No Time to Waste

There has been a lot of fire and smoke about the toxic-waste issue in this election year. The subject has become highly politicized. But behind the smoke has been some important action.

Four bills originating in the office of Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy have passed both houses of the Legislature and deserve Gov. George Deukmejian’s signature. So, too, do bills sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblyman Dave Elder (D-Long Beach).

In the past year the governor has vetoed a number of the Legislature’s toxic-waste-disposal initiatives, insisting that all aspects of a toxics program should be part of an organized, coordinated approach. The Legislature and the governor so far have failed to agree on a comprehensive program to deal with this critical issue. But that is no excuse for delaying any longer on worthy separate attempts to cope with the toxics that already poison California’s environment, or to find ways of treating additional tons of waste to prevent further contamination.

The Roberti bill, SB 1500, would direct the state Department of Health Services to set new standards for the disposal of hazardous waste materials, requiring in general that they first be treated and that no further disposal of liquid wastes would be allowed after May, 1990.

The Elder measure--AB 49, which is supported by both the Planning and Conservation League and the California District Attorneys Assn.--would establish local toxics-enforcement pilot projects in six California counties, each with a special prosecuting attorney and a trained toxics investigator. The bill also would provide for the training of local toxics investigators and prosecutors.

The four bills in the McCarthy package:

--AB 4000, by Assemblywoman Lucy Killea (D-San Diego), would create the California Foundation for Chemical Technology Assessment, an independent panel of experts that would demonstrate and assess new technologies for treating and disposing of chemical wastes.

--SB 1891, by Sen. Robert Presley (D-Riverside), would follow recommendations of the Little Hoover Commission and the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment in reordering priorities for state superfund cleanup programs to concentrate on sites that provide the greatest health and environmental hazards. The bill’s supporters say that too much emphasis now is given to work on “cost-effective” sites that can be eradicated quickly and cheaply.

--SB 1875, by Sen. William A. Craven (R-Oceanside), would create a voluntary state list of professional environmental-quality assessors available to advise small businesses on the handling of chemical wastes.

--SB 1906, by Sen. Dan McCorquodale (D-San Jose), would establish a $10-million grant program to test and demonstrate technology for the removal of organic chemical contaminants from drinking-water supplies.

Several of the proposals were recommended by the governor’s task force on toxics or were included in the governor’s bond-issue program, which was defeated by the Democratic-controlled Legislature. They may differ in detail from the governor’s program, but the ultimate goal is the same, and these six bills should become law.