MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation
Seventy-Second Session
February 27, 2003
The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:39 p.m., on Thursday, February 27, 2003. Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 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. Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Tom Grady, District No. 38
Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, District No. 14
Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, District No. 15
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marji Paslov-Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst
Jackie Valley, Committee Manager
William E. Fowler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mary Ellen Holly, Fire Marshal, Central Lyon County Fire District
Julie Leach, Involved Citizen
Bonnie Parnell, Nevada Parent Teacher Association
Lisa Foster, American Automobile Association of Nevada
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women’s Lobby
Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association
Robert R. Loux, Executive Director, Officer of the Governor, Agency for Nuclear Projects
Dennis Colling, Administrative Services Division Chief, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
Ginny Lewis, Director, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
Chairwoman Chowning called the meeting to order at 1:38 p.m. She then opened the hearing on A.B. 58.
Assembly Bill 58: Extends to all counties prohibition against driver of motor vehicle allowing person to ride upon or within certain portions of motor vehicle under certain circumstances. (BDR 43-668)
Assemblyman Grady, District No. 38, provided Committee members with a prepared statement (Exhibit C). Mr. Grady said that NRS 484.473 was added to the Nevada Revised Statutes in 1969. An amendment, A.B. No. 157, was introduced in 1999, but lost in the final days of the session. A.B. No. 383 of the 71st Session amended the statute. Mr. Grady said the amendment covered counties with a population of 100,000 or more. In September 2002, Speaker Emeritus Joe Dini had requested BDR 668 to extend the legislation to all counties. Assemblyman Grady said he and Senator Mark Amodei were sponsoring A.B. 58 to carry on Mr. Dini’s request.
Mr. Grady said the bill had one change in Section 1, lines 4 and 5, which eliminated counties with a population of over 100,000. On page 2, line 10, was a technical change made by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Grady said another amendment would be necessary, and he hoped to get it to the Committee Chair by the next day for her consideration.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Grady what the text of his amendment would be (Exhibit D). Mr. Grady referenced page 2, lines 5 and 6, which read: “Not being operated on a freeway or other road that has two or more lanes for traffic traveling in one direction.” He said that would make it a four-lane road, which would defeat the intent of what they were trying to do in rural Nevada, where they had two-lane roads. He said language also needed to be changed on page 1 where it said, “operated on a paved highway.” Mr. Grady said the bill should be amended to cover all types of roads, including those that were not paved. He said they would not ask to change exemptions discussed at prior sessions in regard to parades and ranching.
Chairwoman Chowning said she understood the statute definition of a highway to include various types of roads. She asked Ms. Marji Paslov-Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst, to verify that. She clarified that what Mr. Grady wanted to delete would be the word “paved.”
Mary Ellen Holly, Fire Marshal, Central Lyon County Fire District (CLCFD), explained that the CLCFD included those areas from Mound House through Silver Springs. Her statement (Exhibit E) was distributed to the Committee members. Ms. Holly said she was a trained injury prevention specialist. Accompanying Ms. Holly was Julie Leach, who resided in Silver Springs. Ms. Holly explained that Ms. Leach had headed a petition drive and gathered signatures, which had once again brought attention to this bill. She talked about an article from the Reno Gazette-Journal dated December 31, 2002, (Exhibit F), which stated that vehicle fatalities in Lyon County had increased by 340 percent. Last July, a man, his grandson, and the grandson’s friend were killed on Highway 95A when a fast-moving vehicle driven by a drunk driver hit them. None of them had been using seat belts. Thirteen days later, a pickup truck driven by a woman who was under the influence of marijuana and alcohol rolled on Highway 95A. Two girls from Silver Springs were killed, and the driver’s son had been critically injured. Those three people had been riding in the back of the pickup truck. This accident prompted Ms. Leach, who knew the children from her church, to gather the signatures that she obtained. Approximately 1,000 people signed the petition. Ms. Holly said that A.B. 58 proposed that a driver would not permit a person, with regard to a motor vehicle being operated on a paved highway, to ride upon or within any portion of the vehicle that was primarily designed or intended for carrying goods or other cargo that was otherwise not designed or intended for the use of passengers, including, without limitation, upon the bed of a flatbed truck or within the bed of a pickup truck.
Ms. Holly said the bill continued to read that a driver could permit a person to ride upon the bed of a flatbed truck or within the bed of a pickup truck if the person was 18 years old, or under 18 years old, and the motor vehicle was not being operated on a freeway or other road that had two or more lanes for traffic traveling in one direction.
Ms. Holly said that according to statistics furnished by the Nevada Department of Transportation, there were 5,452 miles of state-maintained roadways, of which 4,436 miles were 2-lane roadways, including Highway 50, which was now being called “the deadliest highway in Nevada.” She pointed out that the state records indicated there was 20,353 miles of maintained county roads of which 50 percent were not paved.
Ms. Holly stated that the existing statute did not apply to the portion of a truck bed covered by a camper shell. She explained that, due to that exemption, the bill did not adequately protect the children of Nevada.
Ms. Holly distributed a handout titled “National Traffic Safety Facts 2001” (Exhibit G). This document highlighted various statistics related to seat belt use and fatal crashes in rural and urban areas of the United States for 2001. It pointed out the following:
Ms. Holly discussed the following traffic safety facts for children:
Ms. Holly said those statistics showed that there were more fatal crashes in rural areas, that trucks accounted for 39 percent of those crashes in rural areas, and that in those trucks, safety belts reduced the risk of fatal injury by 60 percent and the risk of moderate to critical injury by 65 percent. She said more children were being saved due to the use of child safety seats and safety belts.
Ms. Holly said that a central component of a strong law would include the following suggestions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Ms. Holly stated that publicity campaigns should educate the public about the importance of proper child passenger protection. Enforcement campaigns should include information on correct use, as well as publicity to raise awareness of the law and its enforcement. She said that on April 16, 1997, the Secretary of Transportation issued the Presidential Initiative for Increasing Seat Belt Use Nationwide. Included in the initiative were ambitious child occupant goals. Those goals aimed to reduce child occupant fatalities in children 0 to 4 years old by 15 percent in 2000 and by 25 percent in 2005. She said the 2000 goal was met a year early, reducing child fatalities by 16 percent from 1996. The Presidential Initiative identified closing the gaps in child passenger safety laws as an important strategy to meeting those national goals.
Ms. Holly asked the Committee to support the rewording of A.B. 58 to assure that children would never be allowed to ride in the back of a pickup, with or without a canopy, on any road or highway, rural or urban, in the state of Nevada. She wanted Nevada to lead the way in promoting stronger laws to protect our most precious resources.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Ms. Holly if they were proposing an amendment to A.B. 58. Ms. Holly replied that they were. Mrs. Chowning asked if she had consulted with Mr. Grady. Ms. Holly replied that she had, and further stated that that was the amendment Mr. Grady would be presenting to Mrs. Chowning the following week. Chairwoman Chowning said she did not hear Mr. Grady reference camper shells. Ms. Holly said that Mr. Grady did not know they were proposing the part about camper shells until that day. Mrs. Chowning said once she had Mr. Grady’s amendment, she would determine if further consultation would be required.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Mr. Grady if his intent was to delete lines 5 and 6 on page 2 of A.B. 58, so that a person under 18 years of age would still be able to ride in the back of a pickup truck if it was used in farming, ranching, or in a parade. Mr. Grady said that was correct.
Chairwoman Chowning then read the definition of a highway, which was found in NRS 484.065:
“’Highway’ means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way dedicated to a public authority when any part of the way is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic.”
She believed that accomplished what Mr. Grady wanted by taking out the word “paved.”
Julie Leach stated she supported A.B. 58 and wanted it passed so children would be protected.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked Ms. Holly how many of the fatalities from people riding in the back of pickups were adults, and how many were children. She replied that the information she had from the Nevada Department of Traffic Safety showed that between 1995 and 2001 there had been ten children killed. When she had asked for information, she only asked for children up through the age of 16. Mr. Gustavson asked if she had any statistics on how many adults were killed. She replied that she did not have that information, but could get it.
Assemblyman Knecht asked Mr. Grady if his intention for the bill was to continue to allow persons 18 years of age or older to ride upon the bed of a flatbed or within the bed of a pickup truck. Mr. Grady replied that that was the current language in the bill. He said they were not asking to change that. They were concentrating on the children in the back of the truck. Mr. Knecht said he understood and appreciated the focus on the children, but asked why they did not try to change Section 1(2)(a). Mr. Grady said it was hard to legislate against stupidity. He said people over the age of 18 should have some common sense, so they would not address people over the age of 18.
Chairwoman Chowning thought Mr. Grady meant that it was already in the statute, and his bill would not change that section of the statute.
Assemblyman Collins asked if Mr. Grady could recall the League of Cities’ position as to why the section relating to the population of 100,000 was currently in the bill. Mr. Grady believed that was at the request of Clark County. He said Assemblywoman Koivisto would be speaking on the bill. She had carried it for two sessions, and he thought she would be able to answer that question.
Assemblywoman Koivisto, District No. 14, said she had worked for two sessions trying to get legislation passed that would prevent children from riding in the back of pickup trucks. The population cap was at the request of the rural counties. Mrs. Koivisto asked the Committee how many children had to be killed or maimed by being thrown from the back of pickup trucks before people realized that children did not belong in the back of a moving pickup. She said dogs were required to be tethered in the back of a truck. She wondered why people thought putting children in the back of pickup trucks was all right.
Chairwoman Chowning thanked Mrs. Koivisto for her hard work on this issue.
Bonnie Parnell, Nevada Parent Teacher Association, supported A.B. 58. She said the Nevada PTA, the National PTA, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all had individual policy statements prohibiting children from riding in the back of open-air truck beds. She said those policy statements were based on documented fatalities and injuries of children involved in accidents while being transported in the back of such pickup trucks. Ms. Parnell said the degree of injury was severe when children were ejected from those truck beds. Current statutes acknowledged the danger in prohibiting this practice in counties with a population of over 100,000. Ms. Parnell said the PTA believed that all children in all counties deserved the protection offered in A.B. 58.
Assemblyman Knecht said he heard Ms. Parnell say that the PTA’s position was that children should not ride in the back of open-air trucks. He asked if that meant that they could ride in the back of a truck with a camper shell. Ms. Parnell replied that the position had been of open-air. She said they did not have a position on a camper shell. She said they would support A.B. 58 as it was written at this point in time and would have to look at the amendment which would include camper shells in the language.
Lisa Foster, American Automobile Association (AAA), said her organization supported A.B. 58. Chairwoman Chowning asked Ms. Foster if the AAA would support the bill with the amendment. Ms. Foster said she would need to take a look at the amendment.
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women’s Lobby, supported the bill with the amendment, and she said they would agree with the portion related to the camper shell. Ms. Gang said the Nevada Women’s Lobby believed that children should be protected and should be in child restraint devices at all times.
Gary Wolff, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, supported A.B. 58. He thought the camper shell amendment was good, because there were very few camper shells that would stay on a truck in the event of an accident or rollover.
Assemblyman Collins asked Mr. Wolff how the Highway Patrol would enforce the law if someone were riding in the back of a truck with a camper shell. He also asked how he would know if there was a child in the back or not. Mr. Wolff said one would not know unless one stopped the vehicle and saw the child in the back.
Chairwoman Chowning closed the hearing on A.B. 58.
Robert Loux, Executive Director, Office of the Governor, Agency for Nuclear Projects, outlined for the Committee the different types of radiological waste products that were traveling Nevada’s highways. He said he would discuss the possibility of the shipment of high-level waste (HLW) to the Yucca Mountain repository.
Mr. Loux explained that there were various categories of radiological waste, and each one had different regulatory components. Mr. Loux provided handouts to the Committee members. One was an overview that dealt with the subject of supplemental information on transportation of radioactive waste in Nevada (Exhibit H), and the second handout was an in-depth report regarding the transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain (Exhibit I).
Mr. Loux said three types of radiological waste streams were transported over Nevada highways. One type was transuranic waste (TRU), which was also known as intermediate waste. TRU waste was composed of materials such as clothing, tools, and similar items that had some contamination with plutonium or other long-lived isotopes that required longer isolation than low-level waste. It was the byproduct of the development of nuclear weapons. Carlsbad, New Mexico, had an operating repository called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The material that had been generated by the weapons program had been shipped to the WIPP facility since it opened three years ago. Mr. Loux explained that while TRU waste was dangerous, it did not emanate a gamma of radiation. It primarily emanated an alpha and beta type of radiation, which meant the waste did not penetrate beyond regular containers. He said TRU waste did not require metal or lead containers.
Mr. Loux said that low-level waste (LLW) had been handled in the state for quite some time. He said LLW had come from the Department of Energy’s (DOE) weapons complex. There was some commercial LLW generated from hospitals, medical facilities, and nuclear power plants. That material was sent to disposal areas that existed throughout the country in various states. In 1980, the federal government passed the Low Level Nuclear Waste Policy Act that required states to form compacts that would designate commercial facilities for the disposal of that waste. Prior to that legislation, Nevada disposed of LLW at Beatty, Nevada, at Barnwell, South Carolina, and at Hanford, Washington.
Mr. Loux discussed the compacts throughout the country. The compact in the western United States was at the Hanford, Washington, facility. Nevada belonged to the northwest compact covering that facility. It was merged with the Rocky Mountain compact, of which Nevada was a member. By agreement, all material in the western states was disposed of at the Hanford facility.
Mr. Loux said Nevada was concerned that the defense LLW generated at DOE facilities throughout the United States had to be stored somewhere. The Nevada Test Site had disposed of radiological waste starting in the 1960s. This LLW included contaminated soils, tools, clothing, and similar materials. He stated that several years ago the DOE issued a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for waste management of low-level and mixed low-level waste (MLLW). Mixed low-level waste had a hazardous waste component. The DOE produced the PEIS to produce a formal process to designate where DOE would dispose of their waste. In that document, the DOE designated the Nevada Test Site and the Hanford, Washington, facility for the disposal of their LLW and MLLW from various weapons complexes from around the country. He said there was not a permit for the DOE to dispose of MLLW at the Nevada Test Site. Mr. Loux stated that the DOE had a permanent application pending with the Division of Environmental Protection, which was currently under review. If that permit was granted, the DOE would be able to import and dispose of MLLW in addition to the regular LLW at the test site.
Mr. Loux said that because of the increased shipments that occurred after the development of the PEIS on LLW, Governor Guinn interceded and negotiated with Bill Richardson, who was then Secretary of Energy. Governor Guinn obtained a commitment to address a number of Nevada’s equity concerns, which included the following:
Since 1976, over 23 million cubic feet of LLW had been shipped to the Nevada Test Site for disposal from facilities throughout the United States, such as Fernald, Ohio, and Rocky Flats, Colorado. Mr. Loux said there were approximately 1,642 shipments of LLW to the Nevada Test Site from 18 off-site generators in 2002. The total amount of waste disposed of by DOE in 2002 was over 2.275 million feet. Page 4 of Exhibit H listed LLW disposals as follows:
FY 2001 1,230,147 cu. ft. (actual)
FY 2002 2,275,862 cu. ft. (actual)
FY 2003 1,231,076 cu. ft. (projected)
FY 2004 1,779,043 cu. ft. (projected)
FY 2005 1,487,643 cu. ft. (projected)
Mr. Loux stated that at 50 cents a cubic foot, the amount of funds generated for emergency response training activities would be as follows:
FY 2001 $ 615,073
FY 2002 $1,137,931
FY 2003 $ 615,538
FY 2004 $ 889,521
FY 2005 $ 734,821
Mr. Loux said LLW and MLLW disposal at the Nevada Test Site would continue until cleanup of DOE weapons complex sites around the country was completed. He discussed the reports furnished by the DOE to the state that listed the numbers of shipments, by quarter, for each of the routes taken. He referred the Committee members to Figure 2 of his handout regarding supplemental information on transportation of radioactive waste in Nevada (Exhibit H), which detailed the approved routes for low-level waste transportation. One of the routes came in on U.S. 95 near Caliente, and then ran up and around the north end of the test site through Tonopah, Beatty, and the Amargosa Valley. Some shippers from southern California brought material up Interstate 15, crossed over California State Route 127, which becomes Nevada State Route 373, and went directly north through the Death Valley Junction area, Amargosa Valley, and to the test site. Some came in on Interstate 15 to the Blue Diamond Spring Mountain Pass and traveled over Nevada State Route 160 through Pahrump to the Nevada Test Site. Mr. Loux said there had been a few shipments that had come from the south and east that had actually gone through the Las Vegas valley spaghetti bowl and U.S. 95 down to the test site. He said in the past four quarters, three or four shipments had gone through the Las Vegas valley. He thought they had reached some accommodation with the DOE about shipping routes.
Chairwoman Chowning said she was interested in his last statement, because the rules said there were to be no shipments through the spaghetti bowl, the City of Las Vegas, or across Hoover Dam. In the 2001 Legislative Session, they were given information that 11 shipments did in fact go through. She pointed out that the DOE said no shipments had gone through Las Vegas. She wanted to know which report should be taken as fact.
Mr. Loux responded that under United States Department of Transportation regulations, transporters of LLW were legally permitted to use any route they chose. There were no regulations in place. The routing arrangements had been an informal agreement between the DOE, the governor, and the congressional delegation. There had been shipments through the valley. The Nevada Operations Office of the DOE had tried to convince the shippers to follow the prescribed routes as opposed to going through the valley. Mr. Loux said the DOE had indicated that the use of an unauthorized route was due to things such as driver error. He pointed out that the error rate was very small. The state would try to stop all shipping, but since it was defense waste coming from one DOE defense facility to another, Nevada was not legally able to stop them. There were no legal regulations in place for those actual routes; they were done more or less as a gentlemen’s agreement with the DOE.
Assemblyman Collins asked if the vehicles were properly placarded. Mr. Loux replied that they were. Mr. Collins then asked if state and local ordinances could designate hazardous routes within our state, as was done with trucking. Mr. Loux said it could be done as long as it was commensurate with how it would be regulated and how the state attempted to control commerce in general. He said there were no provisions that required inspection of those LLW shipments, and there were no regulations that required routes that should be taken. If there were ports of entry, and inspections of all commerce was being performed, LLW shipments would be included in that process. It would not be legal to single them out.
Mr. Loux stated that technically LLW was not hazardous material. He explained that the material was classified as radiological waste owned by the defense side of the DOE. As a result, it fell under the purview of national security. The United States Department of Transportation regulated the placarding of the transport vehicles.
Assemblyman Claborn asked if any nuclear waste material was currently being stored at Yucca Mountain. Mr. Loux responded that there was not. Mr. Claborn asked if the low-yield nuclear waste was being stored at Richmond Flat. Mr. Loux explained that the material eventually destined for Yucca Mountain was primarily stored at nuclear power plants. He said some defense high-level waste was stored at the DOE’s facilities at a number of places around the country. Mr. Claborn asked if there were spent rods at Yucca Mountain. Mr. Loux replied that there were not.
Assemblyman Knecht asked if the nuclear make-up of the LLW and MLLW was essentially similar to transuranic and HLW. Mr. Loux said it was not, because LLW could not contain any of the long-lived radioisotopes such as plutonium. He said there was a threshold in activity level upon which it was no longer considered LLW. He said it was on a case-by-case basis.
Assemblyman Knecht asked if it would be eligible for LLW or MLLW if it had significant quantities of plutonium in it. Mr. Loux responded that if it had any plutonium it would not qualify as LLW or MLLW. Mr. Knecht wanted to know what the longest half-life of the LLW and MLLW was. Mr. Loux did not have that information with him, but said it was generally considered that the material remained hazardous for 100 years.
Assemblyman Goicoechea asked how much money had been generated with the additional 50 cent per cubic foot disposal fee and where that money had been distributed. Mr. Loux referred Mr. Goicoechea to the chart on page 5 of Exhibit H that reflected the revenue from 2001 through projected 2005. He understood that Nye County, Lincoln County, and White Pine County had received part of those fees. Mr. Goicoechea asked Mr. Loux for a breakdown of those fees. Mr. Loux said he would provide information on the counties that did receive money and how much they received.
Assemblyman Claborn asked why the 50 cent per cubic foot disposal fee had remained the same since 1976. Mr. Loux said he had not been aware of a surcharge before 1999. The fee had come about as a trade-off for the use of the state’s roadways by the shippers of LLW.
Assemblyman Claborn said that he had a different recollection. He explained that he had worked at the Nevada Test Site in 1976, and at that time, someone had received a disposal fee.
Mr. Loux said he deferred to Assemblyman Claborn’s historical knowledge. He explained that the state had not received any disposal fees until the late 1990s.
Mr. Loux stated there was a quantity of TRU waste at the Nevada Test Site that had been transported illegally from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The Division of Environmental Protection fined the DOE and the LLNL in the early 1990s for that incident. The DOE planned to transport between 80 and 100 shipments of the TRU waste from the Nevada Test Site to the WIPP in Carlsbad, New Mexico, over the next six years. The route for those shipments of the TRU would avoid the Las Vegas valley. Mr. Loux said the Agency for Nuclear Projects was working with a group of state agencies, including the Highway Patrol, Emergency Management Health Division, Environmental Protection, and DOT, to prepare and equip their emergency responders for the shipments that might occur in the future. He said the state received money from the DOE to do those things. The DOE provided money to the Western Governor’s Association. As a regional organization, they had been involved because many of the shipments to Carlsbad, New Mexico, had occurred from western states. The state received approximately $150,000 annually from DOE through the Western Governor’s Association for the purpose of training and coordinating shipments that might occur later this year out of Nevada into the WIPP facility.
Chairwoman Chowning asked what agencies of the state had worked with federal authorities for the transportation of the TRU waste to the WIPP. Mr. Loux said the Nevada Highway Patrol, the Division of Emergency Management Health Division, Division of Environmental Protection, and the Nevada Department of Transportation had been involved in the arrangement of the shipments. He said he would keep the Committee apprised and would continue to provide the quarterly reports on the shipment of LLW throughout the state.
Mr. Loux discussed Yucca Mountain. He explained that the DOE had been planning the facility at Yucca Mountain for some time. He stated that the transportation plan for the facility had not been addressed. Last spring, the DOE issued a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Yucca Mountain. He explained that the state had legally challenged the validity and technical adequacy of the EIS. He said the EIS did not identify national transportation routes and possible impacts along those routes. The state believed the EIS was deficient and needed to be rewritten. The federal government opined that the EIS and the litigation initiated by the state were moot. The basis for this position was that when Congress overrode the Governor’s veto in early 2002, that action constituted new law and superceded the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which called for the EIS. Mr. Loux said if the state was correct and it was legally deficient, it would go back to DOE. If the federal government was correct, and the issue was moot, there was no EIS for Yucca Mountain and none for DOE to tier and make transportation decisions from EIS.
Mr. Loux said the state believed the DOE had to commit to a new EIS for transportation which encompassed an integrated transportation program that covered both the national system and the system within Nevada. He stated that the DOE was not doing this. For over two decades, Mr. Loux’s organization had tried to work with the DOE, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the federal Department of Transportation. They said the shipments to Yucca Mountain would be the subject of specific transportation regulations. Under existing DOE regulations, the transport of HLW must be over the most direct interstate route to the repository. Transporters were not allowed to choose routes outside of the interstate system. Before shipments of HLW could occur, the affected states had to be given advanced notice. Those notices were intended only for those officials who had a need to know, and they were not disseminated to the general public. Since 1977, Nevada’s recommendations regarding high-level nuclear waste transportation risk management had been focused on four areas:
1) A comprehensive approach to risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication.
2) Development of a preferred transportation system.
3) Full-scale, physical testing of shipping casks.
4) Accident prevention and emergency response.
Mr. Loux said the comprehensive risk assessment (CRA) program should cover all of the transportation system phases, events, and consequences; calculate probabilities; and incorporate other models to determine what impacts might occur under different assumptions and sensitivities. He said the risk communication should be a tool that the DOE used throughout the entire shipping campaign. It should be the basis of risk communication to the public and other interested parties throughout the life of the project. The DOE had not done this and had no plans to do it. He said his agency thought it was critical that it be done.
Mr. Loux went on to say that the DOE needed to develop a preferred transportation system, designed to reduce the radiological risk of routine shipments, severe accidents, and potential terrorism incidents. Dual-purpose casks should be used for at-reactor storage and off-site transportation of spent nuclear fuel. He believed the oldest, least radioactive spent fuel should be shipped first, and no fuel should be shipped off-site until it had cooled for 20 years after removal from a reactor. Railroads should be the transport mode of choice. The use of dedicated trains should be mandatory, operating under special safety protocols, such as recommended by the American Association of Railroads. As early as possible, DOE should fully involve affected corridor states and Indian tribes in system planning, and provide financial assistance under Section 180(c).
Mr. Loux said the DOE should maximize use of regional organizations for planning, implementation, and program evaluation. The DOE should coordinate with states, tribes, and local governments. He said there was a comprehensive safety program modeled after the WIPP program. The DOE should revise its proposed Plan for Privatization of Transportation Services to emphasize safety and public acceptance.
Mr. Loux said there were three factors involved in the regulatory aspect of shipping the hazardous material. Most had to be shipped under the Department of Transportation regulations, both for rail and highway. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s role in those shipments was the certification and testing of the casks the material would be shipped in. To date, none of the casks currently used had gone through full-scale testing. They had been tested in computer simulation and small-scale models. There were seven spent fuel truck cask designs and nine rail cask designs that were certified for use in the United States.
Mr. Loux said that stakeholders had long urged NRC to conduct full-scale testing as part of a certification program. The NRC had recently indicated they wanted to review the testing program and put forward a testing protocol performance study. He said the demonstration testing the NRC proposed was not an acceptable substitute for the combination of full-scale testing, scale-model testing, and computer simulation of each new cask design prior to certification. Prior to certification, the cask testing should incorporate the following:
· Meaningful stakeholder role in development of testing protocols and selection of test facilities and personnel.
· Full-scale testing should be sequential prior to certification, or as a prerequisite for DOE procurement.
· Additional computer simulations to determine performance in extra-regulatory events.
· Reevaluation of the NRC Modal Study findings.
· Evaluation of the costs and benefits of destructive testing of randomly selected models.
Mr. Loux said the United States Secretary of Energy opined there would be as few as 175 shipments of HLW to Yucca Mountain each year. He questioned the accuracy of that statement. To realize such a low number of shipments, Doe would have to ship over 90 percent of all HLW by rail; assure that each shipment was made up of at least three rail cars per train; make thousands of barge and/or heavy-haul truck shipments to move the HLW from reactor sites without rail access to rail heads; create staging areas in rail yards and ports around the country in order to assemble the trains; and would need to construct a 100-400 mile rail access in Nevada.
According to the DOE’s Environmental Impact Statement, about 70,000 metric tons of HLW could be shipped to Yucca Mountain over 24 years, and if they wanted to ship the entire inventory of approximately 119,000 metric tons, that would take nearly 38 years.
Mr. Loux pointed out that if the HLW were transported by truck, about 108,900 shipments would be involved. He said that if the HLW shipments were by rail, the total number of movements would be between 13,000 and 45,000. He believed transporting by truck was the most feasible. Presently, there was no rail access to Yucca Mountain.
Mr. Loux described several possible rail routes to Yucca Mountain. The construction of any one of those rail routes would take in excess of ten years, and some of them would cost more than $1 billion to construct. He said there had not been more than a 30-mile rail line built in the United States in the last 50 years. The alternative to the rail construction would be the delivery of thousands of large rail casks to an intermodal transfer facility. The alternative would involve delivery of thousands of large rail casks by 220-foot-long, heavy-haul trucks over distances of 112 to 300 miles over Nevada’s public highways. Mr. Loux said the alternative was not feasible, as the DOE had indicated that each shipment would have to be permitted separately. There would have to be additional construction on all of the affected highways, such as separate lanes going in each direction.
Mr. Loux stated that his agency thought rail was also an unlikely option, despite what DOE believed. Approximately one-third of nuclear power plants had no rail access. He said as many as 32 sites of the 72 power plants would not have rail access. The rail concept assumed that DOE could ship thousands of casks by barge through the ports of Boston, New Haven, Newark, Jersey City, and various other ports. Mr. Loux said the DOE could move the casks from reactors to rail connections using large heavy-haul trucks, each of which would require state permits and route approvals. Even if rail access to Yucca Mountain and all impediments to rail transport could be resolved, it would involve no more than 60-70 percent of the material, with the balance remaining moved by commercial legal weight trucks.
Mr. Loux said that under ideal circumstances, the DOE could not start up operations at Yucca Mountain until sometime between 2015 and 2020. He said there were a number of regulatory hurdles and other obstacles that had inhibited the DOE’s ability to move on those transportation initiatives.
Assemblywoman Chowning opined that the federal government had not viewed the EIS problem with appropriate importance based on Mr. Loux’s comments. She was bothered by the fact that the general population would not have information regarding the transport of HLW. She thanked the state, the Governor, and Nevada’s Congressional delegation for their continued fight against Yucca Mountain.
Mr. Loux said the Governor, through the State Transportation Board, had the ability to designate alternative routes to the interstate highway system. The selection of such alternate routes required states to work with each other and get approval from the United States Department of Transportation.
Assemblyman Knecht wanted to know if the Comprehensive Risk Assessment contained enough detail. It was his recollection that certain types of federal Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) were not too demanding for “no project” or “no action” alternatives, unless the requirements had been changed in the recent past. He asked if a federal EIS required a true “no project” analysis and, if not, was Nevada, in its request for a Comprehensive Risk Assessment, supporting a “no project” or “no action” type analysis, as well as the analysis of the various project alternatives.
Mr. Loux replied that the Council on Environmental Quality’s requirements for an EIS did require a valuation of “no action” alternative. The DOE performed such an analysis in the final EIS. He believed the analysis was flawed and this was a basis for part of the state’s challenge to the EIS.
Chairwoman Chowning opened the work session on A.B. 30.
Assembly Bill 30: Revises provisions regarding registration of motor vehicles. (BDR 43-67)
Chairwoman Chowning referred the Committee members to tab “A” of the work session document (Exhibit J). The Committee had wanted refunds to apply only to persons in Nevada who stayed in Nevada. Because the language was not restrictive enough according the Legislative Counsel Bureau, the bill needed revising.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED THAT PASSAGE OF A.B. 30, AS AMENDED, BE RESCINDED.
ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Marji Paslov-Thomas, Committee Policy Analyst, explained that Assemblyman Carpenter proposed to amend A.B. 30 to provide that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) could adopt regulations concerning the requirements of granting refunds to a person who cancelled his registration and surrendered his vehicle’s license plates. The regulations adopted by the DMV must provide that if the DMV received a request for the refund, they may issue a refund to a person only if a spouse had died, he was unable to drive due to a medical condition, he voluntarily surrendered his driver’s license, or in the event that the motor vehicle had been involved in an accident and the insurance company determined the motor vehicle was a total loss. Ms. Paslov-Thomas said the amendment gave DMV the option to adopt additional conditions under which they could issue a refund, which were not in conflict with the subsection. The DMV could not give a refund to a person unless the refund was $100 or more and the person was a resident of the state of Nevada at the time the request was made. She said that the DMV had requested that this part of the bill be effective on January 1, 2004, to allow time for them to put their administrative procedures in place.
Chairwoman Chowning referred the Committee members to tab “B” of the work session document (Exhibit J).
Dennis Colling, Administrative Services Division Chief, Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), referenced the DMV Refunds Fiscal Note found in Exhibit J, which listed fees refunded in calendar years 2001, 2002, and estimated fee refunds for 2003. Based on his understanding of the amendment, a small group of people would be entitled to refunds. He said the DMV could not estimate the amount of future refunds.
Chairwoman Chowning asked if the DMV representatives could make an estimate of refunds based on their past experience.
Ginny Lewis, Director, Department of Motor Vehicles, said that during the 2001 session, Speaker Dini passed a piece of legislation that required the DMV to adopt regulations for extenuating circumstances for those customers who were suspended under the Insurance Verification Program, and who had a hardship in providing the $250 reinstatement fee. She said very few people had actually fallen under those criteria.
Assemblyman Collins asked if the DMV could decide what the criteria would be for providing refunds.
Assemblyman Claborn asked how much revenue would be lost by the state if the proposed amendment were approved. Mr. Colling explained that the DMV did not know how much would be lost, but believed it would be a small amount. Mr. Claborn said that he believed the current bill stated that if the refundable amount were over $100, the total amount would be returned to the applicant. Chairwoman Chowning said the Committee was addressing the current proposed amendment, and not what had been the subject of the previous amendment. The amendment provided that refunds would not be made for less than $100. She said refunds over $100 would be given to a person who was a resident of Nevada at the time of the claim. In addition to that, refunds would be issued to residents only under certain circumstances. Mrs. Chowning stated that the $8 million that was refunded in calendar years 2001 and 2002 would probably have been saved, with the exception of maybe $200,000, were this amendment in place.
Assemblyman Claborn said he remembered a figure between$1.5 million and $2 million that the state would lose if they had refunded the money over $100.
Chairwoman Chowning responded that the information Mr. Claborn referred to had been previously furnished to the Committee, but the current amendment had changed those circumstances.
Assemblyman Atkinson wanted to know who would administer the various provisions set forth in the current amendment. Mr. Atkinson thought it would waste a lot of money, and he liked the bill the way it was originally written. Ms Lewis said it would not be easy to administer the items discussed by Mr. Atkinson. DMV field office personnel had addressed some of those issues. She said people did voluntarily surrender their drivers’ licenses for medical reasons, and those people submitted letters from their doctors. When spouses died, they did have to ask for copies of the Death Certificate. In order to ensure that people were not trying to work the system, there would have to be a certain amount of checks and balances on DMV’s part. They would handle it case by case.
Assemblyman Goicoechea said he had voted against the original amendment, as it had been his understanding that the Committee had voted to refund any amount over $100.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Assemblyman Goicoechea if he had meant any amount up to $100. Mr. Goicoechea responded that under the original amendment, anything over $100 would be refunded.
Chairwoman Chowning recalled that the original amendment did say that refunds would be given over $100. She said the new amendment also stipulated that amounts over $100 would be refunded.
Assemblyman Claborn spoke about the fairness issue. He said that under certain circumstances, refunds were appropriate. He said he understood that it cost the State Comptroller a lot of money to issue refunds. Mr. Claborn said he would like to see something that showed what the state would save or give back to the people with the original amendment.
Chairwoman Chowning said everything Mr. Claborn had requested in connection with the original amendment was part of the current amendment. Mr. Claborn said he mentioned those situations because they were the first that came to mind, but he thought there were other reasons for refunds if more time could be devoted to the process. Chairwoman Chowning stated that the other issues should have been brought up during past discussions. She pointed out that the current amendment gave the DMV the latitude to adopt additional conditions for granting refunds.
Assemblyman Sherer wondered if the Committee would consider refunding anything over $100, which had been previously discussed. He asked Chairwoman Chowning if he could make a motion along those lines.
Chairwoman Chowning said that all refunds over $100 for calendar year 2001 was $1.9 million and for calendar year 2002 it was $2.7 million. She had asked the DMV if they could determine how much of that would be for Nevada residents only, and they told her they had no way of tracking that.
Assemblywoman McClain, District No. 15, said that if a person living in Nevada decided to move out of state, they would apply for their refund prior to moving out of the state, which would show them as a Nevada resident. She reminded the Committee that the state had lost $8 million in General Fund dollars because of refunds.
Assemblyman Knecht said he had just been handed a document (Exhibit K) that he had overlooked. He explained that he agreed with Assemblywoman McClain’s assessment regarding people moving out of the state. He stated that he concurred with Assemblyman Carpenter that the items listed under Section 3 of the current amendment would not constitute all the reasons for granting refunds, and refunds would only be for amounts above $100. He said that he would support making refunds for all amounts over $50.
Assemblyman Gustavson stated that he agreed with Assemblymen Carpenter and Knecht that the current amendment was not consistent with previous discussions. He thought the reasons for the refunds were more restrictive than previously discussed.
ASSEMBLYMAN CLABORN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 30 WITH NO AMENDMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN ATKINSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked if Assemblyman Claborn’s motion was for the original bill as presented. Mr. Claborn said it was.
Assemblyman Knecht said he would vote against the bill, because he thought the proper balance was struck between fairness to the license holder and fairness to the state by a $50 or at most $100 exclusion. Without that exclusion, he could not support the bill.
Assemblyman Sherer said he could not support the bill because he believed that the bill should provide for refunds.
Chairwoman Chowning explained that under the original bill, credits would be provided when a person purchased a replacement vehicle.
Assemblyman Oceguera proposed that refunds be made for all amounts over $100.
Assemblyman Collins wondered if the DMV could be empowered to decide all hardship cases. He also suggested that this alternative not include a threshold.
Assemblyman Claborn called for the question.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Assemblyman Manendo asked if someone could explain the document that had been circulated among the Committee members (Exhibit K) during the latter part of the meeting. He said at that time, perhaps the Committee could reconsider Assemblyman Claborn’s motion. He said he had voted “no” because he thought there were still some questions out there, not because he was against the bill.
Chairwoman Chowning asked Ms. Paslov-Thomas to provide copies of Exhibit K to all of the members so the issue could be discussed at a work session at another meeting.
Chairwoman Chowning adjourned the meeting at 3:42 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Kelly Fisher
Transcribing Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman
DATE: