Need for Public Backing of Toxic-Waste Planning Stressed at Conference

It’s grim and it’s boring.

And that’s the problem.

Elected officials and the public must realize that no matter how unpopular the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste materials is, development of such a plan cannot be ignored. That was the message a panel of experts gave at a meeting called to discuss how the county can effectively deal with toxic wastes.

“The public has to be persuaded that this is absolutely necessary,” said Hugh Wood, director of the Hazardous Materials Program of the Orange County Fire Department.

Wood said his staff will have a plan for Orange County toxic waste disposal drafted by the end of the year that it will submit to the state Department of Health Services. Public hearings are scheduled for early next year, with approval of the plan by the state agency expected by the end of 1988. Wood was one of four panelists at the conference hosted at a local hotel 1652105332their representatives and consultants have been conducting regular forums to discuss how the county will deal with hazardous waste treatment and disposal in the future. All California counties are required by law to formulate toxic waste disposal plans.

Wood told the audience of 75 that 5,000 companies in Orange County produce 132,000 tons of hazardous waste each year that must be treated and disposed of. However, he said that much additional toxic waste is being produced by smaller, unmonitored companies that illegally flush their hazardous wastes into sewer systems.

Wood also said that about 90% of the 5,000 known companies that produce hazardous wastes are small businesses such as dry cleaning establishments, automotive body shops and photo laboratories. Because of that, he said, it will be costlier in Orange County to develop a treatment an1679844457. . . in that we have so many small businesses producing hazardous wastes,” he said.

However, Wood cautioned that much analysis and study is necessary before the county can “grasp what we have and what our needs are.”

R. Nicholas Hazelwood, a director of a hazardous waste management firm in Torrance and a professor at UC Irvine, said the Governor’s Toxic Task Force was “not realistic” when it said that in a barrel of toxic waste only 35% of the material requires treatment and that once that is done, the remainder is harmless.

To the contrary, Hazelwood said, treatment increases the volume of what must be put in landfills. Most hazardous waste must be treated with chemical additives, thus increasing the volume of material that ultimately goes into a landfill, he said.

However, he said that the major obstacle in developing a workable plan to dispose of hazardous materials is the reluctance of public officials and the public to deal with the problem. “Local government has to take the lead in building any landfill,” Hazelwood said. “If not, you have to walk away from it. It can’t be done otherwise.”

Anaheim Councilman Irv Pickler suggested that a central location for Southern California counties be found to build a suitable landfill to dispose of the hazardous wastes. But Hazelwood said that still would require a major study to determine where the site would be and how far cities would be willing to transport hazardous wastes.

Fullerton Mayor Richard C. Ackerman said problems arise whenever wastes are transported. He was apparently referring to his city’s experience with the McColl dump in Fullerton, which is being cleaned up after a lengthy political battle. Wastes from the World-War-II era dump were originally to be transported to a disposal site in Kern County, but citizens there sued successfully to prevent the action.