Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 0178

Submitted By

163 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Neil Gilham

11/25/24 @ 4:21 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Diane Martin Rudnick

11/25/24 @ 12:54 AM

I grew up in Tampa.

With back-to-back to back hurricanes, Helene and Milton, the Tampa Bay area, provides an opportunity for us in Edmonds to consider how much flooding would impact us all.
My daughter, Sierra, and I are proud Edmonds March Estuary ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ronald Eber

11/25/24 @ 12:44 AM

Earlier today I submitted comments about the clean-up of the Unocal property. I mispoke and referred to the wrong Alternative as my preference.

I support Alternative #4 and NOT # 6. Chevron has a responsibility and duty to completely clean the s...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Don J Miller

11/24/24 @ 11:53 PM

This estuary needs to be restored. We have lost too much of our wetlands. Salmon are struggling. Wetlands rank among the highest ecosystems for carbon sequestration. It is irresponsible to not hold corporations accountable for the pollution they caus...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Derek Benedict

11/24/24 @ 11:10 PM

You MUST make UNOCAL pay for the FULL restoration of the mess that they created.

They took the profits, and then walked away without any regret or responsibility!

No attachments

Comment From: Rick Miller

11/24/24 @ 11:07 PM

My family and I have lived in Edmonds since 1981, and previously, my wife and I lived in north Seattle. We enjoyed the natural habitat of the Edmonds Marsh area for years before moving to Edmonds, and again once we lived in Edmonds with our children...↓

No attachments

Comment From: The Tulalip Tribes of Washingt... (Todd Zackey)

11/24/24 @ 11:05 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: DC Miller

11/24/24 @ 10:28 PM

In the Feasibility study nor its Addendum(s), I couldn't find any mention of significant support for a salmon recovery estuary, yet salmon are a key-stone species and as such should cause everyone to highly value habitat that enables them to thrive. ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sierra Rudnick

11/24/24 @ 9:21 PM

I vote on step number 4 to completely remove all contaminated in the Edmonds's Marsh. Leave no trace of contaminated soil left behind!

No attachments

Comment From: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocate...

11/24/24 @ 8:00 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Laura Walls

11/24/24 @ 7:35 PM

To the Department of Ecology:

The current draft feasibility study for completing the cleanup of the Unocal parcel in the Edmonds Marsh has presented us with only two viable alternatives. #4 removes all the remaining contaminated soil, but at a cost ...↓of $11 million, which we were told fails to meet the cost-benefit analysis. #6, which is far cheaper, simply caps the remaining contaminated soil, leaving future costs and risks to whoever buys the Unocal land. This was, we were also told, the only alternative that would meet all necessary requirements.

Yet Alternative #6 is not acceptable and should be removed from consideration. It fails to address planned public use of this site, namely, to restore it to a fully-functioning marsh-estuary ecosystem capable of supporting salmon recovery (which requires daylighting the present culverted tidal connection) as part of a regional public park. These plans matured in the wake of WashDOT's decision to withdraw plans to use this site as a ferry terminal, which made the Unocal site available for habitat recovery and development as a public park. In the years since WasDOT's decision, this planned future use has been abundantly documented at the local and state level, and it has been expressed loudly, clearly, and repeatedly by the local community, including by the City of Edmonds, by the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary Advocates, and by the Point Edwards Owners Association Board, representing the hundreds of residents whose property literally abuts the Unocal parcel. Yet despite this documentation and these many voices stating the planned future use of the Unocal parcel, this fact has been neither included nor considered in the Revised Draft Feasibility Study, as required by law.

Nor has Ecology considered the rights and interests of Indian tribes, for whom the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary was a traditional resource base for fishing and gathering. These tribal rights and interests are clearly established by the Boldt Decision of 1975, as well as by the Culvert Case of 2017, which mandates the removal of culverts that impede the passage of salmon to their spawning grounds.

Given these facts, Alternative #6, or a revision of it, is the only remaining acceptable alternative. Yet it was rejected. Why? On the basis of a cost/benefit analysis that failed to consider either public plans and concerns, or tribal rights and interests. Nor, apparently, did the feasibility study consider the decaying condition of the fifty-year-old storm pipe that bisects the contaminated site; digging out and replacing this pipe was, we were told, a major reason for the additional expense of completing the cleanup. Yet the likely necessity of replacing this pipe in the near future in any case, given its age and the extreme pressure of high levels of water runoff associated with climate change, was not taken into consideration in the cost/benefit analysis. Nor, for that matter, were the environmental hazards caused by climate change and the resulting sea level rise, which some decades from now will cover this site entirely.

The question is: Will Chevron be required to complete the Unocal cleanup of the Marsh or be allowed to walk away with the job unfinished? It's important to state the big picture here: It was Unocal's decision to cover the Edmonds Marsh with landfill and build on it an oil terminal and an asphalt plant. For seven decades, from 1921 until 1991, Unocal, then Chevron, freely contaminated the land in and around the Marsh, directly adjacent to downtown Edmonds, with toxic petroleum and heavy metals, all the while reaping extraordinary profits. It has been extraordinarily expensive to clean up the mess Chevron left behind, and it will be more expensive still to finish the cleanup rather than allowing Chevron to cap the remaining contamination and walk away, leaving to the site's future owners the final expenses of cleanup and remediation of the damage they have done. But given Chevron's history on this site, they have the moral and legal responsibility to make whole again the land they used and polluted for so many years. We, the citizens of Edmonds, are willing to do the work to reopen the Marsh to the Sound and restore it for future generations. But why should the Department of Ecology allow Chevron to walk away now, leaving additional expenses, and additional risks as well, for us to bear, when it is Chevron and their predecessors who reaped the profits from so brazenly closing off and poisoning our land and waterways?

Laura D. Walls
Edmonds, WA 98020

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Schlosser

11/24/24 @ 7:31 PM

Please consider the following in order to make the area safe for all:

1. Chevron Corporation made the mess — they should clean it up.
2. Potential future use of the property as a restored estuary reconnecting the Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound needs ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: alan mearns

11/24/24 @ 7:27 PM

Please consider a cleanup alternative that takes advantage of natural processes coupled with ecokogical risk assessment. Before I retired from NOAA I was part of a team that provided guidance to the US Coast Guard during respnses to oil and chemical ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lora Petso

11/24/24 @ 7:25 PM

These comments are as a citizen of Edmonds, not as a representative of any government or group.

I do not have the depth of knowledge on this topic that other Edmonds residents have, but I am attempting to support their efforts to obtain a real clean...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Chris Altwegg

11/24/24 @ 7:12 PM

To Washington State Department of Ecology, Regarding the Unocal Cleanup

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

I believe that the disproportionate cost analysis regarding cleanup of the Unocal property is flawed – it's missing several items. Includ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kathleen Sears

11/24/24 @ 6:41 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Vanessa Jamison

11/24/24 @ 6:29 PM

1. Chevron Corporation made the mess — they should clean it up.
2. Potential future use of the property as a restored estuary reconnecting the Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound needs to be included in a revised feasibility study.
3. A more accurate cost-b...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Maureen Traxler

11/24/24 @ 5:56 PM

I strongly support Alternative 4, requiring Chevron to remove the contamination from the site. Alternative 4 is the only way to eliminate the likelihood that the contamination on the site will spread to Puget Sound and other areas of the watershed. ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Stephen Wilhelm

11/24/24 @ 5:36 PM

This property needs to be made safe for re-establishing a connection to the Sound and re-creating salmon habitat. Chevron Corporation made the mess at this site, and they should clean it up. Potential future use of the property as a restored estuary ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Glynis Cady

11/24/24 @ 5:29 PM

The site should be cleaned up, not covered up. Edmonds did not make the mess and we should not have to clean it up, nor should we leave it for future generations. Climate change will impact this area. We should not settle for a cover up.

Thank you,...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Al Snapp

11/24/24 @ 4:25 PM

I have attended two public meetings in which Dept. of Ecology personnel have explained the current state of planning for the Unocal clean-up of the property adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh. I believe the proper course of action would be to consider so...↓me additional information and perspectives and to reject choosing clean-up alternative 6 and to require a clean-up plan closer to Alternative 4. I don't think that the importance of the polluted property as a wildlife sanctuary adjacent property has been properly weighted so far. Nor has the historic evolution of the property from time honored indigenous resource to commercial property to prospective key component of the restoration of a vital environmental and cultural resource
At it's most basic formulation the state owes the citizens to require Unocal or Chevron, the current industrial owner to conform to a basic tenet which is they made the mess by polluting the land and its many natural strengths and they rightfully should not just partially clean it up but should restore it to close to the natural state.
At a time and place when salmon runs and other natural treasures have been threatened, Ecoloy is presented with an opportunity to use the authority of the state on behalf of its citizens to right the imbalance and by doing so support and partially achieve progress towared restorating lost natural treasures.
Without a clean soil to sufficient depth and deeper than alternative 4 requires, there will not be a viable route through the property for the much needed estuary restoration so that the creeks feeding the Marsh have a clear and open channel to re-connect the Mary and the upper creek regions with Puget Sound.
So as a citizen of Edmonds and the State of Washington I call on our Ecology administrators to do take the right course and require a complete clean-up of the pollution to the Unocal property adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh. Either adopt Alternative 4 and require complete clean-up or develop an alternative that essentially achieves the complete clean-up of a preponderance of the property to allow for the creation of a safe to marine wildlife channel to restore the estuary.
If Ecology needs to negotiate with Unocal or Chevron and insist on this more complet clean-up the threat of legal action should not be a deterrent. If the issue comes before a legal adjudication I believe the preponderance of necessary justification for the more complete clean-up exists.
Finally it did not seem from the presentations from Ecology than public sentiment has been weighed clearly or sufficiently. I hope the public comments now submitted will lead necessarily to better inclusion of that element and a result in line with what I am advocating.
Thank you for all the work that has gone into finding the right way forward with this project.

No attachments

Comment From: Jesse Langdon

11/24/24 @ 4:09 PM

Chevron literally made over 21 billion dollars in profit in 2023. They can afford to fully clean up the former Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal site. They should NOT be allowed to just cap the existing contamination and walk away. The Puget Sound is...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ronald Eber

11/24/24 @ 4:03 PM

Please require full and complete "clean-up" of the Unocal land. Clean means clean and not leaving any residue of contamination for future owners or generations. Cheveron made the mess and they need to clean it up. The citizens and City of Edmonds ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Diane Buckshnis

11/24/24 @ 3:53 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Joan Bloom

11/24/24 @ 3:34 PM

The Department of Ecology's decision will affect generations to come. Chevron Corp/Unocal reaped enormous profits in the process of polluting the Edmonds Marsh. They MUST be required to clean up the mess they made.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MO...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

11/24/24 @ 3:30 PM

Chevron Corp. made the mess — they should clean it up and restore the property to the level they originally found it. A revised feasibility study should include the potential future use as a restored estuary reconnecting the Edmonds Marsh to Puget S...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Holly Hess

11/24/24 @ 11:45 AM

When Chevron acquired Unocal they took on the risks associated. They should pay for a cleanup that allows for full restoration of this property as a functioning estuary. Factors such as sea level rise need to be considered in the evaluation as well...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Earl Larson

11/24/24 @ 11:34 AM

Why was the fact that there has been significant support for a salmon recovery estuary not commented upon in the Feasibility study or Addendum?

Not only should this be a sanctuary for salmon, a healthy estuary will be an extreme benefit to the ecolo...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Paula Mueller

11/24/24 @ 10:20 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Candace Jarrett

11/24/24 @ 10:15 AM

Chevron created this disaster. Chevron has the money and the resources and the absolute obligation to clean up the damage they did.

No attachments

Comment From: Jennie Berger

11/24/24 @ 7:58 AM

Unocal needs to continue to clean up this site. Humans and animals deserve to live on non-toxic land.

No attachments

Comment From: JOE FOOS

11/23/24 @ 10:27 PM

The Department of Ecology should substitute a new alternative for the current Alternative 6, which is Chevron's recommended remedial alternative for the Unocal site cleanup. That new alternative would excavate sufficient newly identified locations o...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Greg Goodman

11/23/24 @ 10:24 PM

After a forty year career with two of the largest Energy companies in the world ( BP/Arco & Royal Dutch Shell ) I've been involved in many petroleum remediation projects. This should be a classic "cradle to grave" situation with Chevron ( who purchas...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jane Lommel

11/23/24 @ 8:39 PM

Dear Washington State Department of Ecology,

I am writing to vigorously support #4 plan to remove the remaining contaminated soil at the Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 078 with Chevron being held fully responsible for all costs incurred.

Why? Th...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Edmonds Environmental Council (Joe Scordino)

11/23/24 @ 7:54 PM

Tanner Bushnell, WA Dept. of Ecology;

The Edmonds Environmental Council (EEC) is concerned that the Draft Feasibility Study is lacking in presentation and analysis of additional Alternatives whose costs and environmental benefits (especially for sta...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Kathy Jones

11/23/24 @ 6:52 PM

Chevron's Environmental Management needs to ensure cleanup of the contaminated mess they have left at the Unocal site in Edmonds. Petroleum products, the main contaminates, are hazardous to all of life-flora and fauna. Cleanup is not easy. In the ear...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mary Ellin Block

11/23/24 @ 5:58 PM

As an Edmonds resident, I believe the Edmonds Marsh needs to be fully restored so it can once again provide critical salmon-rearing habitat and function as an estuary which supports the health of Puget Sound and its inhabitants. It is imperative that...↓ Chevron be required to excavate and permanently remove the remaining contaminants in the Marsh (Alternative 4) and that it not be allowed to merely cap and cover them (Alternative 6).

Chevron benefitted from its use of the Unocal site for decades and caused significant environmental damage. Chevron must permanently remove the contaminants and leave the Edmonds Marsh in as clean a condition as is possible so it can be reasonably maintained, or restored, by a future owner.

Capping and covering contaminants is not an appropriate, long-term cleanup solution in the Edmonds Marsh for the following reasons:
Limits Future Use: Capping and covering would limit the Marsh's potential future restoration because the remaining contaminants would need to be removed prior to daylighting the stream that connects the Marsh with the Sound. This future cleanup would add huge, likely unaffordable, costs to restoration efforts by a future owner.

Burdens Future Owner: Even if the future use of the Marsh does not include full restoration, capping and covering would unfairly burden future property owners by requiring them to assume liability for managing, and potentially removing, Chevron's contaminants.

Climate Change: Scientists have established that climate change will cause rising sea water levels and more frequent flooding along the Edmonds shoreline and in the Marsh. It would be unconscionable to leave contaminants capped and covered in the Marsh when we know that it is only a matter of time before rising water levels and flooding will likely carry these contaminants from the Marsh into Puget Sound. This would pollute our beaches and water ways and endanger people and animals.

I have these additional concerns:
Updated Soil Samples: This is the last opportunity the residents of Washington have to hold Chevron accountable for cleanup of the Marsh. Therefore it is critical that this decision be based on current and accurate data. Updated soil samples need to be analyzed before the feasibility study is complete.

Include Future Potential Restoration: The potential future restoration of the Edmonds Marsh needs be added to the revised feasibility study. The City of Edmonds and the State of Washington have already done a lot to lay the groundwork for daylighting the stream and fully restoring the Marsh.

Two WACs support the future restoration of the Marsh being included in the criteria that will be used to determine the most appropriate level of cleanup, specifically WAC 173-340-351(6)(a), which states: Include any planned future uses of the site or any habitat restoration or resource recovery goals for the site, and, WAC 173-340-708: (3) Reasonable maximum exposure, which states:
(a) Cleanup levels and remediation levels shall be based on estimates of current and future resource uses and reasonable maximum exposures expected to occur under both current and potential future site use conditions, as specified further in this chapter.
(b) The reasonable maximum exposure is defined as the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a site under current and potential future site use.

In conclusion, the Department of Ecology needs to hold Chevron to the highest standard in this cleanup and require it to permanently remove the contaminants that remain in the Edmonds Marsh. In the years ahead, let us not look back at this critical juncture and ask incredulously, "Why, with all the available science and the decades-long focus on restoring our salmon, saving our orcas, and improving the health of Puget Sound, was Chevron allowed to cap and cover contaminants in the Edmonds Marsh?" We can, and we must, do better.

Please opt for Alternative 4, or a similar option, which requires Chevron to permanently remove the contaminants it left in the Edmonds Marsh.

No attachments

Comment From: Wendy Kliment

11/23/24 @ 3:29 PM

I would like to see a complete cleanup for the salmon not a cover up of toxic chemicals. Our children do not need to left with these problems - this mess needs to be cleaned up completely so we can move forward with a salmon program like we have at M...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

11/23/24 @ 2:04 PM

It is imperative that Unocal fully cleans up all of the estuary land. This land is critically important to native plants and animals. We need to do our part to encourage the return of salmon and native plants and animals. Covering up the mess is n...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ellen Blackstone

11/23/24 @ 12:12 PM

Comments to Ecology re: Chevron/Unocal Marsh Cleanup

My thanks go to Ecology for shepherding this complicated project. The pressure, from corporation and community alike, is intense, I have no doubt.

You have clearly heard from the community that w...↓hat they "want" is for the property to be cleaned up so that it can be returned to a fully functioning estuary. However, just "wanting" the marsh to be more thoroughly cleaned up so that it can eventually be restored – Alternative #4 – is not enough, we're told.

But there is more. From what I read in the Model Toxics Control Act and elsewhere, the alternative favored by Chevron, #6, doesn't meet Washington State's own guiding standards.

For instance, regarding the feasibility study, identifying cleanup goals should include: "...any planned future uses of the site and any habitat restoration or resource recovery goals for the site." At the September meeting, it seemed that we were looking only at WSDOT as a future owner, and they will most likely cede their right of purchase. But "any planned future uses" means ANY future uses –- plural -- does it not? And in this case, with the vision of estuary restoration and salmon resource recovery, it seems clear that this step deserves more weight than was considered in Alternative #6. Also according to the WAC, Indian tribes' rights and interests must be considered; no mention of their concern or involvement in salmon recovery and the health of Puget Sound was made in that alternative. (Salmon recovery and the health of our Southern Resident Orcas is of huge "public concern," as well.)

Especially troublesome to me are the environmental hazards that seem not to be covered in Alternative #6. The Washington Administrative Code says: "...cleanup action must prevent or minimize present AND FUTURE (my emphasis) releases and migration of hazardous substances in the environment" and that the cleanup action "...must provide resilience to climate change impacts that have a high likelihood of occurring and severely compromising its long-term effectiveness." After the king tide and flooding of December 2022, it's clear that climate change will have a serious impact on the Unocal property, the current Edmonds Marsh, and the entire waterfront. Sweeping away or otherwise disengaging the caps and covers that are part of Alternative #6 could allow the contamination that remains to find its way into Willow Creek and Puget Sound. And that area is vulnerable not only due to climate change but also to seismic events, an absolute eventuality, geologists tell us.

In addition, all those risks would require regular, careful monitoring. But there is no mention in Alternative #6 of on-going management of the possible risks, an expense in itself.

There is a list in Ecology's publication summary of MTCA Chapter 173-340 that seems to suggest that the disproportionate cost analysis should include these five categories of benefits:
• Protectiveness.
• Permanence.
• Effectiveness over the long-term.
• Management of implementation risks.
• Technical and administrative implementability
When the plan was that WSDOT would pave over everything and build a new terminal, perhaps caps and covers were protection enough. But with the terminal an idea of the past, the "planned future use" is now "habitat restoration and resource recovery." And given climate change and sea level rise, Alternative #6 is neither protective nor permanent in the long term for those activities. Salmon and other wildlife, along with human visitors to the area, must be afforded safer conditions.

Given all these issues, Ecology should demand an updated feasibility study, including new soil samples, and a revised disproportionate cost analysis. It's likely that the alternatives will be much closer in cost than the 10 times estimate as seen in the current DCA. Chevron carried out the activities that made the mess, making corporate profits all the while, and they should be responsible for a more complete cleanup.

No attachments

Comment From: Katy Levenhagen

11/23/24 @ 10:34 AM

The feasiblity study to clean up the Edmonds Marsh and make it a clean passageway between the Marsh and Puget sound needs to include strategies for Unocal (Chevron Corp.) to remove all toxins and environmental hazards which it added to the area durin...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Shannon Ozog Somes

11/22/24 @ 8:37 PM

This property needs to be made safe for re-establishing a connection to the Sound and re-creating salmon habitat. Chevron is a multi-billion dollar corporation and can more than afford to pay for the cleanup efforts. Without our salmon, we lose our w...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Keith Gordon

11/22/24 @ 8:31 PM

As a homeowner who lives just a few blocks from the Unocal site, and someone who cherishes the marsh and amazing ecological diversity we have right at our doorstep, I think it is imperative that Chevron take responsibility for their actions and clean...↓

No attachments

Comment From: belinda hughes

11/22/24 @ 7:31 PM

Thank you for considering our comments. There is an opportunity here to do the right thing and remove as much toxic contaminants from this site as can be removed. Edmonds should not be left holding the bag for future clean ups because Chevron does ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Bernie Zavala

11/22/24 @ 6:02 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Meagan Baldwin

11/22/24 @ 5:03 PM

I echo the sentiments of the comments already submitted. Chevron should do the right thing and clean the property as thoroughly as can be done. The chance to restore the estuary cannot be ignored.

No attachments

Comment From: Kathy Moran

11/22/24 @ 5:01 PM

Redo the draft feasibility study and take into account:
Sea level rise and the damage it will do to engineered covers.
Other reasonable cleanup methods.
Local and regional public input.
Tribal input and court mandates to remove fish pa...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mary Huether

11/22/24 @ 3:41 PM

Please clean up the ground to suit an estuary, not just cover up contaminants.

No attachments

Comment From: Robert Heumann

11/22/24 @ 2:04 PM

There is a pretty simple rule people are taught as kids. The executives at Chevron seem to have either forgotten or were never taught. Either way, the rule is: CLEAN UP AFTER YOURSELF! If a more accurate cost-benefit analysis was conducted I'm sure t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ali Monroe

11/22/24 @ 1:38 PM

Chevron Corp. must be held accountable for the damage they have done to the environment. They should be held responsible for the entirety of the cleanup required for the damage they have done to the Edmonds waterfront. Restoring the estuary should be...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Brent Butterworth

11/22/24 @ 9:54 AM

I don't care if the Department of Ecology thinks cleaning this up will be too expensive for Unocal. Tough luck. Unocal polluted this area for the sake of its profits, and should be held 100% responsible for cleaning it up and restoring it to its natu...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Anttila

11/21/24 @ 7:43 PM

This is a problem area that Chevron is responsible for completely. They should have done the clean completely years ago.

No attachments

Comment From: Chuck Levine

11/21/24 @ 7:14 PM

Alternative 6 is not acceptable for the following reasons:
It does not include sufficient community input
It does not envision the creation of an estuary that is a safe salmon habitat
Additional soil sampling is necessary to assure safe open space a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Donald Weaver

11/21/24 @ 6:50 PM

I would like to see the former Unocal facility cleaned up to the greatest possible degree, not just covered over for future generations to deal with.

No attachments

Comment From: Suzanne and Jim Kuhlemeier

11/21/24 @ 4:24 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Donald Ricker

11/21/24 @ 3:49 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: William Alexander

11/21/24 @ 3:13 PM

I support the comments made by the Point Edwards Unocal Review Committee. The committee asks to have the feasibility studies revised to include a salmon recovery estuary as a potential future use for the site. Public concerns need to be adequately in...↓

No attachments

Comment From: GLEN FUERSTNEAU

11/21/24 @ 2:23 PM

I celebrate being a resident of Edmonds by strolling the walk bordering the north side of the marsh. In the morning, I pass by birders photographing the beautiful marsh. As I talk with the birders, I learn that many don't live in Edmonds but come t...↓o Edmonds Marsh for its serene beauty.
Also, I walk by the Sound Salmon Solutions modest schoolroom to educate our youngest generations about restoration of the ecological needs for improving the health of the Sound. Outside this school room and salmon hatchery, a gate blocks the road to the Unocal site because it has misused the site as a toxic material dumping ground.

I have reviewed quite a few comments of others about their recommendation of Alternative 4. Alternative 4 is the only alternative that removes toxic materials such as arsenic, a known poison for centuries. Because Alternative 6 leaves the soil toxic, predicted rising sea levels and potential of earthquakes increase the risk of a hazardous future. I summarize below a few of their comments which impact the future of the Edmonds Marsh restoration for which it seems the Revised Draft Feasibility Study ("Revised Study") has not directly addressed:

(1) The Revised Study failed to consider Public Concerns and Tribal Interests in the Edmonds Marsh restoration impeding its return to a functioning estuary for use by salmon and trout.

(2) The Revised Study failed to consider rising sea levels and potential earthquakes by only temporarily "capping" toxic material in the Alternative 6.

(3) What Chevron wants is to save money by leaving islands of toxic waste with the Unocal site. These toxic islands will be costly barrier requiring removal to create a channel opening to the Puget Sound as an estuary for salmon. Therefore, Chevron seems to be saying "if you want to restore the site to its historic use as an estuary for salmon recovery, you have to pay for the removal of toxic waste yourself."

The company activities brought intentionally into the estuary area toxic materials for its economic gain. It should not be permitted to leave such toxic trash close to the Puget Sound. Doing so prevents the property from being restored as a functioning estuary. Further, concerns about future rising sea levels and potential of earthquakes have not been adequately addressed by Alternative 6 which only temporarily limited the exposure by capping toxic materials but not removal.

In conclusion, the Unocal property should be restored to its original non-toxic condition. Don't let Chevron leave its toxic trash next to the Sound and between the Edmonds Marsh, Willow Creek flowage and the Sound.

No attachments

Comment From: Vera Cannon

11/21/24 @ 12:25 PM

In this age when we know so much more about Climate Change, it is unfair and irresponsible to have a situation where a buyer of a new land must pay for the expense of having contaminants
removed that the former owner created.

It is further unfair ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Julie Martinson

11/20/24 @ 9:48 PM

I'm writing as a concerned citizen, living over 55 years in Snohomish County, who cares about the health of our rivers and the Puget Sound, and all the people, birds and critters who depend on a clean ecosystem. Please consider these comments in reg...↓ards to the Unocal/Chevron Cleanup in Edmonds, WA.

We want and need a new Disproportionate Cost Analysis performed, and want more of the Unocal site permanently cleaned up by excavating contamination.

Because Chevron made this Toxic mess, they have the responsibility to clean it up after all the financial gain they have made. The public, the City of Edmonds & the Tulalip Tribes aren't asking Chevron to restore the wetland or reconnect the estuary. What they want is that Chevron be held to clean up the property to a level closer to how they found it.

Consider that an estuary with restored habitat will be a great asset to this bio-region when the Edmonds Marsh is reconnected to Puget Sound. Cleanup and remediation levels need to be based on estimates of current & future resource uses & reasonable maximum exposures expected. The MOU with WSDOT, City of Edmonds & the State legislature plans to rehabilitate near-shore habitat for salmon & related species. This requires more than excavation of the Unocal fill and contamination.

A more accurate cost-benefit calculation must be done. Environmental hazards, especially from climate change and sea level rise, are required to be included in cleanup decision making. Flooding events are already happening, during which the contamination can spread.

Public concern has not been properly weighted. Of the approximately 100 people who attended the Sept.'24 public meeting, the primary concern was that cleanup be sufficient to make reconnecting the Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound feasible. It was not any of the reasons that Chevron listed.

**A cleanup plan between Alternative 4 and Alternative 6 should be considered. Excavating contamination in areas where the estuary restoration channel will be located, and capping & covering contamination elsewhere would better address future land use, public & Tribal concerns, with the environmental hazards of the site at a cost much closer to Alternative 6.

Tribal rights and interests must be considered. Tribal concerns have been affirmed by their letters of support for the City's MOU with WSDOT and for the current NOAA Coastal Resiliency grant to create a nearshore estuary to aid in the depleted salmon recovery.

Updated soil samples are needed before the revised feasibility study is completed. They were last collected in 2008! New information can impact the ranking of benefits of each proposed remedial action alternative & the cost of their implementation. Updated soil sampling will be especially crucial if new remedial action alternatives combining engineered covers with excavation are considered, which will in turn change the cost analysis. Ecology's updated feasibility study needs to incorporate the new soil sampling results.

It's crucial that all public input be considered, especially when large numbers of community members show up to testify at a public meeting. Chevron needs to be held responsible for cleaning up the contamination it caused over many years to a much more restored state, as it was before this industrial site damaged this marshy shoreline that holds such promise for returning salmon, birds and wildlife to this treasured ecosystem of the Salish Sea.

No attachments

Comment From: Janet Amberg

11/20/24 @ 3:19 PM

The Department of Ecology should substitute a new alternative for the current Alternative 6, which
would excavate sufficient newly identified locations of contaminated soil to allow a path for Willow
Creek to reach Puget Sound, as well as other corre...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Alan Maszk

11/20/24 @ 12:35 PM

The Department of Ecology should substitute a new alternative for the current Alternative 6, which would excavate sufficient newly identified locations of contaminated soil to allow a path for Willow Creek to reach Puget Sound, as well as other corre...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Craig Feyk

11/20/24 @ 10:52 AM

The Unocal site needs to be cleaned to a state that would allow restoration of the original open channel between the Edmonds Marsh and Puget sound. Pollution created by Unocal (now Chevron) needs to be cleaned up by Chevron. Alternative 6, currently ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Linda Burley

11/19/24 @ 10:17 PM

SO MANY CONCERNS STILL TO BE ADDRESSED:
*Potential future use of the property as a restored estuary reconnecting the Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound needs to be included in a revised feasibility study.
*Public concern has not been properly weighted!
*A ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Shaw

11/19/24 @ 8:05 PM

I strongly believe that Chevron should complete the full and necessary cleanup of the Unocal site, lower yard, in Edmonds. To do anything less is to shirk their legal and ethical duty. In addition, it seems that further study is required in a numbe...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Debora Ashland

11/19/24 @ 2:20 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Tanya DeMarsh-Dodson

11/19/24 @ 11:39 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Point Edwards Owners Assosciat... (Michael Mitchell)

11/19/24 @ 8:42 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Maureen Hayden

11/18/24 @ 9:33 PM

Chevron UnoCal must be held fully accountable for complete clean up of the site. This means removing toxic soil, by products and all remaining polluted material their operation knowingly deposited and left behind. There should be no costs for clean u...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Shirley Oczkewicz

11/18/24 @ 8:30 PM

It makes no sense to me to allow Chevron to cap the contamination instead of removing it. The reasons against capping:
1. This area is at sea level and is subject to earthquakes and sea level rise which could release capped contamination.
2. This ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Elena Giorgi

11/18/24 @ 6:38 PM

I am a resident of Snohomish county and I am writing in support of the complete clean up of the contamination on the property adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh and the restoration of the estuary to reconnect the Edmonds March to the Puget Sound. The full...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Linda Wilson

11/17/24 @ 10:52 PM

I'll make this short and to the point.
Chevron created the mess and is morally and should be legally responsible for the clean up. They should not be able to do a partial clean up endangering people and animals.

No attachments

Comment From: Derek Benedict

11/17/24 @ 9:40 PM

I grew up near the UnoCal oil tanker-field, and I want them to clean up the mess that they created. AND they must not have taxpayers pay for it!

No attachments

Comment From: Eric Adman

11/17/24 @ 5:09 PM

1. Chevron Corporation obtained significant economic gains by their use of this site, and it is hard to argue that they don't have the means to pay for cleanup. Chevron should be required to clean up the site.
2. Potential future use of the property ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jerry Capretta

11/17/24 @ 2:10 PM

My son tore down an old house that resided on a lot he bought. He had to deal with $80,000 of home heating oil contamination. When gas stations get removed they are required to replace the contaminated soil. Why should a major chemical corporation be...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lesley Boyland

11/17/24 @ 10:10 AM

Clean up, don't cover up. That's it, plain and simple. We need to do everything in our power for the health of the planet, so please use your power.

No attachments

Comment From: Julia Winchell

11/16/24 @ 10:02 PM

The Edmonds Marsh must be cleaned up, not just capped over! Chevron made the mess. Chevron needs to clean it up. Chevron and DOE saying it is too costly to clean up is not a reason to just cap it. Too costly for Chevron?? Seriously? What about the co...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Diona Jaslow

11/16/24 @ 9:00 PM

I believe Chevron (Unocal) has responsibility to finish the clean up effort due to the many years they poisoned our land and marsh. They make billions in revenue and can afford to be held ultimately accountable for all costs. It should not be passed ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Julia Jordan

11/16/24 @ 4:38 PM

I'm strongly against the plan to let Chevron "cap and cover" the contamination near Edmonds Marsh instead of actually cleaning it up. Chevron is the one who caused the mess, so they should be the ones to fix it. I am a preschool teache and I teach my...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Boyd

11/16/24 @ 4:36 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Tom Mayer

11/16/24 @ 3:17 PM

History teaches us that the coverup is always worse than the crime. That is what Chevron Corp. proposes to do—cover up the remaining contamination in the Edmonds marsh. Please do NOT allow this to happen. Require Chevron to excavate all of the remain...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joyce Behncke

11/16/24 @ 11:40 AM

Don't let Chevron pass the buck for what they did. They abused and profited from that land for years and now, when it comes to paying the piper, they want to walk away?!? No way! It's their responsibility to clean up their mess. They made a big one ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jane O'Dell

11/15/24 @ 9:55 PM

After attending several public meetings on the subject of the cleanup of the Unocal property in Edmonds I am particularly appreciative of the challenge you face in resolving this matter. While some of the comments may seem redundant at this point th...↓at should not detract from their importance.
1. Unocal used the property in ways that have left toxic residue, which is harmful to biological forms (plants, animals, humans) and while the Model Toxic Control Act has provisions for cost benefit analysis, it is also clear that the cleanup must anticipate future use of the property. Perhaps a different use was anticipated when the contract for sale was originally negotiated, but that is not relevant now. MTCA requires that future use be considered, and any future use can be expected to affect living things at some point. This is a problem Unocal created; they are not being victimized. They operated a for-profit activity in a way that left significant levels of toxicity behind. As a resident of Edmonds living less than a quarter mile from the site I believe it should be cleaned up.
2. The MTCA allows the cost benefit to be considered in determining the level of cleanup necessary, but the proposals we have seen to date lean heavily on some areas of cost and fail to note others. The description of public concern, for example, was described as concern only for noise and dust created by the cleanup and ranked quite low, while I and many other citizens are more concerned with the final outcome. It seems appropriate to have a more transparent way of weighting the considerations. Moreover, the costs and benefits are specified by Chevron and are reduced to the contents of two plans (Alternative 4, which involves removing all remaining contamination, and Alternative 6, which calls for capping contaminated areas). The "future use" also under discussion, a restored estuary and wildlife sanctuary, would benefit from Alternative 4 and that is preferred, but Alternative 6 should not be the only alternative under discussion.
3. Alternative 6 is, on its merits, flawed. Capping the contaminated areas is only a solution to the extent that the caps are not disturbed, but the Unocal parcel is in the flood zone and a seismic hazard zone; it is extremely likely that the caps will be disturbed, allowing contamination to penetrate the rest of the Marsh and even escape into Puget Sound. This is not an acceptable solution and needs reconsideration.

We have an opportunity to get this cleanup done right: a safer result, and maybe at an intermediate cost somewhere between the price tags assigned the alternatives by Chevron. Please give due weight to the concerns of the residents, and let's undo the damage inflicted by Unocal's operations.
Thank you, and for all the effort you have put into engaging with the people of Edmonds on this issue!

No attachments

Comment From: Clara Hsu

11/15/24 @ 9:41 PM

These are just a few amongst numerous reasons the plan needs further revision:

Chevron made mess - Chevron should clean the mess!

Environmental hazards, especially from climate change and sea level rise, are required to be included in cleanup plan ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Suzanne Cunliffe

11/15/24 @ 6:08 PM

I was taken aback to learn that Chevron Corporation could not afford to clean up the mess they made, especially because their earnings in November 2024 are $4.25 billion. The hope of this community is that we can restore the estuary and reconnect it ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Manya Schilperoort

11/15/24 @ 3:09 PM

Please insist that Chevron be required to follow alternative plan #4 and completely clean up the soil they helped contaminate while enjoying such high profits. The Edmonds Marsh is a precious natural resource that many birds and creatures rely upon. ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: David Matthews

11/15/24 @ 3:00 PM

I believe it is incumbent upon the Chevron Corporation who made the mess to clean it up.

We need to ensure we have a more accurate and current cost-benefit calculation and feasibility study that include environmental hazards from climate change and ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Judy Triggs

11/15/24 @ 12:10 PM

I want the comtamination removed so the property can be an estuary reconnecting the Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound.

No attachments

Comment From: Julie Navarro

11/15/24 @ 8:05 AM

Please make the oil company pay . It shouldn't be the tax payer ! Hold them accountable !

No attachments

Comment From: David Jones

11/14/24 @ 4:36 PM

I moved to Edmonds in 1961. My quality of life is directly impacted by the environment in which I live.

The land that Unocal used for its bulk fuel storage and distribution site in Edmonds was once healthy, but Unocal poisoned it by allowing chemic...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Elaine Martin

11/14/24 @ 4:24 PM

Unocal/Chevron needs to complete the entire cleanup including contamination beneath the Pipe. It is their responsibility and they have the funds to do it. Option 6 is not doing so. The goal should be to clean up the site as well as under the Pipe ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cathleen Dalmeida

11/14/24 @ 11:10 AM

I believe that polluters should clean up their messes. We need to hold corporations who profited accountable for cleaning up. The following are additional comments.

Chevron made the mess — they should clean it up.
Potential future use of the pr...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Malcolm Cumming

11/14/24 @ 10:57 AM

The Edmonds Marsh is a significant environmental asset to the waters of Puget Sound. The best solution for it's long term contribution to the ecosystem health of both the marsh itself and to Puget Sound is to remove the contaminated soils. Simply bur...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Finley

11/14/24 @ 9:53 AM

Don't let Chevron cap and cover instead of removing the pollution remaining on the former Unocal bulk fuel terminal. A more accurate cost-benefit calculation should be developed, including likely environmental hazards from climate change and sea lev...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mona Carter

11/14/24 @ 1:23 AM

DOE,
It is imperative that chevron/unocal be held accountable for the soil contamination at the designated site(s). They reaped the financial benefit of the asphalt production site and should not be allowed to walk away from a total clean-up of the s...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Katrina Riippa

11/13/24 @ 11:16 PM

Wouldn't Chevron benefit from being able to say they contributed to the long-term health of the local environment? Bringing back salmon increases the likelihood of the survival of local marine mammals, as well. Many PNW natives (and Native Americans)...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Tobey Nelson

11/13/24 @ 10:14 PM

We must continue to clean up this site - and continue to fund clean up - until all petroleum and arsenic are gone

No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Boyd

11/13/24 @ 6:32 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jim Skadan

11/13/24 @ 5:26 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Buck Stewart

11/13/24 @ 10:19 AM

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 — ...↓

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]