Report Inappropriate Comments

Latitude41: How do you propose to deal with the following section of the Final EIS which is backed up in the Record of Decision?

Chapter 5 - Environmental Consequences 5-213

Without the proposed deicer management system which will be in place by 2015, increased glycol usage could impact water quality. However, the use of the glycol blending facility and deicer management system (both constructed as part of the No-Action Alternative) would not substantially increase glycol use or discharge. ...

RIDEM has indicated that the projects are viewed on a cumulative basis and therefore the filing of a RIPDES NOI and SWPPP would be required for all projects that do not require a Freshwater Wetlands Permit regardless of the area of disturbance from construction activities.

This requires an additional $23 million that RIAC has yet to identify. Nothing can move forward on the crosswinds project until RIDEM sees that money coming in and is documented in its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

The question about the runway rehab is really important too. That $40 million project seems to be unaccounted for. Here is the primary purpose for the EIS project:

Chapter 2 – Purpose and Need Page 2-3

Safety

Runway 16-34 Safety Areas (RSAs) and pavement rehabilitation

RSAs: FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Change 15, Airport Design; 14 CFR Part 139, Certification of Airports, Section139.309; Public Law 109-115; FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program Rehabilitation of Runway 16-34 pavement.

Here is the question: Why is there $40 million in the RIAC budget for runway rehab. Is that just for Runway 16-34 or for both runways? Nobody knows. If it is for both runways then about $17 million of that would be for 16-34. How much will the overrun arresting project cost? I can see that being put in place within the existing runway bed leaving the runway about 1,200 feet shorter than it is now. But any effort to extend the runway further into the Buckeye Brook watershed will blow the documented $40 million budget for the crosswinds project into the stratosphere.

If your main concern is airport capacity at T.F. Green you should immediately realize that this length of the crosswinds runway needs to be buttoned down. Does the $40 million in the Beacon story include the pavement rehab? By the way the ROD reports this pavement as "poor." And it was the entire reason for the EIS when it was initially kicked off before RIAC officials started talking about lengthening the main runway. If the $40 million does not include the rehab funds, where will they come from?

The way I read all of this RIAC needs to come up with $23 million for the glycol plant, at least $17 million and maybe $40 million for the runway rehab, $10 million for the RIAC match for the crosswinds project and at least $30 million for the runway extension. That adds up to a RIAC bond of $80 million. To be on the safe side consider $100 million. RIAC is currently paying $28 million for debt service up from $7 million in 1994 when the terminal was replaced. Straight revenues before FAA grants is about $40 million. The debt service on an additional $100 million bond would be about $3 million per year in payback (the bond must be paid back in 30 years - long past RIAC's lease for the airport) plus a probable interest rate of 7% for a junk bond -- which it clearly would be. That would leave about $3 million per year to pay the RIAC officials, heat the place, sweep the floors, plow the runways, and operate the glycol plant etc. Are you beginning to get the picture now?