Pollution Curbs for Plants Near Schools Sent On to Governor

A bill to protect schoolchildren from the threat of harmful emissions released by nearby factories is on its way to the governor’s desk after being passed overwhelmingly by both houses of the Legislature last week in the waning hours of the legislative session.

The bill, AB 3205, co-written by Assemblywoman Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), will place more stringent air-pollution control regulations on industrial plants that use hazardous materials if they are within 1,000 feet of a school, hospital or convalescent home.

The state Senate voted, 37 to 0, to pass the bill late Wednesday night, after which the Assembly concurred by a vote of 55 to 16.

“This is a major system reform in plugging a lot of gaps in the existing legislation,” Waters aide Stan Diorio said. “I can’t guarantee that this legislation is going to stop accidents, but I can guarantee that it gives (air quality management districts) the tools to prevent accidents.”

The bill was prompted by a release in January at Plato Products Inc., a soldering-tip manufacturing plant in Glendora. Pungent fumes from acetic acid, used in the plant’s nickel-plating operation, escaped through an open door and caused 100 children next door at Arma J. Shull School in San Dimas to suffer headaches, nausea and respiratory troubles.

The bill’s proponents also cited a 1986 case in which 28 students at Tweedy Elementary School in South Gate were hospitalized after inhaling chlorine fumes leaked from a nearby plant.

In the wake of the San Dimas incident, officials of the Bonita Unified School District, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the county Department of Health Services urged legislators to enact greater controls.

“I would like to think this is a clear victory for the children of California,” said Bonita school board member Sharon Scott, who sent letters last weekend to all 120 legislators seeking their support. “It would appear that it was well worth the work and effort.”

Prospects for the bill’s passage were greatly enhanced earlier in the week when it was amended to mollify two groups representing industry that had opposed the measure, saying some of its provisions would result in arbitrary and meddlesome regulation.

Earlier Bills Defeated

Proponents say industry opposition was instrumental in the defeat earlier this year of two similar bills concerning factories and schools--one by Waters, the other by Assemblyman Bill Lancaster (R-Covina). After her previous bill was defeated, Waters was able to reintroduce the legislation by amending another toxics bill by Assemblywoman Sally Tanner (D-El Monte).

Under the proposed law, agencies such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District can investigate complaints from school officials of a potential health threat from a nearby factory and, if they find that a danger exists, require the plant to install pollution control equipment.

Gene Fisher, intergovernmental affairs officer for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) said the proposed law will significantly bolster the agency’s ability to prevent accidental releases of toxic pollutants.

“We have, through this bill, taken a major step forward to anticipate these health risks and take action before there’s an incident,” Fisher said.

Permits Required

The bill will also require cities and counties, before issuing a building permit, to make certain that a firm planning to construct a plant near a school, hospital or convalescent home has received necessary permits from air-pollution control officials.

School officials choosing a location for a new school will be required to determine whether the site is near any potentially hazardous plants. Firms will also be prohibited from building such a plant within a mile of a school without consulting the school district.

As originally drafted, the bill also would have enabled air-pollution control officials to deny a permit for a new plant based on a statistical health-risk assessment and would have given them authority to revoke an existing plant’s permit “if no . . . (other) measure will protect the public health.”

Those provisions were staunchly opposed by the California Manufacturers Assn., which represents more than 800 firms statewide, and the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB), whose membership includes several major oil, chemical and utility companies as well as labor unions.

Risk Studies Doubted

Industry lobbyists complained that health-risk assessments, which estimate the maximum health threat posed by the plant through the use of computer models based on measured emissions, were “scientifically unsound.” They also argued that air quality districts already have the authority to revoke a plant’s permit if it is found to threaten public health, so that additional legislation would be superfluous.

Waters’ staff agreed to remove the provisions last weekend after several days of negotiations with industry representatives. The industry groups changed their position from opposition to neutrality on Monday, and the amended version of the bill was distributed at 4 p.m. Wednesday, hours before the end of the session.

“We were never in opposition to the concept of the bill,” CCEEB President Donald Burns said this week. “It’s just that there were all sorts of things in it that would have needlessly muddied the waters. Now the bill deals with the problem of protecting schoolchildren from harmful air emissions and doesn’t deal with a lot of extraneous issues.”

Diorio credited Scott with helping to bring about the accord with the business groups that paved the way for the bill’s passage.

Two weeks ago, the Bonita school board member called several of the member companies of the council, such as Chevron USA, Atlantic Richfield Co., the Southern California Gas Co. and the Dow Chemical Co., demanding to know whether the firms supported the council’s opposition to the bill.

Firms Got Nervous

“What I told them was that I intended to make public the positions of the individual companies, and that seemed to make them nervous,” Scott said.

Officials of most of the companies Scott contacted told her that their firms had not taken a stand on the bill and were unaware of the council’s position, she said. Nonetheless, several of them called the council’s offices in Sacramento, seeking an explanation.

“These people called me and said, ‘What is going on? I can’t believe what we’re hearing is right,’ ” Burns said, acknowledging that the firms were concerned about being portrayed as insensitive. “On the level that it will be read in the newspapers, how can you be against it? It’s very difficult from a public relations standpoint.”

One company official who called Burns was John Ulrich, public affairs manager for Dow Chemical.

“I asked him to consider the possibility of being directly involved in the negotiations to ensure that the interests of all CCEEB’s members were represented,” Ulrich said. “I think all responsible companies hold the safety of all individuals, the safety of schoolchildren not the least of which, to be very important.”

Lobbyist Replaced

After hearing from the companies, Burns replaced lobbyist Evelyn Heidelberg, who had represented the council in all previous negotiations on the bill. Waters’ staff had complained that Heidelberg’s intransigence had led to a months-long stalemate. Burns also attended all subsequent negotiating sessions.

Diorio called the efforts of a school board member to bring pressure to bear on large corporations “a great study in democracy in action.”

“I think it forced Don Burns to the table and got him to start paying attention,” Diorio said. “It woke everybody up. I think it clearly forced people to get involved who had wanted to stay out of it.”

He added: “She’s raised an important fundamental question of how these (industry) groups operate. These companies do not want to be put publicly on the record on this bill, and that’s the whole reason these committees exist. The companies can say they’re neutral and haven’t taken a position. But in this case, we really put their feet to the fire.”

Deadlines Coincided

The Legislature formally approved the bill two minutes before the midnight legislative deadline, which coincided with the deadline for Plato Products to cease plating at its Glendora headquarters, as required under an agreement it made with the AQMD after the incident. As soon as it receives AQMD permits, the firm will resume plating at a plant in Industry.

Parents of students at Shull School had sought the plant’s closure since 1984, when Plato opened it without first receiving necessary permits from the AQMD.

Dr. Paul Papanek, chief of the toxics epidemiology program for the county Department of Health Services, said the Plato incident--while minor in terms of the health problems suffered by the children--provided important evidence of the need for legislation to prevent factories being placed next to schools.

“You can hardly ask for a clearer example,” Papanek said. “As much criticism as we’ve given Plato, if (the plant) were anywhere else, we wouldn’t have had these problems. . . . A decade ago, we didn’t look so hard at the health effects. We looked at them as the cost of doing business. Hopefully, we’re becoming smarter.”