Representatives of the Washington State Department of Ecology and Chevron Environmental Management Company will host an online meeting at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 13 to give updates on the decades-long cleanup effort aimed at making the former petroleum storage facility and asphalt plant adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh safe for humans and wildlife.
The meeting is a followup to an in-person meeting in December 2023, which drew about 45 people to Edmonds City Hall’s Brackett Room.
The online presentation will be followed by a question-and-answer session. Register here to join via Zoom. Submit questions between now and Feb. 6, 2024 here.
You are also invited to take a two-minute survey here to help organizers better understand how to improve public outreach efforts.
For more information, visit Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 0178 – (5180) (wa.gov).
Those interested in having the City purchase and restore the old Unocal property for salmon restoration will need to pay especial attention to the “mitigation” approach that Dept. of Ecology is proposing for allowing Chevron/Unocal to leave untreated toxins on the site. The Dept of Ecology’s approach appears to shift the financial burden and liability for total cleanup (necessary for salmon restoration) from the Oil Company that contaminated the historic Marsh site (while making millions) to the City of Edmonds (or whomever the future owner is).
At the last in person meeting that I attended, I learned that part of the intention of the cost of clean up calculations and negotiations is to try to keep it (the cost) as reasonable as possible for the companies that did the pollution in the first place. I guess this is more of the theory of trying not to over burden the job creators or some such thing. Anyway, it all doesn’t make much logical sense to me; but I support Joe S. in his comment to the effect that the buyer should be very aware on this one. Hope our new Mayor and our planning board members know what they are getting us into, if they keep pushing the idea of an Edmond’s MUST purchase of the property. Another possible fly in this ointment is what vast amount the WSDOT will expect to get for the property, in lieu of their current funding needs just to stay “afloat.” This won’t be a surplus land, one dollar token purchase, by any stretch of the imagination.
It’s a very complex property with a lawsuit between WSDOT and Chevron. DOE has also mentioned Chevron may sue them over the restrictive covenants so lots of legal jockeying going on.
Citizens should be emailing DOE’s Tanner B. and state that the WSDOT Pipe and surrounding soils should be removed (#4 option) and yes, that is the most costly for Chevron – but it’s the RIGHT thing to do AND they have the money.
Should anyone wish to donate (tax deductible too) to the Marsh Restoration, Fund 017 has been established. Check should be written to City with Marsh 017 in memo line.
If the City needs to purchase: there are Trusts (like Forterra) that can purchase on behalf of the City until grant funds or private donations can pay off. Bothell’s $14.5m (Wayne’s Golf Course) was repaid by grants in three years! So if timing is an issue as we know the City’s financials are in bad shape, this is an avenue.
So let your voices be heard at DOE -“ remove that WDDOT stormwater pipe to allow for an optimal restoration. “
Thanks, Diane, for your usual no nonsense and straight forward actual information and action plans for all to proceed on this issue. Hopefully the more powerful, influential, and well meaning people, currently attempting to run the show, get the message too. All the citizens and the salmon need this program to come to a satisfactory and environmentally “Sound” conclusion. The choice really comes down to paving over Unocal (encapsulation of the pollution) or removing the WSDOT drain pipe and the rest of the pollution that has been found along the pipe. Diane and Joe, please set the record straight; if I’ve misstated this in any way.
Diane,
You referenced option #4: “WSDOT Pipe and surrounding soils should be removed (#4 option)” Where is that option found? I reviewed DOE’s question and answers at this link, but found no options referenced:
https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/cleanupsearch/document/135670
Could you provide a link to #4 option, please? Thanks!
Joan, I think #4 is on page 97 of a doc that was in the list of docs associated with the Jan presentation. I when to that list and found the information. I cannot tell you all the links but starting with the link in the last line of the article above I found the 2017 doc that discusses #4.
It took some poking around but it is there.
The fact that option #4 is so obviously the right and proper fix for the potential pollution problem on this land and (likely the most expensive approach), is probably why no one seems real anxious to talk about it. WSDOT and Chevron are playing the “not it” game on owning this situation, I suspect. This is why our Mayor and Council need to tread softly here and not over commit the city with too much urgency to seal the deal. We are going to find out if we are being managed by real good poker players or just run of the mill casino gambling wanna be’s; using our tax money as their house chips until we can scare up the environmental grants (hopefully). The land should be guaranteed squeaky clean or we walk away until it is.
The bottomline is that a minimum 10-foot ‘hole’ has to be dug all the way across the Unocal property in order to provide a “salmon channel” necessary to restore the Marsh for salmon recovery.
To date, the Dept. of Ecology has been very evasive on the likelihood of remnant contaminants (both known and uncertain contaminants) coming into contact with the ‘future’ salmon channel, how such contaminants affect juvenile salmon, and whether Unocal/Chevron will be responsible for further cleanup – – or if the burden will indeed fall on the City of Edmonds to conduct expensive further cleanup of Unocal’s toxins.