Owner Heard Threats Before ’85 Arson at His Chemical Warehouse, U.S. Says

An owner of the Larry Fricker Co., the Anaheim chemical warehouse whose torching triggered the county’s worst toxic emergency in 1985, had earlier heard a jilted girlfriend threaten to burn him out, federal prosecutors have alleged.

Despite the threat, Paul Etzold, co-owner and president of the Larry Fricker Co., “took no precautions,” according to claims filed in Los Angeles by government attorneys in a federal lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, scheduled for a June trial, government lawyers are trying to force the Fricker Co. to pay $260,000 to reimburse firefighting and cleanup costs. Fricker attorneys have said he should be exempt from responsibility for the costs because the threat of arson was so unlikely as to be impossible to guard against.

3 Days to Put Out Fire

The fire at the Anaheim warehouse storing herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer took three days to put out. The blaze, which began June 21, 1985, forced the evacuation of 10,000 residents.

As the trial nears, both sides have named in court papers Virginia Eatherton, a former Fricker bookkeeper who once lived in Fullerton, as the spurned girlfriend.

She was present at the warehouse at 1421 State College Blvd. minutes before the fire started, court papers said.

Eatherton has never been charged with a crime. She could not be reached for comment.

But her alleged threats against Etzold and his firm, her relationship with the Fricker president and defensive steps that were--and were not--taken to prevent arson are shaping up as key issues in the trial, to be held in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

‘Company of Another Woman’

“On the night of the fire, Eatherton confronted Etzold outside the gate of the Fricker facility while Etzold was in the company of another woman,” according to court papers filed by the government.

“Eatherton became upset and verbally abusive towards both Etzold and his companion. Although accounts vary on exactly what was said, the evidence is convincing that Eatherton made threatening statements to Etzold,” the papers said.

The court filing, prepared by Assistant U.S. Atty. Claudia J. Silbar, added more details about the stormy Eatherton-Etzold relationship.

“In the past, Eatherton had become physically violent towards Etzold, striking him with objects and, on one occasion, spraying him in the face with Mace. She had stolen and damaged property belonging to Etzold and Fricker,” the government’s papers said.

“Despite his knowledge of Eatherton’s capacity for destructive behavior, Etzold got in his car and left Eatherton outside the facility, knowing that he had left a key to the Fricker facility outside the gate in a hiding place. Etzold also knew that Eatherton knew that the key was there,” the papers said.

The fire started “shortly after this confrontation,” Silbar said.

‘Only Employees Had Keys’

Lawyers for Etzold said the warehouse was in good order when he left. Doors were locked and “only employees had keys,” according to papers filed by lawyer Peter Collins Freeman on behalf of the Fricker Co.

“You’re going to find criminalists say you cannot absolutely protect against a criminal act,” Freeman said. “The thrust of the (Environmental Protection Agency’s) position is we knew she had threatened to do these things, and we should have taken precautions.

“Even if you do (take precautions), if they want to do it (commit a crime), they’re going to do it,” Freeman contended. “The other problem is, when do you take people seriously?”

Fricker has reopened, after suffering damage from the fire totaling $262,000. The loss was not insured. The business is thriving, even though it is “the most watched operation in the county,” Freeman said.

For the government, Silbar alleged that Fricker’s old facility in Tustin was vandalized twice. A toxic leak in 1981, which led to the evacuation of 1,800 people, may have been caused by vandalism. And the Anaheim warehouse was twice burglarized, which should have raised questions about the “vulnerability of the facility to unauthorized entry,” according to government papers.

After the 1981 leak, Fricker’s insurers insisted that the firm post a security guard, the government alleged. But none was provided when the firm relocated to State College Boulevard in Anaheim.

Reasonable Precautions

The Fricker Co. has insisted that no additional reasonable precautions could have been taken. The plant complied with all zoning and safety requirements and had been inspected shortly before the fire, he has said, so arson was uncontrollable and unforeseeable.

Difficulties in fighting the fire--in part because of the lack of complete information on the contents of the warehouse--helped to speed passage later in 1985 of a county law requiring disclosure of hazardous materials.

Freeman said the Fricker Co. has offered in settlement to pay about 10% of the $260,000 in cleanup and firefighting costs sought by the government. Silbar confirmed that settlement talks are ongoing but said it appears that the case will go to trial in June.