United Heckathorn Superfund Site: Proposed Community Cleanup Plan Background: From 1944 to 1966, chemical companies at the United Heckathorn site in the Richmond
Inner
Harbor
discharged
DDT
and
dieldrin
into
the
Lauritzen,
Parr,
and
Santa
Fe
Channels.
A
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)-directed
cleanup
in
the
mid-1990s
failed:
contamination
has
exceeded
cleanup
goals
every
year
since
1999,
and
the
channel
now
has
more
DDT
than
before
the
cleanup.
The
agency
has
been
developing
a
second
cleanup
plan
since
2012
and
intends
to
release
a
draft
in
late
August
2026
for
public
comment.
The Problem : The EPA is required to meaningfully involve the community in developing the cleanup
plan,
yet
they
have
stated
they
won’t
share
their
ideas
until
the
formal
comment
period
begins.
This
contradicts
their
own
public
participation
policy
of
including
community
input
during
the
planning
process,
through
a
two-way
dialog.
This
places
an
undue
burden
on
a
community
that
has
already
endured
over
80 years
of
persistent
cancer-causing
contamination,
and
has
waited
more
than
13 years
for
a
second
cleanup
that
finally
delivers
a
lasting
solution.
Why the previous cleanup failed: The first cleanup was poorly designed and executed, with inadequate
oversight
and
quality
control.
Likewise,
the
community
was
minimally
involved
in
the
process.
As
a
result,
cancer-causing
DDT
and
dieldrin
remain
in
the
soil,
sediment,
water,
and
fish,
so
much
so
that
a
“Do
Not
Eat”
fish
advisory
has
been
posted
since
2011
in
the
affected
area,
but
is
not
enforceable,
nor
is
voluntary
compliance
being
monitored.
Where pollution remains: The EPA has identified several contaminated areas requiring cleanup: •
Underwater sediment near structures with pilings •
Drainage pipes •
Soil and sediment along riprap-covered shoreline However, we believe additional contaminated source areas have not been fully considered, particularly:
•
Capped contaminated soil areas on higher ground •
Contamination underneath some buildings
Community response: Since the EPA isn’t providing genuine early engagement, a coalition composed
of
Richmond
Shoreline
Alliance,
SF
Baykeeper,
and
the
Sierra
Club
SF
Bay
Chapter
is
proposing
our
own
vision
for
an
acceptable
cleanup
plan.
Proposed cleanup approach: The key strategy is to work in relatively dry conditions after isolating the
contaminated
area,
then
systematically
remove
all
contaminated
materials,
rather
than
attempting
to
work
underwater.
We
propose
the
following:
Step 1: Isolate and drain the channel Build a temporary waterproof barrier (caisson) across the mouth of the Lauritzen Channel to separate
it
from
the
Santa
Fe
Channel.
Then
pump
out
the
water
so
crews
can
work
in
a
relatively
dry
environment.
This
approach
avoids
underwater
dredging,
which
would
continuously
disturb
and
spread
contamination.
Step 2: Completely remove all materials Remove all pile-supported structures/wharfs, pilings, riprap material and debris, contaminated sediment,
and
contaminated
soil
from
the
channel
sidewalls
and
upland
areas.
Excavate
the
sidewalls
until
clean
material
is
reached,
adding
supports
to
prevent
potential
cave-ins.
Remove
any
structure
on
higher
ground
that
has
contamination
underneath
and
remove
corresponding
contamination.
Locate
and
remove
any
pipes
that
could
leak
potential
residual
contamination
back
into
the
channel.
Remove
and
sample
any
underground
cavities
and
buried
debris
discovered
during
excavation.
Step 3: Address seeps and groundwater Construct a continuous perimeter concrete barrier/retaining wall around the Lauritzen Channel (three
sides).
Behind
the
continuous
perimeter
barrier,
construct
a
comprehensive
groundwater
collection
and
treatment
system
to
prohibit
further
uncontrolled
groundwater
contamination
from
reaching
the
channel.
Step 4: Dispose offsite All contaminated materials must be removed and disposed of offsite. Leaving capped material in place
is
not
a
permanent
solution.
Step 5: Rigorous post-cleanup monitoring Implement a rigorous post-cleanup monitoring program including shellfish tissue sampling on transects
from
the
cleanup
site
to
the
San
Francisco
Bay,
and
tissue
testing
of
fish
species
commonly
caught
by
fishers,
to
monitor
the
cleanup’s
long-term
effectiveness
and
the
safety
of
local
fishing.
Step 6: Protect workers Under CERCLA (otherwise known as the federal Superfund Act), Responsible Parties are legally obligated
to
cover
all
costs
of
cleanup,
which
should
include
fair
compensation
for
workers
whose
employment
is
affected
by
work
stoppages
during
remediation.
Worker
protection
is
part
of
the
cost
of
cleanup.
Bottom line: The failure of past cleanup efforts demonstrates the urgent need for a lasting solution.
Leaving
contaminated
materials
in
place
is
not
viable—it
poses
continued
risks
to
the
environment,
public
health,
and
future
site
use.
A
complete
cleanup
is
essential
to
resolve
the
problem
at
its
source
and
avoid
future
consequences.
Environmental cleanup doesn’t prohibit reuse; it facilitates and enhances reuse.
Learn more at richmondshorelinealliance.org.