Concern over numerous environmental impacts, cost,
and benefit of third runway construction, versus
alternatives to the proposed project, which according to SEPA rules,
must be considered for every EIS.
WEC has written four mild letters to government officials regarding airport toxics.
I also understand
that Greg Wingard of Waste Action Project has noted significant violations of ground water regulations at seatac airport. All of this may in fact be to your benefit. According to your message, there are problems in complying with
wetlands restrictions and fish rules. If this were adequately documented, I think WEC would be encouraged to take a
more visible position on the issue of the third runway.
Another issue would be the enormous diesel pm2.5 emissions resulting from trnsport of the tons of earth to level the potential runway site.
(As you know, diesel emissions have been classed as a probable human carcinogen by numerous health organizations.) Also as you know, PM2.5,
even without toxic contaminants, has significant public health effects.
The conversation I had with my engineer friend was at work.
I am an engineer at Boeing, and work in flight simulation.
The information I got from the conversation which I see as
potentially useful includes the following:
1) The Third Runway EIS claim "bad weather" (ie weather that prevents
two simultaneous landings occures 43% of the time. This percentage seems unbelieveably large.
2) San Francisco has a 2 runway system with technology that allows simultaneous landings even in cat 3 conditions (cant see the runway at 50 ft altitude)
3) the cost of the the third runway will about equal a whole new airport, but will only increase number of landings by 15%.