House passes hazardous‑waste tax on low‑level radioactive waste; holds current contracts harmless

Representative Alexander, sponsor of House Bill 370, told the House the measure is meant to require out‑of‑state generators that send regulated low‑level radioactive waste to Utah to contribute to oversight and long‑term care. He said lawmakers negotiated a gross‑receipts approach with EnviroCare and that the bill also creates a regulatory fee structure and a delayed perpetual‑care account.

Alexander said the bill keeps existing contracts in place and applies the new tax when contracts are renegotiated or extended. The bill sets specific rates in the proposal: 12% of gross receipts for containerized waste, 10% for processed Class A waste, 5% for uncontainerized unprocessed Class A waste, and a per‑volume fee of 10¢ per cubic foot for alternate‑feed or byproduct material. Alexander also described a regulatory‑fee change (items in the bill reference a regulatory fee previously at $2.50 per ton) and said a perpetual care and maintenance account would be established beginning July 1, 2002, to study and provide for longer‑term oversight.

Representative Anderson offered an amendment to exclude from the state tax any fees already paid to counties for impact mitigation, arguing that deducting those county mitigation fees before the state tax is calculated would prevent 'double taxation.' Alexander and other members questioned the drafting and fiscal effects of that language and said the amendment, as written, created technical problems about what counts as gross receipts versus adjusted gross receipts. After debate and a recorded division, the amendment failed (division recorded at 29 yes, 37 no).

Representatives speaking in favor of the bill, including Representative King and Representative Gunn, said Utah should align fees with other states that accept similar waste streams and noted the bill’s modest near‑term revenue estimates. Representative Gunn pointed to the fiscal note and the bill’s intent as both a regulatory and cleanup policy; the fiscal note cited a regulatory fee amount historically around $950,000 and estimated net state revenue of roughly $744,000 in the immediate year while current contracts remain protected.

Opponents raised local‑impact concerns. Representative Gallons, who said he would oppose the bill, warned that Tooele County’s economy and jobs tied to existing mitigation agreements could be affected and described the bill as potentially creating a 'tax on a tax' if county mitigation fees were later taxed by the state. Alexander responded that the bill’s structure and the hold‑harmless language for current contracts were intended to limit immediate economic disruption.

The House adopted the sponsor’s amendments (amendment number 2 under Representative Alexander’s name) and approved the second substitute for House Bill 370. The bill, as amended, passed the House and was referred to the Senate for further consideration. The final House vote on passage was recorded by the clerk and the bill will proceed to the Senate.

What happens next: HB370 moves to the Senate for further consideration. If the Senate takes different action, the two chambers may need a conference or further amendments before a final bill reaches the governor.