Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 0178

163 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Aleksandar Babic

11/13/24 @ 6:56 AM
So, let me get this straight. Cleanup is too costly for the polluter? The polluter had US$ 200 billion dollars revenue in 2023. The polluter is Chevron corporation. Now I understand that doing business has risks and mitigations sometimes might foll o...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Karen Guzak

11/12/24 @ 3:18 PM
Chevron made the mess in the bulk terminal, and should clean it up. These oil companies get the benefit of federal tax breaks and make huge profits every year. Demand that they restore the estuary to mitigate climate changes and return this place to ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Marilyn Boyd

11/12/24 @ 2:22 PM
Dear Ecology,

I lived in Everett when the Kimberly Clark property was scheduled for 'clean up'. Despite the wishes of locals for restoration, the city council opted for minimal standards. When I visited Everett recently, I was gobsmacked to see co...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Rita Ireland

11/12/24 @ 1:03 PM
To caring colleagues:

Perhaps it was because I was raised on a fertile Iowa farm where my mom and dad took good care of our soil -- their culture and wisdom was, "Just get it done, but do it right. Get help from other neighbors if you need to and do...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Tia Scarce

11/12/24 @ 12:19 PM
Chevron should absolutely be required to fully clean the site so that future restoration work can be accomplished without working around continued contamination. A healthy estuary is the goal--nothing short of full removal of contaminated soils is ac...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Alice Owen

11/12/24 @ 12:18 PM
Updated soil samples are needed for the Edmonds Marsh area that has been polluted by Chevron before the sensibility study is completed.
Chevron should be responsible for any costs involved.
No attachments

Comment From: Rachel Maxwell

11/12/24 @ 11:56 AM
Chevron's profits in 2023 were $4.5 Billion. We must hold them accountable for the damage done to the property in Edmonds by requiring they clean it up. This cap and cover strategy is just a band aid on the problem. It must be cleaned up because we ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Winona Kim

11/12/24 @ 10:48 AM
So this is my understanding of Chevron's CEO's compensation $26.5million in 2023. The cost to clean up the Edmonds marsh estimated at $11 milllion. So please, there's really NO excuse to allow Chevron to get away with a bandaid on the project. It's ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Kate Lunceford

11/12/24 @ 10:06 AM
I urge you to prepare a new Disproportionate Cost Analysis and require Chevron to clean up the property to a level closer to how they found it, which will enable a future landowner to move forward without incurring additional cost. The value of saltw...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Sherry Willis

11/12/24 @ 9:12 AM
Cleanup must be thoroughly and entirely completed by the company that created pollution - or bought it from the polluters. It is immoral to pass the responsibility to taxpayers. Unocal must do a total cleanup - no more hiding it so future generations...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Bernie Busch

11/10/24 @ 7:51 PM
After reading the comments and suggestions that have been presented, there is little I can add other than I am strongly in support of The Department of Ecology NOT allowing Unocal to abandon their obligation to restore the marsh property that they ha...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Neil Gilham

11/10/24 @ 6:46 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Robert Maier

11/09/24 @ 6:45 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: Gayla Shoemake

11/09/24 @ 5:17 PM
Dear Department of Ecology,

As a long time resident of Edmonds, and a great admirer of our place on the water, I have enjoyed the Marsh immensely. While there have been some improvements, they have not restored the Marsh to its original status. ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Brittany Dean

11/09/24 @ 4:47 PM
Hello, I use the area adjacent to this part of the city often and I dream of what it can be. Eventual full restoration with return to an estuary site would be ideal to preserve the biodiversity as well as the safety of this part of our city. I am con...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mike Benoit

11/09/24 @ 1:52 PM
Chevron made the mess - they should clean it ALL up. Not simply cover the mess and walk away. To conclude this process without accurate soil samples is short selling this community. This site in this coastal location is extremely rare and shoul...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

11/09/24 @ 12:56 PM
I want to see clean up of any remaining contamination in the lower yard. And the property to be used as a restored estuary reconnecting the Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound. This will be good for the city of Edmonds, tourism, and our environment as a w...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Nick Maxwell

11/09/24 @ 12:33 PM
Chevron needs to be held to the same standards as everyone else. If I change my oil at my home and dump the used oil to seep into the ground in my backyard, when I'm caught, I have to clean up the toxic mess I made. It doesn't matter if it's inconv...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Johnson

11/09/24 @ 11:25 AM
Cleaning up after yourself is a shared value and legal precedent for individuals.
Corporations have received trillions of our dollars and freely polluted for many years. We are collectively paying - again - for their irresponsible actions which have...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Marlys Chandler

11/09/24 @ 10:21 AM
I do not believe capping the remaining pollution is adequate mitigation. My husband's family has a cabin near Skykomish, and we saw how pollution can seep through soil into nearby waterways. For future safety, it must be removed now, not covered. Edm...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Joan Smith

11/09/24 @ 8:39 AM
Please require Unocal to completely and thoroughly clean up its damage to the environment in this vicinity. The Marsh is sensitive and important to salmon recovery. Having this area restored would enable projects to go forward that would benefit th...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Stephen Lacy

11/09/24 @ 2:21 AM
I think it Essential to do a complete cleanup of the Unocal site. The people of Edmonds have consistently supported the restoration of the Edmonds marsh, including recent herculean efforts by volunteers to clean up Shelleberger Creek. In order reconn...↓
No attachments

Comment From: David Richman

11/08/24 @ 11:51 PM
I am glad that we are finally coming to the end of the planning period. This cleanup has obviously taken longer than originally anticipated and is still not complete. Chevron has the responsibility under Washington state law to finish the cleanup to ...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: marjorie Fields

11/07/24 @ 5:59 PM
The Ecology recommendation regarding cleanup of the Unocal property gives far too much weight to cost, more than all other criteria combined. Human impact, environmental impact, and citizen concerns about them must be considered at least equal to cos...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Diane Buckshnis

11/07/24 @ 10:28 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Cynthia Jones

11/06/24 @ 3:21 PM
Rather than the preferred (#6) option of the Department of Ecology, I strongly support the Unocal property being cleaned sufficiently to allow an open salmon channel across the property to connect the Edmonds Marsh estuary to Puget Sound. This would ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jamie Peltier

11/06/24 @ 10:29 AM
1. I've had enough of oil and gas companies ruining our environment and getting away with it! Chevron Corporation made the mess- they need to clean it up.

2. Potential future use of the property as a restored estuary reconnecting th...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Greg Ferguson

11/06/24 @ 8:25 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: William Derry

10/30/24 @ 11:19 AM
Comments to Ecology on The Draft Feasibility Study
The Public Review Draft Final Feasibility Study Report Addendum and the Disproportionate Cost Analysis does not comply with WAC 173.340 or Ecology guidance. It doesn't address future land uses, clima...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: Pam Tauer

10/29/24 @ 1:53 PM
Please "do the right thing" and choose Alternative 4. Ecology needs to hold Unocal responsible for complete contamination extraction. Although this is the more expensive solution, it is the only one that will ensure the decontamination is compl...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mikayla Monroe

10/26/24 @ 8:14 PM
My name is Mikayla Monroe and this comment is for the Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 0178 project. My comment is to use Feasibility Study Alternative Number 4 as presented at the hybrid public meeting on September 16th, 2024 at Edmonds City Hall. ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Bailey Keeler

10/23/24 @ 4:07 PM
Alternative 4 should be the chosen treatment to remove contamination. Chevron should have to clean up their mess regardless of the cost.
No attachments

Comment From: Thomas Bannister

10/22/24 @ 12:25 PM
Chevron should be required to clean up their contamination.
No attachments

Comment From: Vivian Olson

10/18/24 @ 12:53 AM
I appreciate the efforts of Unocal/Chevron, Ecology, and the dedicated community volunteers who have all contributed to the great progress made at the Edmonds Marsh to date. It has been time consuming, and it has been expensive. I start by saying tha...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mike Shaw

10/17/24 @ 3:28 PM
Thank you DOE for your work on this project over the years. I'm very glad that you have strictly followed the MTCA, and have lowered the CULs in light of the hoped for use of this land and estuary for future chinook salmon runs. In particular, I'm ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Nick Maxwell

10/15/24 @ 9:37 AM
It is irresponsible for any clean up to leave toxic pollutants that will be washed to the surface when the site is submerged by storms and higher sea levels in the coming decades.
No attachments

Comment From: Deborah Arthur

10/14/24 @ 4:42 PM
DOE segregate the 22 hot spots that Chevron is responsible for as if it is bundled with the WSDOT pipe.
Requesting a new scenario will force Chevron to pay for the hot spots since they created them. This is the only fair way to do this it helps with...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anne Perkins

10/14/24 @ 11:38 AM
It is untenable that the only two options at this point are to do the absolute least amount of remediation possible (of course, the option preferred by Unocal/Chevron as being least expensive) which will in essence burden future generations with deal...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dave Teitzel

10/11/24 @ 4:03 PM
Please ensure the site is cleaned of contaminants to ensure marsh restoration can be accomplished to make the marsh a fully functioning salt water estuary that can accommodate salmon. This should include removal of all pockets of contaminated soil, ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ann Christiansen

10/11/24 @ 3:52 PM
I oppose option 6 as the preferred clean up choice for the Unocal site in Edmonds.

First, the cost analysis for option 6 doesn't include replacing the WSDOT storm water pipe running through the site. This pipe is nearing the end of its' useful/safe ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Kathy Johnson

10/07/24 @ 7:31 PM
Please select Alternative 4 because that is the only protective and permanent solution. It will allow the future restoration of the historic marshlands here. Doing so would help protect against flooding and drought, provide habitat for important spec...↓
No attachments

Comment From: City of Edmonds (Todd Tatum)

10/07/24 @ 9:19 AM
We are writing to provide comments on Chevron's Draft Final Feasibility Study Report Addendum. Our comments focus around two primary areas: the suitability of Alternative 6's reliance on the WSDOT stormwater pipe, and the broad use of environmental c...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: Dianna Maish

10/06/24 @ 12:54 PM
Rather than the preferred (#6) option of the Department of Ecology, I strongly support the Unocal property being cleaned sufficiently to allow an open salmon channel across the property to connect the Edmonds Marsh estuary to Puget Sound. This would ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Green Snohomish (Don Dillinger)

10/05/24 @ 8:23 AM
Please add our organizational endorsement to the plan proposed by EMEA to thoroughly rehabilitate and restore the Edmonds Marsh to a condition of functional, genuine estuarial marsh, supporting all the wildlife, hydrologic and ecosystem roles it once...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Laurie Sorensen

10/04/24 @ 5:03 PM
Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 0178 public comment
I strongly recommend the highest level of cleanup possible, which is option #4 NOT #6. I believe that this multi million dollar oil company can afford to leave the natural resource the way they f...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Lorraine Monroe

10/04/24 @ 3:28 PM
Please fully clean up the Marsh site. Edmonds appreciates the gem the Marsh is for wildlife. I have volunteered with the Park Stewards and the DOT Highway clean up to help with cleaning the Marsh. You could allow us to continue to get the surfa...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Alyssa Fairbanks

10/03/24 @ 7:42 AM
Please go with feasibility study alternative 4 and do a complete excavation and removal of all contaminated soil from the Edmonds Marsh/Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal 0178. It is essential for the health of our environment and Edmonds community th...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Douglas Resnick

10/02/24 @ 9:01 PM
I encourage Ecology to select Alternative 4. According to the Revised Draft Feasibility Study for the Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, the Recommended Remedial Alternative is Alternative 6, which relies on covering remaining contaminants. Alterna...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Richard Steele

10/02/24 @ 5:15 AM
In recent discussions and meetings regarding the UNOCAL property and the Edmonds marsh/estuary, it has been mentioned that the WSDOT 104 storm drainpipe running through the area is over 50 years old and will need to be replaced in the foreseeable fut...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mona Fairbanks

9/29/24 @ 3:50 PM
Clean up the Edmonds Unocal site! Chevron made 196.91 billion last year. They don't need to find the solution that only 'Partially Cleans Up' the site for the least money. They need to FULLY clean the site to the best technical standards of today! So...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Georgina Armstrong

9/28/24 @ 5:08 PM
I understand that Washington state does not expect the clean-up of the Unocal site to extend to a new landowner's future restoration plans, but why shouldn't Chevron, as the parent company of Unocal, be held accountable for restoring the site to its ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Matthew Becker

9/25/24 @ 1:28 PM
While members of the Edmonds community are grateful that Chevron did not abandon its Edmonds site and has pursued remediation of the harms affecting the site due to the Corporation's former activities on the site, I stand with the majority of communi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jesse Langdon

9/24/24 @ 8:44 PM
I am strongly in favor of alternative 4. We want a fully cleaned, non-contaminated substrate for future restoration efforts. While alternative 6 will cost Chevron significantly less money, that solution is essentially just "kicking the can" down the ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Lisa Weber

9/23/24 @ 8:48 PM
Hi, Alternative 6 is out of the question. Ecology should commit to fully restoring Edmonds Marsh, to function as an estuary in its original state. Paving over poison is not an alternative. Chevron has the deep pockets needed to carry out this work, a...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

9/19/24 @ 6:27 AM
As a resident of Edmonds and concerned about the environment, I support Alternative 4 for the cleanup of Edmonds Marsh. I am not in favor of Alternative 6, which leaves contaminants on site.

Thank you
No attachments

Comment From: Beth Neely

9/17/24 @ 5:10 PM
First concern with the cleanup is the data that is being used. The data collected is old and not current, from 2011. If we want accurate results we need to have accurate and current data on the marsh. Second concern is how much will be restored. Ther...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Sally Lider

9/17/24 @ 2:37 PM
Having attended the informational meeting held in Edmonds City Hall on September 16, I would like to make a couple of comments. As a retired City of Edmonds employee (Environmental Education Coordinator) I have watched the progress of this cleanup f...↓
No attachments

Comment From: rachael Kutz

9/17/24 @ 7:36 AM
Chevron must do their part to clean up what they've done and help the environment.
No attachments

Comment From: Chris Walton

9/17/24 @ 7:06 AM
Alternative #6 is not acceptable.

The cost analysis as presented at the Ecology meeting on Sept 17 (Edmonds, City Hall) does not account for future use.
The whole point of "Ecology" is to protect the environment. The citizens of Edmonds have mad...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Clinton Wright

9/16/24 @ 6:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Becca Bailey

9/16/24 @ 4:33 PM
It is of the utmost importance that we fully acknowledge and understand the damage done to the Edmonds Marsh, Willow Creek, and salmon that once called it home. The ramifications that followed are reversable IF the 68 years' worth of contaminated soi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Sofia Castillo

9/15/24 @ 9:05 PM
I support Alternative 4 if it is the safest option
No attachments

Comment From: John Brock

9/11/24 @ 2:37 PM
I live directly opposite the Unocal access road from Pine St. I would like to one day see salmon returning to the Edmonds marsh. To make this possible, the Unocal site must be cleaned up deep enough to allow the daylighting of Willow Creek to Puget S...↓
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]