea-Tac Airport's water pollution permit, ordering stricter wastewater treatment standards and rejecting most of the Port's appeals. Key victories included requiring the airport to meet long-overdue water quality standards for its industrial wastewater discharged into Puget Sound, mandating improved toxicity testing during de-icing season, and directing a professional wetlands analysis of Lake Reba. Of the seven final directives issued by the Board, six favored the community appellants and only one favored the Port.

This document tabulates public comments received during a permit review process, likely related to a construction or development project near Sea-Tac Airport. A total of 509 individuals opposed the permit, while 101 supported it, with additional concerns raised across topics including MSE wall integrity, wetlands, hydrology, air and noise pollution, and airport/aircraft safety. The index identifies specific commenters — ranging from environmental consultants to aviation industry groups — and maps each comment to a designated paragraph number for formal review response.

The Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting permission to submit a legal brief that exceeds the standard 14,000-word limit, seeking to file one of 15,195 words instead. The case challenges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' approval of the Sea-Tac Airport Third Runway Project, one of the largest public works projects in Washington state history, involving the importation of over 23 million cubic yards of fill material. ACC argued the extra length was necessary due to the extreme complexity of the case, which spans a 100,000-page administrative record and raises multiple legal issues under the Clean Water Act and NEPA.

These Accounts Payable Vendor Master List records from the City of Burien, Washington, document payments made to the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) between 2002 and 2004, totaling over $547,000 across the three years. The payments, drawn primarily from account 001-03-513-11-41-41C, represent quarterly and annual contributions related to Sea-Tac Airport noise policy advocacy and community planning efforts. Additional charges cover technical work such as Miller Creek Basin Plan modeling and review services.

Handwritten notes dated 2/13 document a phone call at 9:56 AM regarding fill and runway notification related to a sales tax exemption, referencing figures of 1,500 and 10/5/2000. The notes also address Reports of Remedial Action concerning tax exemption copies, a Bellevue Site with TPH contamination, and 1,500 tons of suspected contaminated soils transported to three RW sites. A 4:00 PM follow-up call with Pete confirmed that soil was removed from three RW project areas for treatment (ISR) shortly after it was placed.

A May 2004 legal letter from Helsell Fetterman attorneys demands that the Port of Seattle and Washington State Ecology Department comply with a Washington Supreme Court ruling before proceeding with third runway construction at Sea-Tac Airport. The court imposed environmental conditions requiring that fill materials used in construction come only from uncontaminated sites, meet strict groundwater quality standards, and pass SPLP leachate testing against both surface and groundwater criteria. The letter argues that the Port's existing work plans and bid documents violate these court-mandated conditions, citing discrepancies such as the Port's allowable arsenic limit of 14.75 ug/L being several hundred times higher than the court-required 0.05 ug/L standard.

The Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) asked a federal court to reconsider its ruling that allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to issue a wetlands fill permit for a Port of Seattle project. ACC argued the court overlooked a December 2001 Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board order that effectively blocked the required water quality certification within the legally allowed one-year window, which under the Clean Water Act should have prevented the permit from being granted.

This is a library catalog page listing five legal and regulatory documents from 2003 related to environmental permitting and litigation. The documents include an NPDES water discharge permit (No. WA-002465-1) issued by the Department of Energy, and three entries related to a legal case (ACC v. Colonel Graves) involving a Section 404 appeal and motions for summary judgement filed through the Army Corps of Engineers. A comment letter on the NPDES Draft Permit is also catalogued.