Local man still dealing with cleanup site

Widlund’s bill now more than $600,000

Chuck Widlund is still technically on the hook for a bill that has now reached more than $600,000 for testing that was done on a property he bought when it came to preparing for the toxic cleanup of the site.

“They haven’t said they’ve taken me off the hook,” said Widlund about the state officials he’s working with in trying to resolve the matter. Widland, Rachel Ray of State Assemblyman Devon Mathis’ office, and state officials all met on a conference call last Wednesday, January 25, to address the matter.

Widlund described the state’s direction when it comes to trying to resolve the matter as “they’ve dropped back 10 and punted. They want to regroup.”

Widlund, who lives in Montgomery Ranch near Springville, received a letter from the state Department of Toxic Substances Control 10 years after he bought the property at 309 South Main Street in Porterville requesting that environmental sampling be done at the site. Eight years after receiving that request the state stuck him with a bill of more than $500,000 for the environmental sampling that was done.

Widlund has been trying to resolve the matter ever since last year. Widlund was billed for work done from March 1, 2014 through March 31, 2022.

The original bill Widlund received on May 31 of last year for the testing was for $526,735.71. Since that time the interest has increased the bill to more than $600,000. But Widlund said the state has at least been able to stop the interest from accumulating on the bill.

The obvious resolution is for Widlund not to have to pay anything but the state is continuing to go through its process to sort the matter out.

Widlund has been caught in the middle of an issue the state has been dealing with since the early 1990s. The state had numerous manufactured-gas plants more than 100 years ago. Those manufactured-gas plants have created hazardous toxic chemical residues that have had to be cleaned up.

The Los Angeles Times did a story in 1995 that

referred to 42 sites in which contamination was removed as a result of manufactured-gas plants. One of the sites the Times referred to was in Porterville.

It’s believed Southern California Gas paid for the cleanup of that Porterville site. Southern California Gas paying for the cost of the testing and cleanup of the Widlund’s property also could be an option since it was one of the companies that operated the Porterville Manufactured Gas Plant at the site. The property now really can’t be used for anything.

The state also actually began the process of the cleanup of the site last year which Widlund said he found out about after the conference call. So Widlund said he does have an issue with the lack of transparency from the state and he said a state official in the conference call admitted the state could have been more transparent.

But Widlund also stressed he was pleased with the conference call. “It was a pleasant call,” he said. “I felt pretty good about it.”

Widlund also said a state official admitted in the conference call “we probably shouldn’t have sent out a bill that shocked everybody. Our goal is not to send senior citizens into bankruptcy.” But Wildlund did say he still has an issue with the way the matter was originally handled. He said he worked in construction and if anyone had done something like sending the bill he received, “they would have been fired.”

DTSC actually as a draft removal action workplan, RAW, to clean up the site at 309 South Main. As far as the status of the cleanup of the site, the draft action plan from March 2022 is still listed on the DTSC website.

DTSC did invite public comment on its draft RAW for the site. The letter announcing the draft RAW states the former Porterville MGP was operated at the site in the early 1900s by a succession of several companies. The site was used to produce manufactured gas through a process known as oil gasification using crude oil. The letter states historical environmental investigations conducted at the site and cleanup of the Socalgas, Poterville MGP parcel in 1993 indicate that elevated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHS, total petroleum hydrocarbons, TPH, oil and grease and metals impacts were concentrated in the former lamp black storage area. Lamp black is a waste product of MGP productions.

There was a 30 day public comment period on the draft RAW that was held from March 30 to April 28 last year. The letter stated DTSC could also hold a community meeting upon request.

When it came to the cleanup options the letter stated “The goal of the proposed removal action is to ensure that the remedy is to protect human health and the environment.”

The letter stated four options were considered including no action, institutional controls, soil excavation or surface barrier installation.

“Based on carerful analysis, alternative three, soil excavation is proposed for the site,” the letter states. “This alternative is protective of human health and the environment.”

The letter also stated soil removal was a permanent solution and could be done at a “reasonable cost.” The letter states with approval 110 cubic yards of soil impacted with PAHS would be removed for off-site disposal.

“Confirmation soil samples will be collected during the excavation to confirm achievement of proposed clean up goals and a Remedial Action Completion Report will be prepared to document the cleanup,” the letter states.

During the pending cleanup the letter states notices will be posted to direct visitors to the site manager, fencing would restrict access, water would be sprayed to control dust and the air quality would be monitored to ensure dust containment levels remained at safe levels. The letter also stated traffic control would be provided if needed.

In addition the letter stated DTSC the proposed draft RAW met California Environmental Quality Act requirements and the project wouldn’t have an significant impact on public health or the environment.

“DTSC encourages public participation in the decision-making process,” the letter states. “Before issuing a final approval DTSC will consider all public comments and make any necessary revisions to the draft RAW.”

The letter also stated a response to public comments would be posted online and mailed to everyone who made a comment.