The California toxic substances agency has ordered the cleanup of a site in the Central-Alameda neighborhood of Los Angeles, citing what “appears to be a major source of contamination” that “may present a substantial hazard to human health.”

Four Star Chemical and American Labs operated in the late 1970s and 1980s at 5701 Compton Ave. handling hazardous waste. When the site was last tested, solvents were found in the soil below the pavement and down 150 feet. The company has been closed for 38 years.

“You smell all types of stuff around here,” said Barry Jenkins, a resident who has lived in the neighborhood for more than 50 years. “It smells like a chemical.” It’s nauseating, he said.

The businesses had two 3,000-gallon waste storage tanks on site and an additional 4,000-gallon tank for treating waste. There also was waste stored in drums.

Separated only by a gated alley, the fenced-off facility is about 100 feet from the nearest home. A Google Maps image shows children’s play equipment outside that home, and on a recent visit there was an above-ground pool.

Across the street is an 8.5-acre historic South L.A. oasis — Augustus F. Hawkins Nature Park.

The language of the order from the Department of Toxic Substances Control is urgent. Yet the most recent testing at the site was 25 years ago. The test results appear in blurry tables in pdfs. Those tables, plus a hard-to-decipher map dating to the same time, show high levels of a carcinogenic chemical on the property and extending beyond it.

Specifically, that 2001 testing showed the carcinogenic solvent and dry-cleaning chemical perchloroethylene, or PCE, in the soil at levels as high as 6,658 micrograms per liter, said Alysa Pakkidis, information officer for the agency.

That’s 14 million times as much as can safely be in indoor air, according to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The Times requested from the agency — but did not receive — the level considered safe in soil.

In an email, the state toxics agency also noted other contaminants of concern: 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE), chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene (TCE), Freon-113, and 1,1-dichloroethane.

Blayne Hartman, an expert in vapors such as PCE, said that to understand the risk to those nearby, homes would have to be tested. He said it is likely that vapor could be present beneath homes, depending on the flow of groundwater.

“Certainly some of those homes will have some type of vapor intrusion risk, really the only way to know for sure is to go test the home,” he said.

State documents say structures within 100 feet of subsurface pollution may be at risk. The state says it is unclear how many people in the community could be affected.

Once the current site owners do a facility investigation, the agency will know how to proceed with cleanup, “which may, if necessary, include testing nearby homes,” Pakkidis said.

No homes have been tested yet.

“If immediate threats to public health are discovered,” DTSC will require the property owner to act, she said.

The agency says this is not the first time it has attempted to have a responsible party investigate and clean up the property. It pressed for an investigation in 1996, when volatile compounds were found in the soil and soil gas.

After the report where that finding was made, the state officially closed down and fenced off the facility.

Previous owners of the American Labs Inc. facility did not fulfill agreed cleanup obligations, Pakkidis said.

“Efforts to identify the responsible party were hindered by ownership transitions and liability disputes, which delayed DTSC’s enforcement activities,” she said.

Rhine now owns the property.

In June, it signed an agreement with the agency committing it to on- and off-site testing of groundwater and soil. Rhine also must propose a cleanup plan.

“We were a little bit naive when we bought the property. We didn’t fully understand the scope of what needs to be done,” said Chris Mathys, Rhine’s manager.

The investigation and cleanup process could be expensive and take years to complete, he said. With the previous owners gone, Mathys said that the situation was “inherited,” but the company is ready to “remediate the property.”

Rhine said it is not related to any previous owners of the site.

“This is a site that for some reason slipped through the cracks,” Hartman said.

Someday, you might be able to ride a bike from the western San Fernando Valley to Long Beach along the Los Angeles River. But not yet.

The longest unfinished stretch is the eight miles from Elysian Park through downtown to Maywood. For decades, advocates of the path have tried to complete those eight miles along the concretized river.

Yet a decade later, the unrideable gap remains. The ambitious project remains mired in planning and bureaucratic complications, with groundbreaking still two years off and the cost nearly tripling to more than $1 billion — almost $24,000 per foot — documents reviewed by The Times show.

It looked like the prospects for the bike route to the sea were getting serious after Angelenos enthusiastically passed a half-cent tax for transit projects in 2016 that earmarked $365 million for the L.A. River Path.

At the time, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the lead on the project, priced out a simple path on one side of the river.

But by last year, the proposed designs were much wider and added seven pedestrian bridges. They also included sections where the path would be elevated above the ground, supported by beams. The changes responded to community input and comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and L.A. Department of Water and Power, among others. Estimated completion of the initial phase is not until 2031.

Navigating the web of nearby structures, like active rail lines and historic bridges, is part of what makes the construction so complex, Metro says. An original $75 million set aside for unforeseen expenses in 2016 swelled to $309 million last year, and the rising cost of construction also added to the high price tag.

Advocates for the path say this grander plan would be great, if there were a way to pay for it.

Yuval Bar-Zemer is a board member with Streets for All, a group that advocates for safer streets in L.A. He also is a downtown loft developer and commissioned studies that helped inform a far less expensive option that would run down near the flowing river, rather than up above. The path would be unusable during heavy rains, but Bar-Zemer and others say that would be less than 20 days each year.

This option was included in Metro’s initial scoping of the path in 2016 but has since been dropped, with the agency citing safety concerns. Bar-Zemer contends that safety features could be installed to make sure pedestrians have enough time to exit the pathway if water rises swiftly. He says he’s spent $350,000 of his own funds in engineering studies and advocacy to advance the path.

A pedestrian walks with an umbrella on the L.A. River Path near Lewis MacAdams Riverfront Park.

“The benefits are so obvious, it’s such a home run and such a low-hanging fruit that for me, it’s like criminal not to make it happen,” he said.

Currently, bikers headed southbound run out of path where Riverside Drive crosses the L.A. River at Egret Park. From there, they’re forced to weave through high-traffic streets in neighborhoods including Lincoln Heights, Chinatown, Downtown L.A. and Boyle Heights before they find the path again in Vernon.

“It’s a huge chasm,” said Michael Schneider, founder and chief executive of Streets for All. He called the gap in the L.A. River path “a shame because it’s an otherwise amazing resource.”

Some 76,000 residents live within walking distance of the proposed path, and a million within three miles of the L.A. River, according to Metro estimates from 2022. Around 17% of working-age people who live within a bikeable distance already walk, bike or take transit in their regular commute.

An aerial view of downtown Los Angeles and the Sixth Street Bridge amid an unfinished eight-mile gap in the L.A. River Path.

More recent numbers could be higher since high fuel prices have motivated many to use transit, bikes, e-bikes and scooters. The path also could provide recreational benefits to an area that has some of the most limited access to green space in Los Angeles.

Metro had the eight-mile gap on its list of 28 projects it wanted ready for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. As costs soared, it quietly was taken off the list.

Yet there are recent signs of progress for the L.A. River Path.

In late May, the Metro board voted to create a committee that brings together all the players needed to push it to toward completion.

The Los Angeles River runs under the Sixth Street Bridge amid an unfinished eight-mile gap in the L.A. River Path in downtown Los Angeles.

Mayor Karen Bass chairs the Metro board. Despite the project’s stagnation, she continues to convey optimism.

“Angelenos voted in 2016 to make the L.A. River Path path a reality, and Mayor Bass is marshaling the resources necessary to eliminate further distraction that have threatened the project’s pace and cost,” her office said in statement.

Metro staffers are reviewing comments on the draft environmental impact statement, the agency said. They intend to recommend a path forward in the fall.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a complaint Thursday alleging that a cohort of the companies that make “forever chemicals” partook in a massive corporate shell game to defraud the state and others.

In an amendment to a 2022 lawsuit filed by Bonta against the makers of these chemicals, the state now alleges that several DuPont spin-off companies — New DuPont, Corteva, Chemours and Qnity Electronics — worked together to create a “fall guy” company designed to take the financial hit stemming from several multibillion-dollar pollution lawsuits while keeping the companies’ most valuable assets out of reach.

“The DuPont Defendants cannot game the system by illegally moving assets out of reach, dodging liabilities for the harm they have caused, and calling it restructuring,” Bonta said in a statement. “I look forward to ensuring that these companies are held accountable for PFAS pollution and that their assets cannot be hidden behind corporate walls while their responsibilities are left behind.”

The Second Amended Complaint, as the new amendment is called, was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Thursday.

DuPont did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

In 2022, Bonta sued 20 chemical manufacturers, including 3M and DuPont, alleging the companies knew about the dangers of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances — or PFAS — when they made and/or sold products containing them. The suit also claims the companies failed to warn the public about the environmental and health risks of those chemicals and in many cases concealed the risks.

That lawsuit remains active and ongoing.

PFAS chemicals are found in a variety of consumer items, including food packaging and cookware, and are linked to cancer and other illnesses and health risks such as developmental defects, infertility and reduced bone density in children.

They are resistant to environmental degradation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency and hundreds of scientific studies. They have also been found in the bloodstreams of 98% of people tested, as well as in wildlife, fish, water — including rivers, lakes and nearshore waters — and soil.

Data from the State Water Resources Control Board show PFAS chemicals are in drinking, ground and surface waters in the state. They’ve been detected in at least 146 public water systems serving 16 million Californians, as well as in aquifers that provide millions of Californians with water through unregulated domestic wells.

According to a news release from Bonta’s office, the fraudulent DuPont scheme worked like this: By 2013, the original, “Old” DuPont company knew it faced billions of dollars in environmental cleanup costs and legal damages due to its PFAS products. To protect its assets and make itself appealing for a merger with industry giant Dow Chemical, the Old Dupont company initiated a multi-phase restructuring plan, which it called “Project Beta.”

Bonta referred to the original DuPont company as “Old Dupont” and a newer version as “New DuPont” in his filing.

It started with the creation of a company called Chemours, which the Old DuPont company spun off in 2015. The Old DuPont company transferred its PFAS business to this new company and extracted almost $7 billion in cash, stocks and notes from the new company. The new company was also forced to assume all of Old DuPont’s historical PFAS liabilities and sign an agreement to indemnify Old DuPont against them.

Bonta claims this was a sham transaction, leaving Chemours holding the liability bag with no way to pay the environmental debts it would incur should the courts come calling.

Old DuPont merged with Dow Chemical in 2015, and according to Bonta’s claim, the new company, DowDuPont, was again structured in a way that would protect the new company from any remaining PFAS liabilities.

In 2019, the company went through another reshuffling. A “New” Dow was created, which took the materials science assets, as well as a company called Corteva, which took the company’s agricultural businesses. A New DuPont company was also formed.

During this same year, Chemours sued the other DuPont companies, claiming it had been handed a financial time bomb because of the PFAS liability it had been left with. The company alleged the 2015 deal was a sham that set them up for bankruptcy.

In 2021, the companies sat down to resolve the lawsuit. Chemours agreed to drop the lawsuit and waive its right to sue. In exchange, Corteva and New DuPont agreed to split the costs of future PFAS liabilities with Chemours 50/50 — but only up to $4 billion.

Bonta alleges that $4 billion was a gross underestimate of the potential legal damages they were likely to face. The result of the agreement would have capped Corteva and New DuPont’s liability at $2 billion and saddled Chemours with any and everything else — a number he claims is likely to far exceed $2 billion.

Chemours also had insurance policies that would have helped pay for the PFAS lawsuits. However, Bonta alleges that Chemours sold 100% of those insurance payouts back to its sister companies in 2025 for a lump sum of cash that was worth less than half of what the insurance was actually valued at.

By transferring away its best assets (the insurance) while keeping the massive debt, Chemours was hollowed out so it can’t pay its potential creditors, including California.

To further protect their wealth, New DuPont is accused of continuing to chop up its remaining valuable businesses and separating them. For example, the court filing claims they took their profitable electronics business and turned it into a totally separate, independent company called Qnity.

Bonta claims these restructuring moves violate the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. He is asking the court to stop the companies from selling, spending or moving any more assets or profits that belonged to the original, or Old DuPont company, in order to ensure that California gets its payout if the chemical companies lose the lawsuit.

“Ultimately, the question is whether courts will ‘pierce the corporate veil’ to allow California and other plaintiffs to hold new Dupont and other breakout companies liable,” Albert Lin, a law professor at UC Davis, said in an email.

“Courts are willing to pierce the corporate veil if spinoff companies are created to engage in fraud or wrongdoing or to evade legal obligations,” he said. “Allegations that Dupont undercapitalized or underinsured Chemours and other entities can support veil piercing.”