Agenda - Council - 09/13/1982 - Special

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I 32 COMPENSATION AND MITIGATION IN OTHER STATES Federal and state laws dealing with solid and hazardous waste include provi- sions for some of the compensation methods discussed earlier to offset the adverse impacts of waste disposal. Compensation is most commonly provided as liability insurance for waste dis- posal owner/operators, and trust funds or contingency funds to be used to offset costs incurred by host communities. At the federal level, the 1981Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liabil- ity Act (the "superfund" bill), provides funds for cleanup of hazardous waste sites. EPA regulations promulgated under the 1976 Resource Conservation an Recovery Act require that all hazardous waste disposal operators carry liabil- ity insurance. It establishes financial mechanisms to guarantee that costs of closing a waste disposal facility are covered. It also requires that site monitoring and other maintenance are guaranteed for 30 years after closure of the facility. The federal superfund bill does not provide compensation for personal injury, medical expenses or rehabilitation costs. The federal legislation does not directly address the issue of compensating communities hosting any kind of waste disposal facilities. Currently, a few states require some form of compensation to be provided for communities where hazardous waste disposal facilities are to be sited. But even fewer require compensation to be provided for communities hosting solid waste disposal facilities. Clearly, the practice of mitigating adverse 'impacts or providing compensation when adverse impacts can only be partially mitigated, or cannot be mitigated at all, is not widely accepted for municipal solid waste disposal facilities. Recently, many states have passed hazardous waste disposal legislation in addition to upgrading many solid waste laws. Many of the hazardous waste laws require either establishment of trust funds or emergency response funds, or require that facility operators provide surety bonds to guarantee strict lia- bility to guarantee costs of hazardous waste releases, facility closure costs and postclosure maintenance. Trust funds serve the same kind of function, although their designated purposes vary slightly from state to state. For the most part, these funds are extremely limited in application and cannot be used to address the needs of a local community during the siting of a facility. In effect, these funds cannot be used for mitigating adverse impacts of a facility in its day-to-day operation unless there is an accident or hazardous waste release. The state environmental response bill, proposed but not passed in the 1982 legislative session, would have established an emergency response fund to be financed by taxes on hazardous waste. It would have also required strict lia- bility for all hazardous waste disposal facility operations. This law would have made a landfill operator who is responsible for a hazardous waste leak legally liable for costs of removing the substance or carrying out remedial action. Such an operator would also be responsible damages, economic losses or loss of natural resources, loss of personal property, medical expenses and rehabilitation costs due to personal injury or disease.