Lawmakers considering bills to reduce toxic use, release and waste have a significant advantage over the legislators who debated similar bills last session. This time, unlike during the heated arguments in 1998, there is agreement that some version of a bill ought to be signed into law. The question that remains is how a compromise can be reached.

The two bills being debated are alike in that they establish industry goal-setting programs designed to lead to further reductions in toxics. A bill presented by Sen. Jane Amero and supported by the Department of Environmental Protection and by industry, essentially stops there, although it does a few other things like start a recognition program for high performers. Its competition, presented by Sen. Sharon Treat and supported by groups such as the Natural Resources Council of Maine, goes further by, for instance, establishing state benchmarks for reductions and requiring industry reports on reduction processes.

The bills provide several opportunities for compromise that should produce solid legislation both sides can live with. Sen. Treat’s bill, LD 1669, wants DEP to post toxic-reduction reports on the Internet; the DEP already is preparing to do this. Industry is unhappy with LD 1669’s comparison year for reporting reductions, pointing out that by starting in 1998, the legislation ignores the remarkable progress made throughout the decade — any reporting should reflect that progress.

A sticking point might come in a question over LD 1669’s requirement that facilities explain the process by which they will reduce pollution. Businesses, for reasons of competition, don’t like to reveal processes, and the bill tries to give them leeway on this point, but apparently it is not enough. A report on process is one way to verify that the company claiming reductions has made them. But all that really is needed is for companies to demonstrate that the reductions are real — as long as they can do that to DEP’s satisfaction, how they do it should be up to them.

Another debate might come over the bill’s proposal to give municipal officers a mechanism for requiring DEP to inspect a business for its handling of toxins. Nothing wrong with creating an official way for communities to contact a state department, but the DEP — which is seriously under-staffed in this area — needs to have the latitude to respond in a way that best uses its resources.

The fact that industries in Maine exceeded voluntary and mandatory toxin-reduction targets during the last 10 years is one of the best environmental success stories of the decade. Both businesses and the public benefitted from the reduced use and emissions of these hazardous chemicals, but many more gains are still possible. Lawmakers are moving in the right direction with compromise legislation now.