Prop. 65’s Warnings on Toxics Begin

For environmentalists, today marks the beginning of a new era in the effort to curb the use of toxic chemicals in California. For businesses, it signals the start of strict requirements for warning people about the dangers of chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects.

And for the public, today is the day that thousands of warning notices--many bearing vague and alarming messages--will begin appearing in stores, gas stations, neighborhoods, factories, hospitals, and office and apartment buildings.

Throughout the state, businesses are posting signs, mailing letters, placing newspaper ads and setting up toll-free telephone hot lines to warn people about the dangers of products and pollutants that, in many cases, they have been exposed to for years.

Warnings Will Vary

Oil companies will warn motorists that the carcinogen benzene is present in gasoline and its vapors. Most private hospitals will notify their neighbors that they pollute the air with ethylene oxide, a sterilizing agent known to cause birth defects. And many property owners will tell their tenants that their buildings contain hazardous levels of asbestos, a common fireproofing material that causes cancer.

The sudden proliferation of warnings is the result of Proposition 65, the anti-toxics initiative approved overwhelmingly by the voters in 1986. The first warning requirements of the law take effect today for 29 chemicals known to cause cancer and birth defects.

“This is the first time we have really been able to put the responsibility where it belongs--on the businesses using these known, dangerous chemicals,” said David Roe, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund and a principal author of the initiative. “This is the first step on a new path and there’s no turning back.”

Proposition 65 prohibits businesses that employ 10 or more people from exposing members of the public to chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects unless they first provide a “clear and reasonable” warning of the danger. A company can avoid the warning requirement if it can prove that the chemical exposure does not pose a “significant risk.”

Severe Penalties

The penalty for violating the law can be severe: a judge can impose a fine of up to $2,500 a day for each exposure. Furthermore, the initiative encourages private citizens to help enforce the law by permitting any individual to file suit and collect 25% of whatever penalty is imposed.

The McDonnell Douglas plant in Huntington Beach, for example, is not taking any chances. This week, lengthy sign warnings were posted outside all entrances to the plant advising employees and visitors of the hazardous substances that are handled in the plant, and whom to contact for information about them.

“(The signs) just broaden the safety programs we already have here,” said McDonnell Douglas spokesman Tom Williams. “There are a number of toxic chemicals here, and we handle them very carefully. Our employees are trained and retrained to avoid any problems. The only difference is that now we are making the public and our neighbors aware of that.”

McDonnell Douglas will also place advertisements in local newspapers with similar warnings, Williams said.

Shell Oil Co.’s exploration and production plant in Huntington Beach is taking similars steps, a spokesman for that company said. In addition to upcoming newspaper advertisements, the company has posted signs at the entrance gates and within the wire fence surrounding the property.

“Obviously, two-thirds of the (1986) vote felt that the measures required in Proposition 65 were needed, so our main interest right now is to comply with the regulations,” said Shell spokesman Gene Monger. His company opposed Proposition 65, he said, because “we felt that the mechanisms and laws were already in place to protect our workers and the public.”

The 29 chemicals, the first of more than 200 substances covered by the initiative, are so widespread that the new law will immediately affect most segments of California industry.

Benzene, for one, is present in virtually all petroleum products, is found in the air throughout the state and occurs naturally at low levels in many foods. Other chemicals on the list include such commonly used substances as lead, which is known to cause birth defects, and arsenic, hexavalent chromium and vinyl chloride, all of which are carcinogens.

Many businesses have chosen to warn the public of exposure to detectable amounts of a chemical, even if it may not pose a measurable danger. But some have examined their products and manufacturing processes in recent weeks and have concluded that no warnings are necessary because there is an absence of significant risk. Still others have quietly decided to ignore the warning requirements, according to industry insiders.

While business leaders generally have been critical of Proposition 65 and its burdensome requirements, some say that it could eventually help both industry and the public cope with the problem of toxic chemicals.

“We’re trying to do our best to comply with a law that has a lot of uncertainties in it,” said Michael Cardin, manager of environmental regulations at Unocal, the oil company. “In the short run, it means a lot of extra work. In the long run, it has the potential to shake down where we can focus on the important exposures, the ones that can cause cancer or reproductive effects.”

Because of Proposition 65, many tenants of commercial and residential buildings will begin learning that their offices and homes contain asbestos, which is known to cause cancer.

The standard for asbestos set by the state’s Proposition 65 regulations is far tougher than previous federal standards and could mean that warnings are required in nearly every building in which it was used as a fireproofing and insulating material. Asbestos, widely used until the late 1970s, is present in more than half of all commercial buildings and about 20% of all homes.

“It appears this (the state level) is 1,000 times stricter than the EPA standard, so there’s really no way around it for building owners,” said Richard Steffen, an analyst with the Assembly Office of Research.

Hospitals, meanwhile, will be in the awkward position of warning their neighbors that living nearby can be hazardous to their health. Health workers and people who live near hospitals can be exposed to ethylene oxide when the chemical is used to sterilize surgical equipment and then released into the air.

Michael Nolen, director of health facilities for the California Assn. of Hospitals and Health Systems, said most private hospitals will provide warnings by posting signs inside and outside their facilities. Some will also mail letters explaining the danger to people who live nearby.

Hospitals that are run by government agencies, however, will not be required to issue warnings because public agencies are exempt from the initiative.

Most private hospitals in Orange County have yet to unveil their strategies for dealing with the new requirements. Out of eight hospitals contacted by The Times on Friday, officials from only two facilities would comment.

Gail Love, director of Hoag Memorial Hospital in Newport Beach, said that signs (using the type of wording required by the new regulations) have been posted inside the hospital.

She said the community would be informed through newspaper advertisements. She added that the hospital is developing a procedure for responding to questions.

However, Childrens Hospital of Orange County does not plan to modify its policy on toxics to accommodate Proposition 65, a spokeswoman said.

The hospital now puts out an information book for employees who handle toxics products, spokeswoman Alison Driessen said. “The patients don’t come into contact with toxic material, so they are not at risk,” Driessen said, explaining why the hospital deems it unnecessary to post public warnings.

The most controversial warning method has been devised by the grocery industry and retail stores: They will provide warnings only to those consumers who call a toll-free telephone number and ask for information by the brand name of a product.

Will Challenge System

Environmentalist and consumer groups have said that they will challenge the telephone system in court for failing to adequately provide advance warnings to consumers.

Nevertheless, the newly created Ingredient Communication Council has sent more than 60,000 red, white and blue signs to stores throughout the state, providing the toll-free number and warning shoppers that some products may contain chemicals that cause cancer or birth defects. The organization has also placed quarter-page ads in more than 100 newspapers to publicize the hot line.

Callers will reach telephone operators in Omaha, who will connect them to a tape-recorded message that either issues a warning or says that none is necessary.

For the most part, warnings issued by the toll-free line operators will cover non-food items, such as lighter fluid, that may be sold in supermarkets. Most food items will not require warnings because the state’s regulations grant a temporary exception for foods that meet existing federal safety standards. The regulations also exempt foods if the toxic chemicals they contain are naturally occurring.

The state’s oil companies, which campaigned vigorously against the initiative in 1986, are posting thousands of signs at gas stations, either at the pumps or at cashiers’ windows, saying that “detectable amounts” of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects “may be found” on the premises.