Environmental Quality Restricted Account EQRA Path Forward Discussion

1
Environmental Quality Restricted Account
(EQRA)Path Forward Discussion

• Bill Sinclair
• Deputy Director
• Utah Department of Environmental Quality
• July 30, 2009

2
Agreements in Principle to Date

• UCA 19-1-108(5) states In order to stabilize
  funding for the radiation program and the solid
  and hazardous waste control program, the
  Legislature shall in years of excess revenues
  reserve in the restricted account sufficient
  monies to meet departmental needs in years of
  projected shortages remains sound. The fund
  should continue to operate on that basis

3
Agreements in Principle to Date

• There should be a decision to modify or not
  modify UCA 19-1-108 to address the following
  areas
• 19-3-108(3) the first 400,000 into the General
  fund as free revenue.
• 19-3-108 (4)(c) the Hazardous Substances
  Mitigation Fund, up to 400,000
• 19-3-108 200,000 to the Department of Public
  Safety
• 19-6-118 (g)(i)10 of the fees to the county in
  which the facility is located.

4
Agreements in Principle to Date

• Throughout the history of the fund where funds
  were in excess, funds were diverted for a variety
  of purposes by both the Executive and Legislative
  branches. If these funds had been left in place,
  the EQRA would meet its intended purpose
  described in 19-1-105 and not be in the fiscal
  crisis that it is facing today. Going forward,
  all parties agree that future diversions of
  monies for purposes other than specified in
  19-1-105 should not occur.

5
Agreements in Principle to Date

• For FY10, the Department must take independent
  action to shore up the fund. This could include
  a combination of requesting diversion of monies
  from other accounts, carryover monies, furloughs
  or reduction in force of staff, or request of a
  general fund appropriation of 25 as allowed in
  19-1-108 (6)

6
Agreements in Principle to Date

• For FY11, the Department and stakeholders will
  work towards agreement of reasonable steps to
  ensure the continuation of Department programs
  for the oversight of waste management in the
  state.

7
Possible Path Forward for stabilizing EQRA into
the future (FY11 and beyond)
8
Path forward - Potential LegislationWaste Fees
Amendments

• 3 key components
• Disbursements from the EQRA (options to stop the
  bleeding)
• Moving fee adjustments from a statutory to a fees
  schedule basis
• Increases in fees for FY2011

9
Component 1 -Disbursements from EQRA Options to
stop the bleeding

• Lines 49-56 of draft Waste Fees Amendments
• 19-1-108
• In each fiscal year, the first 400,000 collected
  from all waste disposal fees listed in Subsection
  (2), collectively, shall be deposited in the
  General fund as free revenue. The balance shall
  be deposited in the restricted account created in
  this section.
• Discussion Keep it, modify it, or kick it

10
Options to stop the bleeding

• Lines 57-58 of draft Waste Fees Amendments
• 19-1-108
• 19-1-108
• The Legislature may annually appropriate monies
  from the Environmental Quality Restricted Account
  to
• the Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund, up to
  400,000, for purposes set forth in Title 19,
  Chapter 6, Part 3, Hazardous Substances
  Mitigation
• Discussion Keep it, modify it, or kick it

11
Options to stop the bleeding

• Lines 67-71 of draft Waste Fees Amendments
• 19-1-108
• 19-1-108
• (7) The Legislature may annually appropriate not
  more than 200,000 from this account to the
  Department of Public Safety, created in Section
  53-1-103, to be used by that department solely
  for hazardous materials
• (a) management training and
• response preparation and emergency response
  training.
• Discussion Keep it, modify it, or kick it

12
Options to stop the bleeding

•      Lines 154-157 of draft Waste Fees Amendments
• 19-1-108
• 19-6-118.   Hazardous waste and treated hazardous
  waste disposal fees.
• (g) (i) The department shall allocate at least
  10 of the fees received from a facility under
  this section to the county in which the facility
  is located. (ii) The county may use fees
  allocated under Subsections (2)(e) and (f) to
  carry out its hazardous waste monitoring and
  response programs. Discussion
  Keep it, modify it, or kick it

13
Component 2 - Moving fee adjustments from a
statutory to a fees schedule basis

• Moving of statutory fees to the fees schedule
• Radioactive waste fees - lines 78-80a
• Hazardous waste fees - lines 126-127a
• PCB fees - lines 186-187
• Nonhazardous solid waste fees - lines 289-290a
• Why DEQ thinks this is a good idea
• As a practical matter, DEQ would still have to
  discuss significant fee changes with facility
  operators
• There is a process which includes a public
  comment period and hearing prior to finalization
  of a fiscal year fees schedule
• The legislature still approves the fees through
  the appropriations subcommittee process
• Much less cumbersome process for all parties

14
Component 2 - Moving fee adjustments from a
statutory to a fees schedule basis

• Stakeholder discussion
• Could there be support for this idea
• Are there safeguards that the stakeholders
  desire to be able to support this idea

15
Component 3 -Increases in fees for FY2011

• Changes in statutory fees from present rate
  (indicated by XX)
• Radioactive waste fees - lines 87,89,93,96
• Hazardous waste fees - lines 129, 133, 140, 153
• PCB fees - lines 182, 192
• Nonhazardous solid waste fees - lines 211, 212,
  221, 234, 238-251, 253, 275, 278, 279

16
Component 3 -Increases in fees for FY2011

• Proposed process
• Separate meetings with stakeholders during August
  - early September 2009
• Hazardous waste/PCB hazardous - Clean Harbors
• Radioactive waste/PCB radioactive -
  EnergySolutions
• Nonhazardous solid waste
• Commercial facilities - Allied Waste
• Municipal facilities - SL County, Transjordan,
  Wasatch Integrated, etc.
• Specialty waste - Construction and Demolition
  waste, etc.

17
Component 3 -Increases in fees for FY2011

• Meeting agenda
• DEQ will provide financial information as needed
  for discussion (possible disbursements for FY11)
• Review of waste projections from the operators
• Negotiations as to potential fee increase
• Suggestions/considerations regarding legislation
• Goal is to reach consensus as to any potential
  fee increase
• Stakeholder discussion Are there other
  discussion items or information needed for the
  meetings?

18
Where do we go from here?

• Timeframe for deliberations
• August/early September 2009 - Individual meetings
  with stakeholders on fee increases/proposed
  legislation
• September 17, 2009 - Final meeting of stakeholder
  group