News Release (C-17-98)

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 525 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 324-9670 FAX (916) 445-5563

For Immediate Release (C-17-98) Contact: Communications Office (916) 324-9670 October 9, 1998

OEHHA Responds to the Sacramento Court Decision Regarding NRDC vs. Wilson

SACRAMENTO -- Today Judge James Ford heard oral argument in the matter of NRDC vs. Wilson (TRI lawsuit) alleging that the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) was not moving quickly enough to complete analyses of over 60 chemicals for listing pursuant to the statutory guideline defined in Proposition 65 regulations.

Since the initial hearing on April 24, 1998, OEHHA staff has been conducting analyses to comply with Judge Ford's earlier Writ to be considered on or after June 30, 1998. OEHHA representatives and representatives of the California Attorney General's office presented substantial documentary and testamentary evidence showing OEHHA's good faith attempts to comply, including introduction of supervening events which had forced OEHHA to reconsider internal priorities to meet competing legal mandates.

OEHHA defined the actual listing of 3 TRI chemicals and the ongoing analyses of the balance of the chemicals since the April 24^th hearing. NRDC referenced Dr. Joan Denton's testimony before the Senate Budget Subcommittee, which estimated completion of the balance of the TRI chemical listings by the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 1998. NRDC brought this Motion setting it for hearing on October 9, 1998.

OEHHA also submitted evidence of supervening MTBE hearings and the extensive public hearings consistent with Dr. Denton's commitments to the Legislature on these issues. Nonetheless Judge Ford granted NRDC's Motion to Compel, giving OEHHA until June 30, 1999 to comply and noting he was basically ordering OEHHA to do what it has already publicly stated it is doing.

It is anticipated that NRDC will follow this Motion with a request for costs for bringing this action, notwithstanding the Judge's comments at time of issuance.

"Fundamentally this appears to be a precursor to a request for court costs to compel an action already underway, which should be aggressively resisted, particularly when we demonstrated to the court quite clearly that we were attempting to comply in the most expeditious manner possible, given the supervening events of the past six months," said

Val Siebal, Chief Deputy Director, OEHHA.

# # #

1998 Releases | Archived Press Releases