Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Environment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate advances technical amendments to used-oil management to align with hazardous-waste law; senator flags penalty language for review

Utah State Senate · January 25, 1994
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 25 was reported favorably with minor procedural changes to allow the used-oil program to be administered under the Solid and Hazardous Waste Act; Senator Petersen raised concern that amended penalty language could multiply per-violation fines and asked for staff and Attorney General's Office clarification.

Senate Bill 25, amending the state's used-oil management procedures to conform administration to the Solid and Hazardous Waste Act, advanced after floor discussion in the Utah Senate.

Sponsor Sen. McAllister described the changes as minor procedural modifications to align the used-oil statute with the responsibilities now held by the Department of Environmental Quality. He said the changes were intended to permit the program to be administered properly under the solid and hazardous waste framework rather than the previous oil-and-gas statute.

Sen. Petersen raised an issue with a draft amendment that appeared to increase potential penalties: current law provides for a $10,000 per-day penalty parallel to EPA requirements; an insertion in the draft could create an additional $10,000 "for each violation," which, in combination, might multiply exposure (for example, $10,000 per violation plus $10,000 per day). The sponsor said he would consult staff and the attorney general's office and circled the bill for further review.

Floor action removed a problematic word (restored original language) and the Senate placed the revised SB 25 on the third-reading calendar. Sponsors emphasized the changes were intended to be clarifying and not to expand penalties beyond legal guidance from the Attorney General’s Office.