Prop. 65 Violations Alleged by Environmental Groups : Safety: Complaint names products allegedly containing cancer-causing chemicals that are sold without mandated warnings. At least one manufacturer plans to contest action.

Fourteen brands of paint stripper, spot remover and water repellent products contain cancer-causing chemicals and are sold without the consumer warnings required by law, two environmental groups charged Thursday in an enforcement action filed under Proposition 65.

The Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club charged that some of the products contain a cancer risk 100,000 times higher than the standard set by California under Proposition 65, the antitoxics law passed by voters in 1986.

If found guilty of violating the law, the manufacturers and distributors of the products could face fines totaling millions of dollars.

But at least one of the manufacturers said it will contest the action, noting that its studies show that its products do not pose a significant risk to consumers.

The products identified in the complaint contain large quantities of methylene chloride or perchloroethylene, two solvents that were identified by the state more than two years ago as carcinogenic. When the products are used, environmentalists said, the solvents evaporate and can be breathed by the person using them.

“The consumer has no need to face these risks,” said Carl Pope, conservation director of the Sierra Club. “Our investigators were easily able to buy alternate products that do the same job without either one of these known carcinogens.”

Under Proposition 65, businesses are required to provide a warning to consumers if their products pose a significant risk of cancer. Violators can face fines of up to $2,500 a day for each incident of exposure.

Among the products named by the environmental groups were four paint removers manufactured by Jasco Chemical Corp., three paint removers made by Standard Brands, one paint remover sold by Sears Roebuck & Co. and K2r Spot-lifter, manufactured by DowBrands Inc., a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co.

Richard Parry, vice president of public affairs for DowBrands, said the spot remover does contain perchloroethylene but in amounts that are too small to pose a health risk to consumers.

“Our testing and restesting has shown there is no need to warn under Proposition 65,” Parry said.

Sears spokeswoman Kathy Gucfa said the company takes Proposition 65 seriously and does its best to comply. In the case of Sears Paint and Varnish Remover, she said, the product label warns that it contains a chemical that can cause cancer in “laboratory animals.”

But environmentalists argued that such a label does not meet the Proposition 65 requirement for “clear and reasonable” warnings. “That might be a good warning if you happen to be a laboratory animal,” said David Roe, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, “but it doesn’t meet the ‘clear warning’ test of Proposition 65.”

Under the law, state and local prosecutors have 60 days to decide whether to take over the case. If no government agency intervenes, the environmental groups can take the companies to court and receive a share of any fines imposed.

In the past, environmentalists and Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp successfully used a Proposition 65 enforcement action to induce Gillette Co. to remove a cancer-causing chemical from its Liquid Paper Correction Fluid. In a separate action, they also forced 25 tobacco companies to provide cancer warnings for cigars, loose-leaf tobacco and pipe tobacco.