MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Sixty-seventh Session
May 27, 1993
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman R. Hal Smith, at 8:47 a.m., on Thursday, May 27, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Vice Chairman
Senator Ernest E. Adler
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Mark A. James
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Rayanne Francis, Senate Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Ray E. Blehm Jr., State Fire Marshal, Nevada Department of
Commerce
David L. Going, Senior Industrial Hygienist, Division for
Enforcement of Industrial Safety and Health, Nevada Department
of Industrial Relations
Noel E. Manoukian, General Counsel & Lobbyist, Incline Village
General Improvement District
Bill Quesnel, Civil Engineer, Incline Village General
Improvement District
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers
Association
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on A.B. 115.
ASSEMBLY BILL (A.B.) 115: Protects certain persons and organizations from liability for damages in regulating and removing hazardous materials.
Ray E. Blehm Jr., State Fire Marshal, Nevada Department of Commerce, introduced himself to members of the committee. He said the intent of A.B. 115 is to provide a liability waiver to representatives of non-public entities who provide assistance when mitigating hazardous materials spills.
Mr. Blehm pointed out some of the language contained in A.B. 115 had been provided by trial lawyers in an effort to respond to their concerns. He stated he felt A.B. 115 had been thoroughly reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agri-culture and Mining. He encouraged members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources to support passage of the bill.
Senator Hickey asked if the State of Nevada provides liability coverage in the case of a hazardous materials spill. Mr. Blehm said the responsible party would be the company who caused the spill. Senator Hickey said this was only true up to a certain point and wondered who would be liable beyond that point. Mr. Blehm responded by saying if the cleanup costs were so enormous that the company declared bankruptcy, the state or federal cleanup funds would have to absorb the cost.
Senator Hickey asked Mr. Blehm if he knew how much money was in the state cleanup fund. Mr. Blehm admitted that he did not administer the state cleanup fund, but guessed it contained approximately $200,000.
Senator Hickey asked if a private, non-public responder would be exempt from liability when assisting with a hazardous materials spill. Mr. Blehm said this would be correct as long as this individual was not responsible for the spill. Senator Hickey said he had the impression that language contained in the A.B. 115 clearly states that any individual acting in an official manner would not held responsible for his/her actions. He wondered who would be responsible if a responder made a mistake and caused additional damage at a spill site. Mr. Blehm pointed out language contained in section 4, subsection 1 sets forth criteria for making a determination of a person's gross negligence or intentional, reckless or wanton misconduct. He continued by saying if a person is judged to be negligent when using this criteria, he felt confident that it would be very difficult to waive the liability issue.
Mr. Blehm explained it is feasible for individuals to respond to a hazardous materials leak, who are also employed by various chemical companies and working on company time. As long as this individual was not working as an environmental consultant or emergency response team member, Mr. Blehm said this individual would have the benefit of a limited level of liability. He stressed the major intent of A.B. 115 is to give private individuals, with specific levels of expertise in a variety of areas, the opportunity to respond to hazardous materials spills and to provide pertinent information to emergency responders.
Senator Hickey asked if the carrier of a hazardous material was involved in an accident resulting in a spill, but was not at fault, would the carrier be relieved of the liability. Under these circumstances, Mr. Blehm had the impression A.B. 115 would not protect the carrier or the person(s) causing the accident. He stressed the criteria set forth by A.B. 115 only protects individuals who are responding to an incident.
Reading from section 4, subsection 2(a), Senator Adler noted the immunity provided by section 3, subsection 2 did not apply to a person whose act or failure to act was a cause of the discharge. He asked whether a person would be liable if, during the course of providing assistance or advice at the scene of a hazardous materials spill, he caused an additional discharge. Mr. Blehm responded by saying the test would be on whether the additional spill was the result of gross negligence. Senator Adler rephrased his question by describing a situation where a non-public emergency responder inadvertently killed another person by causing an additional spill or explosion. Mr. Blehm insisted A.B. 115 would provide this individual with some protection. Senator Adler disagreed by saying this person had caused a discharge, so would not that remove him from the immunity set forth by A.B. 115? Mr. Blehm said the person causing the additional spill or explosion would be potentially liable. Senator Adler interpreted Mr. Blehm's response to mean that a responder could lose his/her immunity from liability by accidently adding to the problem of the hazardous materials spill. Mr. Blehm said this was correct, but stressed the courts would have to sort out the facts of this situation. Senator Adler asserted this should be clarified in the bill, because it is a little vague. Mr. Blehm mentioned that, perhaps, Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association, could more aptly answer Senator Adler's concerns.
Mr. Bacon explained the intent of A.B. 115 is to allow individuals with specialized expertise, who live or work in the rural areas of Nevada, to provide on-site assistance at hazar-dous materials spills. He continued by saying some of the employees from mining companies or industrial plants have a lot of specialized knowledge, which could be invaluable when dealing with a spill. Most insurance companies have restricted many manufacturing companies (including power companies) from responding to hazardous materials spills, because the employees will not be covered by the policy. If A.B. 115 is passed into law, private individuals could assist with the mitigation of a spill and receive some type of liability coverage.
Senator Adler used the example of two rail cars loaded with some type of chemical and involved in an accident. He continued by pointing out that one of the rail cars was leaking and the other was not, and a person (who was not an employee and qualified for exemption under A.B. 115) showed up at the scene. Senator Adler wondered what would happen if this individual negligently aggravated the spill by releasing a plume cloud of gas, which blew onto the playground of a nearby elementary school and killed 30 children. He asked who would be responsible for paying damages to the families of these 30 children, the rail car carrier? Mr. Bacon replied by saying the person who was responsible for the spill would be responsible. He continued by saying the local fire department or highway patrol would have to call for additional help before private responders would be exempt from liability. Senator Adler said he understood the rail car carrier would still be responsible for paying damages on the childrens' deaths even though the carrier was not directly responsible for the release of the gas. Mr. Bacon said it is his understanding that this would be a correct application of the law.
Senator Hickey drew attention to the fact section 1 of A.B. 115 indicates that the meaning of the term "hazardous material" is defined in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He stressed the state's list of hazardous materials is in a state of constant flux. Also, the list contained in NRS is not as sophisticated as its federal counterpart. He asked how the situation might be handled where a chemical was listed on the federal list and not on the state's list. Mr. Blehm responded by saying Nevada uses the same federal standards as the starting point for its lists. Senator Hickey stressed the language contained in section 2 reads a little differently. Mr. Blehm asserted that, based upon evidence and evaluation, both the federal and state lists are adjusted accordingly.
Senator Hickey asked how A.B. 115 would be applied when hazardous materials are limited to the listing contained within NRS. Mr. Bacon answered this question by pointing out the last sentence of section 2 states "and any other substance which is regulated pursuant to this chapter." He speculated that a new chemical would still be covered by A.B. 115, because 99.9 percent of "new" chemicals would be a combination of existing chemicals. Senator Hickey voiced his concern on the importance of addressing every possible chemical hazard. He continued by saying the root of the hazardous materials problem deals with the transportation of dangerous chemicals.
Chairman Smith said he had come into this hearing with the intent of passing A.B. 115 out of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. However, due to the concerns voiced by committee members, he said he would rather assign the bill to a subcommittee for further consideration.
ASSEMBLY BILL 116: Authorizes proration of annual fee paid by regulated facilities for hazardous materials.
ASSEMBLY BILL 122: Expands costs for which money may be expended and recovered regarding response to accident involving hazardous material.
ASSEMBLY BILL 123: Provides for issuance of permits for transportation of radioactive waste by Nevada highway patrol division of department of motor vehicles and public safety with approval of public service commission of Nevada.
ASSEMBLY BILL 124: Authorizes director of the division of emergency management of the department of the military to facilitate development of a comprehensive, coordinated approach to emergency management.
Chairman Smith referred A.B. 115, A.B. 116, A.B. 122, A.B. 123 and A.B. 124 to a subcommittee chaired by Senator Hickey.
David L. Going, Senior Industrial Hygienist, Division for Enforcement of Industrial Safety and Health, Nevada Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), introduced himself to members of the committee. He said the DIR supports passage of A.B. 115, because it would provide additional protection to the workers who are required to respond to hazardous materials spills.
In reference to Senator Hickey's earlier concerns about the hazardous materials list, Mr. Going said section 2 of A.B. 115 makes reference to a very specific list of chemicals identified by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). He concluded his testimony by pointing out that NRS 459.700 set forth a generic requirement, under which almost any chemical could be deemed hazardous.
Chairman Smith closed the hearing on A.B. 115, and opened the hearing on A.B. 116.
Mr. Bacon understood that A.B. 116 had been assigned to a sub-committee and offered to present his testimony on this bill at the upcoming hearing.
Chairman Smith closed the hearing on A.B. 116 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 444.
SENATE BILL 444: Making various changes related to controlled fires.
Chairman Smith pointed out committee members had heard testimony on S.B. 444 at an earlier hearing (Friday, May 21, 1993). However, he commented the reasons for needing this legislation had been discussed, not the specific language contained in the bill. Chairman Smith asked committee members if they had any unanswered questions on S.B. 444. Senator Rhoads pointed out that he had been absent from the earlier hearing and requested an explanation of the bill.
Noel E. Manoukian, General Counsel & Lobbyist, Incline Village General Improvement District (IVGID), introduced himself to members of the committee. His initial testimony was similar in nature to that provided, by himself and others, at the previous hearing on Friday, May 21, 1993.
Senator Rhoads asked what is the purpose of S.B. 444. Mr. Manoukian explained the bill would set forth guidelines and requirements for controlled fires. Senator Rhoads expressed concern that passage of S.B. 444 would interfere with his ability to set a small fire on his ranch in Tuscarora, Nevada. After quickly reviewing the bill, he emphasized that S.B. 444 would require him to develop a written plan and obtain the services of a qualified overseer. Senator Rhoads said this just looked like a lot of bureaucratic "red tape" to him. Mr. Manoukian assured Senator Rhoads that the purpose of S.B. 444 is to set forth guidelines and place additional restrictions on larger controlled burns. He explained some "red tape" would be unavoidable, but stressed the paperwork involved is in the best interest of public safety. He insisted that the dangers of allowing a controlled burn to take place under the supervision of an unqualified individual would be disastrous.
Senator Rhoads explained ranchers sometimes need to burn off fields of sagebrush or grease wood. He was very concerned about the additional work involved to conduct a simple fire and wondered what could possibly be the value of S.B. 444. Mr. Manoukian explained the Tahoe Basin had experienced problems with wildfires in the past couple of years. Senator Rhoads asked why the intent of S.B. 444 could not be dealt with on a local basis. Mr. Manoukian explained the IVGID did not have the authority to pass ordinances or regulations concerning this issue. He asserted the IVGID is hoping the State of Nevada would take the initiative by setting forth uniform criteria for conducting controlled fires.
Bill Quesnel, Civil Engineer, Incline Village General Improve-ment District, introduced himself to members of the committee. He pointed out NRS 473.090 allows certain fires to take place without written permission. For instance, he said section 8, subsection 2(a) states that written permission is not required if the state forester firewarden determines that no fire hazard exists. Mr. Quesnel continued by saying a written permit to conduct a controlled fire could be obtained from the state forester firewarden under most circumstances. He continued by pointing out Senator Rhoads resides in a rural area of the state. Due to this fact, the damage which might be incurred if a fire actually got out of control would be minimal. Mr. Quesnel said the danger would be much greater if a drainage ditch fire, in a residential neighborhood, got out of control.
Senator Rhoads asked Mr. Quesnel if the controlled fire issue could be addressed through regulation within Washoe County or by the IVGID. Mr. Quesnel replied that it is generally felt that this issue would be more appropriately addressed within state law. However, he called attention to the fact that a local agency would have the final word on approving a fire permit or controlled fire plan submittal.
In response to Senator Rhoads' earlier comment on local versus state regulation, Mr. Manoukian said insurance companies might offer better premium rates if the state were to adopt more stringent criteria for controlled fires.
Chairman Smith asked members of the committee if they were interested in taking action on S.B. 444. Senator Rhoads said he was not comfortable with taking action at this time.
Chairman Smith closed the hearing on S.B. 444 and informed those in attendance that the bill would be rescheduled to an upcoming work session.
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on S.B. 347.
SENATE BILL 347: Makes various statutory changes in compliance with federal Clean Air Act.
Chairman Smith invited Senator Neal to provide the full committee with a subcommittee report on S.B. 347.
Senator Neal reviewed the subcommittee's proposed amendment (Exhibit C) with committee members. He also reviewed a suggested amendment (Exhibit D), which had been submitted by Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association.
Senator Neal said Mr. Capurro's suggested amendment would eliminate the ability of the Director of the Washoe County District Health Department to designate the point in time during which an urbanized area would be required to establish an enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) emissions control program.
Mr. Capurro explained the language contained in the amendment had been taken directly from the requirements under the federal Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA). He drew attention to a handout provided to members of the committee (Exhibit E), and pointed out that underlined portions listed the CAA's requirements for areas that would be required to have an enhanced I/M program. Mr. Capurro explained Reno is currently classified in the moderate non-attainment category and Las Vegas is considered to be in the serious category.
Mr. Capurro said Brian L. Jennison, Ph.D., Director, Air Quality Management Division, Washoe County District Health Department, had provided testimony to the Subcommittee on Clean Air at a previous hearing. At that time, Mr. Jennison had testified that Washoe County was in the moderate non-attainment category because the Air Quality Management Division had registered one carbon monoxide (CO) excess in 1992 and no CO excesses in 1993.
Mr. Capurro said Mr. Jennison is opposed to amending section 31 of S.B. 347, because the optional language allows the health district to establish an enhanced I/M program now, instead of coming back to the legislature in 4 to 6 years. Mr. Capurro said his suggested amendment would solve this problem, because the commission would have to establish an enhanced I/M program in Washoe County whenever the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the area as being in serious, severe or extreme ozone non-attainment.
Mr. Capurro mentioned he has some concerns about the proposed amendment submitted by the subcommittee. He continued by saying non-elected officials should not be allowed to make major policy decisions for entire counties without the benefit of going through the Washoe County Commission. Current language con-tained in S.B. 347 would allow local air pollution control agencies to implement I/M programs, which may put quite a few people out of business. Mr. Capurro said his proposed amendment to section 31 of S.B. 347 would demand that once the CAA's serious, severe or extreme ozone non-attainment threshold had been met, the State Environmental Commission would have the full authority to implement the enhanced I/M program.
Senator Neal said he has a problem with waiting for the federal EPA to make a determination on the level of non-attainment before additional steps could be taken. He asked what would happen if an urbanized area was in the serious or severe non-attainment classification for 2 years before the EPA made a decision. Mr. Capurro explained an area would not be in serious, severe or extreme ozone non-attainment until the EPA determined this to be a fact. He said his amendment would actually remove one level of bureaucratic "red tape" from the determination process by allowing the EPA to give its decision directly to the State Environmental Commission.
Senator Neal asked Mr. Capurro if the local air quality control agency or the State Environmental Commission would not be able to make a finding of non-attainment. Mr. Capurro replied by saying, under the requirements of the CAA of 1990, the federal EPA is the only entity with the authorization to make a determination on whether any area in any state is in noncompliance or non-attainment.
Senator Neal asked Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst, if the amendment had been approved by environmental interests. Ms. Jenkins' responded by saying environmental interests had agreed this amendment could be implemented.
Senator Adler said Mr. Capurro's amendment demands that an action from the EPA be implemented by the State Environmental Commission. He seemed to remember that the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Protection has delegated this authority to the county health agencies. Mr. Capurro disagreed and said the State Environ-mental Commission has not delegated their authority. Senator Adler asked if the State Environmental Commission employs enforcement officers. Mr. Capurro said the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV) handles the enforcement and administrative effort of monitoring compliance with clean air requirements. He continued by saying the clean air stan-dards set forth by the State Environmental Commission are implemented by the DMV in both Washoe and Clark Counties. Mr. Capurro pointed out, under current law, the counties only have responsibility for fixed, stationary sources. He said parti-culates emitted by mobile sources fall under the control of the State of Nevada.
Senator Neal said Mr. Capurro's amendment had been reviewed by environmental protection interests and no particular concerns had been raised at that time.
Chairman Smith asked Senator Neal if he felt the subcommittee had received all of the testimony it needed on S.B. 347. Senator Neal said he thought everyone was in agreement, but Mr. Capurro had, just recently, introduced an additional amendment.
Mr. Capurro pointed out that Senator Neal had recommended that various individuals meet with Lew Dodgion, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. He said the recommendation to come out of this meeting was to eliminate the optional language allowing the local air pollution control agency to establish an enhanced I/M program. However, at the time Mr. Dodgion presented testimony to the Subcommittee on Clean Air, he had indicated that Washoe County was having second thoughts about eliminating the option. Mr. Capurro emphasized the fact that most of the original participants at the meeting still supported eliminating this option. He continued by stressing the language contained in his proposed amendment (Exhibit D) is a further improvement on simply removing the option altogether. By removing the optional language, he pointed out both the local air pollution control agency and the State Environmental Commission would lose the ability to adopt stricter vehicle emission standards if the EPA designated an area as being in serious, severe or extreme ozone non-attainment.
Senator Neal advised Mr. Capurro to not overstate his case, because the suggested amendment appears to be acceptable. Ms. Jenkins interrupted by cautioning members of the committee that acceptance of Mr. Capurro's amendment would override any amendment to section 31 contained in Senator Neal's amendment (Exhibit C). She suggested that some type of clarification be made that Mr. Capurro's amendment would affect only those counties whose population was more than 100,000 and less than 400,000. She continued by saying it should be made clear that Mr. Capurro's amendment would only affect the determination of which entity would have the authority to decide when more stringent I/M programs would be required.
Under these circumstances, Senator Neal advised Mr. Capurro to follow S.B. 347 to the assembly and attempt to have his amendment incorporated into the bill at that time. Mr. Capurro apologized for the confusion and explained it was never his intent to impact the language contained in Senator Neal's amendment. He hoped members of the committee would agree to incorporate both amendments into S.B. 347 and request a reprint before passing it out of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources.
Senator James asked why S.B. 347 only refers to ozone non-attainment. Reading from Exhibit E, Senator Neal said the CAA requires that most polluted cities adopt either "basic" or "enhanced" I/M programs, depending on the severity of the problem and the population of the area. After reviewing the exhibit further, Senator James wondered why Mr. Capurro's amendment only addressed ozone non-attainment and not carbon monoxide (CO). Mr. Capurro said the criteria for determining whether an enhanced I/M program would be required is based upon ozone non-attainment. Senator James understood this but pointed out Exhibit E set forth three criteria: 1) ozone non-attainment; 2) exceeding the CO threshold of 12.7 parts per million (ppm); and 3) urbanized population areas. Senator Neal stressed that determination of when an enhanced program would begin is based upon the level of ozone non-attainment. Senator James drew attention to the content of the second underlined paragraph of Exhibit E. He continued by insisting all of the criteria, including the CO levels, would be taken into consideration by EPA when making a determination. Senator Neal said it certainly appeared that this would be an accurate statement, but the amendment adopted by the Subcommittee on Clean Air gave the EPA the authority to adopt stricter regulations as a means of bringing the area into compliance with the CAA. He stressed Mr. Capurro is suggesting a change to the bill which would affect Washoe County alone, because Clark County had already been informed that it would be required to establish an enhanced I/M program.
Senator James emphasized the way the bill was drafted indicated that Washoe County had the ability to participate in a basic program or an enhanced program, based upon their discretion. In reference to Mr. Capurro's suggested amendment, Senator James pointed out it would make participation in the enhanced program contingent upon a declaration by the federal EPA of ozone non-attainment. Mr. Capurro admitted the language contained in his amendment has not properly addressed the 12.7 ppm CO level criteria. He admitted the CO issue is a necessary consideration for the adoption of an enhanced program.
Senator Neal said Mr. Capurro's amendment is aimed at removing the ability of the Washoe County health officer to make a determination on whether to begin an enhanced program. He said the immediate question before the committee is to determine whether to adopt Mr. Capurro's amendment at this time. Senator Neal said he did not object to the language contained in Mr. Capurro's amendment, with exception to the fact that its adoption should not delete any of the language contained in the subcommittee's amendment.
Senator James recommended that the Senate Committee on Natural Resources make a decision as to exactly when Washoe County would proceed to an enhanced I/M program. He recalled that an EPA official, who had testified at an earlier hearing, had indicated that an enhanced I/M program is less expensive than a basic program.
Mr. Capurro said Senator James's observation was correct and continued by saying the EPA representative had made such a statement. He continued by saying Mr. Jennison had responded to this statement by saying that this appeared to be the perspec-tive of the federal office of mobile sources. Mr. Jennison had continued by saying Washoe County did not share this perspec-tive. Mr. Capurro said there are obvious disagreements on whether an enhanced program was a "better" program, and whether it is less expensive than the basic I/M program.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding the Subcommittee on Clean Air's amendment concerning older cars (page 4, Exhibit C). Senator James asked why NRS 445-635 had been listed in the amendment, but not S.B. 347. It was finally determined that the statute listed in the amendment applies to vehicle's utilizing diesel fuel only. Senator Adler pointed out parties representing older vehicles had supported the language contained in the amendment.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 347 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 624.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Smith asked Senator Neal if his motion included the proposed amendment suggested by Mr. Capurro. Senator Neal advised those in attendance that the amendment passed out of the committee included the subcommittee's amendment only. He continued by saying he would not object to further amending the bill at another time, but he preferred to talk with the "environmental protection folks" before taking action on Mr. Capurro's proposed amendment.
Senator Adler agreed with Senator Neal's concerns and preferred to speak with a member of the Washoe County delegation before taking action on Mr. Capurro's amendment.
* * * * *
Chairman Smith closed the hearing and opened the work session. He then proceeded to work through a list of outstanding bills.
SENATE BILL 125: Revises Carson Water Subconservancy District to include Storey County and exclude Douglas County.
Senator Adler asked Chairman Smith to continue to hold S.B. 125.
SENATE BILL 257: Requires board of wildlife commissioners to adopt regulations requiring department of wildlife to submit to legislative committee on public lands certain proposed responses to statements of federal agencies.
Senator Rhoads requested that Chairman Smith hold S.B. 257.
SENATE BILL 295: Requires sign that advertises price of gasoline to include price of all grades of gasoline sold on premises on same sign.
Senator Hickey offered to move the bill out of committee. However, Senator Rhoads said he has a problem with S.B. 295 and asked Chairman Smith to hold the bill.
SENATE BILL 303: Makes various changes relating to regulation of pesticides.
Senator Rhoads said he has no problems with the bill, but Senator Titus requested that Chairman Smith hold S.B. 303 for a short time.
SENATE BILL 442: Clarifies that transportation of certain hazardous substances is exempt from certain provisions.
ASSEMBLY BILL 189: Exempts from regulation certain uses of hazardous substances.
Chairman Smith informed Senator Hickey S.B. 442 is the companion bill to A.B. 189. He asked Senator Hickey if he would like to make a motion on S.B. 442.
SENATOR HICKEY MOVED TO DO PASS ON S.B. 442.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 444: Making various changes related to controlled fires.
Chairman Smith noted that S.B. 444 has been held per Senator Rhoad's request.
SENATE BILL 493: Increases fee for purchase of tire to support program to use recycled tires in highway construction.
Chairman Smith asked members of the committee if they would be interested in referring this bill to the Senate Committee on Finance.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO RE-REFER S.B. 493 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 301: Revises definition of "package plant for sewage treatment" to exclude certain systems.
Chairman Smith reminded members of the committee that a request had been made to change the words "pretreatment of individual waste" to "pretreatment of industrial waste" [contained within section 1, subsection 2(c)]. He called for action on this amendment.
SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 301 AS AMENDED.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
ASSEMBLY BILL 476: Revises and makes permanent program for issuance of restricted nonresident deer tags.
Senator Neal said that his questions had been satisfied and would not object to having the committee take action on the bill. Chairman Smith called for action on A.B. 476.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 476.
SENATOR RHOADS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Chairman Smith adjourned the hearing at 10:11 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rayanne J. Francis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Natural Resources
May 27, 1993
Page 1