TagRCAA(188)

The Washington State Department of Ecology issued this draft addendum to address shortcomings in the NPDES wastewater discharge permit for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, following a ruling by the Pollution Control Hearings Board. The document outlines required changes to how the Port of Seattle manages contaminated wastewater from aircraft deicing operations, including stricter pollution limits, improved treatment standards, and enhanced water quality monitoring of nearby waterways such as Miller Creek. The revisions focus on reducing harmful biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) discharges into Puget Sound and ensuring the Port implements all available pollution control measures as quickly as possible.

A December 2004 newsletter from the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA) covers three key issues: the Puget Sound Regional Council's pledge to support state legislation planning for a second major regional airport, including high-speed rail connections; widespread weight and safety violations by fill-haul trucks serving the Sea-Tac third runway construction project; and the collapse of five-year talks between state, local, and federal agencies aimed at voluntarily reducing jet engine air pollution, including smog-forming NOx emissions and hazardous fine particulate soot.

In December 2004, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Executive Board adopted Resolution EB-04-01, calling on the State of Washington to take the lead in planning for the region's long-term commercial air transportation capacity, including exploring high-speed rail alternatives. The resolution acknowledged that a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport was under construction and would be operational by 2008, but that no additional runway was planned beyond that. PSRC committed to cooperating with state agencies, the FAA, and the Port of Seattle to assess future airport capacity needs and coordinate planning with existing regional and statewide transportation plans.

A 2004 newsletter from the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA) reports that community opposition to Sea-Tac Airport's proposed third runway remained strong even after city-funded legal challenges were dropped due to budget shortfalls. The project, whose cost estimates had ballooned from an original $229 million to $1.3 billion, faced a $700 million funding gap, with neither tenant airlines nor the FAA willing to cover their usual shares. Critics argued the runway was being built in the wrong place—over wetlands and salmon-bearing streams—driving up costs and causing significant environmental harm.

This July 2004 newsletter from the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA) covers legal and financial challenges surrounding the proposed third runway at Sea-Tac Airport. The Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) filed an appeal arguing that Washington State's Department of Ecology violated a State Supreme Court ruling by allowing contaminated fill materials to be used in runway construction. The newsletter also highlights that the Port of Seattle lacked a concrete financing plan for the project, with construction costs of $192.6 million already exceeding the Port's entire cash reserve.

In June 2004, the Washington State Department of Ecology granted a Water Quality Certification to the Port of Seattle for the construction of a third parallel runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac), along with related projects such as taxiways, navigational aids, and runway safety areas. The certification, designated Order #1996-4-02325 (Amended-2), was updated to reflect a Washington Supreme Court ruling and confirms that the project complies with applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act and state environmental laws. The approval is subject to conditions including compliance with hydraulic project approvals and stormwater permits issued by state agencies.

The Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) — representing the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park, Tukwila, and the Highline School District — filed a formal appeal challenging Washington State's 2004 Clean Water Act certification for the Port of Seattle's proposed third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The coalition argued that the certification violated Supreme Court mandates and water quality laws by allowing contaminated fill material to be used in construction, threatening nearby streams and wetlands. The appeal was submitted to the Pollution Control Hearings Board for the State of Washington.

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.

In a May 26, 2004 letter, Port of Seattle Senior Counsel Traci M. Goodwin notified attorney Peter Eglick that the Port planned to begin construction of a third runway at Sea-Tac Airport on or before June 7, 2004, following a Washington State Supreme Court ruling affirming Ecology's Clean Water Act certification. The letter references the case ACC v. Graves (9th Cir. No. 04-35011) and warns opposing counsel of the Port's construction timeline under Ninth Circuit Rule 27-3, which requires advance notice when a party may seek emergency relief within 21 days.

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed a legal dispute over the environmental certification required to build a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac), which involved filling approximately 50 wetlands with over 20 million cubic yards of material. The case centered on whether the Washington State Department of Ecology's water quality certification provided adequate assurance that the project would not violate state water quality standards under the federal Clean Water Act. The court ultimately upheld the certification while affirming some, but not all, of the additional conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Hearings Board.