National Clothesline

Bob Heidinger, 87, has Alzheimer’s disease and is blind in one eye. His wife, Jean, 83, needs shoulder surgery and has bone marrow cancer. Unfortunately for them, their physical ailments aren’t the only trials they may face.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s office has filed a $1.4 million lawsuit against them and a handful of other Chico residents under the federal Superfund law enacted over 20 years ago.

The lawsuit targets mostly ex-drycleaners who are accused of pouring perc down the drains of their businesses and poisoning the city’s water. In fact, the city of Chico is also named on the lawsuit because its sewers located in the contaminated area are cracked and leaking.

The Heidingers operated College Cleaners until they sold it about 30 years ago. It was bought by Betty Rollag and her husband, who is now deceased. The couple operated the business on the same site until it was sold in 1986. Rollag is named in the lawsuit, too.

Also being sued are Paul and Vicki Tullius, whose only tie to the cleaning industry is a building they bought in 1988 without knowing its entire history. The site had previously housed a cleaners until 1972; the Tulliuses wanted to use the location to store old cars. Now they lease the building to a homeless shelter.

A distraught Paul Tullius told a reporter for the Sacramento Bee: “I fought in two wars. I thought I’ve done everything right and now — can you imagine getting a bill like this for something we had absolutely nothing to do with?”

According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the agency has spent more than $6 million testing, treating and cleaning contaminated water in Chico.

Jim Tjosvold, a branch chief with the DTSC office, said the contamination was first discovered in 1988, though the perc spills could date back as far as 40 years.

Tjosvold added that Chico’s drinking water supply is currently safe because the agency has cleaned the underground aquifiers that feed it.

Lead prosecutor Deputy Attorney General Rose Fua admitted some sympathy for the defendants in the case: “Whenever you’re suing someone who is older or who ran a mom-and-pop drycleaners, you do have sympathy for them. However, what we’re talking about is the fact that the groundwater in Chico is contaminated with PCE and someone has to pay for cleaning this up. If we don’t find the responsible parties, that means the taxpayers have to clean it up.

“If somebody was 85 years old and they killed somebody, does the law not apply to them?”

The six months of clean-up ended last December. A bill has already been sent to each of the parties named in the suit. One installment totals up to over $27,000; the entire balance due to the DTSC is $1,466,715.59.

In the case involving the Heidingers, the state claims they pumped perc into the sewers during their tenure as business owners between 1952 and 1974.

However, in a signed affidavit, Heidinger states that his machines were self-contained and no perc was dumped down the drain. Instead, it was recycled through his machines and the leftover waste was disposed of in the trash in five-gallon buckets, in accordance to the law at the time.

Speaking through a family spokesperson, Bob Heidinger stated: “It’s shocking that this should happen almost 30 years after we sold the business. I’ve worked all my life. We did nothing to cause this suit. Where is the proof? We never did anything wrong.”

The California Cleaners Association has stopped legislation that would have placed a two-cent “per bag” fee on all drycleaning poly bags.

As part of the language of Assembly Bill 546, the “Litter & Marine Debris Reduction & Recycling Act,” authored by Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-Los Angeles), each poly bag used by a drycleaner would have been subject to a two-cent fee, payable to the State of California.

The bill would impose a litter reduction and recycling fee on disposable cups and bags that contain less than 40 percent post-consumer recycled content. The bill would set a fee of 2 cents per cup and bag with the fees, estimated to be $250-$400 million annually, going to state and local government to help pay for litter collection and prevention.

At a hearing held by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, Mike Belote, lobbyist for the California Cleaners Association, testified concerning the impact of a fee on drycleaners.

“As small business owners, California’s drycleaners are already suffering under the yoke of a broken Worker’s Compensation system, higher taxes, and costly regulations. Two cents may seem like a tiny charge, but it would effectively double the price our cleaners pay for a roll of poly bags,” Belote said.

“Californians are not seeing discarded drycleaning bags littering their highways and beaches,” he added.

After hearing the testimony, Assemblyman Paul Koretz told the audience that he agreed with the points raised by CCA and would exclude drycleaner poly bags from the proposed tax.

“We are thrilled to achieve this victory for all California cleaners” said Sonny Shah, president of CCA. “It is only by cleaners joining CCA that we are able to have a lobbyist representing us and our issues before the legislature.”

Wouldn’t it be great if every cleaner belonged?”