Would you like to know the level of dangerous chemicals from the airport that might be violating the Clean Air Act in your neighborhood? Here’s what the SAMP won’t tell you.
This Editorial was submitted by Sandra Locklear, a verified Burien Resident. Her comments relate to the Port of Seattle’s Sustainable Airport Master Plan that will affect all SeaTac Airport neighborhoods in many different ways. [NOTE FROM EDITOR: Letters to the Editor do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Burien.News or Daniel Media. If you wish to submit a story, photo, article or letter, please contact us. We look forward to hearing from you.]
By Sandra Locklear.
Summary: Halt the proposed expansion of Sea-Tac Airport until proper site specific air quality studies are accomplished. Jet emission levels are now twice as high they were in 1996 when the last airport air quality study was done. The FAA/Port of Seattle’s Sustainable Master Airport Plan (SAMP) leaves out well-studied concerns about how the invisible toxic particles contained in aircraft exhaust gases disproportionately impacts the health of surrounding small cities. A cumulative impact analysis needs to be presented in the SAMP that accounts for existing public health impacts. There is no other way to prove current official levels of airport pollution without due diligence by the FAA right now in completing a tax-payer funded Dispersion Analysis and an Air Quality Monitoring study. We must have air quality testing on the table as part of the SAMP. Put our tax dollars to work.
Public health impacts of Sea-Tac Airport
Ah, there’s nothing like stepping outside first thing in the morning and smelling jet fuel! The toxic icing on the cake for me was that hot summer day when “rain” from a jet fuel dump left my bare arms burning.
Maybe that’s why South King County has statistically significant illness rates that exceed most of King County. Public health issues are at crisis levels for people living in neighborhoods within a ten mile radius of Sea-Tac Airport: Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park, Federal Way, Tukwila, Sea-Tac, unincorporated King County and the Highline School District.
According to health study results by King County, Washington State’s Department of Health and a landmark study by University of Washington, the health of about 670,000 people is negatively impacted by airport noise, ultrafine particle emissions and other airport pollutants. Major airport pollutants of concern are air toxics, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and ultrafine particulate matter.
With Sea-Tac Airport producing twice the level of sulfur dioxide as the highest producing facility in the region, it’s already been the subject of multiple lawsuits. Curiously, except for the UW study proving the need to safeguard public health around ultrafine particles, there’s been no serious monitoring of the other pollutants which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been requesting for nearly 30 years. What’s going on?
Problems with the SAMP
The Sustainable Airport Master Plan details a plan to phase in the completion of Sea-Tac airport’s third runway by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Port of Seattle. Here in the South End there’s been legal opposition to the third runway from the beginning. Folks around here rightly complain about a lack of transparency and overreach in the SAMP.
Here’s why:
- Sea-Tac Airport sits on 2,500 acres.
- The third runway was built with the goal of adding 33 new gates to accommodate a projected 630,000 annual flight operations.
- The 14 gates that have been built so far accommodate 400,000 of those yearly operations.
- The FAA now wants to add the last 19 gates for another 230,000 operations to bring the third runway up to projected capacity of 630,000 annual operations within the next 8-15 years, a 30% increase.
Compare these numbers to a couple of other major airports. Atlanta has 628,000 annual operations on 4,700 acres; Denver has 442,500 annual operations on 33,500 acres.
| Airport | Annual Flight Operations | Airport Acreage | Operations per Acre |
| SeaTac (current) | 400,000 | 2,500 | 160 |
| SeaTac (**projected) | 630,000 | 2,500 | 252 |
| Atlanta | 628,000 | 4,700 | 134 |
| Denver | 442,050 | 33,500 | 13 |
In trying to compete with larger airports on a significantly smaller parcel of land, the premise of the SAMP is dysfunctional at its core. Green lighting the SAMP without appropriate air quality studies and analyzing existing health impacts from current air traffic will only increase adverse health effects, noise and pollution.
What SAMP representatives are saying
There are federal regulations on air pollution by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). But airport representatives are running around trying to convince our disproportionately poor and minority South King County communities that adding 19 extra gates to accommodate an extra 230,000 flight operations on 2,500 acres of land a year won’t make us even sicker!
Unbelievably, during the October 28, 2024 SAMP presentation to the Burien City Council, a Port representative didn’t know why increasing airport travel by 30% was deemed “not significant.” He said to “ask the experts” about increasing noise levels and indicated that the recommendations of the UW study had not been followed. He didn’t have an answer regarding the impact of the airport expansion on 509 traffic, nor could he answer a question on already failed mitigations for home owners in the flight path.
On November 21, 2024, a Port of Seattle’s Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion stated in a letter to the Burien community:
“Our assignment is unchanged …. We will continue to advance equity through an intersectional racial equity lens.” – Bookda Gheisar, Senior Director, Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
The Port’s DEI initiatives invite speculation as to what ought to be its unwavering commitment to doing air quality studies. Since every individual living within a five to ten mile radius of the airport is impacted by a high level of pollution, no one is exempt.
EPA requires air pollution testing
As a federal oversight agency the EPA is the highest authority for approval of the SAMP expansion project. Air pollution, children’s health and environmental justice are within the EPA’s jurisdiction.
Before it will sign off on the SAMP, the EPA has asked the FAA to characterize airport air quality impacts in neighborhoods. While the National Environmental Policy Act/NEPA asks for site specific analysis, the FAA has relied on regional air monitoring, which isn’t representative of health impacts or local conditions.
The FAA can comply with the EPA/NEPA mandate by doing a Dispersion Analysis (using modeling) and an Air Monitoring Study (using physical instruments to validate the Dispersion Analysis). Right now we have neither. There has been no air quality testing done around the airport since 1996.
Such tests reveal where breaches of federal air pollution standards are occurring. A fresh study has the potential to expose current levels of airport pollution that may already be violating the Clean Air Act. Perhaps that’s why the topic of air quality is nervously being shoved under the covers.
Although push back exists on the idea of airport pollutants making people sick, it appears that bona fide air EPA required air quality studies could be the nail in the coffin for business interests trying to cram an increase of 30% yearly operations onto a mere 2,500 acres of land.
The EPA wants to know health and environmental hazards
The FAA is funded by taxpayer dollars so finding money to fund air quality studies to the tune of $300,000-$600,000 shouldn’t be a problem. That’s a drop in the bucket of the SAMP’s estimated 6.4 million dollar budget.
Both types of tests ought to be done because the study area has to be bigger than just the airport. That’s because the EPA is interested in looking at what’s happening in surrounding airport communities. They’re interested in children’s health and our disproportionately poor and minority populations. They want to know what’s happening at sensitive receptor sites like housing, daycares, schools, hospitals, and elder care facilities.
The results of site specific air quality testing must be included in the FAA’s Environmental Assessment (EA) after public comments are received. The Port of Seattle then provides a summary to the public in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the findings of which can be challenged in court to delay and/or modify the expansion project.
That’s what the SAMP won’t tell you.
ACTION STEP: Dec. 13 public comments deadline
Now is the time to make your voices heard! Please send in your comments by Dec. 13 to the Seattle offices of the Port of Seattle, the FAA and the EPA. Remember to send to all parties so your comments remain transparent in the public record.
EPA: bitalac.emily@epa.gov
Port of Seattle: samp@portseattle.org
FAA: Kandice.Krull@faa.gov
The FAA also provides an online comment at Submit A Comment – SAMP. There’s a USPS mailing address there too.
Points you may wish to include in your comments to the EPA, the FAA and the Port of Seattle:
- It is unacceptable to move forward with the SAMP until proper tax-payer funded air quality studies are conducted and a cumulative impact analysis is presented on existing public health impacts of Sea-Tac airport. This needs to be part of the plan!
- Lack of air quality studies are detrimental to everyone living around Sea-Tac airport and disproportionately affect poor and minority populations.
- The EPA’s required air quality studies (Dispersion Analysis / Air Quality Study) must be done by the FAA, otherwise there is no way of knowing what current air pollution levels are.
- A half a million dollars to pay for the cost of these studies is a drop in the bucket of the SAMP’s budget.
– Sandra Locklear
[NOTE FROM EDITOR: If you wish to submit a story, photo, article or letter, please contact us. Even if you wish to remain anonymous, please include your name and phone number so we may contact you privately. We look forward to hearing from you.]
2 Responses
This is a great analysis by Ms Locklear; thanks for doing the work. The studies will confirm what we know: 1) airport is noisy, 2) jets emit fine particulate and aerosol, 3) airport reduces neighbors’ quality of life, 4) airport reduces neighbors’ property values, 5) airport causes neighbors health issues. Spending money on studies is a waste other than it will produce “scientific “ conclusions to what we already know and, hopefully, some quantitative data to our qualitative (lived) knowledge. The question is what to do about this? The airport will expand – that is pretty much a given. I’d like to see a discussion on what mitigation the community thinks the Port should take.
Ken Becker – Seahurst District
Comment by: Alexander Fleege
Excellent article by Sandra Forman Locklear, on Sea-Tac’s airport expansion, and impact on the health of residents in near by communities, by pollution caused by jet fueled aircraft & related expansion to meet growing demands.