Carolyn Cheng
This year, Sierra Club and partner organizations, including Richmond Shoreline Alliance and SF Baykeeper, have been working to hold the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accountable to conduct a thorough cleanup of the United Heckathorn toxic site, a federally-prioritized, aka “Superfund,” toxic site at the Port of Richmond. We’ve gotten the US EPA and the CA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the California state agency responsible for toxic site cleanups in California, to agree to hosting a series of six community meetings to educate and engage with the community regarding the site, before they release their proposed plan early winter of 2026. The meeting topics included:
- Background and history of the site
- Why the original cleanup in the ‘90s of the site failed
- Assessing human and ecological health risks at the site Cleanup technologies
- The Superfund cleanup process
- Long-term effectiveness of cleanup plans
What important information have we learned from these meetings that will be relevant as we prepare to give feedback on the proposed plan once it goes public?
Background & History of the Site
The site is located at the Port of Richmond in the Lauritzen Channel, an active shipping terminal. The site encompasses both the marine, or underwater area of the channel, as well as the land directly next to the channel, known as the “upland” area of the site. For this round of cleanup, EPA is only undertaking the cleanup of the marine portion.
It was originally polluted starting in the 1940s by companies handling and processing pesticides, including the now-defunct United Heckathorn Chemical Company. In the 1960s, local and state agencies discovered that United Heckathorn’s pesticide tanks were leaking and the company was releasing contaminated wastewater into the channel. In 1970, Heckathorn went bankrupt, and in 1990, the site, due to the severity and complexity of the pollution, became a priority clean-up location for the Environmental Protection Agency, known as a Superfund site. They conducted a cleanup of the site in the ‘90s, including removing soil from the upland/dryland portion of the site and capping it; and dredging the Lauritzen Channel and Parr Canal, a neighboring canal, of contaminated marine sediment.
For more about the background and history of the site, see our article “After Decades, Cleanup of Richmond Toxic Site Within Reach—With Your Help!”.
Why did the original cleanup of the site in the ‘90s fail?
The EPA discovered afterwards that the cleanup of the neighboring Parr Canal was successful, but in the Lauritzen Channel, the level of contamination had actually increased. After several studies, the EPA found that the site remained contaminated for the following reasons:
- Failures during the cleanup process due to the challenging nature of dredging a marine channel, which left contaminated marine sediment behind in the channel
- Contaminated sediment had not been removed from the embankment (sides/walls) of the channel
- There were multiples sources of ongoing pollution into the channel, including contaminated soil flowing into the channel from shoreline erosion, contaminated wood pilings eroding into the channel, discharges from storm drain runoff, and contaminated groundwater seeping into the site.
What are the human and ecological health risks the United Heckathorn toxic site poses?
United Heckathorn was producing and handling DDT and dieldrin, two highly toxic pesticides that can cause liver cancer, premature birth, respiratory impacts, and type 2 diabetes in humans, and can severely impact the nervous system, liver, and reproductive health of wildlife. DDT and dieldrin can accumulate in the bodies of fish and other aquatic wildlife, leading to a higher concentration of these toxics in birds and mammals that eat these fish, potentially disrupting our local ecosystem.
In 2011, the EPA studied the tissue of fish in the Lauritzen Channel and found that fish were contaminated with pesticides and not safe to eat, and the CA Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) issued an advisory to not eat fish or shellfish from the Channel.
Because the site is an industrial site not open to public foot traffic or fishing, the main risk to human health is eating fish, shellfish, or other wildlife that contain DDT or dieldrin that have been contaminated from the Channel but have migrated outside and may be caught at nearby fishing sites. In 2013, fish sampling was done in neighboring Richmond sites. The majority of samples taken showed the fish were safe for consumption per CA state advisory toxic levels. However, DDT levels in mussels remained the same as before the marine portion of the site was dredged, showing the failure of the original cleanup.
There is currently no fish advisory for other sites in the Bay Area, OEHHA only has a fish advisory specific to the Lauritzen Channel, as well as a broader advisory applicable to the San Francisco Bay Area as a whole. Twelve years have passed since this study, and we are wondering if fish and shellfish at other Richmond fishing sites near the channel are safe for consumption, and believe it would be appropriate to conduct another fish study to determine human health risks of eating fish from other Richmond fishing spots near the site.
What is Superfund and the Superfund cleanup process?
Superfund is a US federal program to clean up hazardous waste sites. Superfund sites are designated as federal priorities due to the severity and complexity of cleanup, turning their cleanup over to the US EPA (as opposed to a state agency such as CA Dept. of Toxic Substances Control). Those responsible for the pollution of the site, known as Responsible Parties, must finance and clean up the site in coordination with the EPA. Below is a timeline of where the EPA is at in the Superfund cleanup process, and what we can expect from them moving forward as we prepare to engage with the proposed cleanup plan.
- Fall 2025 - Focused Feasibility study: EPA is currently undertaking a “Focused Feasibility” study, which is a study of cleanup technologies available and determining which technologies, or combinations of technologies, would be appropriate to use for the cleanup of this site.
- Early Winter 2026 - Proposed Plan: Once the focused feasibility study is completed, expected fall of this year, the EPA will incorporate those findings into their Proposed Plan, the proposed cleanup plan, and present it to the community. Keep your eyes peeled in early 2026 for opportunities to raise your voice for a thorough cleanup of the site!
- Record of Decision - feedback from the community on the Proposed Plan is incorporated into a final cleanup plan called the Record of Decision. The EPA will negotiate with the Potentially Responsible Parties, companies and other institutions involved in the pollution of the site who are responsible for paying for and conducting the cleanup.
- Remedial Design - The EPA will design the cleanup in multiple stages.
- Potentially 2028 - Cleanup will begin.
Thanks to our engagement with the community meetings EPA, Sierra Club, and other organizations have co-hosted this year, we’ve learned more about the site, and the EPA has heard some of our questions and concerns. Once the EPA releases their proposed plan early 2026, we’ll have their full plan available to discuss and give feedback on. Sierra Club and partner organizations plan to mobilize the community so the EPA can fully incorporate our ideas and concerns into the plan. Please keep your eye on chapter channels and the events page for opportunities to engage with the EPA, learn about the proposed plan, and share your feedback, questions, ideas, and concerns with the EPA in early 2026. In the meantime, stay posted on chapter channels for more information about the United Heckathorn site, and catch up on info shared at past community meetings on the EPA webpage for the United Heckathorn site. See you in 2026 to mobilize for a safe, healthy, and clean shoreline! If you are interested in volunteering with this campaign, such as through community outreach, posting flyers, tabling at events, doing background research, or helping write educational articles such as these, please email carolyn.cheng@sierraclub.org.