Negotiators in reaching the compromise--which legislative leaders will file and the governor has agreed to sign, according to the initiative's support team--have urged voters to vote "yes" on the initiative to show their support for the compromise.

Question 3

Question Three would, if passed, require all packaging used in the state after 1996 to be reduced in size, reusable or made of materials that have been or could be recycled.

This high-profile question is supported by some environmental groups and a number of state officials--including Gov. William F. Weld '66--but has drawn opposition from many economists, employers and labor leaders.

If the law takes effect, all packaging in Massachusetts would have to meet one of the following conditions:

.reduction in size by a least 25 percent every five years;

.reusability at least five times, with at least 50 percent actually being reused;

.composed of at least 25 percent recycled materials;

.composed of materials being recycled at a rate of at least 25 percent;

The law would apply to any container or packaging "used to protect, store, handle, transport, display or sell products," but would not include medical devices or products requiring tamper-resistant packages or certain types of food packaging.

Packaging simply being shipped through the commonwealth is exempt.

Supporters say the initiative forces businesses to meet sensible requirements which many businesses meet already. They also say the proposal would conserve resources, increase recycling levels and jobs and reduce garbage disposal costs.

Michael Sullivan, a campaign coordinator in Beverly, called a "yes' vote on Question Three "both pro-environment and pro-business."

Opponents say that the law would not mandate recycling programs or solve solid waste problems. They say it would set up expensive bureaucratic commissions to investigate packaging and enforce the new rules.

The opponents allege that the new regulations would cost Massachusetts employers $500 million, translating into $230 a year per household in higher prices.

Question 4

Question Four proposes a tax on oils and hazardous materials. The revenue, which supporters say will raise up to $35 million, will be placed into the state Environmental Challenge Fund and be used to clean up hazardous waste sites.

Opponents charge that the pollution tax will simply raise prices on home heating oil for consumers without guaranteeing that the tax money is used to clean up waste sites.