Template revised January 10, 2019.
COMMISSION
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Item No.
8h
ACTION ITEM
Date of Meeting
March 24, 2026
DATE : March 2, 2026
TO: Stephen P. Metruck, Executive Director
FROM: Elizabeth Black, Deputy General Counsel
SUBJECT: Authorization to Execute Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Cleanups Costs at
Terminal 91
Amount of this request:
N/A
Total estimated project cost:
N/A
ACTION REQUESTED
Request Commission authorization for the Executive Director to execute a settlement agreement
with The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) to recover approximately $3,900,000 in costs associated with
the Port’s cleanup of the Terminal 91 uplands.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over several decades, the Port has spent more than $28.5 million on the environmental cleanup of
Terminal 91. The Port is working to recover these costs, as well as estimated future costs, from other
responsible parties who caused or contributed to contamination at the site.
Contamination at Terminal 91 resulted from a variety of sources. From the late 1800s through 1920,
owners of the area included various railroads, land development companies, and private individuals.
The Great Northern Railroad began to develop the area in the early 1900s by filling the area between
the Magnolia Bluff and Queen Anne Hill. Philip Services constructed a tank farm in the 1920s and
operated it as a fuel storage facility in the late 1920s and 1930s. The U.S. Navy acquired the entire
facility in 1942 and operated the tank farm primarily as a fuel and lubricating oil transfer station until
1972, when the Port leased back the consolidated facility and subleased the tank farm to Philip
Services. Philip Services conducted waste oil recovery and wastewater treatment until 1995 when
they ceased operation and performed above-ground closure activities. The tank farm was
subsequently used for fuel storage and blending until 2003 and was demolished in 2005.
Under the proposed settlement agreement, Boeing will pay the Port $3,900,000 for its share of
cleanup costs associated with its contribution of contamination to the site. This matter was further
discussed in privileged attorney-client communications. There are no attachments to this memo.
