Senate advances bill to raise hazardous‑waste fees after debate over earmarked environmental fund

The Utah Senate advanced Substitute Senate Bill 25 to the third‑reading calendar on Feb. 4, 1992, after extended debate over higher disposal fees and whether revenues should flow into a newly created environmental management fund.

Senator Reese, sponsor of the substitute measure, told colleagues the bill is a negotiated compromise meant to cap the amount of hazardous waste entering Utah and to raise per‑ton fees for both out‑of‑state and in‑state waste. ‘‘We will actually set up facilities at each of those locations that will be 24 hour a day… so that the citizens of the state will know that we have a handle on what’s coming into the state,’’ Reese said, describing plans for improved monitoring and oversight.

Under the substitute as discussed on the floor, out‑of‑state hazardous waste fees would rise from $20 per ton to $35 per ton over three years; in‑state hazardous waste would rise from $8 to $14 per ton. Nonhazardous solid‑waste charges would shift from a flat annual fee to a per‑ton rate that would increase to $2.50 over three years. Reese said the increases are intended both to generate revenue for monitoring and to discourage excessive imports of waste.

Senator McAllister offered two amendments. His first sought to remove language that would have allowed the Department of Environmental Quality to require owners/operators to pay the actual cost of plan reviews beyond statutory fee caps; that deletion passed on a recorded vote (reported on the floor as 18–9 with two absent). McAllister’s larger amendment proposed eliminating creation of a restricted environmental management fund — money set aside from donations, penalties and lapsing funds — arguing those monies should remain in the general fund and be requested through the regular appropriation process. McAllister said dedicated credits ‘‘erode eventually our ability to deal with the state’s needs in the general fund.’’

Supporters of the dedicated fund, including Senator Reese and others, argued the restricted account would allow the Department of Environmental Quality to prioritize and respond quickly to environmental emergencies. Senator Black warned that removing the fund would ‘‘take the meat of the bill out’’ by reducing oversight capacity.

A separate floor debate focused on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Senator Baird proposed language to classify PCB waste as hazardous. Bob Pruitt, an attorney speaking for a citizen‑advocacy coalition, said in floor testimony that the state may have forfeited ‘‘over $20,000,000’’ in potential fee revenue by treating PCB waste as nonhazardous; he acknowledged that figure was an estimate and that reliable public data are limited. Other senators and department staff urged caution: department staff said PCB disposal is already constrained by federal TSCA permits and that PCB wastes require special permits, liners and leachate controls at disposal sites.

Throughout the debate senators raised constitutional and economic questions about charging higher fees on out‑of‑state waste versus in‑state waste; department counsel and staff cautioned that excessive differentials could risk interstate‑commerce challenges, and some members urged federal action to address cross‑state flows.

After multiple roll calls and amendments, the Senate recorded the substitute SB25 as showing 24 ayes, 2 nays and 3 absent and placed the bill on the third‑reading calendar for continued consideration.

What’s next: The measure was advanced to third reading in the Senate; any further amendments or the final passage would be reflected on a subsequent calendar and in future floor action.