*Now the Seattle RCAA
Aircraft Noise Group Response
__________________________________
In the Matter of:
Expert Arbitration Panel's Review of
Noise and Demand/System
Management Issues at Sea-Tac
International Airport
__________________________________
RESPONSE TO PROCEDURAL ORDER OF EXPERT
ARBITRATION PANEL
Organization of responses and enclosures
PART 1: We have organized our responses into two parts: Part 1
covers the first question listed in the Panel's scope in Page 4
of the Order. Responses to questions 2 and 3 of the order are
incorporated into Sections 2 & 3 of our Part 2.
"Question 1. Has the Panel been asked to determine
whether the goals of the Noise Budget and the
Nighttime Limitations Program, if achieved, would produce a
significant reduction in real noise impacts on-the-ground?
Question 2. If so, would achievement of the noise reduction
performance objectives of the Noise Budget and Nighttime
Limitations Program produce a significant reduction in
real noise impacts on-the-ground?
Question 3. Is the Noise Validation Methodology proposed
in by the POS a reliable method for determining, on the basis
of measurements of actual on-the-ground noise using the
existing noise monitoring system at Sea-Tac, whether
the noise reduction performance objectives of the Noise
Budget and Nighttime Limitations Program have been
achieved?"
PART 2: Part 2 of our comments covers the information the Panel
requested the public to submit on page 8 of the Procedural Order
in addition to responses to questions 2& 3 above.
"Request 1. Summaries of any methodologically sound
aviation noise data collected by local community
organizations or individuals. These summaries must be
documented with specific information on the procedures (including
calibration), time of day, date, locations, and equipment used to
collect the data, as well as a brief description of airport operations
during the measurements (e.g. north or south flow, nature of noise
[flyovers, ground run-up, etc.], background sources
and levels, and weather conditions.)
Request 2 Detailed descriptions of any technical reasons
why achievement of the noise reduction performance objectives
of the Noise Budget and Nighttime Limitations Program
established by the POS would not be expected to produce a
significant reduction in real noise impacts on-the-ground.
Request 3. Detailed descriptions of any technical reasons
why the Noise Validation Method proposed by the POS should
not be found to be a reliable method for determining, on
the basis of measurement of actual on-the-ground noise using
the existing monitoring system at Sea-Tac, whether the
noise reduction performance objective of the Noise Budget and
Nighttime Limitations Program have been achieved.
APPENDIX
To assist the panel, we have attached an Appendix containing
either full copies or the appropriate portions of copies of any
documents or reports referred to in our responses. If copies
were unavailable to us, we have provided a complete citation. If
the copies are already available to the Panel, such as PSRC
minutes, we make a note but don't include the copies.
Part 1:
The Expert Panel must determine whether the goals of the
Noise Budget and Nighttime Limitations Program would produce a
significant reduction in real noise impacts on-the-ground. This
program was adopted by Port for a different purpose at an earlier
time. It has offered it here as serving a new purpose, that of
PSRC Res. 93-03 and third runway expansion as well. The public
disagreed that it could serve two conflicting purposes. The PSRC
decided to accept the Noise Budget and Nighttime Limitations
program on the condition that it could be established by and
independent panel that it did suit the new purpose and would
produce a significant reduction in real noise on-the-ground. The
independent expert panel is supposed to settle this issue and
cannot do so without deciding whether the or not the goals of the
program would in fact produce a significant reduction in real
noise impacts on the ground.
An independent panel was chosen to arbitrate the issue
because the Port of Seattle sits rambunctiously on the PSRC
itself, thereby serving as both an vigorous advocate of its own
proposals and self-interest and as a decision-maker on those very
same proposals, precluding the PSRC from fairly deciding these
issues itself. If the Expert Panel failed to determine whether
the entire Noise Budget & Nighttime Limitations program--
including its goals--would produce significant reductions, it
would be failing to do the very task it was assigned.
The Noise Budget and Nighttime Limitations program was
adopted as the result of the "Noise Mediation" process. However,
the goals it is important to know that the goals were not adopted
as part of the mediation process. The Mediation was unilaterally
terminated by the Port, and the citizen caucuses dismissed prior
to the choice of goals. These goals were chosen by Port staff
after the termination and were announced six months later.
In fact, there was no mediation agreement adopting the Noise
Budget and Nighttime Limitations program. Attached is a Sea-Tac
Noise Bulletin from our group which was widely distributed both
in the neighborhoods and to local public officials at the time of
the Port unilaterally terminated mediation. A portion of the
"agreement" presented at that last mediation session is
reproduced showing that the goals were not filled in on the
proposed draft agreement passed out on the day mediation was
terminated. No agreement was ever signed, nor did the mediators
representing the Citizens causes have authority to sign them.
This newsletter also makes clear that the Mediation that
produced the Noise Budget occurred prior to institution of the 4-
Post Flight rerouting. In the subsequent lawsuit Seattle
Community Council Federation vs. F.A.A. that followed, the F.A.A.
argued that one of the reasons that there would be no significant
impacts from 4-post because no third runway was planned. The
Noise Budget and Nighttime Limitations Program did not
contemplate a third runway adding an estimated additional 100,000
operations per year. This is why the reductions of noise impact
on the ground must be "significant."
The term "on-the-ground" refers to three issues. First the
reduction of engine noise via the certification process does not
necessarily translate into actual noise reduction because the
weight of the aircraft and pilot procedures significantly affect
the amount of real noise generated on the ground. Second, local
terrain also significantly affects how much noise is received on
the ground. Third, the number and demographic characteristics of
people living on the ground beneath the roar affects the
significance of the impacts. The F.A.A. estimates that 66,000
people currently reside in 65+DNL. In the Flightplan DEIS, the
Port argued that there would be significant noise reduction
because only 2000 would be left in 2010 the rest having been
driven out by the noise in the intervening years. (The Port has
no plans to buy them all out, only a very few.) Deciding if this
sort of environmental "cleansing policy" constitutes a reduction
in real noise impacts on the ground also comes under the purview
of the Expert Panel.
Finally, the noise portion of the resolution was passed in
part because of complaints from the public in comments on the
(PSRC) Flightplan DEIS1 that the goals of the Noise Budget and
Nighttime Limitations Program would not produce reduced real
noise impacts and that the methodology for measuring them was
both theoretical, (not "real"), exempted international and
military over flights, did not include run-ups, did not
significantly reduce real impacts on real people, and was
technically inadequate.
In light of this, the public certainly believed that the
resolution proposed to settle these controversies cure these
problems by requiring independent review of both the goals and
the methodology.
The legislative history of the resolution supports this
interpretation, as well. The Port through its position on the
PSRC offered proposals to change the resolution to preclude
review of the goals and to rubber-stamp the methodology, but
these proposals were rejected by the PSRC in favor of the present
language. We review the legislative history below.
Legislative history
Because the Panel has not been asked consistently in all
documents and in plain English to determine question #1, we need
to review what each document says and how the intent of the
Executive Board can be deciphered from these sources. The
analysis below reviews each of the documents chronologically.
4-93 Paragraph #2c of PSRC Resolution A93-03 passed 4/93 2
spelled out that the "noise reduction performance objectives
are scheduled based on independent evaluation..." The
resolution further spells out that only the Executive Board
is directed to: 1) Take all necessary steps to "implement
this resolution." That means that the General Assembly
delegated the issue of implementation to the Executive
Board, but called for an "independent" evaluation of the
"objectives," which can only refer to the Panel deciding if
the "objectives" are sufficient.
8/93 Page 1-2 and 20-31 of a report by Apogee Research, Inc.
dated 8/23/933 that was done for PSRC. On page 29, it says
that "this panel would provide advice on monitoring
techniques and objectives and review findings..." The
report is referring to the Expert Arbitration Panel.
9/20/93 A memo to the Executive Committee from Mary McCumber
dated 9/20/934 was faxed to the committee members before
the 9/23/93 meeting and contains both the PSRC staff and the
Port proposals for key paragraphs III.C, III.F and paragraph
5.b of Appendix A in the final version of the Implementation
resolution. The handwriting on the memo shows where the
words "reasonable, meaningful" were stricken from III.C,
III.F and 5.b as well as how the words "validate the
methodology to determine" was substituted for "to decide" in
5.b. More importantly, it shows the Port's proposals
rejected by the Executive Board (see 9/23/93 minutes below.)
The differences between the Port & staff language is key to
understanding the intent of the Executive Board's decision.
The Port proposal for III.C tried unsuccessfully to 1)
eliminate the word "independent"; 2) to replace "that" with
"to establish that"; 3) to replace "are sufficient to cause
a reduction" with "result in a reduction" and 4) replace
"reduction in measurable real ("on the ground") noise" with
"reduction in on-the-ground noise." The last sentence in
the Port's proposal would have practically guaranteed the
Port that the data from the Port's monitoring system would
have been conclusive proof that there had been "on-the-
ground noise reduction." The PSRC staff proposal, however,
leaves to the Panel the decision of how to utilize data from
the "existing airport noise monitoring system" to determine
if there is a "significant reduction in real noise impacts
on-the-ground." This should include a Panel determination
of what constitutes a significant noise reduction to a
human, not only an instrument.
The Port's losing proposal for paragraph 5.b tried to
eliminate the entire sufficiency issue by not having the
Panel meet until 1996 and by eliminating the words
"sufficient to cause a reduction..." The other differences
in this paragraph are in line with the ones described above.
As can be seen from the discussion below of the final
version of the Implementation resolution, any of the Port's
language in paragraph III.C would have basically rubber-
stamped any goals and methodology that the Port would
develop. It is important to remember that the Port fought
to have its meaningless methodology rubber-stamped over a
year ago, and lost. That the Port is now trying to fight
the same battle all over again with the Panel shows
incredible arrogance and bad faith. Our citizens take it as
evidence that the Port itself doesn't believe that the goals
and methodology of the Noise Budget & Nighttime Limitations
Program can meet the tests of independent review showing
"real reductions of noise impacts on the ground."
The fact that Jerry Dinndorf is now siding with the
Port's opinion about this matter after PSRC stood up for
their own language one year ago can only be explained by
internal politics within PSRC. We will not bore the Panel
with these politics, but only reference PSRC attorney David
Bricklin's statement in the 9/23/94 minutes that paragraph
III.C is "where we have a difference of opinion with the
Port." The differences in the two versions can stand for
themselves and prove clearly that the intent of the
Implementation resolution is according to our
interpretation.
9/23/93 Final version of the A93-03 Implementation Resolution:
Part III.A of the Implementation resolution shows that the
language does not define any limits on what constitutes
"noise reduction objectives." The language here merely
states that 3 programs are "responsive" to the call of A93-
03, which indicates that other programs could also be
"responsive" to A93-03 at the discretion of the Panel.
Paragraph III.C says a "method of independent validation
needs to be developed that [sic] the Noise Budget and
Nighttime Limitation Program noise reduction objectives are
sufficient to cause a reduction in measurable real ("on the
ground") noise by 1996." (emphasis ours)
This sentence talks clearly about a method to validate
the objectives NOT to actually do the validation nor to
decide the objectives. The word "validate" means "to prove
to be valid; confirm the validity of" according to Webster,
clearly confirming our interpretation here. If the Port's
consultant, Mestre Greve, performs the validation, it is not
independent. Validating the sufficiency of the noise
reduction objectives is clearly the job of the Expert Panel.
Moreover, the term "independent validation" does not
bind the Panel to a delimited definition of what does or
does not constitute and independent evaluation. Neither
does it bind the Panel to what does or does not fall within
the definition of noise reduction objectives.
Finally, the word "that" in the Paragraph III C.
sentence should be replaced by the word "whether" because
that is the obvious usage. Appendix A, #5.b supports this
as well because it contains exactly the same sentence,
except that the ungrammatical "that" has already been
replaced with "whether." Otherwise, the sentence would
imply that an "independent" Panel would "validate" (rubber-
stamp) the Noise Budget & Nighttime Noise Limitations,
clearly not intended. Mr. Dinndorf reinforces this
interpretation by referring to the Appendix A language in
his 8/11/94 letter with "Requirements for the Expert
Arbitration Panel."
Paragraph III D decides that the Coordinating committee will
decide what issues should be addressed by the Panel when the
independent Panel validates the methodology for noise
reduction. Thus, paragraph III.D does NOT say that the
Coordinating Committee should decide the objectives, but
only that it agree on a "validation methodology," which they
did per Appendix B. The minimum issues to be addressed in
this "method to validate" are contained in Appendix B to the
Memorandum of Agreement as explained below. In other words,
the Panel is free to add other issues.
Paragraph III.F supports the above conclusions.
Paragraph 5.b decided that the Panel should meet in 1994
instead of 1996, as suggested by the Port, for the reasons
already mentioned in the 9/23/93 minutes, namely that the
Panel should have "...up front, an expert role in
establishing what those reductions are..." In addition, the
language, including the word "sufficient" in this paragraph
clearly expresses the desire of the Executive Board to have
the panel answer question #2 on Page 4 of the Panel's
9/22/94 Procedural Order.
3/94 In the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Paragraphs II.D,
II.E and Appendix B are the key parts. These paragraphs
only concern themselves with "The method to validate" and
not with deciding the "objectives" themselves. This is in
total agreement with III.D of the 93-03 Implementation
Resolution which includes the sufficiency issue.
It is also important to realize that the MOU is not
adopted by the Executive Board but by the Coordinating
committee, so nothing in the MOU will change the intent of
the Executive Board. The Executive Board only delegated the
"development of the validation Methodology" to the
Coordinating Committee through III.D, but not the setting of
the objectives.
In Paragraph II.D the word "ensure" says only that the
Coordinating Committee wants to make sure that the Panel
addresses all of the issues in Appendix B. In Appendix B to
the MOU, the Coordinating Committee calls for some minimum
issues to be addressed in this "method to validate." In
other words, the Panel is free to add other issues.
Paragraph III.D says that the Coordinating Committee will
decide what issues should be addressed by the Panel when the
independent Panel validates the methodology for noise
reduction. The minimum issues to be addressed in this
"method to validate" are contained in Appendix B to the MOU
as explained below. In other words, the Panel is free to
add other issues.
8/94 The 8/14/94 letter from Mr. Jerry Dinndorf again confirms
the interpretation by enclosing Appendix A of the A93-03
Implementation resolution (see 9/93) above) under the
enclosure labeled "Requirements of the Expert Arbitration
Panel and Schedule."
8/94 The 8/19/94 letter from Mr. Jerry Dinndorf does not change
the above facts for the following reasons:
1. The letter is only signed by Mr. Dinndorf. There
are no signatures by the other three members of the
Coordinating committee, nor any minutes of any
meeting where the conclusions of the letter are
supported by the other members of the Coordinating
Committee.
2. The Coordinating Committee cannot adopt the Noise
Budget and the Nighttime Limitations Program as the
objective referred to in III.C of the
Implementation Resolution retroactively.
Therefore, this letter should not be viewed as n
adoption of these objectives by the Coordinating
Committee, but as an interpretation by Jerry
Dinndorf personally as the Chair.
3. Mr. Dinndorf's assertion on Page 3 that "since
[sic] the Executive Board has adopted these
programs as the objectives to be achieve, it is not
within the scope of the Panel to consider their
adequacy..." should be assessed against the actual
documents above. The above documents show that Mr.
Dinndorf's statement is not true. On the contrary,
the Executive specifically rejected the Port's
version of paragraph III.C in the Implementation
resolution at their 9/23/93 meeting. The Port's
proposal tried to insert language into III.C that
more closely resembled Mr. Dinndorf's
interpretation.
The only document that has come even close to
an adoption of the two programs as the "objective"
is the MOU, Paragraphs II.D and Appendix B.
However, both only concern themselves with "The
Method to validate" and not with the "objectives"
themselves. This is in complete agreement with
III.D of the Implementation resolution that calls
for the Coordinating Committee to deal with the
"validation methodology" only. Finally, the MOU is
not adopted by the Executive Board but by the
Coordination Committee.
4. Mr. Dinndorf is actually saying that the Panel has
been authorized to answer question #2 on page 4 of
the 9/22/94 Order. In the last 2 paragraphs on
page 3, Mr. Dinndorf says that "the charge to the
Panel is to assess the appropriateness of the
methodology. [emphasis ours]" which is the same as
question #2 on Page 4 of the Order, even though Mr.
Dinndorf labels these two paragraphs as the "third
question."
Mr. Dinndorf also says in Par., pg. 3 of his
letter that "since [sic] the Executive Board has
adopted these programs as the objectives to be
achieved, it is not within the scope of the Panel
to consider their adequacy..." This is completely
contradicted by the sentence in paragraph 5.b of
Appendix A of A93-03 in the Implementation
Resolution. It says very specifically that the
Panel shall determine "whether the Noise Budget and
Nighttime Limitations program are sufficient to
cause the only thing that the Executive Board
adopted was to have the Panel decide whether these
two programs are sufficient."
5. Mr. Dinndorf has clearly changed his mind about
this subject as can be seen from his own
instruction letter to the panel on 8/11/94. When
he was asked by the panel about this the first time
at the Panel hearings on 8/12/94, he interpreted
A93-03 the same way as we have done above. Later
on the same day, after a break in the proceedings,
he modified this to resemble his states in
paragraph 3 above! This is a clear case of
somebody wanting to change the rules of the game
when things are not going his way.
6. Our assertion is that Mr. Dinndorf (and possibly
the entire Coordinating Committee) has not only
changed his position about this issue, but is a
belated effort to change the language and meaning
of the resolutions passed by the Executive Board in
a way that would narrow promised independence of
the Panel to a rubber stamp for Port and prevent it
from telling the Executive if in fact the Noise
Budget and Nighttime Limitations program would
produce a significant reduction in real noise
impacts on the ground.
_______________________________
1 We have not enclosed the Flightplan DEIS & the citizens
comment documents in this instance because these comments are
sprinkled throughout a bound volume of 500 pages which cost the
public $35 to purchase. Copies of both the FlightPlan DEIS & the
Comments are available from the PSRC and the POS should the Panel
wish to review them.
2 We assume the Panel has copies of Resolution A93-03
3 See Appendix
4 See Appendix