The Battle Line on Toxic Wastes

Toxic wastes have been around for a long time, and Californians produce a lot of them--at least 10 million tons each year. Nevertheless, ways to dispose of them are in their infancy. So, too, are the government rules regulating them.

But time is running out for solutions, because landfills for hazardous wastes are almost full, and new federal regulations require that, after May, 1990, all hazardous wastes be treated before being disposed of.

Both the federal and state governments are pushing hard for ways to treat the wastes, and they are making it clear that the search will not be derailed by the “not in my backyard” syndrome.

The city of San Diego sailed into these relatively uncharted, and politically turbulent, waters when it tried to prevent Ogden Environmental Services from burning toxic wastes in a La Jolla research park on a demonstration basis. The city foundered miserably and lost control. Twice, a federal judge overruled the council and sharply criticized its handling of the matter.

Both the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Health Services had approved Ogden’s research and development proposal to burn as much as 438,000 gallons of waste on a maximum of 365 days over a five-year period.

The city had deferred to the state in reviewing Ogden’s application, but when the state approved the test burns without requiring an environmental impact report, city officials tried to change the rules of the game.

First, the council required that Ogden apply for a conditional use permit, which Odgen did. But then the city denied the permit, arguing that there were too many unanswered health and safety questions. Ogden cried foul and went to federal court for relief. U.S. District Judge Judith Keep ruled that the city had no valid grounds for denying the conditional use permit, since the state had already reviewed the health risks, and she ordered the city to reconsider.

The reconsideration was superficial at best and was preceded by intemperate remarks from some City Council members that made it clear that their minds were already made up. At the same time, apparently to keep it from appearing that they were trying to ban Ogden outright, the council hastily passed an ordinance declaring that hazardous waste treatment would only be allowed in agricultural or manufacturing zones, not in scientific research zones, as it had allowed earlier.

Keep overruled the city again and accused the council of trying to ban Ogden’s proposal rather than regulate it.

It’s time for the city to give up its quixotic quest. La Jolla, or any densely populated area, is probably not the ideal location for an incinerator that burns hazardous waste. But this is only a demonstration project, and the amount of burning will be minimal.

Environmentalists are right to be skeptical of the state’s clean bill of health because the technology is still experimental, but a further appeal of Keep’s decision would be futile and a waste of time and money.

The energy would be better spent coming up with cogent and consistent procedures for the future.

The county is developing such a long-range plan, as required by state law. But the state law also limits the discretion of local officials. They can regulate hazardous waste facilities, but their decisions can be appealed to the state. The Ogden case is a good example of why.

What is apparent from both the Ogden debacle and the new state law is that “not in my backyard” is an unacceptable argument, and that local officials and the community must find ways to accommodate some hazardous-waste treatment.