Editor:
The Edmonds Marsh needs your help! Will Chevron be required to complete the Unocal cleanup of the Marsh, or allowed to walk away with the job unfinished?
Currently the Department of Ecology offers two alternative plans: #4 removes all the remaining contaminated soil, but at a cost: $11 million, while #6, which is far cheaper, simply caps the remaining contaminated soil, leaving future costs and risks to whoever buys the Unocal land. Yes, it costs much more to clean up rather than cover up. But remember the big picture: it was Unocal’s decision, in 1921, to cover the Marsh with landfill for an oil terminal and asphalt plant. From then until 1991, Unocal, then Chevron, freely contaminated this land, right in Edmonds’ backyard, with toxic petroleum and heavy metals — while reaping the profits.
The citizens of Edmonds are willing to do the work to restore the Marsh, once the toxins are removed, for future generations. But the EPA should not allow Chevron, who reaped the profits from poisoning the Marsh, to walk away now, leaving future expenses, and risks as well, for us to bear. Chevron has the moral responsibility to make whole again the land they polluted for 70 years.
You have until midnight, Nov. 24, to add your comments to the Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 0178 Comment Form. The Washington State Department of Ecology is taxpayer funded, and they will listen to what you say. If you care about the future of Edmonds, speak up! For more information see www.edmondsmarshestuary.org.
Laura D. Walls
Edmonds
Chevron made the mess so, Chevron should be required to clean up its mess. If Chevron is unwilling to do so, then they need to pay someone else to clean up this mess and be heavily fined for their carelessness.
Submit your comment to the Department of Ecology here: https://tcp.ecology.commentinput.com/?id=JVTuG
They need to hear from you about what Chevron/Unocal must do.
EPA is not on this project as Laura’s letter incorrectly states. This is a state cleanup. I agree Ecology should require full removal of soils to residential and aquatic (wetland) organism clean up standards. The city should be arguing loudly for the more protective cleanup alternative. Are they? I am not hearing anything from them. Do not let Chevron off the hook again.
Excellent letter, Laura. Agree wholeheartedly and will be adding a comment.
Great message, Laura! It is very frustrating how a process of the Model Toxic Cleanup Act called “Disproportionate Cost Analysis” allows polluters to get away without completely cleaning up their mess. The COST of complete cleanup (Alternative 4) is 10 times the cost of cap and cover (Alternative 6). Chevron and Ecology have calculated the BENEFIT of removing the remaining contamination as only 12% greater than capping and covering it. That makes the cost disproportionate to the benefit, so cap and cover becomes the preferred choice.
We need to convince Ecology that their cost-benefit analysis is wrong. The benefit of cleaning up the Unocal property to a level that enables reconnecting the Marsh to Puget Sound (without further cleanup) is a much greater benefit than their calculations show. Restoring the nearshore estuary habitat will provide critical habitat for migrating salmon to grow, safe from predators. Supporting salmon helps our endangered southern resident Orcas, too. We are not asking Chevron to restore the estuary, merely to leave the property clean enough for a future landowner to do so without the additional cost burden of cleaning up their mess.
Thanks for your excellent letter, Laura. How can it be that polluters continue to sidestep their responsibility after having made their billions at the expense of our natural resources and beauty? How can we settle for only half -hearted efforts which do not address the remaining contamination caused by both Unocal and Chevron? Your underlying point is that their responsibility is to return the marsh to the estuary as it was before these two huge corporations caused this pollution and then left! It is only just that they do exactly as you describe.
I’m no expert in this field, but I would guess that Edmonds was happy with the taxes Chevron paid, the jobs they provided, and the fuel to heat their homes and power their cars. As far as I know, Chevron was a good neighbor and complied with the industry standards of the time. Now, Everyone is up in arms and filled with indignation. Chevron is not some evil monster!!!