Member since Sep 1, 2018


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “The Fight to Clean Up Another Richmond Brownfield

Comment 1
When asked about Zenecas cleanup sites, Richmond residents response is unanimous: the sites need to be thoroughly cleaned up, with all hazardous materials entirely removed. Richmond residents want assurance that they, along with their families and friends, will live their lives in a safe, toxic-free environment, without having to worry about any types of post-cleanup risks or contingencies. And really, who would not?

I find it extremely worrisome that DTSCs toxicologists rely primarily (if not exclusively) on data provided by Zeneca. Zeneca is not an independent third-party and consequently, its data cannot be the main source of reliable numerical figures when choosing an option for a cleanup operation, the outcome of which greatly affects peoples health, now and in the far future.

Barbara A. Lee, Director of DTSC, assures people that she works passionately to ensure the principles of environmental justice. Why, then, is DTSC relying on a polluters data set? It makes no sense to me. In fact, I find it unethical. It is DTSCs duty and responsibility to, first and foremost, protect and defend Richmond residents rights.

Comment 2
The middle-ground cleanup, Alternative 3a, is not an acceptable choice when it comes to thoroughly and permanently resolve the issue of hazardous waste at the Zeneca sites in Richmond. Alternative 3a is certainly more cost effective for Zeneca and DTSC than Alternative 6. Also, 3a is quicker (that's one of the reasons why it's cheaper) and easier to plan, manage and execute than Alternative 6. But the people of Richmond and everybody who came to the Public Hearing I attended unanimously voiced their opinion: we all want a thorough and complete removal of all hazardous waste.

In other words, people want Alternative 6.

DTSC and Zeneca say that this option not be green enough, because it will pollute the atmosphere. According to them, thousands of trucks will be transporting contaminated soil to a TSD facility for treatment, storage and disposal of the hazardous waste. DTSC gives an estimate: 29,000 trucks trips with 15,500,000 miles traveled. Sure thing: that's a lot of carbon dioxide in the air!

However, I would like to point out two important facts:
1. Alternative 6 cleanup will not last forever. With Alternative 3a, cleanup will stick with us like glue. Forever.
2. Reading the document ZENECA_FSRAP-26Mar18-Text_tables-Figs_Intro.pdf, one can easily see that Alternative 6 relies on one mode of transport: land. And also, one type of vehicle: trucks. Many studies show that transporting hazardous waste by trucks is neither the only possibility nor the best way to proceed. In the document, ZENECA_FSRAP-26Mar18-Text_tables-Figs_Intro.pdf, I cannot find a sound explanation for relying exclusively on land transport and on trucks to remove all contaminated soil from the toxic site.

Posted by Oh on 09/01/2018 at 1:44 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories

© 2019 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation