1 / 24

Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA) Stakeholder Final Meeting

Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA) Stakeholder Final Meeting. Bill Sinclair Deputy Director Utah Department of Environmental Quality October 8, 2009. Agreements in Principle. Stakeholder discussion: Review revised Agreements (handout) Determine if consensus exists

stamos
Download Presentation

Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA) Stakeholder Final Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Environmental Quality Restricted Account (EQRA)Stakeholder Final Meeting Bill Sinclair Deputy Director Utah Department of Environmental Quality October 8, 2009

  2. Agreements in Principle Stakeholder discussion: • Review revised Agreements (handout) • Determine if consensus exists • Detail use of Agreements document

  3. Agreements in Principle • Waste disposal fees were designed to cover funding for the entire waste management program. The fees were not dedicated to a specific function or site.

  4. Agreements in Principle • 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

  5. Agreements in Principle Decisions were made at the July 30, 2009 EQRA Stakeholder meeting whether 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 (Stakeholder consensus to eliminate) • 19-3-108 (4)(c) the Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund, up to $400,000 (Retain but modify) • 19-3-108 $200,000 to the Department of Public Safety (Consensus to eliminate) • 19-6-118 (g)(i)10% of the fees to the county in which the facility is located. (Retain)

  6. Agreements in Principle 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.

  7. Agreements in Principle For FY10, the Department has taken independent action to shore up the fund. This includes a combination of requesting diversion of monies from other accounts, carryover monies, and transfer of staff to other accounts for FY10. This is a one-time action that cannot be sustained for FY11 and beyond.

  8. Agreements in Principle • 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.

  9. Agreements in Principle Use of Agreements Document: • Identifies stakeholders but not specific positions taken • Identifies areas of consensus for interested parties • Can be used by all parties for discussion purposes

  10. Legislation - “Waste Fee Amendments” for stabilizing EQRA into the future (FY11 and beyond)

  11. Path forward - Potential Legislation“Waste Fees Amendments” 4 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 • Addition of component 4 - other considerations

  12. 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. Stakeholder consensus was to eliminate Moving forward: Stakeholders carry the burden of making it happen

  13. Options to stop the bleeding Lines 57-58d 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 Act)future monies to match Utah’s cost share requirements for cleanups under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (Superfund). A request for this funding on a fiscal year basis will be made after review of the end of year fund balance by the Executive Director of the Department. The Section was modified to better describe purpose as suggested by stakeholders

  14. 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. Consensus was that this section should be eliminated

  15. 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.Consensus was that this section be retained.

  16. Component 2 - Moving fee adjustments from a statutory to a fees schedule basis • What would occur differently? • 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

  17. Component 2 -Moving fee adjustments from a statutory to a fees schedule basis • Stakeholder discussion: • DEQ has determined to move forward with this component

  18. Component 3 -Adjustments for FY2011 • Options to stop the bleeding • DEQ submitted a “negative” building block of $350,000 in the Governor’s budget reducing the base budget to $6.8 M Changes in statutory fees from present rate • Hazardous waste fees • Radioactive waste fees • PCB fees • Nonhazardous solid waste fees

  19. Component 3 -Increases in fees for FY2011 • Changes in statutory fees from present rate Hazardous waste fees - lines 129, 133, 137a-c, 137d-f, 138-153 • $28/ton to $31/ton for hazardous waste • Specialty waste: • K061 - Electric Arc Furnace Dust - $5/ton • F999, P999 -Chem Demil residual waste - additional $XX per container • Treated waste fee eliminated

  20. Component 3 -Increases in fees for FY2011 Radioactive waste fees - lines 88,94,129,182 • 15 to 30 cents per cubic foot (curie charge of $1 unchanged) for LLW • $28/ton to $31/ton for mixed waste • $4.75/ton to 14.75/ton for PCB/radioactive

  21. Component 3 -Increases in fees for FY2011 PCB fees - lines 182, 192 • $4.75/ton to 14.75/ton for PCBs

  22. Component 3 -Increases in fees for FY2011 • Nonhazardous solid waste fees - lines 211, 234, 237-251, 256-260 • This Section will require an extensive re-write Restructuring of solid waste fees: • Eliminate annual tiered fee based on tonnage for municipal facilities (to per ton fee) • Per ton fee increased to 30 cents/ton • Per ton fees to begin July 1, 2010 (to accommodate change from a calendar to a fiscal year basis) • Industrial waste and construction/demolition waste remain the same but apply across the board • Payment of solid waste fees basis yet undecided

  23. Component 4 - Waste Fee Amendments- Other • Applies an annual adjustment to disposal fees based on the consumer price index (lines 73-73c) • Places a cap on the amount of excess revenue allowed in the Environmental Quality Restricted Account (lines 73j-73k) • A report on the adequacy of the Environmental Quality Restricted Account shall be prepared by the Executive Director of the Department by September 1st of each fiscal year and submitted to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget and the Legislative Fiscal Analyst. Adjustments to the fees described in 19-1-108 (7) may be recommended for inclusion in the following fiscal year fee schedule. (lines 73d-73i)

  24. Next Steps • Sponsor (Rep Menlove) will open bill file • Follow-up discussions with “sectors” regarding legislation and any necessary tweaking (hope to involve Legislative Research and General Counsel) • Legislative Support by Stakeholders • Management of questions to the sponsor -use DEQ as conduit • Information from Stakeholders’ meetings will be placed on DEQ website

More Related