Addressing Community Health Concerns around SeaTac Airport Progress Report on the Work Plan Proposed in August 1998 WA State Department of Health Seattle-King.

Addressing Community Health Concerns around SeaTac Airport Progress Report on the Work Plan Proposed in

August 1998WA State Department of Health

Seattle-King County Department of Health

26 February 1998

• Tabulated data reformated into Bar graphs showing upper and lower confidence intervals. The average is the middle of the dark rectangle.

• The first bar is always data from the study and the second one the King County data.

• The King County data includes the unusually high Georgetown data!• Hospitalization data is based on Zip codes 98146, 98148, 98158, 98166,

98168 and 98188• Mortality (deaths) is based on SeaTac Airport Community census tracts

264-271, 273-276, 278-281,284.1, 284.2, 284.03, 285-287, 288.01 and 288.02

Suicide: the Best Indicator of Depression

Suicide Deaths95% Confidence Interval Bounds

(Ref App A Table 11)

0

5

10

15

20

SeaTac King Cty

Upper BoundLower Bound

Average is higher but just misses being statistically significant

Why is Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Mortaility so high?

1993-1993 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease -Statistically Significant

95% Confidence Interval Bounds(Ref App A Table 3)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pulmonary Disease Pulmonary Disease

Upper BoundLower Bound

SeaTac

King County

Why do more people around SeaTac die of cancer?

1993-1997 Cancer Mortality Rates - All Ages95% Confidence Interval Bounds

Statistically Significant Difference for All Cancers (Ref App A Table 3)

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

All Cancers All Cancers

Upper BoundLower Bound

SeaTac

King County

1993-1997 Cancer Mortality Rates - All Ages95% Confidence Interval Bounds

Statistically Significant Difference for Respiratory Cancer (Ref App A Table 3)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Respiratory RespiratoryKC

Breast (F) Breast (F)KC

Prostrate(M)

Prostrate(M) KC

Upper BoundLower Bound

SeaTac

SeaTac

SeaTac

Why is the asthma so high?

1992-1996 Asthma Hospitalizations -95% Confidence Interval Bounds

Statistically Significant Difference for All Categories (Ref App A Table 5 )

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

SeaTacAge 0-17

KC Age 0-17 Sea-TacAge 18-64

KC Age 18-64

SeaTac Age 65 plus

KC Age 65plus

Upper BoundLower Bound

Pneumonia/Influenza also Statistically Significantly Higher !

1992-1996 Pneumonia/Influenza Hospitalizations95% Confidence Interval Bounds

Statistically Significant Difference for Ages 0 thru 64 (Ref App A Table 5)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

SeaTac Age 0-17 KC Age 0-17 Sea-Tac Age 18-64

KC Age 18-64

Upper BoundLower Bound

Why are more SeaTac Children Dying ?

All Causes of Death Age 0 to 1795% Confidence Interval BoundsStatistically Signifacantly Higher

(Ref App A Table 6)

020406080

100120

SeaTac King Cty

Upper BoundLower Bound

Air Pollution Appendix C

Updated charts and included new data since last submittal

• New actuals for existing operations that exceed SEIS

• New SeaTac NO and NO2 data higher than Beacon Hill

• Calculations showing triggers Clean Air Act de minimus limit

Flawed Decision Process

• The SeaTac Airport expansion process to date has made no real serious effort to look at viable alternatives to the proposed Third Runway. A variety of blended alternatives exist that could accomplish MORE while being safer and cheaper.

• The decision process on the next chart needs to be followed to

• Ensure wetlands are harmed only if truly necessary.

• Ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act

• Ensure compliance Clean Water Act

BlendedAlternatives

CanBlended Alternatives achieve max capacity ?

Deny Wetlands Permit

New EIS* - Evaluate other alternatives and Third Runway on existing airport propertyClean Air Act & New Particulates2002 Haze, Water Quality,Return on investment, Salmon, Fill source & transport, Funding, PCF Limit

No

Can3rd Runway on Existing property achieve max capacity

?

Yes

Yes

No

Technology at airports including Sea-Tac

Demand Management at SeaTac

Moses Lake - especially cargo

New Tenino Airport near Olympia, I-5 and rail

Dual use of MCCord AFB

Paine Field and other area airports

Light Rail

*New EIS (year 2000 referenced in SEIS)

Pollution

More operations = More airplanes = More pollution

More operations = More ground traffic = More pollution

More delays = More pollution (engines running)

Less trees = More pollution (air & noise)

Less wetlands = More Puget Sound pollution

King County Air Pollution According to Database*

• Only 85% of the days in 1998 were rated as “good” air quality

• Rated 51st most polluted county in the United States

• Rated 31st most polluted from mobile sources in the United States

• Rated top 10% for non-attainment for ozone of those counties that

monitor ozone (even worse if compare to all counties)

• Rated as the highest cancer risk county in Washington

* Environmental Defense Fund web site www.edf.org then link to “Find population by zip code” listed under “Interactive” (click here when in PowerPoint Slide Show www.edf.org) Note : Database is based on pollutants reported to EPA and 1990 populations. Since King county has multiple airports that are not subject to reporting requirements , the total pollution and risks may be underrated.

Clean Air Act Certification Needs to be Withdrawn

• Obsolete Sea-Tac Airport Master Plan Update SEIS pollution calculations

• Data now supports prior claims that assumptions used in SEIS to avoid triggering

clean air act limits were INVALID.

• Underestimated number of operations with the Third Runway

• Overestimated “Do nothing” pollution by assuming excessive delays with

engines operating that market forces would not allow

• Obsolete ground traffic assumptions

• Withdrawal of Clean Air Act Certification warranted

SEIS Underestimated Third Runway Pollution

• Underestimated Third Runway Pollution

• Underestimated fuel consumption for Third Runway

• Runway is now 14 feet lower than originally planned so it will take more fuel to taxi to terminal

• Underestimated landing/takeoff cycle times

• Transportation expert testified at Congressional Hearing that in bad weather the delays will be increased with the three runway configuration, not be reduced as claimed in EIS*

• Underestimated number of operations with the Third Runway

• Assumed year 2005 opening despite fill availability & legal issues

* Congressional Aviation Subcommittee Hearing by air transportation expert, Dr. Stephen Hockaday, held March 18, 1996

SEIS Underestimated Third Runway pollution

• Master Plan Update SEIS underestimated number of operations with the Third

Runway.

• 1998 operations of substantially higher than FEIS Exhibit 1-4A and SEIS

predicted

• Actual operation continue to meet or exceed the higher Terminal Air Forecast

numbers the SEIS ignored (TAF estimates likely to trigger Clean Air Act limit)

• 1998 Port PCF application used higher enplanements than SEIS operations

to justify funding

Port Ignored FAA Estimates - 2nd Runway Mistakes All over Again

• Using the 1997 FAA TAF (Terminal Air Forecast) estimate and NPIAS standards in SEIS Exhibit 2-7, the Sea-Tac airport with the Third runway will

• Exceed practical capacity before it opens

• Be severely congested by 2010

• Be able to support only an additional 68,200 operations after 2010 before it reaches its theoretical maximum capacity of a mere 600,000 operations.

Do Nothing Delay Assumptions Invalid

• SEIS aircraft delays for Do Nothing were so long market forces would NOT use the airport. Either the airplanes would not use Sea-Tac or they would use it outside the preferred times. Either way the additional pollution projected for the Do Nothing excessive delays would not occur.

• SEIS excessive delays were based on more Do Nothing operations than theoretically possible (see EIS for definitions and numbers)

• Airlines objections to delay analysis assumptions quoted in 1998 Passenger Fee application to FAA

• Comparing 1998 airline performance with SEIS Exhibit 2-7 shows the delay analysis for the Do Nothing was wrong. The delays, and corresponding pollution would be less than SEIS estimates

• 1998 NASA report contradicts Port’s “bad weather delays” position

Exceeds Practical Capacity Before Opening per FAA Estimates

FAA TAF Operations Estimate for Sea-Tac

Year

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2005 2010 2015 2020

Theoretical Capacity

All Years Exceed Practical Capacity

Ground Traffic Assumptions

• Construction traffic

• Did not consider one or all lanes closed and associated increase in stop and go traffic for trucks to turn into airport that occurred in 1997 and 1998.

• Assumed hauling would occur in 1999 but it will not. This shoves more hauling pollution into the future

• Ground traffic

• Assumed no road improvements for the “Do nothing” even if they were planned at the time and are already completed now. This overestimated the ground traffic for the Do Nothing.

(need to include a picture of the key road that reduces pollution for the Third runway but was omitted from the Do nothing calculations)

• Parking Lot Reduced Pollution only for Third Runway Alternative

• Assumed North Employees Parking Lot linked to Third Runway

Clean Air Act Triggered if “Apples and Apples’ Compared /1/

Difference Between Alternatives Triggers Clean Air Act Limit

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

PracticalCapacity

SeverelyCongested

TheoreticalCapacity

Capacity Limits (NPIAS in SEIS Exhibit 2-7)

Nim

be

r o

f O

pe

rati

on

s

Do NothingThird Runway

/1/ The differences would be even larger if construction and surface traffic contributions considered

Assuming a new Runway adds Zero to 14, 000 operations pollution cannot be justified based on current growth rate and FAA funding

application

Delta in Operations using Different Perspectives

014000

110000

150000

230000

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

2005 SEIS 2010 SEIS PracticalCapacity

SeverelyCongested

TheoreticalCapacity

Dif

fere

nc

e i

n O

pe

rati

on

s

(T

hir

d R

un

wa

y -

Do

No

thin

g)

2005 SEIS2010 SEISPractical CapacitySeverely CongestedTheoretical Capacity

Air Conformity AnalysisBased on false assumptions

Pollution comparison calculations ignored about the same amount of pollution created by the airport in 1997

Basis of Pollution Calculations /1/ Additional Annual Operations

with Third Runway

compared to "Do Nothing"

SEIS for Year 2005 - (Uses New Port Estimate) 0

SEIS for Year 2010 - (Uses New Port Estimate) 14,000

Do Nothing at Theoretical Maximum,

Third Runway at Yr 2010 FAA TAF amount

128,200 /2/

Comparing both at Theoretical Maximums 230,000 /2/

Comparing the 2nd Runway mitigation

number of operations to theoretical

maximum for Third Runway

369,000 /2/

1998 Actuals Exceed Port SEIS Projections1998 Actuals almost same as SEIS Year 2000 estimate !

1997 /1/ 1998 /1/ % Increase from1997 to 1998

Number of Operations 385,298 407,576 5.8%

Passengers in and out 24.7 million 25,863,132 4.6%

Metric tons of cargo 393,786 407,576 5.8%

/1/ March/April 1998 Sea-TacAirport Forum

1998 operations = 99.7 % of SEIS Year 2000 “New Port” forecast

Nitrous Oxides Trigger Clean Air Act Limits

• Do Nothing capped at 409,000 operations 1476 tons NOx per year

• Third Runway at 474,000 operations 1784 tons NOx per year

308 tons per year additional NOx

by 2010 with Third Runway from aircraft /1/

/1/ 474, 000 corresponds to New Port estimate for 2010. There is a possibility the Third runway might be in use by then. Note, using the FAA Terminal Air Forecast this pollution would occur sooner.

See SEIS page B-9, Figure B for NOx per number of operations. Excludes increased NOx from surface traffic and other sources !

Project clearly triggers de-minimus levels of

Clean Air Act

and

Clean Water Act

if the correct number of operations are used

NOx Not well Understood

• Beacon Hill was selected as the Seattle monitoring site for criteria pollutants because it was suppose to be the highest for NOx

• Special monitoring at SeaTac 1998-1998 revealed SeaTac’s average NOx (NO and NO2) exceeds Beacon Hill some months (see charts next two pages).

• Although the averages were well below the 24 hour average limit, some individual hourly readings were over twice the limit. Washington does not have hourly standards.

• SeaTac’s altitude and geography make it difficult to model reliably.

• Even if the air pollution model is conservative by a factor of 3, the Third runway will trigger the de-minimus limit (increases NOx by more than 100 tons). If surface traffic is included, it will trigger it by an even larger margin.

SeaTac North NO2 Higher than Expected

Monthly NO2 Beacon Hill, Tyee, and North

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ap

ril

Ma

y

Jun

e

July

Au

gu

st

Se

pte

mb

er

Oct

ob

er

No

vem

be

r

De

cem

be

r

Jan

ua

ry

Fe

bru

ary

Ma

rch

Ap

ril

Ma

y

Jun

e

Pa

rts

Pe

r B

illi

on

Beacon HillTyeeNorth

SeaTac North NO Higher than Expected

NO Monthly Average

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35A

pril

Ma

y

Jun

e

July

Au

gu

st

Se

pte

mb

er

Oct

ob

er

No

vem

be

r

De

cem

be

r

Jan

ua

ry

Fe

bru

ary

Ma

rch

Ap

ril

Ma

y

Jun

e

Pa

rts

Pe

r B

illi

on

NorthTyeeBeacon Hill

EIS Data does NOT support a Third Runway

• EIS conclusions fail to differentiate between the advantages of 600 foot extension of an existing runway and the disadvantages of the proposed Third Runway

• Third Runway EIS data buried in the thousands of pages includes:

• Increases the risk of aircraft accident by 21 % using the low Draft EIS number of operations*

• Reduces capacity of existing Sea-Tac runways

• Reduces the capacity of Boeing Field (directly north of Third Runway)

• Exceeds “Practical Capacity” even if it had opened in 2005 per FAA

• Recommends another EIS in year 2000 due to unresolved issues

* Exponential function per ALPA so if adjust for the increase in operations actually much more than 21% increase in ground incursions (accidents)

Other ReasonsThird Runway is Bad for Aerospace and King County

Third Runway is Unsafe

• FEIS page R-43 states there is a 21 % increase in on-the ground incursion rate. Note, if calculated using realistic number of operations accident rate would be even higher.

• Using the Third Runway requires taxing across two active runways. The air space would also be shared with another airport, Boeing Field. Excerpts from a petition signed by commercial airline pilots follow:

"... Our association, A.L.P.A., has not endorsed the

proposed 3rd runway because of its marginal safety"

Airport Location and Size Incompatible with Significant Growth

Port Columbus is obtaining 240 acres to build a new 10,250-foot third runway (ref.

(p)). Compare that to Sea-Tac basically taking several blocks of a residential street

with houses lining one side of it.

When other small U.S. airports don't have room to expand because of heavily

populated areas, they use another airport or technology to increase their capacity. For

example, Charlotte with 5,000 acres and San Francisco with 5,400 acres opted for

Localizer Directional Aid technology instead of additional runways. It is the airports

with large acreage that can afford to add runways or those with large buffer zones.

Comparing airport sizes, runway lengths and capacities, using data in the FEIS (ref.

(d), page R-201), it becomes obvious that even with the proposed land acquisition,

Sea-Tac's proposed expansion is too small to be cost-effective and safe. See figure.

Airport Location and Size Incompatible with Significant Growth

Sea-Tac Airport So Small its Ineffective to add another Runway

Airport

0

20,000

40,000

Denver Sea-Tac Orlando Pittsburgh Houston

33,900

2,500

14,672 10,000 9,000

New airport in Mirabel, Canada is over 35 times larger than Sea-Tac

Note after planned acquisitions SeaTac will be 2,640 acres per 1999 404 Wetlands permit request

Runway too short for large aircraft

• The proposed runway is too short to handle fully loaded cargo planes. • The FEIS states the 8,500 foot runway is too short for to take off

B-747, DC-10, MD-11, L-1011 or B-767 (Ref. (d), page R-126) **. • Other airports have considered the new, larger airplanes that will be in

use by the time the Third runway is built as well as the existing large passenger and cargo jets.

• Albuquerque airport dismissed an alternative to build a runway of the same length, i.e. 8,500 because of its inability to support Type V aircraft. (ref. ttt).

• The industry preferred runway length is several thousand feet longer than Sea-Tac's proposed part time arrival runway !!

• ** Despite the SEIS statements, these aircraft really can use 8,500 foot length runways except for international flights. Perhaps excluding them in the SEIS helped reduce the noise contours?

Table 2 Proposed Runway Too Short for Large Jets

Third Runway Too Short For Large or Heavy Aircraft

Airport

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Dallas- Fortworth Port Columbus Sea-Tac

13,400

10,250

8,500

Note, the Albuquerque airport dismissed an alternative to build a runway of the samelength, i.e. 8,500 because of its inability to support Type V aircraft. (ref. ttt).

Fourth and Fifth Runway needed Now per FAA Guidelines

• Even if the Third runway was operational in 1997, using FAA guidelines that at 60% Annual Service Levels (ref. (ttt)) alternative planning for a fourth runway or use of alternative airport(s) should have begun years ago. Waiting until the year 2000 for another Master Plan Update is contrary to FAA planning guidelines (60% of 600,000 max. operations with Third runway = 360,000 operations). According to FAA guidelines when operations reach 80% capacity, construction should start. That means fourth and maybe a fifth runway are needed about the year 2005 using FAA TAF estimates and 2010 using the Port's estimate IF the Third runway was already in use

EIS Fails to consider Realistic Alternatives

• EIS ignores cost -effective and environmentally preferred alternatives

• Technology used by other airports to avoid expanding into heavily populated areas

• Another Sea-Tac runway on existing property with updated technology

• “‘Flat” Tenino with easy access to I-5, rail and state capital

• Use of other existing airports

• 1997 Return on Investment analysis admits other alternatives were dismissed early on

• SEIS states Sea-Tac Airport is surface transportation limited

SEIS recommends another EIS in 2000 - before Third Runway is completed !!!!!!!!