The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:40 p.m., on Monday, March 8, 1999. Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman

Mrs. Gene Segerblom, Vice Chairman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. John Jay Lee

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Bob Beers, District 4

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After roll was called, the Chairman called upon Legislative Counsel Bureau Policy Analyst Linda Eissmann to review work session documents.

Ms. Eissmann distributed a work session handout (Exhibit C) and opened the hearing on A.B. 252.

Ms. Eissmann reviewed the result of the subcommittee on A.B. 252 held on March 5, 1999, and the proposed amendments developed in that hearing. She explained the subcommittee recommended the full committee approve the measure with the amendments. The primary concern of the subcommittee was the placement of liens on land if ownership of the water rights was severed from ownership of the land to which such right was appurtenant. She explained Mike Mackedon, Fallon City Attorney, Gordon DePaoli of the Walker River Irrigation District (WRID), and William Isaeff, Sparks Deputy City Manager, collaborated on preparing the proposed amendments contained in Exhibit C. The amended language exempted governmental entities from lien restrictions.

Chairman de Braga added Mr. Isaeff testified in subcommittee that it was illegal to place a lien on property owned by governmental entities.

The Chairman asked if there were any additional questions or comments, and there were none. She called for a motion on the measure.

Ms. Eissmann continued the work session discussion by introducing the first of two boating measures, A.B. 138.

Ms. Eissmann explained Exhibit C contained proposed amendments for both measures. Chairman de Braga called upon Fred Messmann, Administrator of Nevada Division of Wildlife, to testify on the proposed legislation.

Mr. Messmann explained his responsibility within the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) included boating law administration. The proposed amendment to A.B. 138 required NDOW investigate each collision, accident, or other casualty resulting in death or substantial bodily injury as defined in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 0.60. All lesser accidents resulting in approximately $500 worth of damage would be investigated at the discretion of the agency.

Mrs. Segerblom said her boat was damaged in the marina when high winds blew the dock against it. She asked if an incident such as that would have to be reported under the guidelines of the proposed legislation. Mr. Messmann responded in the negative because there were no occupants on board.

Mr. Humke asked if a boat was being moved on a trailer and an accident occurred involving only the boat, would that accident be investigated by the county sheriff’s department or NDOW. Mr. Messmann said the county sheriff would investigate an incident such as the one described. If the accident occurred on water the investigation would be conducted by NDOW.

Chairman de Braga asked if further clarification of the measure was necessary to include the scenario described above. Mr. Messmann said it was not necessary to include that language because in other sections of the statutes NDOW was given responsibility to investigate accidents occurring on the water.

The Chairman asked if there were any additional questions or comments, and there were none. She called for a motion on the measure.

Chairman de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 138 and opened the hearing on A.B. 199.

Assemblyman Bob Beers was the first to testify in support of the proposed legislation. He presented the committee with proposed amendments (Exhibit D) and explained the suggested language was intended to clarify specific details of the measure. Boat rental operators were concerned business would be hampered by the strict criteria of the measure. Mr. Beers explained the wording of the legislation regarding livery operations had been modified to satisfy both statute requirements and business operations.

Mr. Beers said the minimal horsepower restrictions had been raised to 15 in order to match California requirements. Operator requirements were also modified in the proposed amendment. The proposed legislation required operators of motorboats to successfully complete a course in safe boating approved by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) or pass a proficiency examination pursuant to regulations established by NDOW. The test, developed by NDOW, would test the operator’s knowledge of safe boating practices.

Mr. Beers pointed out the proposed amendments included a clause allowing courts to suspend operating privileges of boaters found guilty of violating boating laws. The suspension would remain in place until the violator successfully completed an approved safe boating course. A final aspect of the measure required NDOW to develop a database of registered citizens who had successfully completed boating education courses. Those individuals would be entitled to receive safe boating certificates issued by NDOW. The final provision would be included in the measure only if it proved affordable.

Mr. Carpenter asked if small, rural bodies of water such as reservoirs would be included in the requirements outlined in A.B. 199. Mr. Beers said few motorboats on small, remote bodies of water would have engines greater than 15 horsepower. The legislation was not designed to regulate boating in those locations. Mr. Carpenter was also concerned about boater awareness of the new laws. Mr. Beers pointed out NDOW proposed to extend the effective date of the measure to the year 2001 in order to educate the public. Notification would be included with all boater registration renewals.

Mr. Messmann said educational materials would be made readily available to the public. He provided the committee with samples of home study courses in English (Exhibit E) and Spanish (Exhibit F) along with sample tests (Exhibit G). He also presented results of a survey of 58 individuals who had taken safe boating tests (Exhibit H) as well as current boating regulations as defined in Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 488.50 (Exhibit I).

Ike Yochum, private citizen, was the first to speak in opposition to A.B. 199. He said he objected to the measure because it was unwanted and unnecessary governmental control. He also objected to the added expense of tests and safe boating courses.

The next speaker to testify in opposition to the proposed legislation was Bill Chernock, Vice President of Travel Systems Limited, operators of Zephyr Cove Resort and Marina. He said the proposed amendments satisfied the concerns of his organization. Originally, his primary concern was the reaction his customers would have regarding mandatory boater safety testing. The suggested language of the proposed amendments exempted rental boat customers from rigid testing requirements. Another less stringent boater safety procedure would be developed for those who rented boats. Mr. Chernock presented the committee with recommendations developed by his organization (Exhibit J).

Frank Forvilly, private citizen, was the next to testify against the proposed legislation. He said he operated a boat rental company at Lake Tahoe and the measure would not be good for business. Mr. Forvilly said less rigid testing requirements needed to be developed. He agreed with the statements made by Mr. Chernock that if a less stringent boater safety program was developed he, too, would support the measure. He assured the committee his company already required customers to follow safe boating practices and had to sign an agreement stating they were familiar with boater safety laws before renting boats from him.

Chairman de Braga suggested all concerns and recommendations regarding the proposed legislation and the proposed amendments be addressed to the committee as soon as possible in order to ensure suggested language resolved all remaining controversy.

The Chairman asked if there were additional questions or comments on the proposed legislation and there were none. She closed the hearing on A.B. 199 and opened the hearing on A.B. 173.

Verne Rosse, Deputy Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, was the first to testify in support of the proposed legislation. He said the measure was recommended by his agency in an effort to update the list of chemicals regulated by the Chemical Accident Prevention Program (CAPP). In 1991 legislation established CAPP. The program was responsible for regulating chemical facilities that manufacture, use, or store quantities of highly hazardous chemicals, which if accidentally released would have a catastrophic impact on employees and surrounding communities. He said the measure carried a small fiscal note.

Mr. Rosse pointed out A.B. 173 amended the statutory list of regulated chemicals and lowered the threshold quantities and technical corrections for describing certain dangerous chemicals. An amendment would be offered to the measure regarding definition and regulation of household waste products. He concluded by urging the committee to vote in favor of the proposed legislation. Mr. Rosse’s entire testimony was contained in Exhibit K.

Chairman de Braga pointed out the fiscal note attached to the measure indicated no cost. Mr. Rosse agreed, stating he was inaccurate in his original assessment of the fiscal note.

Mr. Carpenter asked if the list was in any way related to regulated testing of municipal water systems. Mr. Rosse responded in the negative. The chemicals listed did not impact drinking water. He said the list of chemicals contained within the measure were cross-referenced in Nevada Division of Environmental Protection’s Prevention Program.

Ray Bacon, representing Nevada Manufacturers Association, was the next proponent of the measure to testify. He said most of the facilities regulated under CAPP were manufacturing plants. The measure was designed to coordinate the regulations and guidelines of the programs of all involved agencies, specifically the Federal Government Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Mr. Bacon said his organization supported the measure and he urged the committee to support it.

Scott Craigie, Representing Chemical Safety Manufacturers Association (CSMA), was the next proponent of the measure to address A.B. 173. He offered the committee two amendments. Exhibit L defined the terms hazardous waste and household waste, and clarified the distinction between the two forms of waste products. Exhibit M further clarified the definitions between the two terms and suggested language for amending NRS 459.475 to authorize NDEP to develop and publish a plan for classifying and controlling the production and distribution of unregistered and unregulated alternative products. Unregistered and unregulated chemical waste products included home brews, which were products developed and used by individuals in the home. It was necessary to consider home made concoctions because many of them could prove to be dangerous.

Mr. Craigie pointed out CSMA had met with all involved entities to discuss the new language presented in the proposed amendment. Those entities included sanitation contracts, county governments, and NDEP, and all of them supported the proposed legislation and amendments.

Chairman de Braga asked if there was anything in household waste that contained any of the adverse chemicals listed as hazardous waste in the measure. Mr. Craigie responded in the negative.

Mr. Carpenter asked where garden products were listed in the inventory of waste products presented by CSMA. Mr. Craigie said most of those products were considered household waste products; however, the proposed legislation did not intend to define garden waste products in statute. Two categories had been established to classify waste products, household waste products and hazardous waste products. Classification of waste products had to be done in a regulatory environment. NDEP currently had the jurisdiction to classify waste products and the proposed legislation would not affect that responsibility.

Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, was the next speaker to address the proposed legislation. Mr. Johnson expressed concern many environmentally harmful pesticides and garden products were listed as household waste products when they should have been included in the list of hazardous waste products. If household waste products did not meet the criteria as defined in A.B. 173 those products would not be considered hazardous. He objected to defining chemicals in generalized classifications because many chemicals might be wrongly considered non-hazardous, particularly home and garden products. He suggested establishing a mechanism for disposing of all hazardous waste products, including products considered marginally or questionably hazardous.

Mr. Hettrick expressed concern the list of hazardous waste products was already too broad. Innocuous household cleaning products in large quantities were considered hazardous waste products. Regulations that were too severe could be detrimental to business.

Mr. Craigie responded to Mr. Hettrick’s comment by pointing out there currently was only one definition of hazardous wastes and it was much more strict for businesses than it was for homes. Full regulatory authority and enforcement of hazardous waste guidelines was provided for in statute and would be conducted by NDEP.

Mr. Johnson said he was pleased to learn hazardous waste recovery programs would continue in metropolitan communities in the state. He pointed out large quantities of various household products could constitute hazardous wastes. It would be necessary to redefine household wastes in order to consider the potential hazard they posed to businesses, hospitals, and childcare centers because the measure did not address the issue.

Mr. Lee said in his experience working in the plumbing business in Clark County the sanitation department always tested sewer lines to determine the location of various problems. Any dumping of hazardous waste products would be detected and located. Fines were issued to violators. Mr. Lee said he could not imagine there were such great quantities of household products being disposed in such a manner as to constitute a real hazard.

Mr. Johnson said the proposed legislation did not address the problem of hazardous waste entering sewer systems. He said he was concerned there were potentially hazardous household products, particularly pesticides, which were not considered potential health threats. He objected to making a distinction between hazardous and household waste products, citing as his rational the concept that if a product was considered hazardous for businesses on a large scale that same product should be considered hazardous for households on a small scale.

Mr. Humke asked if the measure would reduce the amount of household hazardous waste collected by sanitation departments. Mr. Johnson said he did not know but he was concerned that a large amount of hazardous waste materials would not enter existing systems. Specific collection dates could be established to gather hazardous waste products, which would involve active citizen participation.

Mr. Humke said hopefully citizens would regard many household waste products as potentially dangerous and would actively participate with collection efforts on proscribed gathering dates. A.B. 173 was designed to clarify the definitions of what was not a hazardous waste, thereby reducing the amount of hazardous wastes left on the curb on specified waste collection dates.

Mr. Craigie said there were two public policy issues to consider. The proposed legislation would define two separate categories of waste products, household waste products and hazardous waste products. The second policy statement would be the state must retain the option of jurisdiction for both classifications of waste products. The enforcement steps described in the measure were universally accepted throughout the entire country. The proposed legislation would place the State of Nevada within established criteria.

Chairman de Braga asked if there was a provision in the measure which would allow the safe disposal of household products identified as hazardous, such as paints and solvents. Mr. Craigie said there was no problem safely disposing of hazardous household products. If a problem did arise it would be appropriate to empower NDEP to address and correct the issue.

Mr. Neighbors asked to clarify the definition of flammable materials as referred in the measure. Mr. Craigie explained flammable materials such as propane tanks could be designated hazardous if the state agency determined them to be. Quantity would be a factor in the decision making process.

The Chairman pointed out the community in which she resided collected various recyclable materials and waste products; however, the collectors refused to pick up hazardous waste products such as oil, batteries, and paint thinners. She asked if an agreement could be reached between all concerned parties, which would resolve all concerns. Both Mr. Craigie and Mr. Johnson said their opinions were not that far apart and agreed to prepare an appropriate compromise on the issue of household versus hazardous waste product designations.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any further questions and comments and there were none. She closed the hearing on A.B. 173 and opened the hearing on A.B. 179.

Mr. Neighbors was the first to address A.B. 179. He explained he sponsored the measure because he was concerned about the danger of explosions in vehicles caused by Freon 12 used in automobile air conditioning systems. His son was injured in a similar explosion. He said up until 1996 Freon 12 was considered a traditional automobile refrigerant in air conditioning systems. The product could no longer be imported or manufactured because the product damaged the ozone layer of the earth’s atmosphere. Several new products had been created as substitute refrigerants and some of them were highly flammable.

Starting in 1997, Mr. Mortenson explained, 17 states and the District of Columbia began banning the newly developed and highly flammable refrigerants. The United States Environmental Protection Agency prohibited the use of flammable refrigerants, but selling them was not illegal. The user of the banned refrigerants was breaking the law, but the mechanic who put the refrigerant in the air conditioning system and the manufacturer of the product were not. The result was an ambiguous and illogical policy. A.B. 179 banned the sale and use of flammable refrigerants and was modeled after a law from the state of Arizona. Mr. Neighbors presented the committee with several photos of seriously burned automobiles, explaining the fires occurred as a result of explosions inside the air conditioning systems (Exhibit N). The intent of the measure was to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Nevada and he urged the committee to approve the legislation.

Chairman de Braga asked what were the most commonly used chemical refrigerants for automobile air conditioning systems. Mr. Mortenson said the chemicals currently being used had propane and butane in them and both chemicals were extremely flammable. The Chairman asked if the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had a list of banned flammable refrigerants. Mr. Mortenson replied in the affirmative, adding the language of the measure stated a chemical had to pass one of four organizations approval list in order to be used legally. Those organizations were as follows:

• Society of Automotive Engineers
• Underwriters Laboratories
• American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers
• American Society for Testing and Materials

Mr. Neighbors asked when Freon 12 became illegal. Mr. Mortenson said that occurred in 1996. Mr. Neighbors said many car fires in older vehicles were the result of faulty fuel pumps. Mr. Mortenson said that was true; however, there were many documented cases of car fires originating in the air conditioning units.

Mr. Lee questioned why Freon did not cause fires in home air conditioners and refrigerators. Mr. Mortenson explained the kind of Freon used in homes was different than Freon 12 used in automobile air conditioning systems.

Mr. Claborn pointed out home refrigerants used Freon 22, which was non-flammable and a different product than Freon 12.

Ms. Ohrenschall asked Mr. Mortenson to explain a section of the measure that referred to refrigerants used for heating devises. Mr. Mortenson explained heat pumps used to heat homes were actually a refrigerating system working backwards. Heat pumps took cold air out of the home and converted it into warm air. It was an inexpensive heating technique.

Mr. Hettrick agreed with Ms. Ohrenschall that part of the proposed legislation was ambiguous. He suggested developing new language to clarify the measure was not making the sale of propane illegal when used in heating devises.

Allen Biaggi, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) testified in support of the proposed legislation. He said the measure protected consumers and reinforced his agency’s position on conservation of ozone resources. NDEP did not approve the use of substitute refrigerants, but the agency did accept the use of them. He suggested the word approved be replaced with the word accepted in line 7 of the proposed legislation. On line 8, he suggested replacing the word or with the word and in order to require chemical refrigerants used in automobile air conditioning systems be approved by both the federal EPA and one additional organization as referenced above.

Regarding the flammability standards referenced in the measure, Mr. Biaggi said some were proscribed standards and some were testing methods. It would be appropriate to substitute the word measures for the word standards. Mr. Mortenson received a letter from the Office of Stratospheric Protection, a division of the federal EPA, when he presented the legislation during the 1997 legislative session. The letter outlined the agency’s approved flammability standards and testing methods. He suggested reviewing the letter and incorporating the data into the proposed legislation in order to clarify currently approved standards and testing methods sanctioned by EPA.

Mr. Biaggi pointed out it was not clear what agency would administer and enforce the program required by the measure. NDEP did not regulate gasoline stations or automotive repair facilities. Those enforcement activities were performed by the federal EPA.

Chairman de Braga asked if Mr. Biaggi needed clarification regarding refrigerants used for heating. Mr. Biaggi said he agreed with the determination that section of the measure needed clarification because there was no intent to ban propane or other chemicals used for heating purposes.

Ike Yochum, private citizen, was the next speaker to testify. He expressed opposition to one element within the proposed legislation, which was the inclusion of federal EPA guidelines and standards. He did not want the federal agency to have authority over legislation created and enforced within the State of Nevada. Otherwise, he said, he agreed with the legislation and suggested it be amended and passed.

Mr. Hettrick agreed with the testimony of Mr. Biaggi and the proposed amendments he suggested. He asked Mr. Mortenson if he had any objections to those suggestions. Mr. Mortenson reviewed the suggested new language as described above and approved all recommended new language. The Chairman asked if Mr. Mortenson agreed with Mr. Yochum’s suggestion to exclude EPA guidelines and standards from the legislation. Mr. Mortenson considered it necessary to include the federal agency in the measure. He suggested the committee make the final determination on the issue. The Chairman said Mr. Biaggi’s proposed new language would include EPA guidelines, which had to be "accepted" guidelines, not "required guidelines." Those guidelines would apply only to actual standards and not to testing methods. Mr. Mortenson agreed the proposed new language was acceptable.

Mr. Neighbors asked for clarification regarding administrative and enforcement requirements. Mr. Mortenson said the committee needed to address that issue. He said it might not be necessary to authorize enforcement of the legislation. Mr. Neighbors said it would be necessary to establish an enforcement agency if there was a fiscal impact on local or state government. The Chairman, reading from the measure, confirmed A.B. 179 would have a fiscal impact on local government. The proposed legislation stated local governments would bear all costs for enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration. Mr. Mortenson considered the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to be the state agency most likely tasked with enforcing the law. Mr. Mortenson asked Mr. Biaggi what agency would be charged with enforcing the legislation. Mr. Biaggi said in his experience, the federal EPA would be charged with enforcing laws such as the one under consideration; however, he would not suggest the federal agency be responsible for enforcing the measure nor was it the jurisdiction of EPA to enforce state law in Nevada. He had no additional suggestions.

Mr. Hettrick said enforcement of legislation such as A.B. 179 was a problem. The proposed legislation required multiple county and city agencies to enforce the law. Mr. Hettrick said he was in favor of excluding the EPA entirely from the measure. The dilemma of enforcement needed to be resolved before the proposed legislation could go any further. He presented a proposed amendment, which stated combination cooling and heating devices were targeted by the measure. That language would clarify the measure was not targeting barbecues or heating devises, which used propane.

Mr. Mortenson suggested further committee time be allowed in order to work out the problems with the measure’s current language. The Chairman agreed to provide additional time to clarify ambiguous language within the proposed legislation. Mr. Mortenson said during the 1997 session when the proposed legislation was originally introduced, it was met with literally violent opposition. It was because his son had gotten burned and suffered greatly in an automobile fire caused by flammable chemicals used in the cooling system that he realized the measure needed to be re-introduced.

Chairman de Braga recommended licensing technicians to handle cooling chemicals. Enforcement of the law could be handled at that level.

Mr. Claborn said mechanics were already required to have licenses to handle explosive cooling chemicals for automobiles. The issue of enforcement needed further consideration.

Chairman de Braga requested Mr. Mortenson present the committee with amended language on the measure. She asked if there were additional questions or comments on the proposed legislation. As there was none, the Chairman closed the hearing on A.B. 179.

The Chairman requested the committee take action on several Bill Draft Requests (BDR). She called for action on the following BDRs:

• 43-436 (A.B. 437).
• 43-437 (A.B. 438).
• 35-438 (A.B. 439).
• 35-439 (A.B. 440).

• 35-440 (A.B. 441).

Chairman de Braga asked if there was any further business before the committee and there was none. The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: