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 EQRA Current 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. Environmental Quality Restricted Account Incoming Funds- Statutory Year fee was last raised Incoming Funds - Fee Schedule Year fee was last raised Solid Waste Construction and Demolition Waste Facility Fee $2.50/ton 2006 Radioactive Waste Fees $0.15/cubic feet and $1/curie for LLW or $28/ton Mixed 2001 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 Hazardous Waste Fees $28/ton 1993 unless treated which is $14/ton 1997 Commercial Solid Waste Facility Fees $2.50/ton 2006 Municipal Solid Waste Facility Annual Fee Average: $0.13/ton 2003 PCB Fees (applies to both radioactive and hazardous waste facilities $4.75/ton 1993 Interest Income Revenues

5. Environmental Quality Restricted Account Dept of Public Safety OPTIONAL $200,000/year Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Program Budget Host county receives 10% of hazardous waste fees Division of Radiation Control Program Budget Hazardous Substances Mitigation Fund OPTIONAL Goal: $400,000/year General Fund Revenue $400,000/year DEQ Executive Director’s Office Budget Funds have been used for DWQ, DAQ, HLNW, and GF 1 or more times Disbursements

7. Why are we in this situation? Prior Estimate Current Estimate Beginning Balance FY 2009$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 Estimated Ending Balance FY2009$1.2 M$0.1 M

8. EQRA Status without further Action 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 $245,000 and 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

9. EQRA 10 Year Average Revenues Contribution %

10. EQRA 10 Year Average Disbursements %

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)