After complex negotiations, the Port moves to clean up contamination along the waterfront

Apr. 27—After years of studies, negotiations and settlements, the Port of Astoria can finally move toward a full-scale cleanup of a contaminated section along the waterfront.

Throughout the 1900s, several oil companies, including McCall Oil and Chemical Corp. and ExxonMobil, occupied the central waterfront on Port property, where petroleum was stored and distributed through pipelines and storage tanks below ground. Over the years, releases from both the Port's and the oil companies' facilities caused contamination.

In 2001, after an oil sheen appeared on the Columbia River, the state Department of Environmental Quality launched negotiations with the Port and the oil companies — which were no longer operating in the area — about investigating the extent of the pollution and performing a study of potential cleanup options.

While not all were on Port property, the state identified five areas of concern with contamination, with the worst of the bunch — known as "AOC4" — in slip 2 between Pier 2 and Pier 3.

At a Port Commission meeting earlier this month, Will Isom, the Port's executive director, announced a consent judgment between the Port, the oil companies and the state. The news was met with applause from Port commissioners, who commended Isom for his efforts on getting the agreement signed.

"This was quite the process. Obviously there were a lot of parties involved, including Oregon DEQ," Isom said. "Our hope was this would move forward a little quicker."

Reaching a solution was one of his first big pushes when he was hired as executive director in 2019, Isom said.

Both Isom and Anna Coates, a project manager from the Department of Environmental Quality who has overseen much of the negotiations, reviews and studies involving the contamination, expressed anticipation about moving toward cleanup.

"It's very exciting because what they're going to do next is actually start doing the design," Coates said. "Up to this point, they've been doing investigations and trying to figure out how bad the contamination is and how extensive it is and negotiating between the different parties. Now they're going to be doing work plans to clean it up and that's great."

The consent judgment, which took about two years to get negotiated and approved, puts an obligation on the Port to work toward getting the remediation completed.

With a large obstacle overcome, the Port can look to permitting, acquiring grants and engineering the cleanup plan with longtime environmental consultant, Maul Foster & Alongi, of Vancouver, Washington.

'Dark cloud'

At the site between Pier 2 and Pier 3, Coates noted that contamination was substantial enough at first to cause harm to people and wildlife.

Soil, sediment and groundwater contamination, as well as the discharging of groundwater into surface water, were all found in slip 2 in initial studies. Intrusion of soil vapor — when vapors come out of the soil and into the air — was also determined to be taking place under the Port's old office building.

"The worst part of it was the sheen in the surface water," Coates said. "There's not much of that left, but that of course is a direct impact to any ... types of smaller animals. The vapor intrusion into the building was (also) fairly significant."

A number of minor projects were conducted over the years, including pumping out contaminants, the removal of underground storage tanks, the rerouting of the Port's stormwater system and tactics to catch hydrocarbons leaching into the river. The projects have reduced the overall levels of petroleum in the groundwater and lowered the environmental risk, but the most recent tests concluded that contamination still exists.

In dealing with the contamination and facing the ensuing financial costs, the Port pursued several court cases against former attorneys and insurers regarding insurance policies.

The Port settled with its former environmental law specialist for $300,000 in 2012, claiming that he made no efforts to find pre-1986 policies that would have provided contamination coverage.

For similar issues, the Port also settled with another former attorney for $50,000 and several insurance agencies for $550,000.

Thane Tienson, an environmental attorney who was representing the Port in the matter, died of a heart attack last year.

Tienson's law partner, David Blount, who also represented the Port, recently retired.

"It feels like this issue of AOC4 has been this dark cloud that has been hanging over the Port for a long time and we knew we had this liability hanging over our heads," Isom said. "To get to the point where we are getting these things taken care of and we're moving the organization forward I think is important."

Next steps

After a number of potential solutions were broached over the course of negotiations, the Port, oil companies and the Department of Environmental Quality eventually agreed upon a broad scheme to tackle the contamination in 2019.

The selected plan will include excavation of the contaminated soil and the installation of a permeable cap and a reactive barrier to prevent groundwater from reaching the surface water. Specifics of the plan still need to be designed.

In 2020, the Port settled with the oil companies for $2.9 million. The settlement details that McCall will pay the Port $1.55 million and Exxon $1.35 million, with the Port defending and indemnifying the oil companies against future claims regarding the cleanup.

While the total cost of the project is not yet set in stone, the Port still expects to shell out a significant amount as monitoring becomes necessary over time.

Isom said the agency would be aggressive in pursuing grants for the project.

The Port, in a partnership with the city, recently adopted a master plan for redevelopment in Uniontown, just down the waterfront from the contamination.

City Councilor Tom Brownson said during a City Council meeting this month that the cleanup was a long time coming and "that's not only important for the Port, it's important for Astoria because that's a piece of property that can be developed and used for something more productive."

Isom noted that environmental cleanup was the priority for the contaminated area, with or without future development.

In the meantime, Isom expects permitting to take up the next 18 to 24 months, with construction beginning shortly after.

"This is a message that we do take our role as good stewards of the environment seriously ... It further helps to develop the trust within the community that the Port can be relied upon and we're being responsible managers of this public asset," Isom said.