MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Sixty-seventh Session
June 2, 1993
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman R. Hal Smith, at 8:45 a.m., on Wednesday, June 2, 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
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Clarence W. (Tom) Collins, Jr.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Sherry Nesbitt, Senate Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Lew Dodgion, Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Environmental Protection
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau
Fred E. Wright, Lobbyist, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife
Gaylyn Spriggs, Member of the Public
Joe L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club
Bob Combs, Member of the Public
Clint Combs, Member of the Public
Alan Bloomberg, President, Automotive Recyclers & Dismantlers
of Nevada
Ashley J. Hall, Lobbyist, Automotive Recyclers & Dismantlers
of Nevada
Barbara Corti, Member of the Public
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers
Association, Nevada Motor Transport Association
John Madole, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors
Thomas W. Ballow, Executive Director, Division of Administration, State of Nevada, Department of Agriculture
Verne L. Rosse, Chief, Bureau of Waste Management, State of
Nevada, Department of Environmental Protection
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Reno Disposal, Silver State Disposal
Carl Cahill, Director, Environmental Health Services, Washoe
County District Health Department
Senator Smith announced the committee would continue the hearing begun on June 1, 1993, on Senate Bill (S.B.) 463.
SENATE BILL 463: Revises membership of state environmental commission.
Ray Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association (NMA), provided testimony on S.B. 463. He advised the NMA's perception of the environmental commission is that it lacks sensitivity to the private sector. This is due to a vast majority of the members of the commission being composed of bureaucrats from various agencies. He stated the manufacturing sector has no representation on the commission. Yet, viewing the industrial sector as a whole, nearly all fees paid to the department of environmental protection are paid by the industrial sector. He stated this sector includes mining and manufacturing. He stated the NMA is not sure that the specific designees in S.B. 463 are correct, and therefore, if the bill goes forward, section 6 will have to be modified. He also advised the NMA recommends that someone from the environmental community be on the commission. He stated the commission should be a forum for people in the regulated industry, and those concerned with that industry. He referred to the organization of the state emergency response commission. He advised that commission has worked extremely well and has a very broad spectrum of representation, both from the public and private sector. He reiterated the NMA would like to see the composition of the environmental commission closer to that type of organization.
Senator Hickey asked for confirmation that the NMA's appeal is that, since that organization is paying the preponderance of fees, that the NMA should sit on the commission.
Mr. Bacon responded that the NMA should at least have a voice.
Senator Hickey asked if Mr. Bacon could provide the percentage of fees paid by mining and industry.
Mr. Bacon stated he does not have those percentages. He advised he had requested information in this regard, and was not sure if the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) knows exactly who falls in which category.
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau (NFB), provided testimony regarding S.B. 463. He advised the NFB's policy regarding boards and commissions reads:
We believe it is in the community's and the state's best interest that qualified and knowledgeable people representing varied interests be appointed to boards, committees and commissions, and that governing bodies should make every effort to make appointments according to these criteria. This should apply especially to those appointed groups with authority to make recommendations or decisions influencing a broad sector of the economy.
He advised that, from the basis of this policy position, the NFB is in favor of S.B. 463. He stated some of the proposed makeup of the commission follows the format in existence on a number of other commissions, for example the wildlife commission. Mr. Busselman advised that Joe Guild with the Nevada Cattlemen's Association was not able to attend the hearing, but asked that Mr. Busselman advise the committee of the support of the Nevada Cattlemen.
Gaylan Spriggs, Member of the Public, provided testimony regarding S.B. 463. She advised the content of S.B. 463 was her bill draft in 1987, but she did not request the current bill. She advised the bill is important because currently there is no one from the public sector on the environmental commission. This is not true of other commissions. She stated she did not believe department heads or other agency heads are really sensitive to the difference fees make. She advised that because fees are going up so fast in so many areas, and so many things are happening, the people of Nevada might be better served by having general citizenry on these boards and commissions. She stated one main reason she initially requested the bill was that the legislature made its wishes known in the 1991 session in a particular bill, saying no to something. The administration went to the environmental commission and had this taken care of as soon as that session ended. She stated her belief that if there had been a commission comprised of private citizens, this would not have happened. Rather, the legislative intent and mandate would have been followed through. She has no quarrel with who is on the commission or how those people are picked. She is only interested in all areas of concern being represented. She indicated in the bill draft she prepared that the state water engineer needed to stay on the commission, because of his expertise. She stated other areas can be represented by the private sector instead of having a domination of agency heads.
Senator Hickey stated he recognized that there has been statute law passed and then bypassed by agency heads, and that this is one of the appeals for the change in the commission. He stated he would be more interested in reducing the size of the commission. He stated he also understands a director's dilemma, when orders come from the Governor.
Alan Bloomberg, Member, Automotive Recyclers and Dismantlers of Nevada, provided testimony regarding S.B. 463. He advised his organization has a statewide membership of over 90 automobile wreckers and dismantlers. He stated his organization is supportive of S.B. 463. He advised, however, no one has been selected to represent the recycling industry. He stated the environmental commission is charged with not only preventing pollution, but should be fostering and encouraging recycling. He stated if the commission does not have a member who is a recycler, the state will not be encouraged to recycle products. He asked that the committee to consider amending the bill to add a representative of the recycling industry. Mr. Bloomberg advised he is also a member of the Southern Nevada Recyclers. This organization feels very strongly that the state needs to encourage recycling.
Daryl E. Capurro, Lobbyist, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, Nevada Motor Transport Association, provided testimony in support of S.B. 463. He stated he is not certain that the proposed makeup of the commission is correct, but would like to see a change in the makeup of the commission. He stated one of the major elements dealt with by the environmental commission is the Clean Air Act. He advised this act deals with immobile source as well as mobile source emissions. He stated his belief that there should be someone on the commission with expertise in this area, preferably from the private sector. He advised he has no concern with respect to members from the public sector who have served on the commission over the years. He does have concern about a commission of which state administrators are the majority.
Fred E. Wright, Lobbyist, Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, provided testimony in opposition to S.B. 463. Mr. Wright's verbatim testimony is attached as Exhibit C. Mr. Wright also read a letter written to Chairman Smith from Melvin D. Close, Jr., a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D.
Mr. Wright suggested it is interesting that S.B. 463 calls for one commissioner to be appointed from one of the county advisory boards to manage wildlife. He advised those boards consist of three or five members, at the county's option. He advised persons qualified to be appointed to the boards are sportsman, farmers, or ranchers of the county. He stated being a sportsman is primarily an avocation, therefore a sportsman can have any one of the whole gamut of occupations, including any one of the other designated areas of commission representation as delineated in the bill. In essence, the existing commission feels that Nevada's growth requires continued attention to the environmental consequences of growth through a well balanced, broad based commission. He stated after these years of effective regulatory process, the changes proposed in S.B. 463 does not improve upon the process. He stated it is his organization's feeling that the driving force behind the bill was the commission's action in November of 1991, concerning fee structure at the Beatty facility. Mr. Wright referred to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 271 of the Sixty-sixth Session.
ASSENBLY BILL 271 OF THE
SIXTH-SIXTH SESSION: Establishes fees for disposal of hazardous waste.
Mr. Wright stated the 1991 legislature passed A.B. 271 of the Sixty-sixth Session which did several things. It set up a funding process for Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT), established a program for the division of environmental protection for waste minimization, and recognized the fact that there is a 25 cent minimum in regard to disposal and storage of hazardous materials. He stated the environmental commission had a full day hearing, the transcript of which is 299 pages. Testimony was heard from several legislators telling the commission that the legislative intent in passing A.B. 271 of the Sixty-sixth Session was that the commission should not take action on proposed fee structures. He stated the commission heard testimony from Senator Titus to the effect that she did not recognize, in the senate, any clear-cut legislative intent. He advised that after all this deliberation he made a motion, based on the premise that the concept of the waster minimization program, as spelled out in A.B. 271 of the Sixty-sixth Session, was a very good program. It was a program in which waste generators would get financial help to reduce the amount of waste generated, and thus the amount which had to be stored. He added the program furthered the state's overall hazardous waste policy. Mr. Wright advised his motion was to amend Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) Chapter 444 by adding sections 2 through 12 as regulations of that chapter, including the recommended fee increases, with the provision that the fees will sunset June 30, 1993 and may be amended by the commission prior to that date. He advised the reasoning for this was the commission received differing testimony as to what might be legislative intent. With the commission's understanding that it was on tenuous ground, regardless of the outcome of the hearing, the commission was seeking flexibility and to send some signals to the legislature that the commission recognized it was on tenuous ground. The commission felt, however, it had an obligation to the people of the state to enact what it did after that hearing.
Senator Hickey asked how many people are on the board of directors for Mr. Wright's organization.
Mr. Wright replied there are 11 members on the board.
Senator Hickey asked how many of those members are a part of state government.
Mr. Wright replied five members are agency representatives. Mr. Wright does not consider Dr. Bently from the state public health department as an agency representative. Dr. Bently is a private citizen on a state public health board.
Senator Hickey asked how Dr. Bently was selected.
Mr. Wright replied Dr. Bently was selected by the state health board.
Senator Hickey asked if Mr. Wright had read the papers regarding the controversy surrounding A.B. 271 of the Sixty-sixth Session.
Mr. Wright advised he probably had, although the northern papers do not give complete coverage of things taking place in southern Nevada.
Senator Hickey asked if Mr. Wright was aware of the controversy when this issue was previously brought before the legislature.
Mr. Wright replied he became aware when he heard the testimony.
Senator Hickey asked for confirmation that up to that point, Mr. Wright was not aware of the controversy.
Mr. Wright stated he did not recall.
Senator Hickey recalled there had been testimony from several legislators regarding their intent. He asked what Mr. Wright's legal counsel said was the legislative intent.
Mr. Wright replied the commission did not consult legal counsel.
Senator Hickey asked if anyone on the board realized the extent of controversy of the issue.
Mr. Wright stated the commission asked legal counsel whether the commission had authority to act upon the recommendation of the division to establish the regulations. They were told the commission did have this authority.
Senator Hickey asked who provided this opinion.
Mr. Wright replied this opinion was rendered by Brian V. Chally, Deputy Attorney General, representing the Nevada Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection.
Senator Hickey stated this is another agency. He asked if the commission sought legal advice of intent from the Legislative Counsel Bureau, or if Mr. Wright was aware this option is available.
Mr. Wright replied the commission did not have that opportunity, and did not know the representative executive branch could ask the legislative branch for legal opinions.
Senator Hickey advised that because the legislature acts as a body, the first step would be to determine the intent. He stated these intents are generally developed through the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the Attorney General's Office. He recalled Mr. Wright had remembered no knowledge of controversy, and yet had stated at the beginning of his testimony that the reason for the bill was because of this. He asked if Mr. Wright learned after he had made his decision that the subject was controversial, and that there were some legislators who were unhappy with what the commission had done.
Mr. Wright stated the commission sensed the problem, and this is why they included a sunset provision.
Senator Hickey stated he did not believe Mr. Wright's board should set policy. He stated this is up to legislators. He stated regardless of Mr. Wright's desires, this is the way it should be. He stated this is why a change of the direction of the commission should be entertained, and probably why S.B. 463 was proposed. He stated it disturbs him when a commission supersedes legislators or policy makers who are duly elected to make decisions.
Senator Smith advised the committee would continue to hear testimony in opposition to S.B. 463. He advised his intent to hold the bill for a work session, at which time the committee would address the problems which had been raised.
Mr. Wright continued his testimony. He recalled Mr. Bacon indicated there is a lack of sensitivity to business on the commission. He advised the commission has to walk a narrow line in regard to possible adverse impacts on business versus the main charge of the commission, namely to protect the safety and health of the people and the environment. He stated he does not believe the commission has exhibited a lack of sensitivity to any business ventures. He advised the commission has learned that basically environmental regulations require self-policing and self-reporting. He stated it has been difficult for the commission to come to grips with the fact that a business monitors itself and reports itself when it is out of compliance. Mr. Wright responded to Senator Hickey's comments by saying the commission believed the action it took in the hearing mentioned recognized the sensitivity of the issue after testimony had been heard. The commission still felt it had an obligation to implement some things which the legislature had enacted on A.B. 271 of the Sixty-sixth Session. He stated at a subsequent interim hearing the Legislative Counsel Bureau's attorney stated the commission did have the authority to do what it had done.
Senator Titus stated she agreed with what the commission did as a matter of policy, but believed in terms of substance, the commission did have the right to make the regulations. She advised she is in favor of raising fees to keep the hazardous waste out of Nevada. She advised, regarding S.B. 463, the suggestion is that the current composition of the commission is making policy and is not responsive to policy being made by another body. She stated that, at the time of the controversy, the Governor was also very much in favor of the position taken by the commission. She stated S.B. 463 will not fix this. The Governor will still appoint 10 members and the chairman. Therefore, if the policy role of the commission is a problem, perhaps that should be addressed, rather than the membership of the commission. She stated her belief that the commission, as it currently stands, represents all of the interests and does so very well, and this is a vindictive piece of legislation to get rid of those people because they happened to decide something with which the proponents of the bill disagree.
Senator Hickey stated this is true. The Governor's policy was opposite of the legislature's proposal. The problem occurred and became political because a commission exists which is under the control of the Governor. He stated the result of this is a tainted vote in a political dispute. He suggested that legislative counsel give the committee an opinion as to what can be set as policy in a statute already established. He stated his belief that policymakers cannot be overridden.
Senator Smith advised this debate would be reserved for the work session.
Mr. Wright stated that with 30 years in state government, he is sensitive to the issue spoken of by Senator Hickey regarding the interrelationship between the legislature and the activities of an appointed body. He stated this is exactly why he generated the motion based on testimony heard by the commission. The commission saw the need for implementation of a good program. The commission did not want to conflict with the fund raising aspects of the HAZMAT portion of A.B. 271, therefore the sunset was included to allow the 1993 legislature to re-visit that issue.
Senator Hickey advised in so stating, Mr. Wright has recognized the politics of the issue. He stated he did not believe the commission was operating in a vacuum. He stated his concern is the right of elected officials to set policy. He stated if that is contrary with the Governor, it should be handled within the legislature.
Lew Dodgion, Administrator, State of Nevada, Division of Environmental Protection, provided testimony regarding S.B. 463. He referred to Mr. Bacon's testimony that in order to effect the bill, subsection 6 of section 1 should be amended. He read from this section:
Any person who receives or has in the previous 2 years received a significant portion of his income directly or indirectly from the holders of applicants for a permit is disqualified from serving as a member of the commission.
Mr. Dodgion advised the commission and the division are delegated many federal programs, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and others. He stated most of those federal statutes require a conflict of interest provision for members of boards and commissions who rule on permits or enforcement actions taken under the programs implemented by those delegations. He stated the Clean Air Act basically says:
Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under the act shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest, and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement order under this act.
He stated this wording is what drove the provision in the existing law on the conflict of interest. Therefore, any amendment or change in the commission would have to take into account the conflict of interest requirements of the federal acts.
Joe L. Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, provided testimony in opposition to S.B. 463, as written, notwithstanding that the present membership of the commission is not the Sierra Club's idealized membership. He responded to Senator Hickey's concern by stating he served in the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources in the 1991 legislative session. He stated this committee heard both A.B. 271 of the Sixty-sixth Session and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 75 of the Sixty-sixth Session.
ASSEMBLY BILL 75 OF THE
SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION: Requires certain persons to pay same fees for disposing of hazardous waste as would be imposed in state where hazardous waste was generated.
Mr. Johnson assured the committee that he was well aware of the specific language contained in A.B. 271 of the Sixty-sixth Session, authorizing the action of the commission. He advised other members of the assembly were also well aware of this language. He stated on the floor of the assembly, he spoke directly to the issue of the provision allowing the commission to do the actions which were taken. He advised there may be controversy amongst individual members within the legislative body, regarding the actions of the commission on A.B. 271 of the Sixty-sixth Session, and whether those actions were authorized, however to his personal knowledge he knew exactly what the bill authorized, and supported the same. He advised his concern with S.B. 463 is obvious problems with conflict of interest. He stated many of the problems which the proponents of the bill have with actions taken specifically relate to policies which are directed and mandated either by federal or state actions. These are actions to which the commissions must respond. He advised that in 1989, when the mining reclamation portion of the statutes was passed, the legislature designated one public sector individual to be an expert in mine reclamation. In the process of dealing with conflict of interest, none of the industry representatives could be appointed. He stated, for the proponents of S.B. 463 who see danger in bureaucrats containing agencies, he suspects this would create the same problem as do academic people. He stated the bill almost singularly defines who can serve on the commission, having expert knowledge of mine reclamation. He stated all the industry people are employed and gain their income from this, therefore an academic person is singularly defined. He stated he would see the same problem in identifying many of the other individuals. A conflict of interest would occur, and people having a rather esoteric knowledge of the industry would be used. He advised another problem is attempting to list all persons who have an interest in the business of the commission. This would encompass a very large list of people or industries needing representation. He agreed that Senator Hickey's suggestion of reducing the number of people on the commission is a valid one. He suggested, however, if it becomes representative that every industry covered has a member on the commission, the commission would be very large. He advised the tourist industry has an interest, both statutorily and insofar as having clean air, and that industry would want representation, if that line of reasoning is carried to its natural extension. He stated the commission has functioned well in the past. He advised a unanimous decision of the commission decided the action in previous controversy, even though the Governor controlled the appointment. He advised presently two members of the executive branch, mining and agriculture, are controlled by the industries themselves. The Governor must appoint from a short list provided by the industry. Therefore, there is very little control by the Governor. He stated if these members are dropped out, the means of having industrial representation will be eliminated. He stated S.B. 463 could result in having 10 Sierra Club members on the commission, or having none.
Senator Hickey asked how many meetings the commission has per year and how long is the agenda regarding technical issues.
Mr. Dodgion responded the commission is normally budgeted to meet up to eight times per year as a full commission, and six to eight meetings per year as an appeal board. He advised the commission acts, not only to adopt rules and regulations, but as an appellate board for permits and enforcement actions. The appeal board has three members.
Senator Hickey asked what is the budget for the upcoming biennium.
Mr. Dodgion stated the budget is approximately $20,000 per year.
John D. Madole, Lobbyist, Associated General Contractors, provided testimony in favor of S.B. 463. He stated he has always been very uncomfortable with having five agency heads or high powered bureaucrats controlling the commission. He stated only one more person is needed to control everything on an 11 member commission. He expressed concern regarding the appeals procedure, just mentioned. He would like to see some balance and compassion, and is not sure five people who make their living by regulating are always going to have the compassion for those appeals coming before the commission. He would like to see what he termed "a better dose of the real world." He pointed out the difference in the statute and the bill, stating nine people are spelled out in the statute, and 11 in the bill. He stated it appears the Governor is being left the same latitude he has already to appoint those additional two people. He stated he did not regard this as a technical deficiency in the bill, as had been previously stated. He stated he would like to see someone who can balance the concerns of the environment, but at the same time not to put restrictions on businesses which they cannot handle.
Senator Titus asked how Mr. Madole would address the fact that the appointees from the two agencies pointed out by Mr. Johnson come from short lists from industry, and the Governor must appoint who the industry recommends.
Mr. Madole stated he believed there have been instances where the Governor has received short lists, and they did not like anyone on the lists and had requested another list. He stated he does not believe those were people who only responded to the industry. He stated it would not be that difficult for the Governor to get someone on the commission who would not necessarily be sympathetic to the industry.
Senator Titus asked if Mr. Madole did not think that if the Governor is able to chose someone who is in farming, ranching, mining and so forth, that he can pick someone sympathetic to the Governor's interests.
Mr. Madole agreed the Governor would have a great deal of influence and does currently. He stated he is uncomfortable having high powered bureaucrats controlling the commission.
Senator Hickey suggested the appeals board could be viewed as separate.
Mr. Madole stated concern regarding the correct people handling the appeals.
Senator Hickey suggested possibly a different board should review the appeals.
Mr. Madole agreed a different appeals board would be a good idea.
Thomas W. Ballow, Executive Director, Division of Administration, State of Nevada, Department of Agriculture, provided testimony. Mr. Ballow advised he has been a member of the environmental commission for 22 years. He offered to answer any questions the committee might have regarding the history of the commission.
Senator Rhoads asked how commissions in other states are set up.
Mr. Ballow stated California has an air quality board and an water quality board.
Senator Rhoads asked if the members are from the industry or from agencies.
Mr. Ballow advised he is not familiar with the makeup of the California boards.
Senator Titus stated there was present a representative of U.S. Ecology, who is suing the environmental commission. She suggested it would be interesting to hear what that agency's position is on S.B. 463.
[The person Senator Titus referred to stated he had no comment.]
Senator Smith confirmed there was no further testimony on S.B. 463, and closed the hearing. He reiterated the bill will be referred to a work session.
The hearing was opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 490.
Senate Bill 490: Defines "recycling center" for purposes of certain provisions governing recycling.
Vern L. Rosse, Chief, Bureau of Waste Management, State of Nevada, Division of Environmental Protection, provided testimony. He advised his department requested S.B. 490. He advised section 5 of the bill defines "recycling center." He stated section 5 reads:
A recycling center means a facility designed and operated to receive, store, process and transfer recyclable material which has been separated at the source from other solid waste.
Mr. Rosse advised that, in preparing this suggested language, he worked with the solid waste industry in both northern and southern Nevada and the recycling group which had testified before the committee in a previous hearing regarding solid waste and recycling issues.
Senator Smith asked if the proposed language was not agreed to by two parties.
Mr. Rosse advised it was agreed to by two groups.
John Pappageorge, Lobbyist, Silver State Disposal, Reno Disposal provided testimony. He distributed to the committee a proposed amendment to S.B. 490, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit E. Mr. Pappageorge explained the amendment. He stated his company's concern is that current language does not clearly define that the recyclable material is separated at the source. He advised a dumpster can be filled with recyclable materials intermingled with garbage. Because it started as recyclable materials, anyone can haul that off to a recycling center for separation. The garbage would be left as garbage. He stated current controls would apply only to disposal companies doing this, and would cut into the franchise activities.
Ashley J. Hall, Lobbyist, Automotive Recyclers & Dismantlers of Nevada, provided testimony regarding S.B. 490. He stated his organization has reviewed the bill, and what is happening around the country. He stated his organization feels comfortable with the present language of the bill. He advised the proposed amendment is far too restrictive on recycling efforts in Nevada. He gave an example regarding boxes put out by various recycling businesses are for recycling material only. He stated hypothetically, under the proposed amendment, even though a box was designated as recyclable material only, if someone arbitrarily put a brick in the box, the box would automatically become solid waste.
Senator Smith asked for and received confirmation that Mr. Hall also represents R.C. Farms, and that organization is comfortable with the present language of S.B. 490.
Alan Bloomberg, President, Automotive Recyclers & Dismantlers of Nevada, provided testimony on S.B. 490. He stated his company has major problems with the wording of the proposed amendment. He stated his belief that the state should be encouraging recycling, rather than restricting it. He stated whenever it is decided to separate out recyclable materials, there are enough current statutes by the environmental protection division and the health districts to take care of any problems with garbage or anything associated with garbage. He stated the encouragement of recycling minimizes the solid waste stream going to the landfills, and benefits everyone. He advised the language of the proposed amendment is too restrictive. Freedom is needed to separate the recyclables out of the solid waste stream.
Senator Hickey stated the definition of "tire for vehicle" is included in the bill, but "recapped tire or used tire" is excluded. He asked Mr. Bloomberg what that means to him.
Mr. Bloomberg responded this language was put in to coincide with the dollar charge. The dollar fee is not charged on recapped tires, because these tires have been recycled. They did not want to discourage people from recycling.
Senator Hickey asked for and received confirmation that this follows along the line of other legislation.
Senator Hickey asked, regarding line 9 of the bill, what Mr. Bloomberg interprets "recyclable material" to mean.
Mr. Bloomberg stated recyclable material is any material which can be put back into the mainstream. It is either raw materials, the use for which it was originally intended, or a use for which it was not originally intended. It also means the material may be processed. He gave examples of these types of materials.
Senator Hickey asked if Mr. Bloomberg is under the control or standards of the state environmental commission.
Mr. Bloomberg affirmed that he is under that commission's control.
Senator Hickey asked for and received confirmation that S.B. 490 does not disturb anything Mr. Bloomberg does.
Mr. Bloomberg added that the proposed amendment would create a problem.
Carl Cahill, Director, Environmental Services, Washoe County District Health Department, provided testimony regarding S.B. 490. Mr. Cahill stated he would support the language in the bill. He advised that the municipalities and the 318 districts all have franchised contracts with waste haulers to remove garbage and other wastes from the waste stream. This is being done under current statutory requirements or authorities. He stated the health district is charged with doing enforcement or ensuring the health codes are met, and that the waste is being handled property. He advised that his division must be sure that everything they do does not interfere with existing laws or codes. He gave examples of recycling material. He stated many businesses are recycling at the source, which is where it should occur. From a regulatory standpoint, he would like to see more clarification put on what is recyclable material. He also stated, regarding section 4 of the bill, a solid waste management authority has recently been established. He suggested it would be appropriate to put that term in the bill, rather than "state environmental commission."
Senator Hickey asked if there is a list of recyclable materials.
Mr. Cahill advised there is a list both nationally and locally, which is constantly changing. It depends on what can be economically pulled from the waste stream. He stated much of this change is driven by innovative individuals who are able to come up with another process for recycling.
Senator Hickey asked if the proposed amendment would harm this definition.
Mr. Cahill stated it would not harm it, and may help to clarify. From a regulatory point of view, it helps him understand where and how the business is going to be conducted. He stated he does not want to see people grabbing items out of recycling containers, and selling the items.
Senator Hickey asked for and received confirmation that the bill would clarify the rules, and that those rules could be instituted through the state environmental commission.
Mr. Cahill added that this has been done through the district board of health, which agency has a fairly substantial set of regulations on garbage and waste.
Senator Hickey asked if the proposed amendment could be in the local jurisdictions.
Mr. Cahill replied that his division would probably enhance that. The issue would be that, once the regulation is in statute, would the division be amending what the policymakers have already established as the minimum standard.
Joe Johnson, Lobbyist, Sierra Club, provided testimony on S.B. 490. He advised his organization is in favor of the bill and the proposed amendments.
Assemblyman Clarence W. (Tom) Collins, Jr., provided testimony on S.B. 490. He advised he has seen the operations of the businesspeople who have testified regarding the bill, and supports their efforts. He further advised he would support their concerns for this legislation.
There being no further business before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Chairman Smith adjourned the hearing at 10:00 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Nesbitt,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Natural Resources
June 2, 1993
Page 1