Loading...
SR-111108-3A„Y O, Information Item Santa Rionic:t` Date: November 4, 2008 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Subject: Report on the Status of Dispute with the FAA and the Alternative of Enhancing Airport Runway Safety Through the Use of EMAS Technology; Request for Guidance on Mediation in Conjunction with November 11, 2008 Airport Study Session Introduction The hearing examiner for the upcoming Part 16 hearing on the City ordinance banning category C and D aircraft from Santa Monica Airport has referred the City and the FAA to pre-hearing mediation. The process, which is supervised and directed by a federal mediator, requires the parties to evaluate any prospects for settlement through a voluntary agreement to enhance runway safety by means other than the challenged ordinance, the most likely alternative being improvements including an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS). As is customary, the mediator required both parties to sign a confidentiality agreement that prohibits disclosure of any proposals made during the mediation process. However, the confidentiality requirement does not preclude public consideration of the basic alternatives for enhancing Airport safety (which have been discussed in the community on many occasions). Nor does it preclude Council from publicly. discussing and formulating basic parameters and goals for .achieving Airport safety that would guide the City in the mediation process. This report provides general information intended to facilitate public consideration of alternatives and Council's provision of guidance to the City's mediation team. 1 Background The ongoing dispute with the FAA results, in large part, from the unique characteristics of the Santa Monica Airport, including its physical circumstances and its history: • The Current Controversy Reflects the Airport's Unique Characteristics and History The Airport's physical situation poses unique risks and challenges. The runway traverses a plateau forty feet above the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Homes sit less. than 300 feet from the runway ends, just across busy arterial streets from the Airport perimeter. There .are no runway safety areas to protect the adjacent neighborhoods from an overrun. Most significant for-the current dispute, there is little or ho space available to create safety areas without utilizing the existing runway, and doing so would impact access. The Airport's unusually long history spawned the current dilemma. It is one of the. oldest airports in the nation, having been in continuous operation since 1917. The City acquired the Airport in 1922 and has operated it ever since, except during World War II, when it was operated by the federal government. During the War years, the neighborhoods immediately around the Airport grew to provide housing for thousands of new City residents who worked at the Douglas plant at the Airport. Also, the previous runways were reconfigured into the present, single 4,973 foot runway configuration. It has not changed substantially in the decades since. But, while the runway facilities have not changed, the fleet has; and therein lies the heart of the problem. The first sighificant fleet change came with the advent of private jets. In the late 1970's and early 1980's, the City adopted several ordinances intended to shield the neighborhoods which had grown around the. Airport from the adverse impacts of jet traffic. This effort. to protect residents' quality of life through local legislation ignited a dispute between the City and the FAA. Eventually, all but one of the City's ordinances 2 were upheld in federal court. And, the City and the FAA settled their dispute through adoption of the 1984 Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Agreement a master planning process was undertaken, and the Airport was designated and designed as a B-II airport, which the City agreed Co operate through 2015. This designation reflected the fact that the most demanding aircraft using the Airport for at least 500 operations per year was the Cessna Citation. Aircraft are categorized by approach speeds. The Cessna's approach speed of under 121 knots, placed it ih the Bcategory -- a category appropriate for the length- of Santa Monica's runway. • Fleet Changes In the Years Since the 1984 Agreement, Created New Safety Risks But, the fleet continued to evolve with changing technologies and business models. During the mid-1990's, fractional ownership companies appeared and prospered. With this shift in the industry, annual jet operations. at the Airport increased from about 4900 in 1996 to about 12,500 in 2000 -- an increase of about 255%. As a result, the most demanding aircraft routinely using the Airport were Category D aircraft with significantly higher landing speeds than the Category B aircraft that the City had agreed to accommodate. The City became increasingly concerned about the safety implications associated with the exponential increase in more demanding aircrafts' use of the Airport. The City's concerns heightened. as national attention focused on runway safety after an American Airlines flight overran the runway at Little Rock Airport, killing the captain and 10 passengers and injuring about 110 others. Four months after the Little Rock overrun, the FAA instituted its Runway Safety Area Program. An order implementing the program specified the importance of safety areas and required that their dimensions be based on the airport's reference code. 3 The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also responded to the Little Rock overrun. It concluded that many factors contributed to the accident including the lack of an appropriate runway safety area -- a condition which existed despite the NTSB's issuance, four years earlier, of a recommendation asking the FAA to require the upgrading of substandard runway safety areas. In its report on the Little Rock accident, the NTSB noted that airports, which lacked the space necessary for standard runway safety areas, could provide equivalent runway protection through the installation of a new aircraft arresting system technology called Engineering Materials Arresting System or EMAS. In 2001, the full importance of runway safety measures was driven home locally, when a fatal overrun occurred at SMO. A category B aircraft overran the west end of the runway, careened down the. embankment, and burst into flames. The pilot and passenger died in the fire. City personnel and neighbors feared that, had the plane been a category C or D aircraft, its momentum would have thrust it across 23`d Street and into the Sunset Park neighborhood with catastrophic results. The City Addressed Safety Concerns by Studying the Options and Approving the Conformance Program Spurred by its concerns about runway safety, the shift in the fleet and this fatal accident, the City commissioned and reviewed a study on the compatibility of the fleet with the Airport`s facilities,. The study included a runway safety component that evaluated the basic options for enhancing safety: runway safety areas, declared distances, runway protection zones and EMAS. The study concluded that topography and surroundings effectively precluded the construction of traditional runway safety areas and that the creation of protection zones was astronomically expensive and politically impossible. EMAS was also evaluated but was disfavored because, at the time, it was only certified as arresting a few aircraft that 4 used the Airport. Accordingly, the report recommended utilizing displaced thresholds to achieve compliant safety areas for A and B aircraft and limiting Airport usage to . operations by aircraft compatible with its facilities under FAA guidelines -- that is, banning C and D aircraft. This proposal would conform Airport usage to Airport facilities pursuant to federal runway safety standards. In 2002, the FAA initiated the current administrative proceeding to challenge the proposal. Nonetheless, the Council approved that recommendation and the Airport Conformance Program. It also directed staff to continue to explore alternatives with the FAA. Ultimately, when that effort failed to yield safety enhancements, the Council. moved forward with the Conformance Program by adopting the Ordinance banning C and D aircraft in order to conform Airport operations to federal safety standards. Since the Conformance Program Was Approved, EMAS Technology Has Improved And Now Provides An Alternative Means Of Enhancing Safety. In the years since the Council approved the Conformance Program, EMAS technology has significantly improved. EMAS uses a concept much like a runaway truck stop bed. EMAS beds are made of lightweight, crushable concrete. When an aircraft of sufficient weight rolls onto the bed, the tires sink into the material, and the aircraft slows and stops. Thus, where additional land at the end of a runway is not available or would be very expensive to acquire, or where it is otherwise not possible to have standard runway safety areas -EMAS provides an alternative means of enhancing safety. The FAA has .established standards for EMAS installation. Generally, for General Aviation airports like Santa Monica; the bed must be at least 25 feet from the runway threshold, a distance, that protects the EMAS bed from jet. blast. And, the bed must be long enough to safely stop aircraft that leave the runway (and enter the bed) traveling at 70 knots. 5 The FAA has also established non-standard EMAS guidelines for "constrained" airports where a standard EMAS installation would not be practicable due to physical constraints. In such circumstances, the EMAS must extend far enough to stop an aircraft that leaves the runway traveling 40 knots. This reduced standard yields reduced benefits because 50% of overruns involve aircraft traveling faster than 40 .knots when they leave the runway. Such aircraft could exit the back of the 40-knot bed at significant speed. With improvements in EMAS technology, more airports began using it. EMAS has been installed at twenty-eight airports in the United States, and its installation is planned at more. In California, EMAS has been. installed at Burbank, San Diego, and, most recently, San Luis Obispo. There have been at least four incidents of EMAS technology arresting an aircraft overrun. Three of these involved commercial overruns at JFK and the fourth involved a Falcon 900 at Greenville, South Carolina. These incidents show that the technology effectively safeguards against overrun accidents. Nonetheless, like all safeguards, EMAS has limitations. At about $17,000 per linear foot, it is expehsive; and it must be replaced after use. (Though the person(s) responsible for the damage to the bed may be charged.) Also, EMAS is generally ineffective at stopping aircraft weighing 12,500 or less, because they tend not to sink into the EMAS bed. Therefore, when EMAS is used at an airport with a fleet mix that includes "light" aircraft (generally category A and B); a 300 foot safety area is also necessary to achieve FAA standards; however, the EMAS bed can, itself, provide part or all of the safety area. Moreover, EMAS does not provide a benefit for undershoots. Nonetheless, for airports that lack the space necessary to install runway safety areas and protection zones that comply with safety standards, EMAS is the state of the art alternative. 6 Discussion At present, the legal dispute between the City and the FAA is ongoing in two forums; as it has been for months. On November 19'h, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal will hear oral argument on the City's challenge to the Interim Cease and Desist Order prohibiting enforcement of the C and D ban. Concurrently with that appeal, the FAA is scheduled to conduct the Part 16 hearing in March of next year. An appeal of the hearing decision to the Ninth Circuit is virtually certain. Thus, whatever the outcome of the current appeal, another will follow. The fighf is costly. If the case does not settle, it will likely continue for another two to three years. There are several complex legal issues, and precedent is relatively scarce, partly because there have .been very few Part 16 hearings. Thus, the ultimate outcome is highly uncertain. Given the complexity of the matter,,and the risks to both parties, the Hearing Examiner referred the matter to mediation. As in all mediations, the parties were required to sign a confidentiality agreement that precludes public disclosure of the substance of the discussions.. However, this confidentiality requirement does not prohibit renewing the public discussion of the basic options for enhancing Airport safety, which were publicly considered by Council in-2002 and reviewed by the Airport Commission last year. • The Possibility Of Installing EMAS at Santa Monica Airport Warrants Consideration Because the 1984 Agreement requires the City and the FAA to attempt voluntary resolution of disputes about the Airport and because the Gouncil directed staff to explore settlement options, City staff and City consultants have evaluated the possibility of utilizing EMAS technology at the Santa Monica Airport in lieu of banning C and D aircraft. 7 During this ongoing process, EMAS beds of various lengths have been considered in combination with runway safety areas. Modeling undertaken by the City's consultants indicates that. an EMAS bed of about 500 feet would be necessary to meet the federal standard of 70 knot protection for alf aircraft using the Santa Monica Airport. A shorter bed would suffice if one type of aircraft were excluded. And the federal 40-knot standard for constrained airports could be met. with a 175 foot bed plus a 25 foot setback. The cost estimate fora 500 foot bed is about $8,500,000. The-cost estimate fora 175 foot bed is about $3,000,000: The runway length is insufficient to install 70-knot protection and continue to accommodate C and D aircraft. And, the present challenge to the Aircraft Conformance Program demonstrates-that the FAA is highly unlikely to voluntarily accept any safety solution that excludes a significant portion of the current fleet. Accordingly, staff has considered the possibility of extending the runway plateau to lengthen the area available for safety enhancements at the runway's ends. On the west end of the runway, it is possible that ah extension could be built outward toward the Airport perimeter. However, extending the runway plateau westward to accommodate an EMAS bed would require extensive grading and compaction. Moreover, safety considerations-would require that the perimeter road be maintained. Thus, to build any significant extension, the perimeter road would have to either be enclosed in a culvert beneath the extension or relocated, perhaps to the Airport boundary. Moreover, in considering the possibility of building an extension oh the west end, both safety and aesthetic issues would require careful evaluation. A platform with a sharp drop off at or near 23rd Street would pose safety risks to both aircraft users and residents. A plane reaching the edge of the platform would, in effect, careen off a 50 foot cliff into Sunset Park. Additionally, a sheer wall at the west end of such a platform could also adversely impact Airport neighbors aesthetically and environmentally. And, 8 rather than protecting neighbors, it could be perceived as bringing Airport impacts and risks closer to residents' homes. Cost would also be an important consideration. Initial rough estimates, place the cost of building an extension in range of $7,000,000 - $9,000,0000, excluding the EMAS bed; though, it is possible that this cost could be reduced by relocating the perimeter road, thereby avoiding the cost of building a culvert . At the east end of the runway, assessing potential runway safety modifications requires careful consideration of neighbors' primary concern: air quality. Extending the plateau to the east would likely impair efficacy of the blast wall, which deflects jet emissions upward. This consideration and others likely nullify any possibility of obtaining additional space for runway improvements through an eastward extension: Moreover, given the very low percentage of eastward landings and the primacy of neighbors' concerns about air quality, it may be preferable to consider a displaced threshold and shorter EMAS bed for the east end: This approach could actually enhance the efficacy of the blast wall, thereby addressing neighbors` primary concern. As this basic information and rough estimates show; any combination of improvements including EMAS would be costly. Extending the runway platform to accommodate EMAS beds and/or safety areas would both preserve C and D aircraft access and increase costs. However, it is possible to recoup at least some of these costs through the imposition or increase of user fees. • Possible Policy Goals and Parameters for Exploring Any Settlement Opportunities In order to facilitate and guide the ongoing mediation effort and thereby fully explore settlement possibilities, the Council could establish general goals to guide settlement efforts. For instance, goals could include any or all of the following: 9 Enhancing public safety and neighborhood quality of life by: 1) protecting against overruns through runway safety improvements, including EMAS technology; 2) maintaining and, if possible enhancing the efficacy of the blast wall; 3) keeping the runway ends as far as possible from homes; 4) preserving neighborhood aesthetics; and 5) ensuring that neighbors at both ends of the runway are benefited by any voluntary resolution. Protecting City's fiscal health and attendant ability to continue funding a wide variety of City services and programs by: 1) insulating the City against future liability claims by striving to meet federal runway safety standards; 2) containing the cost of safety improvements and covering them, to the extent legally possible, through user fees; and 3) containing legal costs by fully exploring any possibility for voluntary resolution. In conclusion, staff suggests that the Council consider the information provided in this report, the public testimony and any other information provided at the public hearing, deliberate on the goals to be pursued in the mediation process and give staff general guidance to establish parameters for the mediation process. .Prepared By: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney 10 Additional documents available in City Clerk's Office.