It escaped federal Superfund listing because Zeneca used a loophole allowing wealthy polluters to seek state oversight instead of the federal EPA. This US EPA Superfund-qualified site "poses a threat to human and environmental health" and scored very high on EPA’s Superfund ranking, no trivial distinction.

There are over a hundred types of Class 1 hazardous waste in high volumes in both the soil and groundwater here. These include, but aren’t limited to carbon disulfide, sulfuric acid, metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, DDT, PCBs, and a variety of pesticides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, vinyl chloride, and trichloroethylene (TCE), as well as radioactive materials.

The plan—which will remediate the site to commercial, not residential standards—relies on an expired geotechnical report and outdated sea-level rise and health risk assessment information.

We don’t believe this plan—removing less than 2% of the 550,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil, soil vapor extraction, and groundwater treatment, followed by installing a concrete cap over the site—will prevent exposure and potentially harmful consequences.

The remaining toxic waste deep in the soil will undergo an onsite treatment in an attempt to detoxify or immobilize it. However, there’s no substantial evidence showing that the proposed onsite treatments will be effective, especially over the long term.

As for the proposed concrete cap, the site is in a high-risk liquefaction zone, 1.5 miles from the Hayward Fault and within yards of a recently discovered subfault just offshore. Also, sea level rise, atmospheric rivers, and high tides cause the groundwater inland to be pushed upward into storm drains and, during heavy rainfall, to breach the soil surface. A concrete cap won’t stop these events, and flooding will certainly spread contamination beyond the site.

We’re calling for all contaminated soil to be removed (via rail) so the site can be cleaned up to the highest, most health-protective standard. This means digging down to the deepest level where contaminants are and removing that soil completely, replacing it with uncontaminated soil. We call for treating the soil offsite, at a facility that is properly equipped and licensed to process and treat toxic waste to minimize possible negative health and environmental impacts.

We are unalterably opposed to transporting the contaminated soil to Class 1 Hazardous Waste dumps near other frontline communities, such as Kettleman City or Buttonwillow.

Yes. The original agency in charge of the site, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, deemed it a “burdened property” back in 1998. The site’s current regulatory agency, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control, has maintained that status. That means no detached, single-family houses, hospitals, K-12 schools, senior centers, day care centers or ground floor residences may be built on the property, and other residences may only be built following the approval of state environmental agencies.

Richmond has many other sites more suitable for building housing that are closer to public transit and urban amenities like stores, restaurants, and other small businesses.