TagRCAA(197)

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.

In September 2003, the Port of Seattle Commission considered authorizing a $3.69 million program to sound-insulate 98 single-family homes near Sea-Tac Airport that fell within the projected 2010 65 DNL noise contour and were built before local noise codes took effect. The project, stemming from a 1997 Environmental Impact Statement related to the airport's third runway, aimed to reduce interior noise levels by at least 5 decibels in eligible homes in Des Moines and unincorporated King County. Funding was to come primarily from federal Airport Improvement Program grants (80%), with the remainder drawn from the Airport Development Fund, and homeowners were required to grant the Port an avigation easement in exchange for the insulation work.

A federal court ruled in favor of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Port of Seattle, rejecting a legal challenge by the Airport Communities Coalition — a group of cities near Sea-Tac Airport — over a Clean Water Act permit issued in December 2002 for the airport's Third Runway Project. The permit authorizes filling approximately 50 wetlands with over 23 million cubic yards of material to support construction of a new 8,500-foot runway. The court found the Corps' decision was not arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act's standard of review.

The State of Washington filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a 2003 federal case concerning the Port of Seattle's proposed third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The case centered on whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was required to include all conditions set by the Washington State Department of Ecology in its Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, after a state appeals board added sixteen conditions to the original water quality certification. Washington argued that federal law gives states sole authority to enforce their own water quality standards on federally permitted projects, and that the Corps improperly ignored nine of those sixteen conditions.

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.

A 2003 Port of Seattle memo updates the Commission on the ballooning costs of the Sea-Tac Third Runway project, which had grown from an approved budget of $773 million to an estimated $1.1–1.15 billion due to environmental permitting delays, litigation, and stricter regulatory requirements. The project, intended to reduce airport congestion by allowing simultaneous landings on two runways during poor weather, was projected for completion in 2008 if construction contracts were advertised promptly. Key cost drivers included $151 million in additional environmental permit requirements, $55 million in delay costs, and $55 million in project scope additions.

This June 2003 Capital Improvement Program briefing provides an update on the Third Runway project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. It outlines the revised 1999 project cost of $773 million, a target completion date of Fall 2006, and the assumption that an Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit would be obtained by December 1999. A project schedule chart shows the planned phases—permitting, runway embankment, and runway pavement—spanning from 1999 through 2006, along with progress made to date.

The Port of Seattle introduced the Fly Quiet Committee at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to find innovative ways to reduce aircraft noise impacts on surrounding communities. The committee, made up of local citizens, city staff, and aviation representatives, developed seven key recommendations including creating detailed compliance reports, launching an airline incentive program modeled after Chicago O'Hare's point-based system, and addressing ground run-up noise through increased fines and new technologies. The report also outlines existing noise abatement flight procedures governing how aircraft depart and arrive at Sea-Tac to minimize noise over residential areas.

In April 2003, the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA) submitted formal comments criticizing a proposed water pollution permit renewal for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, arguing that it failed to adequately protect local waterways from airport runoff and industrial wastewater. Key concerns included excessive delays in enforcing limits on harmful chemicals from aircraft de-icing operations, insufficient monitoring of stormwater containing copper and zinc harmful to fish, and a compliance schedule for wastewater treatment that stretched years beyond what regulators considered acceptable. The RCAA urged the Washington Department of Ecology to strengthen the permit's requirements and accelerate deadlines for bringing the airport into compliance with water quality standards.

This document is a public responsiveness summary from Washington State's Department of Ecology regarding an NPDES wastewater discharge permit issued to the Port of Seattle for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. It compiles and responds to comments received during a March 2003 public meeting and hearing, covering concerns about the airport's treated industrial wastewater, stormwater runoff, and construction runoff discharges. The summary addresses feedback from a range of stakeholders, including the Port of Seattle, local legislators, advocacy groups, and individual residents.