Environmental Quality Restricted Account EQRA Background

1
Environmental Quality Restricted Account
(EQRA)Background

• Bill Sinclair
• Acting Executive Director
• Utah Department of Environmental Quality
• May 28, 2009

2
EQRA - Background

• Disposal fees originally established in 1985 to
  fund the Hazardous Waste program
• First fee was on hazardous waste at 6/ton
• EQRA codified in UCA 19-1-108 in 1996
• EQRA provides revenue for regulation of solid,
  hazardous, and radioactive waste
• Funded through disposal fees paid by operators of
  commercial solid, hazardous, radioactive waste
  facilities and municipal solid waste landfills
• Amount of waste varies month to month, year to
  year, waste by waste, making revenues vary

3
Principles of EQRACurrent State

• Until recently, has provided a sufficient source
  of funding to account for fluctuations in waste
  volumes
• Covers entire waste management program
• Fees are not dedicated to a specific function or
  site
• Scope of waste facility operations and oversight
  does not decrease with reduced volumes coming
  into facilities

4
Revenues
Incoming Funds - Fee Schedule Year fee was last
raised
Hazardous Waste Fees 28/ton 1993 unless treated
which is 14/ton 1997
Generator Site Access Permit Annual Fees 2,500
per generator 7,500 for brokers 2009
Uranium Mill Monthly Fees 5,833 (standby)
8,333 (operating) 2009
Radioactive Waste Fees 0.15/cubic feet and
1/curie for LLW or 28/ton Mixed 2001
Commercial Solid Waste Facility
Fees 2.50/ton 2006
Environmental Quality Restricted Account
Municipal Solid Waste Facility Annual
Fee Average 0.13/ton 2003
Solid Waste Construction and Demolition Waste
Facility Fee 2.50/ton 2006
Interest Income
PCB Fees (applies to both radioactive and
hazardous waste facilities 4.75/ton 1993
Incoming Funds- Statutory Year fee was last raised
5
Disbursements
Funds have been used for DWQ, DAQ, HLNW, and GF 1
or more times
General Fund Revenue 400,000/year
Host county receives 10 of hazardous waste fees
Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund
OPTIONAL Goal 400,000/year
Dept of Public Safety OPTIONAL 200,000/year
Environmental Quality Restricted Account
Division of Radiation Control Program Budget
DEQ Executive Directors Office Budget
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Program
Budget
6
(No Transcript)
7
Why are we in this situation?
8
EQRA Status without further Action
9
EQRA 10 Year Average Revenues Contribution
10
EQRA 10 Year Average Disbursements
11
(No Transcript)
12
EQRA Immediate Need for FY10 (July 1, 2009 - June
30, 2010)

• Will need to address the shortfall projected to
  occur
• DEQ will be submitting a General Fund
  supplemental appropriation request as part of the
  budgeting process
• Will need support of the Governor, Legislature,
  and Stakeholders

13
Options for stabilizing EQRA into the future
(FY11 and beyond)
14
Option 1 - Maintain Current Fee Structure
Annual General Fund Supplemental Appropriation

• Advantages
• Industry continues to pay based on rate-based
  fees (fee/ton or fee/cubic foot)
• Disadvantages
• Requires a General Fund appropriation which is
  contrary to the user fee concept of paying for
  services
• DEQ revenue varies based on volume disposed
• Competing for General Fund monies is a difficult
  process

15
Option 2 - Increase Current Fee Structure Rates

• Advantages
• Raises required revenue
• No need for General Fund supplemental
  appropriation
• Maintains user fee concept of paying for services
• Disadvantages
• Industry pays more
• May impact volume or tonnage disposed
• DEQ revenue varies based on volume disposed

16
Option 3 - Develop A Flat Fee Structure

• Advantages
• Industry is certain of fees owed to DEQ
• DEQ has guaranteed revenue stream without
  fluctuations due to changes in volumes disposed
• No General Fund appropriations needed
• Maintains user fee concept of paying for services
• During high volume years, industry may pay less
  than Option 2

17
Option 3 continued - Develop A Flat Fee Structure

• Disadvantages
• Industry may pay more
• May impact volume or tonnage disposed

18
Consequences of inaction

• Reduction in Force within DEQ (DSHW, EDO and DRC)
• Jeopardizes authorization, federal grants
• Less timely issuance of permits, modifications,
  technical assistance, plan reviews
• Less oversight, including independent sampling
• Reduction or elimination of important programs
• Recycling
• E-waste
• Staff Training
• Small business compliance assistance
• Corrective action, clean ups
• Redevelopment
• Inability to fund Superfund match

19
Where do we go from here?

• Stakeholders assistance needed to evaluate these
  options.
• Are there other options we need to consider?
• Timeframe for deliberations
• June 2009 - next Stakeholder meeting to discuss
  the options
• July 2009 - Stakeholder meeting to develop
  consensus on path forward
• August/September 2009 - Develop strategy for path
  forward (including potential legislation)