Hanscom Field Advisory Commission
Tuesday, July 16, 2024, 7-8 p.m.
Location: Zoom video platform
[email protected]
https://zoom.us/j/95621754230?pwd=b3A3UTJUR3I1U28ydW5WTVRtMi9xUT09
Meeting: 956 2175 4230 Passcode: 194503 Ph: (646) 876 9923
Pursuant to current state law, this meeting of the Hanscom Field Advisory
Commission is being conducted via remote participation. Persons who would like
to listen or view this meeting while in progress may do so by Zoom or by phone.
All votes taken by this body shall be by roll call vote.
Agenda
Call to order
Announcements
Senate environmental bill
Is there information about future scheduled passenger or air cargo service?
Approval of previous minutes
ESPR Comments
Recent noise reports, presented by Massport
Capital projects, third-party development report, presented by Massport
Website Progress
Fuel
Electric fuel flowage fees
Fuel flowage fees for 2023, 2022
Unleaded AvGas G100UL
<https://www.vitol.com/first-unleaded-octane-avgas-now-commercially-available/>
March 26 spill
North Airfield
Request to disqualify proponents
Continuing
WEBSITE / G100UL / PFAS / LEAD / ALS/MS Bedford Study
Boeing news of the month
Citizen comments
Use *6 to mute or unmute on a phone. Please limit comments to two minutes.
Next meeting September 17, 2024 - no August meeting
Adjourn
There is also a DRAFT of a letter that I am proposing to send to Massport, if
the commission makes that decision.
[DRAFT]
June 27, 2024
Massachusetts Port Authority
One Harborside Drive, Suite 200S
East Boston, MA 02128
Dear Massport,
The Hanscom Field Advisory Commission suggests that Massport should disqualify
Runway Reality Ventures (RRV) and North Airfield Ventures (NAV) from further
consideration as lessees at Hanscom Airport. The Draft Environmental Impact
Report has been found “not adequate” by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy
Office (MEPA) and there are numerous issues with the document and process
followed by RRV/NAV that call into question their technical ability and
integrity as operators of safety critical aviation infrastructure.
The proponents of this project have experience as car salesmen, bankers and in
development of biotech real estate, none of which provide any background in
aviation. They can hire consultants to prepare reports but ultimately decisions
in the development and operation of this project are made by the management
team. Their background, the ENF and DEIR documents, and their behavior during
the process do not support a conclusion that they are qualified for this
responsibility.
From the recent MEPA certificate finding the DEIR not adequate, I call your
attention to the following comments:
“This puts into question the purpose and need for the project, and, again,
raises questions about the extent of new demand the project will, or is
intended to, induce to support business profitability.”
In other words, the truth of the developer’s claims can be questioned.
“The Certificate on the ENF recommended that the Proponent consult with
MassDEP, EPA, the Air Force and the Navy regarding the status of monitoring and
remediation efforts and any constraints on land use, site design and/or
construction practices that may be necessary; however, it does not appear that
the appropriate coordination with these agencies has been undertaken to date.”
The developer’s simply ignored suggestions to consult with relevant agencies.
“The SDEIR should provide a straight-forward calculation of emissions and air
pollutants associated with the anticipated 12 flights per day, in addition to
any more flights that are projected based on a study of induced demand.”
The DEIR presentation uses twisted logic. The developers are very smart people,
this is not an accident and amounts to dishonesty.
Furthermore, the original ENF document was filed with a very short comment
period that made it impossible for HFAC to review and comment on the ENF during
our normal operations, suggesting the developers were trying to avoid public
scrutiny. This impression is further supported by their sudden cancellation of
the May 30, 2024 public meeting citing “safety concerns” while the Bedford
police cited no safety concerns.
The North Airfield proponents RRV/NAV do not have a management team with the
technical capability to understand and manage safety critical aviation
infrastructure. Their ability to hire consultants does not mitigate ignorance
by the management team who are ultimately responsible for decisions that could
affect life and death. Moreover, their false and deceptive statements create
the appearance of dishonesty, leading to the conclusion that this team does not
have the integrity required to be a partner of Massport. Aviation is a highly
regulated industry for good reason. The RRV/NAV team has shown that they cannot
follow clear scoping guidelines given by MEPA for the preparation of their
DEIR; how can they be expected to rigorously follow safety critical procedures
for management of aircraft and fuel storage?
We ask you to disqualify RRV/NAV from further consideration as lessees of
Hanscom Airport property.
Sincerely yours,
Christopher Eliot
[DRAFT]
--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [email protected].
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
