March 28, 2002August 2, 2026

Transcript, Day 9: ACC and CASE vs. Ecology and Port Of Seattle — PCHB No. 01-160, Day Nine Proceedings

Notes

Transcript of Day Nine proceedings before the Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB No. 01-160), March 28, 2002, Lacey, Washington. Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) and Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) as appellants versus State of Washington Department of Ecology and Port Of Seattle as respondents. Board members: Kaleen Cottingham (presiding), Robert Jensen (Board Chair), Bill Lynch (Member). Counsel for ACC: Peter J. Eglick, Kevin L. Stock, Michael Witek (Helsell Fetterman), Rachael Paschal Osborn; for CASE: Richard A. Poulin (Smith & Lowney); for Ecology: Jeff B. Kray, Joan Marchioro, Thomas J. Young (Office of the Attorney General); for Port Of Seattle: Gillis E. Reavis (Brown, Reavis & Mannin), Roger Pearce, Steven G. Jones (Foster, Pepper & Shefelman). AR 056600.

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