bijlage 3 second amended class action complaint.pdf
Tekst van het document
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 1 of 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE DIVISION
8 9
11
CINDY CODONI, MICHELLE GEER, HORACE CATHCART, AMY FRANCE, and TAMARA CHAKOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
12
Plaintiffs,
10
13 14 15
Case No. 2:23-cv-00795 JNW SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
v. PORT OF SEATTLE, ALASKA AIR GROUP, and DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendants.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 011150-11/2321774 V5
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 2 of 55
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
2 3
I.
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
4
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................................4
5
III.
PARTIES .............................................................................................................................5
6
A.
7 8 9 10 11 12 B.
13
Plaintiffs ...................................................................................................................5 1.
Cindy Codoni ...............................................................................................5
2.
Michelle Geer...............................................................................................7
3.
Horace Cathcart ...........................................................................................8
4.
Amy France................................................................................................11
5.
Tamara Chakos ..........................................................................................11
Defendants .............................................................................................................12 1.
Port of Seattle.............................................................................................12
15
2.
Alaska Air Group .......................................................................................14
16
3.
Delta Air Lines, Inc....................................................................................14
14
17 18
IV.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................15 A.
Pollutants, including particulate matter, dangerous gases, hazardous air pollutants, and toxic heavy metals, are harmful to human health. .........................................................................................................15
B.
Aircraft emit dangerous pollutants as they fly, and these pollutants accumulate in places where planes routinely fly below 3,000 feet........................17
C.
23
Defendant Airlines’ operations, conducted with the consent and support of the Port of Seattle, have caused these pollutants to contaminate the Contamination Zone, resulting in substantial harm. ....................19
24
1.
Defendants’ operations have contaminated the air in the Contamination Zone...................................................................................19
2.
Defendants’ operations have contaminated the soil in the Contamination Zone...................................................................................26
19 20 21 22
25 26 27 28
D.
Plaintiffs and other Class members have been harmed by Defendants’ actions. ...............................................................................................28
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - i 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 3 of 55
1
1.
Defendants have materially increased the health risks faced by Plaintiffs and Class members. ...............................................................28
2.
Defendants’ actions have damaged Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ property by contaminating it with dangerous pollutants. ...................................................................................................33
2 3 4 E.
Defendants have known for years that their activities harm Plaintiffs and other Class members, but they continue to engage in these activities. .......................................................................................................33
F.
8
Plaintiffs and Class members will require professional assistance to redress the harm Defendants have caused. ............................................................37
9
1.
Appropriate diagnosis and treatment of airport-related illnesses among Plaintiffs and other Class members will require ongoing medical monitoring by healthcare professionals. .............................................................................................37
2.
Decontaminating Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ property will require specialized equipment and skills. ...........................................38
5 6 7
10 11 12 13
V.
14
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................38 A.
Each of the requirements for maintaining this action as a class action under Rule 23 are satisfied. .........................................................................39
B.
Each of the additional requirements of Rule 23 are also met. ...............................40
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
VI.
CLAIMS ............................................................................................................................42 A.
Resident Class Claims............................................................................................42
COUNT ONE NEGLIGENCE (ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENT CLASS) ........................................42 COUNT TWO BATTERY (ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT AIRLINES ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENT CLASS) .......................43 B.
Homeowner and Renter Class Claims ...................................................................44
COUNT THREE NEGLIGENCE (ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ON BEHALF OF THE HOMEOWNER AND RENTER CLASS) ..............................................................................................................................44 COUNT FOUR CONTINUING INTENTIONAL TRESPASS (ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ON BEHALF OF THE HOMEOWNER AND RENTER CLASS) ........................................................................45
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - ii 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 4 of 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COUNT FIVE PUBLIC NUISANCE (ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ON BEHALF OF THE HOMEOWNER AND RENTER CLASS) .............................................................................................................46 COUNT SIX INVERSE CONDEMNATION (ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST THE PORT ON BEHALF OF THE HOMEOWNER AND RENTER CLASS) .............................................................................................................47 REQUEST FOR RELIEF ..............................................................................................................48 JURY DEMAND ...........................................................................................................................49
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - iii 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 5 of 55
1
Plaintiffs Cindy Codoni, Michelle Geer, Ace Cathcart, Amy France, and Tamara Chakos,
2
individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this class action against Defendants
3
Port of Seattle, Alaska Air Group, and Delta Air Lines, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking
4
injunctive relief and damages for harm caused by Defendants’ emission of dangerously high
5
levels of pollutants that have contaminated communities surrounding Seattle-Tacoma
6
International Airport (“Sea-Tac Airport”) in violation of community members’ rights under
7
Washington negligence, nuisance, trespass, battery, and inverse condemnation laws.
8
I. 1.
9
INTRODUCTION
Airlines and airport authorities must not shower unwanted and harmful pollutants
10
on people’s homes. The laws of negligence, nuisance, trespass, battery, and (for government
11
defendants) the Takings Clause of the Washington Constitution prohibit such unwanted and
12
damaging behavior. People who suffer harm when airlines and airport authorities break these
13
laws are entitled to the court’s protection. 2.
14
Aircraft and terminal activity1 generate a wide range of pollutants, including
15
coarse, fine, and ultra-fine particulate matter; harmful gases including carbon monoxide, nitrogen
16
dioxide, and sulfur oxide; hazardous air pollutants like formaldehyde, acrolein, 1,3-butadiene,
17
naphthalene, benzene, acetaldehyde, and ethylbenzene; and toxic heavy metals including
18
aluminum, barium, cadmium, copper, lead, magnesium, silver, and zinc. These pollutants settle
19
over local communities, contaminating the air residents breathe and the soil where their children
20
play. It is beyond dispute that these pollutants can cause respiratory problems (including asthma,
21
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pulmonary fibrosis) cardiovascular problems, central
22
nervous system disorders, and Alzheimer’s disease. 3.
23
Pollution from airport activity is particularly acute in a five-mile radius of the
24
Airport (the “Contamination Zone”). Nearly 300,000 people live within the Contamination Zone,
25
over 60,000 of whom are children. The Contamination Zone, depicted in the map below,
26 27 28
“Terminal activity” includes use of airport on-site energy generation such as use of auxiliary power units (APUs) and Ground Power Units (GPUs) that power aircraft at airport gates. 1
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 1 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 6 of 55
1
encompasses south Seattle communities and the cities of Burien, Des Moines, SeaTac, and
2
Tukwila, among others:
3
Map of the Contamination Zone (5-mile radius from Sea-Tac Airport)
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
4.
Predictably, residents within the Contamination Zone suffer the health
21
consequences of pollution caused by airplanes travelling to and from Sea-Tac Airport. Rates of
22
cancer, heart disease, and chronic lower respiratory disease are significantly higher in the
23
Contamination Zone than in other Seattle communities not under a flight path or near Sea-Tac
24
Airport. Babies born in the Contamination Zone have a higher chance of being born prematurely
25
or of being underweight. And residents of the Contamination Zone have lower life expectancies
26
than those who live outside the Zone. In fact, researchers have concluded that exposure to
27
pollution caused by airplanes at Sea-Tac leads to hundreds of excess deaths in the Contamination
28
Zone per year. And this pollution exposes Class members to a heightened risk of disease. SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 2 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 7 of 55
1
5.
Pollution caused by air travel at Sea-Tac Airport disproportionately affects low-
2
income and minority communities. Over 30% of Contamination Zone residents live in
3
households with total incomes under 200% of the federal poverty level; nearly 50% of children
4
in the Contamination Zone live in such households. The majority of residents in the
5
Contamination Zone are Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific
6
Islander (52%), whereas these minority communities make up only one-third of all individuals
7
living in King County as a whole. And residents of the Contamination Zone are also more likely
8
to be immigrants. The disproportionate harm from airport pollution on low-income and minority-
9
majority communities is an environmental and social injustice. Defendants’ behavior would not
10
be tolerated if the affected communities were wealthy and politically powerful, such as Mercer
11
Island or Medina. Defendants have long known about the injustice of this disparate impact on
12
Sea-Tac area communities.
13
6.
Defendants have known at least since 2021 (and likely significantly earlier) that
14
their actions created a de facto Contamination Zone around the airport, making people sick and
15
exposing them to a greater risk of disease than normal. But despite this knowledge, and despite
16
pleas from local residents, Defendants have ignored the consequences of their actions and have
17
not addressed the problem. Instead, they have carried on as usual, forcing local residents to
18
unfairly bear the burdens associated with Defendants’ activities. In fact, Defendants have
19
recently expanded their operations at Sea-Tac, raking in profits at the expense of the health and
20
lives of families living in the Contamination Zone.
21
7.
Well recognized laws of trespass, nuisance, negligence, battery, and Article I,
22
Section 16 of the Washington Constitution protect Washington residents and provide an
23
entitlement to sue parties, like Defendants, who are responsible for harm—in the form of
24
dangerous pollutants—caused to themselves and their homes. Plaintiffs and the putative class
25
should not have to resign themselves to becoming sick or being unreasonably exposed to the risk
26
of disease (or to watching their children become sick or be exposed to an increased risk of
27
disease) to enable Defendants’ commercial profits. Defendants’ interests in avoiding the costs
28
associated with contaminant remediation and health monitoring, or in the case of the Port of SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 3 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 8 of 55
1
Seattle, of avoiding the expense of formally acquiring additional land to act as a buffer zone
2
between the community and the Airport, does not outweigh the interests of Plaintiffs and the
3
putative Class members within the Contamination Zone in living safe, healthy lives, with
4
property unencumbered and damaged by dangerous pollutants.
5
8.
Defendants are required to remedy the harms they have caused and to bear the
6
cost of the externalities created by the commercial activity of taking off and landing at Sea-Tac
7
Airport. Because Defendants have been unwilling to take on this responsibility voluntarily,
8
Plaintiffs bring this case and seek injunctive relief and compensatory damages against
9
Defendants under Washington law.
10
9.
Plaintiffs bring negligence claims against all three Defendants on behalf of
11
themselves and a proposed Class of residents who have lived in the Contamination Zone within
12
the past four years, seeking the establishment of a medical monitoring program to help ensure
13
early diagnosis and treatment of illnesses caused by exposure to the pollution caused by
14
Defendants. With regard to Defendant Airlines only, Plaintiffs also bring battery claims on
15
behalf of themselves and the proposed Class of all current Contamination Zone residents.
16
10.
Plaintiffs also bring negligence, trespass, and nuisance claims against all three
17
Defendants on behalf of themselves and a proposed Class of people who have rented or owned
18
residential property in the Contamination Zone within the past four years. With regard to
19
Defendant Port of Seattle only, Plaintiffs alternatively bring inverse condemnation claims against
20
the Port on behalf of themselves and the proposed Class of renters and property owners.
21 22
II. 11.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), as
23
amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, because (i) there are approximately 300,000
24
putative class members, which exceeds the minimum requirement of at least 100 putative class
25
members; (ii) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and
26
costs; and (iii) minimum diversity is satisfied because the named plaintiffs are Washington
27
residents whereas defendant Delta is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
28
in Georgia. Furthermore, jurisdiction is proper in federal court because the primary defendants in SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 4 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 9 of 55
1
this action are not “States, State officials, or other governmental entities against whom the
2
district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(A). The Port is a
3
special-purpose municipal corporation, not a state, state official or state agency constitutionally
4
immune from federal jurisdiction. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state
5
law claims at issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 12.
6
Venue properly lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the
7
events giving rise to the claims in this Complaint occurred in King County, Washington.
8
Furthermore, Defendants maintain offices in King County, Washington, or regularly transact
9
business in King County, Washington.
10 11
III. A.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
12
1.
Cindy Codoni
13
13.
Plaintiff Cindy Codoni is a resident of King County, Washington.
14
14.
Ms. Codoni owns a home located at 17014 40th Avenue South, in SeaTac,
15
Washington, where she has lived for the past 54 years. Ms. Codoni’s home is within a five-mile
16
radius of Sea-Tac Airport, and thus is within the Contamination Zone.
17
15.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Ms. Codoni’s property
18
has been contaminated with dangerous levels of pollution caused by the Defendants. This
19
contamination has caused property damage and has unreasonably interfered with Ms. Codoni’s
20
quiet enjoyment of her property and exposes her to an increased risk of disease.
21
16.
Ms. Codoni’s property is almost permanently covered in a layer of black dust that
22
she attributes to this pollution. This dust accumulates so quickly that Ms. Codoni regularly needs
23
to wipe it off her car before driving, as shown in the photographs below.
24 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 5 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 10 of 55
Soot-like deposits wiped off of Ms. Codoni’s vehicle.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Soot-like deposits on Ms. Codoni’s vehicle.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
17.
Ms. Codoni also notes that, as the quantity of this black dust has increased in
25
recent years, the trees on her property have withered and died. For most of her adult life, Ms.
26
Codoni had been an avid gardener. However, since learning about the presence of dangerous
27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 6 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 11 of 55
1
levels of pollution in the Contamination Zone in 2022, Ms. Codoni has been worried about
2
spending too much time outdoors and has abandoned this pursuit.
3
18.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Ms. Codoni’s property,
4
including both her home and her apartment complex, have been contaminated with dangerously
5
high levels of pollution including but not limited to levels of magnesium, aluminum , iron,
6
cooper, zinc, arsenic, silver, and lead at levels that exceed OSHA limits. This contamination has
7
caused property damage at Ms. Codoni’s home, and it has unreasonably interfered with her quiet
8
enjoyment of her property. Ms. Codoni is also unreasonably exposed to an increased risk of
9
disease.
10
2.
Michelle Geer
11
19.
Plaintiff Michelle Geer is a resident of King County, Washington.
12
20.
Ms. Geer and her husband own a home located at 16238 11th Avenue Southwest,
13
in Burien, Washington, which they bought from Ms. Geer’s mother-in-law in 2022. Ms. Geer’s
14
home is within a five-mile radius of Sea-Tac Airport, and thus is within the Contamination Zone.
15 16 17
21.
Prior to purchasing the home located at 16238 11th Avenue Southwest, Ms. Geer
had owned and lived in a number of other homes within the Contamination Zone. 22.
Since learning about the presence of dangerous levels of pollution in the
18
Contamination Zone in 2022, Ms. Geer has become deeply concerned about the potential future
19
health consequences her children may suffer, given that both spent their entire childhoods in
20
homes within the Contamination Zone.
21
23.
In addition to her current home at 16238 11th Avenue Southwest, Ms. Geer also
22
owns an apartment complex located at 800 South 216th Street, in Des Moines, Washington. Ms.
23
Geer has owned the complex since 2004. The complex, which is comprised of seven units and
24
currently houses ten residents, is also within a five-mile radius of Sea-Tac Airport, and thus is
25
within the Contamination Zone.
26
24.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Ms. Geer’s property,
27
including both her home and her apartment complex, have been contaminated with dangerously
28
high levels of pollution, including but not limited to levels of magnesium, aluminum , iron, SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 7 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 12 of 55
1
cooper, zinc, arsenic, silver, and lead at levels that exceed OSHA limits. This contamination has
2
caused property damage both at Ms. Geer’s home and at the apartment complex she owns, and it
3
has unreasonably interfered with her quiet enjoyment of her property. Ms. Greer is also
4
unreasonably exposed to an increased risk of disease.
5
3.
Horace Cathcart
6
25.
Plaintiff Horace “Ace” Cathcart is a veteran and a resident of King County,
7 8
Washington. 26.
Mr. Cathcart owns a home located at 917 South 249th Street, in Des Moines,
9
Washington, which he and his wife bought in 1995. Mr. Cathcart’s home is within a five-mile
10
radius of Sea-Tac Airport, and thus is within the Contamination Zone.
11
27.
When Mr. Cathcart and his wife first moved to their Des Moines home, Sea-Tac
12
Airport had not yet built its third runway. When the third runway became operational in 2008,
13
Mr. Cathcart found that his home was directly below the new flight path. Since the opening of
14
the third runway, Mr. Cathcart has noticed a significant increase in soot-like matter that settles
15
on his property, in what he calls a “black film.” This film is particularly noticeable in black
16
streaks on his roof and on his van, as shown in the photographs below. He attributes the buildup
17
to pollution caused by airplanes flying in and out of Sea-Tac Airport, especially from the third
18
runway.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 8 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 13 of 55
Soot-like substance on Mr. Cathcart’s roof.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 9 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 14 of 55
Soot-like substance on Mr. Cathcart’s van.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 10 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 15 of 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
28.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Mr. Cathcart’s
property has been contaminated with dangerously high levels of pollution including but not limited to magnesium, aluminum, iron, cooper, zinc, arsenic, silver, and lead at levels that exceed applicable OSHA limits. This contamination has caused property damage to Mr. Cathcart’s home, and it has unreasonably interfered with the quiet enjoyment of his property. Mr. Cathcart and his wife are also unreasonably exposed to an increased risk of disease. 4.
Amy France
29.
Plaintiff Amy France is a resident of King County, Washington.
30.
Ms. France owns a home located at 1719 South 232nd Street, in Des Moines,
Washington, which she bought with her husband in 1997. Ms. France’s home is within a fivemile radius of Sea-Tac Airport, and thus is within the Contamination Zone. 31.
Ms. France notes that a soot-like substance regularly settles over her property,
including her back patio and her back yard pool. She frequently power-washes her patio to clear away the buildup, and she takes extra care to thoroughly clean her pool during the summer months, when her grandchildren come to visit and swim. Ms. France believes the sediment on her property, including on her patio and on her pool, is accumulated pollution caused by airplanes flying in and out of Sea-Tac Airport. Ms. France is concerned that her grandchildren may be exposed to dangerous pollution when they come to her home, and particularly when they swim in her pool. 32.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Ms. France’s property
has been contaminated with dangerously high levels of pollution, including but not limited to magnesium, aluminum, iron, cooper, zinc, arsenic, silver, and lead at levels that exceed permissible OSHA limits. This contamination has caused property damage to Ms. France’s home, and it has unreasonably interfered with her quiet enjoyment of her property. Ms. France is also unreasonably exposed to an increased risk of disease. 5.
Tamara Chakos
33.
Plaintiff Tamara Chakos is a resident of King County, Washington.
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 11 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 16 of 55
34.
1
Ms. Chakos owns a home located at 3418 South Bow Lake Drive, in SeaTac,
2
Washington, which she bought in 2021. Ms. Chakos’s Bow Lake Estates home is within a five-
3
mile radius of Sea-Tac Airport, and thus is within the Contamination Zone. Over 400 people live
4
in other Bow Lake Estates homes. 35.
5
Prior to purchasing the home located at 3418 South Bow Lake Drive, Ms. Chakos
6
had lived for over seven years in a rental unit located at 2116 South 124th Street, in Burien,
7
Washington. This home was also within a five-mile radius of Sea-Tac Airport and was thus
8
within the Contamination Zone. 36.
9
Since moving to the Contamination Zone, Ms. Chakos has noticed that the air
10
quality near her home is often quite poor, and she finds she is unable to spend time outside
11
comfortably. 37.
12
Ms. Chakos has also noticed a build-up of soot-like sediment on her new SeaTac
13
home. This buildup is particularly visible on her roof, which she replaced just after moving in.
14
Ms. Chakos believes the sediment on her roof is accumulated pollution caused by airplanes
15
flying in and out of Sea-Tac Airport. 38.
16
As a direct and proximate result of the Port’s actions, Ms. Chakos’s property has
17
been contaminated with dangerously high levels of pollution, including but not limited to
18
magnesium, aluminum, iron, copper, zinc, arsenic, silver, and lead at levels that exceed
19
permissible OSHA limits. This contamination has caused property damage to Ms. Chakos’s
20
home, and it has unreasonably interfered with her quiet enjoyment of her property. Ms. Chakos is
21
also unreasonably exposed to an increased risk of disease. 39.
22
As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Defendants’ actions, each of
23
the Plaintiffs has had ultra-fine pollutants as described below invade their property.
24
B.
Defendants
25
1.
Port of Seattle
26
40.
The Port is a special-purpose municipal corporation under Washington law. The
27
Port owns and operates Sea-Tac Airport, which serves commercial air passengers, air cargo,
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 12 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 17 of 55
1
piston-engine general aviation aircraft, and aircraft maintenance on a site of approximately 2,800
2
acres. In 2021, the Airport served over 36 million passengers, and in 2022 it accommodated
3
198,655 total landings. The airport averages 23 landings per hour. The airport operates 24 hours
4
per day, 7 days per week.
5
Number of flight arrivals per hour of day in 2018 at Sea-Tac Airport2
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 41.
17
Over the last decade, the Port has expanded its airport facilities and has allowed
18
an increase in the number of total flights into and out of Sea-Tac Airport, a majority of which are
19
operated by Defendant airlines, even as it has been aware of the impact of its operations on the
20
residents of the Contamination Zone. 42.
21
The Port has the authority to grant airlines rights and privileges concerning the
22
occupancy and use of Sea-Tac Airport. These rights and privileges are set out in five-year
23
leases/operating agreements between the Port and the airlines. Plaintiffs served a tort claim on
24
the Port over 60 days prior to filing this lawsuit.
25 26 27 28
Env’tl & Occupational Health Sciences, Mobile ObserVations of Ultrafine Particles: The MOV-UP Study Report (Dec. 2019) at 26, https://deohs.washington.edu/sites/default/files/MovUp%20Report.pdf (hereafter the “MOV-UP Study”). 2
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 13 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 18 of 55
1 2 3 4 5 6
11
43.
Defendant Alaska Air Group (“Alaska”) is a multinational corporation organized
Washington. Alaska subsidiaries include Alaska Airlines, Inc., as well as Horizon Air Industries, Inc. Alaska is currently the fifth largest airline in the United States, with operating revenue of $9.6 billion in 2022. 44.
As of February 2023, Alaska’s fleet consists of 289 commercial aircraft, including
primarily Boeing 737-series jets, as well as a few Airbus and Embraer jets. 45.
9 10
Alaska Air Group
and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business located in Seattle,
7 8
2.
Alaska has been operating out of Sea-Tac Airport since August of 1951. In 2020,
Alaska operated a combined total of 160,714 flights into and out of Sea-Tac Airport, accounting for 56% of the total 287,114 flights the airport handled that year.
12 13
3.
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
46.
Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) is a multinational corporation organized
14
and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business located in Atlanta,
15
Georgia. Delta is one of the largest publicly traded airlines by revenue; in 2022, Delta’s total
16
operating revenue was over $50 billion. 47.
17
In 2019, Delta operated 915 commercial aircraft. Its fleet consists largely of
18
Airbus and Boeing jets, as well as a few Bombardier and Embraer jets. Delta has one of the
19
oldest fleets of any United States airline, with an average fleet age of 14.8 years as of December
20
2022. 48.
21
Delta has been operating out of Sea-Tac Airport since 1947. In 2020, Delta
22
operated a combined total of over 68,400 flights into and out of Sea-Tac Airport, accounting for
23
approximately 24% of the total 287,114 flights the airport handled that year. 49.
24 25
Defendants Alaska and Delta are referred to collectively as “Defendant Airlines.”
Together, Defendant Airlines operate nearly 80% of all flights into and out of Sea-Tac Airport.3
26 27 28
Excluded from this Complaint are any Delta flights (or flights on other airlines’ aircraft) operated under the control of the Department of Defense. Such flights constitute approximately 0.000014% of all Delta flights. 3
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 14 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 19 of 55
IV.
1 2
A.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Pollutants, including particulate matter, dangerous gases, hazardous air pollutants, and toxic heavy metals, are harmful to human health.
3
50.
This case is brought on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people who live or
4
own property in communities that are contaminated by dozens of dangerous pollutants that are
5
the direct result of Defendants’ flights in and out of Sea-Tac Airport. The pollutants of most
6
concern fall into four categories: (1) particulate matter, (2) dangerous gases, (3) hazardous air
7
pollutants, and (4) toxic heavy metals.
8 9
51.
The negative health impacts of exposure to the pollutants in each of these
categories are described in the table below.4
10 11
POLLUTANT
HEALTH EFFECTS
12
Particulate Matter
13
Coarse particulate matter (diameters of 2.5 to 10 µm)
Short-term exposure: Respiratory problems (including asthma attacks), cardiovascular problems. Long-term exposure: Heart disease, stroke, pulmonary embolism.
Fine particulate matter (diameters less than 2.5 µm)
Short-term exposure: Cardiovascular, respiratory, and cerebrovascular problems. Long-term exposure: Cancer and cancer-related deaths, nervous system problems, increased risk of pre-term births.
18
Ultra-fine particulate matter (diameters less than 0.1 µm)
Short-term exposure: Nervous system problems. Long-term exposure: Respiratory, cardiovascular, and central nervous system problems, Alzheimer’s disease.
19
Dangerous Gases
20
Carbon monoxide
Short-term exposure: Cardiovascular problems. Long-term exposure: Increased risk of cardiac-related death.
Nitrogen dioxide
Short-term exposure: Trigger for asthma attacks. Long-term exposure: Asthma, lung cancer, Type II diabetes, dementia, and Parkinson’s Disease. Fetal exposure may be associated with autism spectrum disorder.
Sulfur oxide
Short-term exposure: Respiratory problems. Long-term exposure: Increase in the severity of asthma in children. Exposure may also contribute to respiratory-related death.
14 15 16 17
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The term “exposure” refers to any type of contact an individual may have with a pollutant, including via inhalation, ingestion, or absorption. 4
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 15 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 20 of 55
1 2
POLLUTANT Hazardous Air Pollutants Formaldehyde
Short-term exposure: Eye, nose, and throat irritation. Long-term exposure: Changes in lung function, lung cancer.
Acrolein
Short-term exposure: Nose and throat irritation, as well as dizziness, nausea, and headache. Long-term exposure: Lung cancer, congenital abnormalities.
1,3-butadiene
Short-term exposure: Coughing, wheezing, headache, dizziness, and lightheadedness. Long-term exposure: Lymph and blood cancers.
Naphthalene
Short-term exposure: Eye, nose, and throat irritation. Long-term exposure: Vision damage, liver and kidney damage, anemia, cancer.
Benzene
Short-term exposure: Dizziness, rapid heart rate, drowsiness, tremors, and confusion. Long-term exposure: Anemia, leukemia.
Acetaldehyde
Short-term exposure: Eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation, increases in blood pressure. Long-term exposure: Symptoms resembling those of alcoholism, pulmonary edema.
Ethylbenzene
Short-term exposure: Respiratory tract and eye irritation, dizziness. Long-term exposure: Hearing and kidney damage.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Toxic Heavy Metals Aluminum
Short-term exposure: Irritation of respiratory tract, metal fume fever (symptoms include fever, chest tightness, muscle aches, headache, and cough). Long-term exposure: Impaired lung function pulmonary fibrosis, neurobehavioral problems.
Arsenic
Short-term exposure: Vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea. Lont-germ exposure: Skin lesions, skin cancer, bladder cancer, lung cancer, developmental defects, diabetes, pulmonary and cardiovascular disease, adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Barium
Short-term exposure: Nose, throat, and lung irritation, barium poisoning (symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, irregular heartbeat, muscle weakness, tremors, and paralysis; can be fatal).
Cadmium
Short-term exposure: Irritation of respiratory tract. Long-term exposure: Lung damage and lung cancer, kidney disease, decreased bone mineralization (increasing the risk of bone fractures).
Copper
Short-term exposure: Irritation of respiratory tract, metal fume fever. Long-term exposure: Lung damage, damage to reproductive organs.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
HEALTH EFFECTS
27 28
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 16 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 21 of 55
POLLUTANT
1 2
Lead
Exposure to lead over any period of time is associated with toxicity to every organ system that has been studied. Exposure among adults: Decreased cognitive function, altered mood and behavior, renal problems, increased blood pressure, reproductive and fertility issues, cancer. Exposure among children: Cognitive impairment, behavioral problems, autism, developmental issues. Lead exposure during gestation and infancy may result in impaired neurological development, neurobehavioral deficits, low birth weights, and other health problems. There is no safe blood lead threshold for the adverse effects of lead on infant or child neurodevelopment. Most of the harm from lead occurs with just low levels of exposure and up to 80 percent of IQ loss from lead occurs in children with exposures below the current Centers for Disease Control reference level.
Magnesium
Short-term exposure: Metal fume fever.
Silver
Short-term exposure: Breathing problems, stomach pains. Long-term exposure: Arygia (a condition in which a person’s skin takes on a permanent blue-gray discoloration).
Zinc
Short-term exposure: Metal fume fever. Long-term exposure: Anemia, nervous system disorders, damage to the pancreas.
52.
Notably, the health effects of exposure to these pollutants are cumulative. That is,
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
HEALTH EFFECTS
13 14 15 16 17 18
exposure to two or more pollutants simultaneously may cause greater cell damage or other harm than exposure to each pollutant individually. B.
Aircraft emit dangerous pollutants as they fly, and these pollutants accumulate in places where planes routinely fly below 3,000 feet.
19
53.
Aircraft, including commercial jets of the type operated by Defendant Airlines, as
20
well as piston-engine general aviation aircraft that the Port permits to land at Sea-Tac, emit the
21
dangerous pollutants described in Part IV(A) as they fly.5
22
54.
A majority of these pollutants, including particulate matter, dangerous gases (such
23
as carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur oxide), hazardous air pollutants (such as
24
formaldehyde, acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, naphthalene, benzene, acetaldehyde, and ethylbenzene),
25
and some heavy metals (such as barium and, particularly in piston-engined aircraft, arsenic and
26 27 28
Planes operated by non-Defendant airlines, as well as general aviation planes that fly in and out of Sea-Tac with the permission of the Port of Seattle, emit similar pollutants. 5
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 17 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 22 of 55
1
lead) are expelled in aircraft exhaust. Many of these pollutants are expelled directly. In some
2
cases, particularly for semi-volatile organic gases, a series of physical reactions occurs when
3
exhaust gases cool and condense, causing further pollutants to form downwind of an aircraft’s
4
path. 55.
5
In addition to aircraft exhaust, the bodies of aircraft themselves are also a source
6
of pollution. The bodies of aircraft (called “fuselages”) are constructed mostly of heavy metals.
7
As a plane takes off and ascends to its cruising altitude, it experiences a drop in barometric
8
pressure that causes the fuselage to expand. When the plane descends for landing, barometric
9
pressure increases and the fuselage correspondingly contracts. This repeated expansion and
10
contraction causes particulate matter—including aluminum, barium, cadmium, copper, lead,
11
magnesium, silver, and zinc—to flake off the aircraft’s body and to pollute the surrounding
12
environment. 56.
13
For most of the time airplanes are aloft, the pollutants they emit are dispersed by
14
the wind, which can carry pollutants as far as 6,000 miles away from an airplane’s route. This
15
dispersion typically minimizes the buildup of pollutants in any one location. 57.
16
However, when planes fly below 3,000 feet, there is not enough time for the wind
17
to fully disperse the pollutants. Pollutants released below this altitude are sucked downwind and
18
accumulate in local communities. This effect is magnified the closer an airplane flies to the
19
ground. As a result, airplane-generated pollutants become most concentrated in the areas directly
20
surrounding airports, where aircraft fly the lowest. 58.
21
This is precisely what has happened in the Contamination Zone. The following
22
graphic, taken from a 2019 University of Washington report titled the Mobile ObserVations of
23
Ultrafine Particles Study (“MOV-UP Study”), 6 illustrates the spatial distribution of planes that
24
flew below 750 meters—approximately 2,500 feet—over the course of 2018 in the Seattle
25
metropolitan area, clearly highlighting the large numbers of low over-flights in the
26
Contamination Zone:
27 28
6
MOV-UP Study at 27.
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 18 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 23 of 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
59.
As aircraft (including Defendants’ commercial jets and piston-engine general
aviation aircraft), take off from and land at Sea-Tac Airport, they rain down pollutants on Contamination Zone communities from altitudes lower than 3,000 feet. Without time for the wind to disperse these contaminants, pollutants accumulate in ever-higher concentrations in the Contamination Zone. C.
Defendant Airlines’ operations, conducted with the consent and support of the Port of Seattle, have caused these pollutants to contaminate the Contamination Zone, resulting in substantial harm. 1.
Defendants’ operations have contaminated the air in the Contamination Zone.
60.
Significant evidence, including two University of Washington studies, a report by
19
Public Health – Seattle & King County, and other studies, indicate that Defendant Airlines’
20
operations have caused significant and dangerous air pollution in the Contamination Zone.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
a. 61.
The University of Washington’s MOV-UP Study confirms adverse pollution caused by Defendants in the Contamination Zone.
The MOV-UP Study, published by researchers in the University of Washington’s
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Department, found that communities below aircraft flight paths, including communities in the Contamination Zone, are exposed to significant and unhealthy levels of ultrafine particulate matter air pollution. 62.
The MOV-UP Study was a culmination of two years’ worth of work, funded by
Washington State. Researchers conducted air sampling seasonally from February 2018 through SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 19 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 24 of 55
1
March 2019 using both mobile sampling and fixed-site sampling designs. Samples were taken
2
from defined routes at fixed latitudes north and south of the airport (termed “transects” in the
3
Study, as seen in the graphic below). All samples were taken during the afternoon to increase the
4
comparability between repeat samples and to minimize the effect of daily atmospheric changes.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
63.
The results of this research indicate a close association between airplane landing
paths and fine particulate matter contamination, as illustrated in the graphic below:
26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 20 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 25 of 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 64.
17
Based on these findings, the MOV-UP Study authors concluded that communities
18
“underneath and downwind of landing aircraft”—which includes communities in the
19
Contamination Zone—may be particularly at risk of exposure to particulate matter.7 The Study’s
20
authors further noted that “those living within the area affected by landing aircraft emissions
21
may be exposed to relatively higher concentrations of smaller sized ultra-UF particles”8 as a
22
result of airplane activity. 65.
23 24
A second diagram from the MOV-UP Study further illustrates the spatial
distribution of ultrafine particulate matter recorded by the MOV-UP Study near Sea-Tac Airport,
25 26 27
7
MOV-UP Study at 38.
28
8
Id. (emphasis added).
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 21 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 26 of 55
1
again highlighting the connection between aircraft activity and air pollution in Contamination
2
Zone communities:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
66.
The MOV-UP Study findings support the conclusion that communities
27
underneath and downwind of the flight path are exposed to aircraft-related particulate matter
28
pollution. SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 22 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 27 of 55
b.
1 67.
2
The “Healthy Air, Healthy Schools Study” confirms adverse pollution caused by Defendants in the Contamination Zone.
Motivated by the findings of the 2019 study, University of Washington
3
researchers undertook another project, the Healthy Air, Healthy Schools Study (the “Schools
4
Study”) to measure infiltration of outdoor air pollution into indoor classroom spaces in five
5
schools near Sea-Tac Airport.9 This study, too, found notable concentrations of pollution in the
6
Contamination Zone.
7
68.
University of Washington researchers visited each school twice, each time
8
measuring concentrations of air pollutants both inside and outside the schools, the exchange of
9
air between indoor and outdoor air, the infiltration of outdoor particles into the schools, and the
10
impact of portable air filters on concentration of pollutants.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
69.
As with the MOV-UP Study, the Schools Study found a significant concentration
of fine particulate matter in the air outside Contamination Zone schools. Notably, the Schools
24 25 26 27 28
Env’tl & Occupational Health Sciences, Healthy Air, Healthy Schools Study: Phase 1 Report: Report to the Washington State Legislature (Dec. 2021), https://deohs.washington.edu/sites/default/files/2021-12/Healthy-air-healthy-schools-phase1report%20FINAL%20121521.pdf. Three of these schools are within the Contamination Zone. All schools are within 7.5 miles of Sea-Tac Airport and are within 0.5 miles of an active flight path serving Sea-Tac Airport. 9
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 23 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 28 of 55
1
Study also found that this outdoor pollution easily contaminates indoor air. The charts below
2
summarize these findings:
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
c. 70.
The Public Health – Seattle & King County Report confirms adverse pollution caused by Defendants in the Contamination Zone.
In 2019, alarmed by the MOV-UP Report, the Washington State legislature
commissioned a study on the health impacts of airplane activity at Sea-Tac Airport on local
27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 24 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 29 of 55
1
communities.10 Public Health – Seattle & King County (“PHSKC”) was charged with
2
completing this study. On December 1, 2020, PHSKC released its conclusions in a report titled
3
“Community Health and Airport Operations Related Noise and Air Pollution: Report to the
4
Legislature in Response to Washington State HOUSE BILL 1109” (the “Public Health
5
Report”).11
6
71.
Although the Public Health Report authors did not collect their own samples, they
7
concluded, based on an analysis of over 500 reports and journal articles, that “[a]irport
8
operations result in . . . air pollution,” and that this pollution includes, specifically, “particulate
9
matter of various sizes, ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur oxides
10
(SOx), and other hazardous air pollutants.”12 72.
11
The Public Health Report also highlighted findings from a study of
12
neighborhoods around Boston Logan International Airport that outdoor pollutants penetrated
13
indoors within minutes and that indoor and outdoor concentrations of these pollutants were
14
similar (suggesting that penetration is substantial). In some cases, indoor concentrations were
15
actually higher than those reported by area outdoor monitoring stations. Taken together with the
16 17 Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1109 (Apr. 28, 2019), https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/ biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/ 1109S.PL.pdf?q=20230319104325. House Bill 1109 appropriated $150,000 for the Department of Commerce to “contract with a consultant to study the current and ongoing impacts of the SeaTac international airport.” Sec. 129(30)(a). Specifically, the Washington State legislature requested information regarding “[t]he impacts that the current and ongoing airport operations have on quality of life” for individuals in impacted neighborhoods. Sec. 129(30)(b)(i). 10
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Public Health – Seattle & King County, Community Health and Airport Operations Related Noise and Air Pollution: Report to the Legislature in Response to Washington State HOUSE BILL 1109 (Dec. 1, 2020), https://apps.leg.wa.gov/ReportsToTheLegislature/Home/ GetPDF?fileName=Community%20Health%20and%20Airport%20Operations%20Related%20P ollution%20Report_c7389ae6-f956-40ef-98a7-f85a4fab1c59.pdf. 11
Public Health Report at i-ii. Other studies have also reached similar conclusions. For example, a recent review of peer-reviewed literature on air quality near commercial airports concluded that “[t]hese studies consistently showed that ultrafine particulate matter (UFP) is elevated in and around airports.” Karie Riley et al., A Systematic Review of the Impact of Commercial Aircraft Activity on Air Quality Near Airports, 11 City & Env’t Interactions 100066 (2021). 12
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 25 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 30 of 55
1
findings from the Schools Study, it is therefore likely that residents within the Contamination
2
Zone are exposed to pollutants inside their homes in nearly the same concentrations as outside.
3
2.
Defendants’ operations have contaminated the soil in the Contamination Zone.
4
73.
Studies of at least four international airports from around the world support the
5
conclusion that people and property surrounding many large airports—including people and
6
property in the Contamination Zone—are heavily contaminated by airplane activity. 74.
7
For instance, a study of Athens International Airport found high concentrations of
8
lead, copper, and zinc in the soil surrounding the airport.13 A study of Boryspil International
9
Airport found high levels of manganese, copper, lead, zinc, chromium, and iron pollution in the
10
soil near the airport as compared with background soil concentrations of these metals.14 And
11
studies of Delhi International Airport,15 as well as Montreal Trudeau Airport,16 similarly found
12
high levels of soil contamination. Another study found high levels of lead, cobalt, nickel, arsenic,
13
and cadmium in a collected samples of commercial airport particles.17 75.
14
Upon information and belief, the soil surrounding Sea-Tac Airport is similarly
15
contaminated with high concentrations of pollutants including but not limited to magnesium,
16
aluminum, iron, copper, zinc, arsenic, silver, lead, and cadmium at levels that create a danger to
17
Ioannis Massas et al., Distribution of Heavy Metals Concentrations in Soils Around the International Athens Airport (Greece): An Assessment on Preliminary Data, 50 Bulletin of the Geological Soc’y of Greece 2231-2240 (May 2016), https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/geosociety/article/download/14279/12961.
18 19
13
14
20 21
Margaryta Radomska et al., Environmental Pollution in the Airport Impact Area: Case Study of the Boryspil International Airport, 5 Env’tl Problems 76, 79 (2020), https://dspace.nau.edu.ua/bitstream/NAU/44242/1/200453maket18-24.pdf. Sharmila Ray et al., The Effect of Aircraft Traffic Emissions on the Soil Surface: Contamination Analysis Around the International Airport in Delhi, India, 6 Asian J. Atmospheric Env’t 118, 123 (2012). 15
22 23
Mayeesha F. Rahim et al., Physicochemical Studies of Aerosols at Montreal Trudeau Airport: The Importance of Airborne nanoparticles Containing Metal Contaminants, 246 Env’tl Pollution 734, 734 (Mar. 2019), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749118335449. 16
24 25 26 27 28
Katja Maria Bendtsen et al., Airport Emission Particles: Exposure Characterization and Toxicity Following Intratracheal Instillation in Mice, 16 Particle & Fibre Toxicology 23 (June 11, 2019), https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-0190305-5#MOESM1. 17
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 26 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 31 of 55
1
health of those living in the Contamination Zone. What makes the pollution around Sea-Tac
2
Airport a greater problem than many airports arises from the fact that the runways are only
3
North-South or South-North and not East-West or West-East as well. This results in pollution
4
being more concentrated around Sea-Tac than around most airports. Only Defendants’ activity
5
can account for the pollutants within the Contamination Zone. 76.
6
Defendants’ operations are the only plausible source of the uncommon and
7
dangerously high levels of pollution within the Contamination Zone. Baseline studies of the
8
Washington environment indicate low natural levels of the pollutants implicated here,18 pointing
9
to an anthropologic source of the pollution. And the MOV-UP Study specifically concluded that
10
the types of fine-particulate matter that pollute the Contamination Zone cannot be attributed to
11
roadway traffic, another main source of pollution in the Seattle area. Corroborating this
12
conclusion, other researchers have concluded that airport emissions leave behind distinct
13
“chemical fingerprints.”19 77.
14
Even in cases where the species of pollutants produced by roadway traffic are
15
identical to those emitted by aircraft, this pollution can still be differentiated based on the size of
16
the pollution particles: airplane-related particulate matter is significantly smaller (approximately
17
10-20 nanometers in size) than roadway-related particulate matter (approximately 30-50
18
nanometers in size). This distinction allows researchers to clearly identify pollution attributable to
19
airport operations.
20
78.
It is beyond dispute, based on the evidence from the University of Washington
21
Reports, the Public Health Report, and other corroborating studies, that the high levels of
22
pollution found in the Contamination Zone are a result of Sea-Tac Airport activity, specifically
23
Defendants’ aircraft activity. Because Defendant Airlines, with the permission of the Port,
24 25 26 27 28
See, e.g., Kenneth C. Ames & Edmund A. Prych, Background Concentrations of Metals in Soils from Selected Regions in the State of Washington, U.S. Geological Survey, WaterResources Investigations Report 95-4018 (1995). 18
See, e.g., Katja M. Bendtsen et al., A Review of Health Effects Associated with Exposure to Jet Engine Emissions in and Around Airports, 20 Env’tl Health (Feb. 2021), https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-020-00690-y. 19
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 27 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 32 of 55
1
operate nearly 80% of all flights in and out of Sea-Tac Airport, they are responsible for the
2
majority of the pollution caused by air travel activity. Furthermore, the Port, by virtue of its
3
control over airlines’ use of Sea-Tac Airport, is responsible for the contamination within the
4
Contamination Zone from all airlines that operate at Sea-Tac Airport.
5
D.
Plaintiffs and other Class members have been harmed by Defendants’ actions. 79.
6
Defendants’ actions have materially increased the health risks faced by Plaintiffs
7
and Class members. Defendants’ actions have also damaged Plaintiffs’ and Class members’
8
property by contaminating it with dangerous pollutants.
9
1.
Defendants have materially increased the health risks faced by Plaintiffs and Class members.
10
80.
The pollution caused by Defendants’ operations is dangerous to Plaintiffs’ and
11
Class members’ health, and Class members have suffered measurable health consequences as a
12
result of exposure to this pollution.
13
81.
The Public Health Report provides a particularly good summary of these known
14
health consequences.20 Overall, exposure to airport-related pollutants significantly increases the
15
likelihood that the exposed person will develop cancer and affects a range of organ systems,
16
including an individual’s cardiovascular, respiratory, reproductive, and central nervous systems.
17
Exposure to these pollutants may also result in poor birth outcomes. The Report summarized
18
these health effects in the following table:
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
In addition to the health consequences reported in the Report, residents in the Contamination Zone are also likely prone to other illnesses identified in the Table included in Section IV(A). 20
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 28 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 33 of 55
1
82.
The Report offers more detailed summaries of health effects on people living in the
2
Contamination Zone in a series of additional tables. (For each of the following, the Contamination
3
Zone includes both “Zone A” and “Zone B” as defined in the Public Health Report.)
4
(a)
People who live in the Contamination Zone are more likely to be
5
hospitalized for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),
6
and heart disease than other King County residents:
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 29 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 34 of 55
1
(b)
Babies born in the Contamination Zone are more often premature and have lower birthweights than those born elsewhere in the County:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(c)
14
People who live in the Contamination Zone have a shorter life expectancy at birth than other residents of King County:
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
(d)
People who live in the Contamination Zone die more often of all causes
23
than do other King County residents. In particular, they die more often
24
from cancer, heart disease, and chronic lower respiratory diseases:
25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 30 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 35 of 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
(e)
Finally, communities within the Contamination Zone experience over 100
24
excess deaths per year on average as a result of their proximity to the
25
airport:
26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 31 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 36 of 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
83.
The Public Health Report confirms that living in the Contamination Zone is
dangerous and, in some cases, may be fatal.
26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 32 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 37 of 55
1 2 3 4 5 6
9 10 11 12
Defendants’ actions have damaged Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ property by contaminating it with dangerous pollutants.
84.
In addition to increasing Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ health risks, Defendants’
actions have caused property damage by contaminating all residential property in the Contamination Zone with harmful pollutants. In particular, Plaintiffs and other Class members who own their homes suffer a continual decline in the value of their property as Defendants dump more and more pollution onto their property.
7 8
2.
85.
It is widely recognized that pollution affects property values; homes in areas with
less pollution command higher prices.21 For example, one µg/m3 decline in particulate matter pollution results in a 0.4-0.5% increase in home values.22 Conversely, an increase in pollution leads to lower prices.23 Given the ever-increasing burden of pollution that contaminates Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ properties, the value of their property is continually in decline. E.
13
Defendants have known for years that their activities harm Plaintiffs and other Class members, but they continue to engage in these activities.
14
86.
Defendant Airlines and the Port have been aware for years that their actions harm
15
Plaintiffs and other Class members. The MOV-UP Study has been publicly available since 2019.
16
The Public Health Report has been publicly available since 2020. And the Schools Study has