Environmental Quality RestrictedAccount (EQRA)BackgroundEnvironmental Quality RestrictedAccount (EQRA)Background
Bill SinclairBill Sinclair
Acting Executive DirectorActing Executive Director
Utah Department of Environmental QualityUtah Department of Environmental Quality
May 28, 2009May 28, 2009
EQRA - BackgroundEQRA - Background
•Disposal fees originally established in 1985 tofund 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 ofcommercial solid, hazardous, radioactive wastefacilities and municipal solid waste landfills
–Amount of waste varies month to month, year to year,waste by waste, making revenues vary
Principles of EQRACurrent StatePrinciples of EQRACurrent State
•Until recently, has provided a sufficientsource of funding to account forfluctuations in waste volumes
•Covers entire waste management program
•Fees are not dedicated to a specificfunction or site
•Scope of waste facility operations andoversight does not decrease with reducedvolumes coming into facilities
Environmental QualityRestricted Account
IncomingFunds-Statutory
Year feewas lastraised
IncomingFunds - FeeSchedule
Year fee waslast raised
Solid WasteConstructionand DemolitionWaste FacilityFee
$2.50/ton
2006
RadioactiveWaste Fees
$0.15/cubic feetand $1/curie forLLW or $28/tonMixed
2001
Generator Site AccessPermit Annual Fees
$2,500 per generator$7,500 for brokers
2009
Uranium MillMonthly Fees
$5,833 (standby)$8,333 (operating)
2009
HazardousWaste Fees
$28/ton 1993unless treatedwhich is $14/ton1997
CommercialSolid WasteFacility Fees
$2.50/ton
2006
MunicipalSolidWasteFacilityAnnualFee
Average:$0.13/ton
2003
PCB Fees(applies to bothradioactive andhazardouswaste facilities
$4.75/ton
1993
InterestIncome
Revenues
Environmental QualityRestricted Account
Dept of PublicSafety
OPTIONAL
$200,000/year
Division of Solidand HazardousWaste ProgramBudget
Host county receives10% of hazardouswaste fees
Division of RadiationControl ProgramBudget
HazardousSubstancesMitigation Fund
OPTIONAL
Goal: $400,000/year
General FundRevenue
$400,000/year
DEQ ExecutiveDirector’s OfficeBudget
Funds havebeen used forDWQ, DAQ,HLNW, and GF1 or more times
Disbursements
Why are we in this situation?Why are we in this situation?
PriorEstimate
CurrentEstimate
Beginning Balance FY 2009
$2.9 M
$2.9 M
Projected Revenues (lowest of past 6 years)
$5.6 M
$4.5 M
Estimated Funds Available
$8.5 M
$7.4 M
Disbursements
$(7.3) M
$(7.3) M
Estimated Ending Balance FY2009
$1.2 M
$0.1 M
EQRA Status without furtherActionEQRA Status without furtherAction
Beginning Balance FY2010
$ 0.1 M
Projected Revenues (Same level as FY2009)
$ 4.5 M
Infusion of New Revenues (Approved in 2009 General Session)
Generator Site Access Fees $245,000and Uranium Mill Fees $ 60,000
$ 0.3 M
Total Available Funds
$ 4.9 M
Disbursements
$ (7.1)M
Estimated Ending Balance FY2010
$ (2.2)M
EQRA 10 Year Average RevenuesContribution %EQRA 10 Year Average RevenuesContribution %
EQRA 10 Year AverageDisbursements %EQRA 10 Year AverageDisbursements %
EQRA Immediate Need for FY10 (July 1,2009 - June 30, 2010)
•Will need to address the shortfall projectedto occur
•DEQ will be submitting a General Fundsupplemental appropriation request aspart of the budgeting process
•Will need support of the Governor,Legislature, and Stakeholders
Options for stabilizing EQRAinto the future (FY11 andbeyond)
Option 1 - Maintain Current Fee Structure +Annual General Fund SupplementalAppropriationOption 1 - Maintain Current Fee Structure +Annual General Fund SupplementalAppropriation
Advantages:
•Industry continues to pay based on rate-basedfees (fee/ton or fee/cubic foot)
Disadvantages:
•Requires a General Fund appropriation which iscontrary to the user fee concept of paying forservices
•DEQ revenue varies based on volume disposed
•Competing for General Fund monies is a difficultprocess
Option 2 - Increase Current Fee StructureRatesOption 2 - Increase Current Fee StructureRates
Advantages
•Raises required revenue
•No need for General Fund supplementalappropriation
•Maintains user fee concept of paying forservices
Disadvantages
•Industry pays more
•May impact volume or tonnage disposed
•DEQ revenue varies based on volume disposed
Option 3 - Develop A Flat Fee StructureOption 3 - Develop A Flat Fee Structure
Advantages:
•Industry is certain of fees owed to DEQ
•DEQ has guaranteed revenue stream withoutfluctuations 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 lessthan Option 2
Option 3 continued - Develop A Flat FeeStructureOption 3 continued - Develop A Flat FeeStructure
Disadvantages:
•Industry may pay more
•May impact volume or tonnage disposed
Consequences of inactionConsequences 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
Where do we go from here?Where do we go from here?
•Stakeholders assistance needed to evaluatethese options.
•Are there other options we need to consider?
•Timeframe for deliberations:
–June 2009 - next Stakeholder meeting to discuss theoptions
–July 2009 - Stakeholder meeting to developconsensus on path forward
–August/September 2009 - Develop strategy for pathforward (including potential legislation)