LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session
April 3, 2001
TO: Honorable Warren Chisum, Chair, House Committee on
Environmental Regulation
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: HB3283 by Chisum (Relating to the disposal or assured
isolation of low-level radioactive waste and to the
transfer of certain land purchased for a disposal
site.), As Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* HB3283, As Introduced: positive impact of $0 through the biennium *
* ending August 31, 2003. *
* *
* The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal *
* basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of *
* the bill. *
**************************************************************************
General Revenue-Related Funds, Five-Year Impact:
****************************************************
* Fiscal Year Probable Net Positive/(Negative) *
* Impact to General Revenue Related *
* Funds *
* 2002 $0 *
* 2003 0 *
* 2004 0 *
* 2005 0 *
* 2006 0 *
****************************************************
All Funds, Five-Year Impact:
**************************************************************************
*Fiscal Probable Revenue Probable Change in Number of *
* Year Gain/(Loss) from Low Savings/(Cost) from State Employees from *
* Level Waste Account/ Low Level Waste FY 2001 *
* GR-Dedicated Account/ *
* 0088 GR-Dedicated *
* 0088 *
* 2002 $150,809 $(150,809) 2.0 *
* 2003 530,472 (530,472) 6.0 *
* 2004 1,159,365 (1,159,365) 10.0 *
* 2005 1,142,196 (1,142,196) 12.0 *
* 2006 1,037,976 (1,037,976) 12.0 *
**************************************************************************
Technology Impact
The bill would require personal computers, printers, computer scanning
and imaging software and other specialized software for twelve new
positions.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would provide for the state to develop and operate one disposal
or assured isolation site to dispose of low-level radioactive waste. The
bill would create a citizens advisory committee to perform oversight
functions over a disposal or assured isolation site.
The Texas Department of Health (TDH) would have sole authority to issue a
license to operate an assured isolation site, and the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) would have sole authority to
issue a license to operate a disposal site. TDH and TNRCC would have 60
days from receipt of the application to review the application. The bill
would require TDH or TNRCC to give notice and hold a hearing before they
grant, renew, or make a major amendment to a license.
The bill would consider underground disposal if assured isolation was not
feasible. The bill would allow the state to manage and operate the
facility; or the state could enter into a contract with a political
subdivision, state agency, or private entity to perform overall
operations. The bill would provide for an on-site operator to supervise
the site. Title and liability for the low-level radioactive waste would
transfer to either TNRCC or TDH upon acceptance of waste by the disposal
or assured isolation site.
The bill would require TNRCC to make a quarterly transfer from General
Revenue-Dedicated Account No. 0088, Low-Level Radioactive Waste a
specified amount of fee revenue to each public utility that as of January
1, 2000 operated a nuclear reactor in Texas.
The bill would amend the waste acceptance fee criteria. The bill would
require that the fee provide an amount sufficient to refund money
previously expended under the planning and implementation fees by public
utilities that operated nuclear reactors in the state. The amount would
not be less than 5 percent of the annual gross receipts from waste
received at the facility.
The bill would create the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Perpetual Care Fund
in the State Treasury, but outside of the General Revenue Fund. The
fund would consist of payments made by party states, deposits to the fund
from waste acceptance fees, and interest earnings. The fund could be
appropriated only for the long-term care and maintenance of a state-owned
facility. Interest on the fund could be used for on-going operating
costs of the TNRCC or the TDH, as appropriated by the Legislature. The
principal, however, could not be used for on-going operating costs.
The bill would require the Comptroller to transfer certain payments to
the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Perpetual Care Fund. The Comptroller
would be required to retain the first $25 million received from compact
party states in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Perpetual Care Fund.
These funds would be appropriated only for construction of a disposal or
assured isolation site.
The bill would require the General Land Office to transfer to Sul Ross
State University land purchases made for a disposal site before the
effective date of this bill if a person was denied a license to dispose
of waste at a site located on that land. The university would be liable
for any taxing entity for property taxes due on the land.
This bill would take effect September 1, 2001.
Methodology
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a license will be
issued for an assured isolation facility. Based on information provided
by the Texas Department of Health, the additional recurring cost of
licensing and regulating an assured isolation facility is estimated to be
$1,037,976. The assumptions underlying this cost are discussed in
greater detail below.
*A license for an assured isolation facility would be made in fiscal year
2004;
*Additional staff for assured isolation rulemaking and review would be
phased-in, with positions hired as follows: 2 positions for nine months
in 2002 to assist with rulemaking and policy and licensing development;
4 technical positions in fiscal year 2003 to evaluate facility, prepare
safety evaluation and environmental assessment; and 6 positions in fiscal
year 2004, one Attorney for the hearings process, and five compliance
staff, including three site inspectors. The site-related compliance
staff would start six months into fiscal year 2004.
*Contracted socioeconomic review for license - $80,000 in fiscal year
2004 and fiscal year 2005.
*State Office of Administrative Hearing costs - $36,000 in fiscal year
2005 and fiscal year 2006.
*Laboratory sample analysis - $91,996 in fiscal year 2004, and $49,296 in
fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006.
Total costs by fiscal year for licensing and regulation of an assured
isolation facility are as follows:
FY 2002- $150,809; FY 2003 - $530,472; FY 2004 - $1,159,365; FY 2005-
$1,142,196; and FY 2006- $1,037,976.
It is assumed that administrative costs would be funded from fees
deposited to or balances in General Revenue-Dedicated Account No. 0088,
Low-level Radioactive Waste.
Any additional costs to Sul Ross State University resulting from the
implementation of the provisions of this bill are assumed to have no
significant fiscal impact.
The first $25 million received from Compact member states would be set
aside for construction or an assured isolation facility. The second $25
million received from the Compact member states would be deposited to the
newly created Perpetual Care Fund and any interest earnings would be
used to maintain the site in perpetuity. These amounts are not shown in
the table above.
Waste acceptance fees would be increased to provide sufficient revenues
to reimburse public utilities for all planning and implementation fees
paid prior to January 1, 2000. Assuming these entities paid an average
of $5.0 million per year for ten years, fees would have to generate
$50.0 million. Annually, these refunds could total no more than 5
percent of the annual gross receipts from waste received at the
facility. The bill does not specify a time limit for the refunding of
these fees. These amounts are not shown in the table above.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is
anticipated. The selected county would receive funding for local public
projects which would be valued at 10 percent of the annual gross receipts
from waste received at that site.
A county in which a disposal or an assured isolation site is proposed or
to be located would incur the cost of a referendum election.
Potential costs include time spent by local officials assisting in the
development of a health surveillance survey for the population of the
host county, the loss to the property tax base in the event the state
exercises eminent domain to secure land for a disposal or assured
isolation site, and an election that determines whether the majority of
the voters want the assured isolation or disposal site to be located in
their county.
Other economic impacts to services and infrastructure as well as revenue
gains may result from the location of an assured isolation or disposal
site in a county.
Source Agencies: 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts, 305 General
Land Office, 347 Texas Public Finance Authority,
501 Texas Department of Health, 582 Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 720 The
University of Texas System, 756 Sul Ross State
University
LBB Staff: JK, CL, ZS