the online chemical information market here and abroad/' Dialog has followed up with a campaign aimed at its customers and at ACS Council members. It mailed an almost identical "special message" to members of both groups justifying the suit and asking for their support. This letter claims that many ACS members and CAS customers question CAS's policy and tactics. Dialog also delivered copies of the suit to each ACS board member at the time of its filing. These tactics by Dialog "clearly indicate an attempt to intimidate ACS governance into capitulating to some or all of its demands, and an attempt on its part to divide the society," charge the four ACS officials. Dialog's letter to the councilors was "legally and ethically inappropriate," they add. "Dialog has no legitimate basis for contacting any of you or any member of the ACS governance concerning the lawsuit. . . . We will not be intimidated into sacrificing the society's future." Moreover, they say, ACS attorneys are studying a possible countersuit against Dialog, including violations of its license agreement with CAS. "In fact," the officials charge, "there is some reason to believe that the Dialog lawsuit may have been a preemptive strike in anticipation of a lawsuit" by ACS. The two ACS messages do not attempt a point-by-point rebuttal of Dialog's allegations. A detailed response is being prepared for submission in court. ACS's initial response is due June 27, but an extension can be requested. However, Crum's message does seek to refute Dialog's central claim. This is that ACS has a "contractual obligation" to make all CAS databases "available at fair and reasonable prices to third parties such as Dialog," because ACS developed the databases "with the aid of more than $15 million in federal subsidies," particularly from the National Science Foundation. This claim of a "taxpayer-subsidized database" is "patently false," Crum says. CAS is fully in compliance with all terms of federal grants and contracts, which were completed 15 to 25 years ago, he adds. Richard Seltzer
Firms sued for polluting California waters In a venture into uncharted legal seas, the U.S. and the state of California have sued under the Superfund law eight firms for polluting the waters and injuring the marine life off the Southern California coast. The suit, filed at Federal District Court in Los Angeles, is unique for its size and.scope, says a spokesman for the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, one of the plaintiffs. He explains that the firms could be required to pay tens of millions of dollars to restore the damages by their dumping of DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and monochlorinated benzene (MCB). Five of the firms named either owned, operated, or inherited liability for the so-called Montrose plant in Los Angeles, which manufactured DDT from 1947 to 1982. The plant, according to the suit, was not only the largest producer of DDT in the U.S. but also the last—producing DDT for export even after it was banned in the U.S. in 1972. The plant was operated by one of the defendants, Montrose Chemical Corp. of California, now defunct, a joint venture formed in 1946 by Montrose Chemical Corp. of New Jersey and Stauffer Chemical Co. The New Jersey Montrose subsequently merged with Chris-Craft Industries Inc., another defendant, which the suit says actively participated in the production of DDT. Stauffer Chemical Co. became part of Stauffer Management Co., another defendant, which in turn was purchased by another defendant, ICI American Holdings Inc., in 1987. Thus, ICI, even though it never produced DDT, is through its subsidiary Atkemix Thirty Seven—the fifth defendant—the current owner of the Montrose facility and successor by merger to Stauffer Chemical's liabilities. ICI disputes the government's claim, which is premised on untested theories of successor liability, says Tom Del Signore, an ICI spokesman. He characterizes the suit as a very complex legal matter involving many novel scientific and legal is-
sues that require new principles of law to be established. He predicts it will take years to resolve. However, Del Signore says that to the extent that there is any liability on the part of ICI, insurance will cover at least part of the company's risk. The suit also charges Westinghouse Electric Corp. with discharging PCB-contaminated wastewater into the Los Angeles County Sewer District Collection System and from there into the ocean. Potlatch Corp., which operated a plant manufacturing paper products until 1979 in Pomona, Calif., is charged with the same offense, as is Simpson Paper Co., which purchased the plant from Potlatch. Janice Long
Controversy continues over asbestos risk The acrimonious national debate over how to deal with asbestos in buildings continued last week at a House hearing called to consider continuation of federal aid for removing asbestos from schools. The Transportation & Hazardous Materials S u b c o m m i t t e e of t h e House Committee on Energy & Commerce met to hear opinions on a bill that would reauthorize the 1984 Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act (ASHAA). Under that law, which expires this year, the Envi-
Luken: leave it or stir it up? June 25, 1990 C&EN 5
