Senate discusses Solitude landfill permit; members raise closure-funding, waste-type and revenue questions

The Utah State Senate took up SCR 1 on Jan. 27, a concurrent resolution approving a permit for the proposed Solitude landfill near Green River, and focused floor attention on how the facility would be financed if it closed, what categories of waste would be accepted and how much revenue the state might receive.

Senator Hatch, who led the floor presentation, said state rules require applicants to provide financial assurance for closure ‘‘either [in] cash, a bond, or a letter of credit’’ and that the Department could require any of those instruments. He said he could not confirm which option the present applicant had supplied to the department. ‘‘Under the current rules and regulations, it is necessary for the applicant to either provide a cash capital…or they can put up a bond…or a letter of credit,’’ Hatch said.

Senator Hickman raised specific concern about the Perpetual Care Fund and use of letters of credit; Hatch and other supporters said a multi‑member task force will examine those instrument‑type issues across the board and report back with recommendations. ‘‘There is a task force in place…that will be addressing the issue of the perpetual care and the closure…specifically dealing with the letters of credit, deposits, all of those kinds of things,’’ one senator said during the exchange.

On allowable waste types, Hatch said the applicant and the department have represented that the Solitude site would accept municipal waste and ‘‘limited industrial waste’’ only. He read from the applicant’s design and operation plan and the department’s description of ‘‘limited industrial’’ to include items such as small quantities of asbestos and certain facility ash (permitted under set thresholds), bulk items (auto bodies, appliances), sludge, and construction and demolition debris. He stressed that hazardous wastes defined in statute—materials containing PCBs, radioactive materials, and similar classified hazardous wastes—would not be allowed. ‘‘There would not be any of this type of waste that would be allowed to be deposited in this particular facility,’’ he said.

Hatch also provided a revenue estimate that he said had been reported to him: ‘‘I’m told that the potential revenue to the state of Utah on this particular site is $50,000,000.’’ He cautioned that the timeline for that revenue was unclear—‘‘that may be over 50 years or maybe over a hundred years or maybe over 5 years depending on the contracts that they’re able to secure’’—and that the share of in‑state versus out‑of‑state waste would be contract dependent.

Senator Bramble and others sought clarification about the statutory definitions (for example, the record’s use of ‘‘putrescible’’/‘‘putricable’’), and senators repeatedly stressed the need to preserve uniform standards rather than change requirements for a single operator. Because Senator Valentine—who had raised concerns about possible future expansion and the classes of waste accepted—was absent, Senator Hatch moved to circle the bill until Valentine could return and the body could determine whether amendments were needed. The motion to circle passed.

The action means SCR 1 will not be finally adopted at this session and will return to the floor for additional review and possible amendment once those outstanding questions are resolved.

What’s next: SCR 1 was circled for further consideration pending return of absent members and additional information from the department and applicant.