RCAA – Keeping a Low Profile
But Still Working Hard

An interview with Larry Corvari, President of the
Regional Commission on Airport Affairs

The following is an interview with Larry Corvari, President of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (16 June 2005)

Truth in Aviation: President Larry, RCAA seems to have been very quiet in the last few months.

Larry Corvari: We've been quiet but busy.

TiA: Busy at what?

L.C.: Still working on community-impact issues connected to Sea-Tac Airport, as always.

TiA: Such as what?

L.C. Right now, our focus is on the pollution that rolls out of the Airport and into local streams, and, eventually, into Puget Sound. Most people know that the Airport generates a lot of noise, and most people know that the Airport is a big contributor to problems on the freeways, but very few people are aware that Sea-Tac is one of the biggest industrial polluters in the whole State.

TiA: What sorts of pollution?

L.C.: Water pollution is the big issue that we're looking at. Aircraft and Airport ground vehicles contaminate the working areas with copper, de-icing compounds (glycols), fall-out from exhaust, drippings of grease and oil – all sorts of lovely stuff. This all will end up in local lakes and streams, and in the Sound, unless it's dealt with.

TiA: Where does RCAA fit in?

L.C.: We're taking a hard look at the anti-pollution measures that the Airport is supposed to be implementing, as required by the Department of Ecology. The Airport is not allowed to dump any pollution into public waters, except in compliance with its pollution permit, issued by Ecology. And that permit is being re-written, because a State appeal board said that the permit wasn't tough enough. We're closely tracking that re-writing process, and we're supplying expert comments to Ecology, to support a better permit

TiA: Is this doing any good?

L.C.: We think, very much so. We're able to provide very accurate technical information to give support to Ecology's desire to do the right thing. Our work is successful in counteracting incomplete and inaccurate information that the Airport and its consultants have tried to rely on. We've taken over where the former Airport Communities Coalition left off, when it disbanded last year.

TiA: Can you give an example?

L.C.: Here's one, one of many. The Airport has been dumping wastewater into Puget Sound in very large quantities, without treatment to remove de-icing compounds – primarily glycols. As most people know, glycols are hazardous to most forms of animal life. You don't dump old anti-freeze down the sewer. The Airport shouldn't send water that's contaminated with glycols into the Sound, either. They've resisted any effort to make them sent this sort of stuff to Metro for treatment, claiming that the cost was excessive for the benefit gained. We've been able to show that this is not the case, and Ecology is prepared to add conditions to the pollution permit that will make a big reduction in the glycols discharge into Puget Sound (not far, by the way, from the Des Moines Marina).

TiA: Will that cost a lot of money?

L.C.: It won't cost the Airport any more than it would cost anyone else for comparable environmental protection. Airports all across North America face this problem – well, maybe not down in Florida – and they all expect to pay the costs, as they should.

TiA: Well, how much money in dollar terms?

L.C.: No-one is quite sure – a few millions to get started, and a million or two annually in the years to come. Nothing out of line, given the scope of the problem.

TiA: It's expensive to pollute.

L.C.: It's expensive to the innocent by-standers if you don't deal with it. The whole idea behind environmental clean-up is that prevention costs less than dealing with after-the-fact messes.

TiA: What about the third runway?

L.C.: The Port of Seattle has all its necessary permits and official go-aheads, and they have their contactors busily moving fill for that huge embankment on the west side of the Airport. As far as RCAA is concerned, there's nothing to say or do about the project at this point.

TiA: RCAA used to say that the third runway was bad transportation planning.

L.C.: We did, but we were overruled – in part.

TiA: In part? How do you figure, in part?

L.C.: We've always advocated a real multi-airport system for Puget Sound and the whole State. And there has been tremendous progress on this in the last year. The Legislature has mandated a full, State-wide study of air transportation with a view to locating new airport sites, and work is moving right ahead on that. And we see the pressure in Snohomish County to bring commuter service to Paine Field.

TiA: But putting more traffic into Paine Field sounds like making the Sea-Tac mistake all over again, but in a different location.

L.C.: They're talking about commuter planes – not 747s, not transcontinental planes, not a lot of freight traffic. Just moving a small number of commuter flights out of Sea-Tac will make a big difference in peak times of day. There isn't any sentiment in Snohomish County for turning Paine Field into another Sea-Tac – that's a good thing. We wouldn't want that. But modern commuter planes are not a threat. Paine won't need a longer runway, or another runway, or a bigger campus, to accommodate the flights that Snohomish County really needs for its businesses and residents. I mean, why drive to Sea-Tac and go through all of that hassle, if you only want to fly to Portland or Vancouver, B.C.?

TiA: What about this amazing news that Southwest Airlines is negotiating with King County to move its operations from Sea-Tac to Boeing Field?

L.C.: Negotiating. It's far from a done deal, of course. But as the Seattle P-I noted in its editorial this morning, this is another indication of the need for a multi-airport system here – such as most other major metropolitan areas have. There are some potentially serious problems that Southwest and the County will have to deal with – noise, ground traffic, costs … . So we'll have to wait & see. RCAA will certainly provide our expertise to citizens & communities who want to study this idea in depth. It's important to stress that we wouldn't want Boeing Field to become another Sea-Tac, even if it had the space for expansion.

TiA: Were you expecting this news?

L.C.: In broad terms, yes. Some minor players have already pulled out of Sea-Tac, & we've been hearing rumblings in the last several months about other operators developing itchy feet. I think that the most interesting aspect of the Southwest news is Southwest's focus on the very high costs of doing business at Sea-Tac. Which we have warned about for years. The Port's plan is that by 2009 the airlines will be paying the Airport in fees more than $23 for every passenger taken on board. Alaska Airlines said last year that they couldn't show a profit unless that number were reduced to $18 per passenger. And nothing has happened to cut costs since then. The Airport continues to pile up debt, relying on the airlines to provide the income necessary to pay the interest on the bonds. It's not a viable situation, & it was never a workable financing plan.

In the longer run, even if Southwest & other airlines move, the State continues to need a truly modern international airport, & that is not & cannot be either Paine Field or Sea-Tac or Boeing Field. Fortunately, the Legislature, the State Department of Transportation, and the Puget Sound Regional Council are now seeing the light on this. So we at RCAA can focus on more-local problems – like stream pollution.

TiA: What else does RCAA plan to do?

L.C.: Hard to say. This partly depends on what our supporters tell us needs to be done!

Some our attention goes to issues that we've followed from Day One. For example, we are right on top of the question of full funding for the historic agreement to put serious noise insulation into Highline schools – up to $200 millions worth.

We know all too well that Sea-Tac still makes a lot of noise over a very wide area. The last official noise study was full of useful suggestions, proposals that unfortunately were torpedoed by the senior staff, with the support of the Port Commission as it was then constituted. We're seeing changes on the Commission, and new folks in top positions on the Port staff. So, I'm modestly hopeful that it won't be long before the good ideas can be dusted off, and get a better reception from the Port. Folks should take a look at the statement on our home page! We have plenty to do!

Back to Page 1 of Newsletter