Anti-Toxics Conflict Seen by Supporters

Supporters of Proposition 65, the anti-toxics initiative, complained Tuesday that their opponents received more than $1 million from companies that have dumped toxic chemicals at sites that the state is struggling to clean up.

“Those who have contributed much of the pollution in California drinking water are trying to protect their interests with their money,” charged Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, a spokesman for the Yes on 65 campaign.

In their defense, several of the companies replied that they are being held responsible for dumping that was legal at the time, particularly at hazardous waste sites later found to be leaking, such as the Stringfellow Acid Pits near Riverside.

The No on 65 campaign also contended that large numbers of cleanups and fines by state and federal environmental officials--including those directed against the campaign committee’s own financial backers--are proof that the present system for regulating the release of toxic chemicals is working.

“Is there something that Proposition 65 would do that the federal Clean Water Act would not do?” asked Michael Gagan, manager of the No on 65 campaign.

The initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot would require the governor to prepare a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. Businesses would no longer be able to release listed chemicals into drinking water supplies unless they could show that the amounts posed no significant risk. In addition, companies would have to warn consumers and employees of exposure to listed substances.

The measure would also allow citizens to sue violators and grant them a 25% share of $2,500-a-day civil fines if their court actions are successful.

Backers say that the measure is necessary to reverse the incentives in the current system, which they say encourages polluters to battle regulation while continuing to pollute the environment. Opponents counter that the initiative would create great uncertainty for businesses and is unfair because it exempts government agencies.

A Chief Target

One of the chief targets of the initiative’s backers is Chevron U.S.A., which as of Oct. 1 had contributed $237,697 to defeat the initiative, according to the No on 65 campaign finance reports.

In August, the U.S. Justice Department accused Chevron of 880 violations of the federal Clean Water Act at its El Segundo refinery. The company faces as much as $8.8 million in fines for exceeding the amounts of pollutants it is permitted to release into Santa Monica Bay. Chevron has said it has spent $25 million to comply with discharge limits and will spend an additional $22 million.

“Proposition 65 is prophylactic,” Reiner said.

If Chevron had been forced to issue warnings whenever it violated its ocean dumping permit, he contended, the company would have found another way to dispose of the pollutants.

Backers of the initiative note that the No on 65 campaign received substantial contributions from 22 firms that are responsible in whole or part for 32 toxic dump sites on the state’s priority cleanup list. Among the companies are Arco, which contributed $70,000; Dow Chemical Co., $60,000; FMC Corp., $35,000; Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corp., $40,000; Shell Oil Co., $75,000, and Texaco Inc., $70,000.

Recover Costs

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sued a number of companies that dumped hazardous material at Stringfellow in an attempt to recover cleanup costs. A number of those companies also contributed to the No on 65 campaign, including Hughes Aircraft Co., which gave $35,000; Stauffer Chemical Co., $40,000, and McDonnell Douglas Corp., $50,000.

McDonnell Douglas spokesman Don Hanson said Stringfellow “was where the state mandated we put the waste.”

His company has opposed Proposition 65, Hanson said, “because we obviously feel the measure does pose a threat to us and our operation and to our employees.”