Updated Sept. 19 with the audio recording.

To aid our readers who were unable to attend, My Edmonds News recorded the full session on audio, linked here. Readers may wish to listen and follow along with the DOE PowerPoint (linked here) to mirror experience of being in the room and see the visual aids as they are being discussed. 

A crowd of more than 100 filled the Edmonds City Hall Brackett Room Monday evening for the latest in the ongoing series of open house/town meetings to respond, comment and provide feedback on Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) proposals for cleaning up and restoring the former bulk fuel terminal and asphalt plant abutting the Edmonds Marsh. The meeting was in hybrid format, and many joined the live participants via Zoom.

The session was scheduled to coincide with the current public comment period (Sept. 9 through Oct. 24) on Ecology’s latest draft feasibility study and public participation plan documents. The goal was to provide a forum for informal public input/comment and to encourage participation in the formal public comment process; formal comments will be considered in developing the final feasibility study (formal comments can be made on the Ecology website here). While Ecology did not arrange to record or video the session, the presentation included a PowerPoint, available for viewing here.

Ecology staff Ian Fawley (senior outreach planner), Tanner Bushnell (site manager) and Kristen Forkeutis (outreach specialist) began with a review of the 1989 Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70A.305.020) or MTCA, which provides a framework and process for toxic cleanups and how the law applies to this site. In brief, Chevron (which acquired Unocal in 2005) is responsible for the cleanup, and for conducting it in accordance with MCTA. This includes comprehensive testing and monitoring for contaminants and developing a cleanup plan that meets MCTA standards. Ecology’s role is to provide oversight to ensure that Chevron meets the requirements of the law.

This was followed by a summary of the Unocal site from its 1923 beginnings as a bulk fuel terminal through its expansion to an asphalt plant in the 1950s, and the cleanup efforts that began in the early 2000s. The cleanup is focused on the tank farm on the current Point Edwards site (the upper yard – completed in 2003) and the asphalt plant site (the lower yard). Cleanup activities in the lower yard remain ongoing, with most effort devoted to the 20 remaining “hotspots” identified by the red squares in the diagram below, and the contaminated soils adjacent to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) stormwater line identified by the green line. Purple indicates the contaminated areas.

The current draft feasibility study – developed by Chevron as part of its compliance with MCTA – targets alternatives for addressing the remaining contaminants in the lower yard. It proposes 4 alternative action plans, two of which emerged as viable. Details of each action plan can be found in the 2024 draft feasibility study document here.

The two viable alternatives – alternatives 4 and 6 – provide very different approaches to cleaning up the site.

The following chart compares the relative costs and benefits of the alternatives, where the green bar indicates the cost and the blue bar compares how effective the plan would be at cleaning up the site. Effectiveness is measured according to the MCTA methodology, which weighs cleanup completeness, permanence, long-term effectiveness, implementation risks, and administrative burden – details in the PowerPoint presentation here.

As indicated in the chart, alternative 4 — which calls for complete excavation and removal of all contaminated soil — comes with the highest price tag. Alternative 6, the lowest cost approach, would leave contaminants on site but isolate and contain them within a geotextile fabric barrier installed 4 feet below the ground surface over most of the site. This alternative scored almost as well on the MCTA benefit rating as 4. The red line indicates the cost/benefit ratio, the highest score going to alternative 6. Accordingly, the feasibility study recommends alternative 6 as the preferred alternative.

As the session moved into the public comment period, the disparity between these two approaches quickly emerged as the primary focus of concern, specifically that the preferred alternative cleanup plan would leave much of the contamination on site.

One questioner asked why there is such a big cost difference between the two alternatives. Ecology’s Tanner Bushnell responded that while alternative 4 enjoyed a higher score for permanence because the contamination would be completely removed, it posed significantly more implementation risk due to the complicated excavation it would require and lost points there.

Another attendee asked why public concern wasn’t a rating criterion, to which Bushnell responded that public concern is not a separate category, but is included as a factor within the other criteria. Asked how public concern is weighted, he responded that this is based on Ecology’s previous experience with public concern.

Others asked about how future use of the site was considered. Staff noted that when the cleanup began, it appeared that the site would be developed as a new ferry terminal, and not into a restored estuary as it has evolved over the years.

Following up on this, another questioner pointed out that the future costs of paying to clean up contamination is not addressed in the cost analyses of the alternatives, and that the law does say that you “must consider future land use.” Staff stressed that under MTCA it is not Chevron’s responsibility to anticipate and provide for all possible future uses of the site, and that they can’t direct Chevron to clean up the site based on future use by others. It’s not up to Ecology or Chevron to project out what the next landowner is going to do with the site, they said.

Asked to further clarify the MCTA rating criteria of permanence and long-term effectiveness and how they applied to the two viable alternatives, Bushell responded that alternative 4 — which calls for total removal of contaminants — is both most permanent and most effective. Alternative 6 proposes putting a cap on the contaminants, which gives a high effectiveness score but does not remove the contaminants permanently.

Another questioner pointed out (to significant audience applause) that the land was originally an estuary march, and that the oil operations “killed it.” The attendee went on to stress that “we have anticipated a future use, and it involves full restoration,” and that Chevron should be required to return the land to how it was before the oil operations.

Asked to be specific on whether alternative 6 would return the marsh to a “fully functioning estuary from creek to Sound,” Bushnell responded that alternative 6 would not do this. He went on to note that it would still be possible to restore the marsh, but only with significant investment, and that it would “not be as favorable as alternative 4.”

Bushnell went on to point out that these alternatives are part of the process to select a cleanup action plan, and that project is not in that phase yet. If alternative 6 were to be selected, it would ultimately mean selling the property with remaining hotspot contamination and would require the new owner to work with Ecology on any additional cleanup.

Questions then moved to the WSDOT storm drainage pipe, around which is considerable residual contamination.

Edmonds Acting Public Works Director Phil Williams was in the audience, and provided his opinion that leaving this in place without taking measures to reinforce it is “short sighted at best and would blow any permanence rating out of the water.”

He went on to point out that the city has other pipes like this – similar in age and condition – that are failing. With storms getting more intense, he predicts that the pipe will eventually fail and wash the adjacent contaminants into the surrounding area, and that leaving it in place is a “time bomb.” He observed that with the tens of millions of dollars already spent on the cleanup, lining and reinforcing the pipe would extend its life, help ensure against failure, and that “any alternative should include this.”

But the audience continued to press Ecology on the two viable alternatives, with opinion strongly favoring the more costly but more effective complete removal of contaminants (alternative 4). One participant pointedly said, “We want a cleanup, not a coverup.”

Another commenter said that the community is really looking for a restored marsh-estuary that provides benefits that include restoring salmon, which supports threatened Orca populations. “I want to look ahead to a responsible future where future generations can eat salmon and see wild Orca in the Sound,” the attendee said. “Does anything you heard today inspire you to reconsider the cost-benefits of these two alternatives?” The audience responded with applause.

Another commenter asked whether the final decision on the alternatives was up to Ecology, Chevron, or both. Bushnell responded that Chevron prepared the feasibility study and alternatives, but that the cleanup plan would be an Ecology document. “Chevron participates, they supply the data and prepare the study, but DOE will make the final decision,” he said.

The evening concluded with Ecology staff outlining the next steps, which include analyzing and responding to all formal public comments and finalizing the draft feasibility study. A draft cleanup action plan will (in accordance with MCTA) be put out for public comment in the future. Additional site sampling and planning will continue into 2025, aimed at making additional modifications to the cleanup plan as appropriate.

— Story and photos by Larry Vogel