Tobacco Documents Online

David Roe, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, who helped draf~ the law, agrees t~et "the warning ought to be there on the shelf right next to the product. The small number of people who actually were protected by this system proves It to be the sham ~e said ft was." EWG attor- ney Corash counters that providinS many warnings will result in the op- posite effect o[ what was in- tended, "Instead o[ legitimate '" warnin8s, it will warn people needlessly about everythinS st low risk," ~ The dJsch~8eprovisions o[ ~ • e law make it Illegal for a busi- ness to discharge a si8nlficant amount era listed substance into e source or potential source of drinkln8 water. Generally, If a source with a federal water qual- ity permi~ is in compliance with ~e permit, it is likely to be In compliance wi~'P65,'says War- finer, But the law will be tou8her to comply with for smaller sources not subject to pewits under e~fsting le~', he says. Environmentalists wrote the law to provide the incentive ~or industry to clean up before the ttq deadlines ~a~e ~ffect. which they believe is now happenin8. "'~e believe fndus~v Is quleth, • engaged Jn cleanup ~ many ~f its ~acilitJes" tobeet ~e 20-mon~ ~eriod after which significant ischarses are banned, says EDF's. Fisher. Dew Chemical, for example, has reduced discha~es ~om its Pitts- burg. CaHL plant ~om 2o million Sat/ day to 1 million Sat/day and recyctes the o~an]cs used in the production of chlorine and o~er caustics, says B~ant Fischback, Dew environme~tel ~on- sultant. As more substances ~e listed, Dew will test for waxs to recycle them. "If ~n~ude as a seu~e of drin]~g water that which evewbodv will agree can never be treated'or brought up to state standards," says Corash. Davis ofthe~hemicelindus try coun- cil says his members have spent a lot of time't~lng to tdentt~ the amount of listed chemicals in their waste streams. "Certelnly the industry is SoinS tn the ~ire~tton o~re~o~ul~tton" to meet the ~ischarse requiremems." he sa~s. The lndustr~ sS~ees with ~he So~J ins pollutants but objects to P~5's • '~a~er sp~roe~h to It." which resources ~et could be use~ to wi~ more serious environmentM prob- letup, D~vls ed~. smaIl co~nles will be hit h~ by P65. About two-thir~s o~ his me~be~ship, ~e s~ys. are co~panie~ wl~ ~ewer ~sn 50 employees en~ they have ~ot reSlstere~ shy problems complfence wl~ ~e lew. At the ~ede~l level, chemical sro~ps ~e ~Shting whet the~ belleve ~e costly lebellnS requirements thet the ~li~or. n~ l~w imposes. The ~he~ic~l Spe- filed suit in ~rch ~llestnS that haz~r~ w~ninS ~equire~ents ~or con- sumer. InstRutionel ~n~ indns~rlal produ~s, inclu~inS non~sri~ultur~l pe~tici~as~ e~e preem~te~ by thre~ (ederal lews. A potential toe,block the ~uit ~ removed last wee~ when the ~alffornWs Occup~tionel environmentalists' peHt~on that wa~ into R~ hezerd ~om~unicetion~ lew. ~ut while the chel]enSe~ continue. the lm~le~ent~tion o~ ~e l~w is oee~ing wfth ~ar less m~hem th~n h~ the veer o( ~eniel. the ~ee~ ~ic. ~n~ now ~e ~e~ o~ ec~eptance." in Sacramento OTHER Proposition 65 ~P65) has spawned ~.mi.[e~ ]egis|at~on inseveral otherstates but nonehas yet been enacted. Haw~i. ~assacbuse~, ~ New York ~l have me~es pend~g ~at ~e s~ to But ~e Cocci] of State ~vem- ments (~x~oa. ~) is aot ready to reco~end ~t states adopt P65-~e laws. The #oup's Na~on~ ~ittee on Suggested Legislation cow,tiered ~d ~Jected P65 5vcause of ~e con- ~g ~n~ve~y s~d~gtt,~y$ Debts ~na, ~ector ofpo~ for ~e cocci]. "There w~ concern • at ~er~ ~e s~ll so m~y ~ce~n- flea ~d so much litigation su~und- ~g ~e law ~a~ states ~ i~e~t ~I of ~a~ as well," she says. She predias • at ~e ~up ~H ~e ~e issue up again later when ~ings have settled The ~i]l (H 510~) pen~n8 In ~e Massaehuse{ts legislate was closely patterned a~er ~e law but has g~- noted slgni~e~1 opposi~on ~d its STATES GO SLOW oN SIMILAR futu.re ~s unclear. "There h~s been no groundswell of support for ~e big ~d even suppo~ers have po~ted out much of what it see~ to do dup~tes ~isflng ~ws," says Bob O'Koniews~. a rose.oh ~alyst for ~e Le~slst~'s Nat~ Reso~ces ~mmi~,'whi~ is stud~8 ~e bill "'Fo~ e~p]e, ~e bill =e~ s~ct mpo~ng ~q~m~ . on pesti~de ~siducs but we ~eady have s~l~ ~les ~ ~is ~a," he ~ys. En~ro~en~ ~oups, w~le ~ey ~ppo~ ~e bill, say ~at mu~ work needs to be done to so,an ~dus~ opposi~on. T~d ~t end. ~dus~ ~d en~o~ent~ ~ps ~ounced ~e~ supppo~ ~s week of to~ ~e ~du~on ~d ~e~ lsslslation ~at b ~ed a~ some s~e go~s ~ H ~109. Its bold ~o~ Is to waste gate.ted by ~d~ by The bi~ would ~te a ~e fee e~e~ed to ~se SS ~lio~ ye~ to pay for ~on of ~e me~u~. ~e 2,4~ l~gest users LAWS toxic chemicals would file annual inventory reports with the state, and firms would be required to figure out how to meet the waste reduction goal. "By reducing the generation of toxics. th.is bill should preclude the need fo~ the kind of labeling requirements of 5109.*' aays Maz~or~e Ah of Lhe Massa- chusetts Public interest Research Croup.John Gould. president of Asso- ciated Industries of Massachusetts. says,"A yam" ago, t]:d.s kind oJ" coopers- • tire announcement of a mutually ceptable place of legislation could only have been described as • famasy," He credits Monsanto and Digital Equip- ment Corp. executives vdth major role s in putting together the legislation. A~i. however, opposes H The C.,alifomle proponents of • ~'e not necessa~ly eager to spread PS5 just yet. Says David Roe of ~e Environ- mental Defense Fund: "We want the law to weather the challenges and be accepted herebefore encouraging other ~tates" to adopt stmIlex laws. T109311046