MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session May 29, 1995 The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 1:45 p.m., on Monday, May 29, 1995, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. This meeting was video-conferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building located at 555 E. Washington Street, Las Vegas, NV, Room 4401. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator John B. (Jack) Regan Senator O. C. Lee COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Vice Chairman (Excused) Senator Mark A. James (Excused) GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Assembly District No. 38 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Harry W. Swainston, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Conservation and Natural Resources Section Judy Treichel, Lobbyist, Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, Las Vegas Rick Nielsen, Executive Director, Citizen Alert Pete Mastin, Director, Citizens Against Nuclear Waste in Nevada [CANWIN] M. Lee Dazey, Director, Northern Nevada Citizen Alert Lew Dodgion, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Michael R. Reed, Director, Governmental Affairs, Sierra Pacific Power Company Ray E. Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association Bob Hadfield, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties [NACO] Gaylyn Spriggs, Lobbyist, Rayrock Mines Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R. 26). ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 26: Expresses vehement opposition to storage of radioactive waste in Nevada. Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Assembly District No. 38, came forward to give a brief statement on A.J.R. 26 as introducer of this measure. He said this resolution was drafted because it is important that the legislators are unified in their position on this issue. He emphasized it is not desirous to send a mixed message to Congress that Nevada is divided on the radioactive waste issue. Assemblyman Dini stated that A.J.R. 26 sends a good, strong message to Congress that Nevada still stands opposed to the nuclear repository being placed in Nevada. That A.J.R. 26 indicates the legislators join the Governor and the Nevada congressional delegation in protesting this action, and that it is done in a unified voice. Assemblyman Dini indicated it is better for the state to have one policy on the radioactive waste issue. Assemblyman Dini concluded his remarks by saying, "We want to send one strong message to Congress and tell them to look somewhere else." Chairman Rhoads asked if someone in the audience could "bring the committee up to speed" on what happened in Congress recently with the vote that was taken on the nuclear waste issue. Chairman Rhoads recognized the two people in Las Vegas who are desirous to testify and informed them they would have an opportunity to do that soon. Bob Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, told the committee he was testifying on behalf of Brian McKay, Chairman of the Commission on Nuclear Projects, who could not attend this meeting. Mr. Loux said Mr. McKay wanted his support expressed for A.J.R. 26, indicating the necessary bipartisan opposition would keep the state's policy intact and believes it sends the right message to Washington [D.C.], especially in light of some of the events that are going on at this time. Mr. Loux told the committee there are two primary bills pending in Congress -- one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives -- that relate to some fundamental changes in the nuclear waste program overall. He said both measures contemplate an interim storage facility and both bills indicate the Nevada test site is a likely location. He suggested recent action with the passage of the House Budget Resolution may have had some material effect on those two bills, because the House Budget Resolution indicated that Yucca Mountain was being zeroed out and that no further money, whatsoever, would be appropriated for that project. But that resolution does provide $50 million for a close out of the Yucca Mountain activities, according to Mr. Loux, and it does contemplate a temporary storage facility for high level radioactive waste at a facility, yet to be defined. Mr. Loux further stated that the chairman of the U. S. Senate Energy Committee has indicated that he is supportive of interim storage facilities either at the Hanford facility in Washington state, or the Savannah River facility in South Carolina, and not the Nevada test site. Mr. Loux said in summation: It appears to me that there is still a great deal of confusion and chaos in Congress about what will happen. I think certainly some legislation of some type is likely to pass, although maybe not this year, but perhaps next year. I think the fundamental nature of the program will be changed from an investigation for permanent geologic storage to looking at the front-burner issue of temporary storage at a location yet undetermined. Mr. Loux stated there is almost unanimous opinion in both congressional houses that the Yucca Mountain Project is not going to continue at least in the same way as it is known now. Senator McGinness inquired if the money in the House Budget Resolution funds the various counties and budget money for Mr. Loux's office. Mr. Loux said in the overall picture, that is correct. But the House Budget Resolution is specific as to funding for the states and counties. Mr. Loux indicated the resolution is the overall cap for the entire federal budget, except for the 13 general large appropriation areas such as energy and water. He added the House Budget Resolution only had specific funding as it related to the Yucca Mountain and not any specifics for states and counties. Senator McGinness asked if the budget for Mr. Loux's office was affected, to which Mr. Loux replied he did not know until there had been hearings by the authorizing committees and the appropriations committees. Harry W. Swainston, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Conservation and Natural Resources Section, indicated he is assigned to Mr. Loux's agency and he represents the Commission on Nuclear Projects and the Nuclear Projects within the Office of the Attorney General. Mr. Swainston outlined the background of the nuclear projects. He said between 1983 and 1989 there was a vacuum in terms of policy within the state, so it was very helpful when the 1989 Legislative Session passed Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 4 of the Sixty-fifth Session and Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 6 of the Sixty-fifth Session. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 4 OF THE SIXTY-FIFTH SESSION: Urges Congress not to allow location of respository for nuclear waster in Nevada. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 6 OF THE SIXTY-FIFTH SESSION: Expresses Legislature's refusal to consent to placeme nt of reposit ory for high- level radioac tive waste in Nevada. Mr. Swainston explained these two resolutions expressed the legislator's adamant opposition to the siting of a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain and refused to give the state's consent to that type of facility. Mr. Swainston related that in the opinion of the attorney general, it would be very helpful to have a reaffirmation of the 1989 statement of policy and that A.J.R. 26 in fact, provides that restatement of policy. And he said it is helpful to him in his representation of the state before the courts, when he can say the state adamantly opposes a repository facility and can recite chapter and verse of the legislative policy statement to that effect. Mr. Swainston said it is also helpful that the state has never accepted benefits or done anything that would jeopardize the state's ability to mount a full-scale constitutional challenge to legislation by the Congress who would either site a permanent facility or an interim facility at the Nevada test site. He remarked the state is not "out of the woods" yet. That Nevada may be called upon to mount that constitutional challenge and if that should happen A.J.R. 26 will be very helpful as a policy statement. Chairman Rhoads told the committee of a tabulated survey results (Exhibit C) from Marge Detraz, Alamo, Nevada, which had been provided to all the members for their perusal. Chairman Rhoads then called on Judy Treichel, Lobbyist, Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, Las Vegas, being video-conferenced from Las Vegas. Ms. Treichel told the committee that although her office is located in Las Vegas, the agency is operable throughout Nevada and also receives a lot of communications from other parts of the country. Ms. Treichel said her agency is getting a lot of calls from people asking "what is actually going on" and then how Nevadan's feel about it. She pointed out there has been a lot of talk about whether or not Nevada has changed its position [on nuclear waste] and whether or not Nevada is beginning to give up. She indicated people want clarification all the time. Ms. Treichel said A.J.R. 26 would be very helpful in that respect and she supports the measure. Ms. Treichel referred to a newspaper article (Exhibit D) which was transmitted to the committee meeting. The article came from a Minneapolis newspaper and talks of Frontenac, Minnesota, which is very close to the Prairie Island Plant that is run by Northern States Power Co. Ms. Treichel said the residents of Frontenac primarily work for the Prairie Island Plant and that they get tremendous tax benefits for having lived near the Northern States Power Plant. She said the Northern States Power Plant has been told by the Minnesota Legislature to find a site for on-site storage until another site became ready, so they chose a site close to Frontenac. She said because of this, Frontenac is considering seceding from the county in which it is located because they will have no place for their own waste. Ms. Treichel mentioned Nevada has been on record for a long time as being adamantly opposed to the nuclear waste dump site. She said A.J.R. 26 proves that Nevada still has the same policy, so it is extremely effective in representing the people and their wishes as far as nuclear waste is concerned. Senator McGinness inquired if the Nuclear Waste Task Force was made up of private citizens and how is it funded? Ms. Treichel replied the membership is primarily a huge mailing list. And that her agency receives a very small contract annually from the state office Mr. Loux is with, but her agency is primarily foundation-funded. Rick Nielsen, Executive Director, Citizen Alert, also testifying from Las Vegas, explained Citizen Alert is a statewide environmental organization which has about 2,200 members within Nevada and some members throughout the nation. He said his group fully supports A.J.R. 26 and they recommend that the committee take quick action on this measure. Mr. Nielsen said that the unusual chain of events which prompted A.J.R. 26 have raised questions as to what the real issues at stake here are, and if Nevada is now divided or, indeed unified, in its opposition to the storage of high level nuclear waste on any basis, permanent or temporary. Mr. Nielsen further stated A.J.R. 26 will serve to clarify any misconceptions that may have surfaced due to the freedom of speech debate in Lincoln County [NV]. He said passage of this resolution will send a strong message to all Nevadan's and to the entire nation that while Nevada is conscious of the need to uphold freedom of speech rights, it will not waiver on its position on nuclear waste storage in this state. There being no others in Las Vegas to testify, Chairman Rhoads brought the meeting back to the hearing room in Carson City. Pete Mastin, Director, Citizens Against Nuclear Waste in Nevada [CANWIN], came forward and read a prepared statement (Exhibit E) in support of A.J.R. 26. M. Lee Dazey, Director, Northern Nevada Citizen Alert, told the committee that she reiterates the testimony by Mr. Neilsen, but there were some other points she wished to emphasize. She read a prepared statement (Exhibit F) in support of A.J.R. 26. Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on A.J.R. 26 and announced it would go into work session on Wednesday. Chairman Rhoads asked for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) S-1780. BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1780: Transfer county park at Washoe Lake to state recreational area. SENATOR REGAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S- 1780. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS JACOBSEN AND JAMES WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads asked for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) 40-1864. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-1864: Provides for self-evaluation concerning hazards to health and environment. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 40-1864. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS JACOBSEN AND JAMES WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 22. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 22: Urges Congress to investigate additional costs incurred for visitor facilities program at Hoover Dam. There being no one in the meeting room or in the Las Vegas hearing room to testify on this measure, Chairman Rhoads closed the hearing on S.J.R. 22. Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 23. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 23: Urges Congress to adopt proposals that are equitable to all states for regulating air quality within area surrounding Grand Canyon. Lew Dodgion, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, commenced his testimony by showing an informational 13-minute video, "Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission," which he said gave a very good overview of what is happening with the Grand Canyon visibility. At this point, Chairman Rhoads turned the chair over to Senator McGinness so that he could testify on a bill being heard in another committee meeting. Chairman Rhoads returned to chair the meeting before the end of the video. Mr. Dodgion indicated he is speaking in support of S.J.R. 23. He updated the information in the video, stating the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission met in April and changed the schedule so that the final report will not be sent to the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] until April, 1996. Mr. Dodgion referred to printed material (Exhibit G) which parallels the information in the video. He explained the information in Exhibit G, and said because of the clean air corridor concept that it is important to pass a resolution such as S.J.R. 23 to get people's attention to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission's actions and to be cognizant of the ramifications that those actions may have. He further added that the Clean Air Act requires the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission to look at the clean air corridor concept as a solution to preserving visibility in the Grand Canyon and other Class I areas in the "golden circle" that are on the Colorado Plateau. Mr. Dodgion explained the Clean Air Act mandates that if clean air corridor concepts become a part of the solution, that they be managed as non-attainment areas. He recognized that the cleanest air in the whole United States, as the video indicated, is managed as if it was the dirtiest air. Chairman Rhoads asked if section 169B of the Clean Air Act as referred to in S.J.R. 23, page 2, line 28, had been looked at by the Congress. Mr. Dodgion said he did not know, but he thought this resolution would give them impetus to do so. Mr. Dodgion said, for example, he could not get the State of Idaho interested in this concept and he noted that Idaho was totally encompassed by the clean air corridor concept. He stressed that if the clean air corridor concept is adopted, Nevada will be severely impacted by a clean air corridor concept solution. He again referred to the video in more discussion of the clean air corridor concept. Mr. Dodgion continued: There will be recommendations by the commission to the administrator of EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] who is to consider those recommendations and other factors and then develop regulations to protect visibility in the "golden circle." That means that even though the commission might recommend equitable solutions that do not include the clean air corridor, that the administrator of EPA can go ahead and adopt regulations that would implement the clean air corridor concept. And that is why it is extremely important from my viewpoint, to get people interested and participating in this process and knowledgeable about what can happen. Chairman Rhoads asked if the $8 million per year for 5 years has been appropriated. Mr. Dodgion said it was authorized in the Clean Air Act, but it has never been appropriated. Chairman Rhoads inquired if this was an unfunded mandate and Mr. Dodgion said the work of the commission is funded by some EPA grants and some industry funding, but there is not enough money available to do in-depth work on improving the science, and understanding the science, of long-range visibility transport. Senator Adler inquired what was being done about the dirty air in places like Los Angeles. Mr. Dodgion declared his philosophy is that the people who cause the problem should address it as opposed to imposing additional regulations and restrictions on the clean air areas. There was further discussion between Mr. Dodgion and Senator Adler concerning clean air and the video. Senator McGinness asked if this concept would have an impact on any economic development that Nevada would try to pursue because of being penalized for dirty air out of Los Angeles. Mr. Dodgion said if the clean air corridor concept is adopted and implemented, it will have a devastating impact on economic development in the clean air corridors. Senator McGinness remarked "it would basically close us up." Michael R. Reed, Director, Governmental Affairs, Sierra Pacific Power Company, said the hearing addressing S.J.R. 23 is a very important issue for the state of Nevada. He explained that Sierra Pacific Power Company is part of an ad hoc coalition of businesses within the state of Nevada, who have developed a great deal of interest in this particular issue and are very concerned about its impact on the state. Mr. Reed referred to the prepared testimony (Exhibit H) which has been filed with the committee. He outlined the language, page 3 of Exhibit H, that his group recommends be added to S.J.R. 23. Mr. Reed indicated he had additional recommendations to S.J.R. 23 which he believes will make it even stronger. For instance, calling on Congress, the EPA and the federal land agencies to have a moratorium on issuance of any additional legislation, or regulations, until after the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments have had a chance to be fully implemented and the results can be looked at. He added that indications are that over the past 8 to 10 year period, air quality in the west has improved significantly. Therefore, it probably is not necessary to have additional regulatory or statutory intrusion into this area until the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments have been given a chance to operate. Mr. Reed continued his testimony by saying that any future regulations should be based on good sound science and peer- reviewed. He said based on the understanding of his company of what has happened throughout this Grand Canyon process, much of the scientific work that has been done has been hurried. That it has not been given sufficient time for adequate peer or public review and his company believes the process is somewhat flawed. Mr. Reed recited some background, saying that in 1990 when the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission was added to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, it was done at the last minute and was really a compromise to give the western states the ability to comment on what looked like a sure thing as far as the EPA and the Federal Land Management Agencies, issuing additional regulations, that would have had severe impact at that time. Mr. Reed stated Nevada has been given an opportunity because of the lack of sufficient funding and the hurry-up process, there has not been sufficient time to develop the science. In fact, the science on visibility is very, very questionable at this point, according to Mr. Reed. He said indications are that even the air moving into the Grand Canyon from the L.A. Basin may not have the impact on visibility that some people seem to think. Mr. Reed added that much of the visibility problems in the Grand Canyon are created by naturally occurring things such as airborne particulates from some of the desert playas and winds. Mr. Reed concluded by saying: If the clean air act management options that are being looked at by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission staff, are enacted, we could wind with things like more stringent review requirements for new sources of emissions, regional emission caps in the clean air corridors. All of these things could be extremely expensive to the state of Nevada. And since we live in the fastest growing state in the Union, it could severely impact our ability to control our own economic destiny. It would severely impact our tax base in the state and it would have some serious implications for the future. Chairman Rhoads asked if the Clean Air Act was being debated in Congress. Mr. Reed said there is some discussion on pieces of legislation which have not yet been completely formulated. But, he said, one of the things they will be looking at are things involving the Clean Air Act and it is not known what form those things will take. Mr. Reed indicated that a resolution such as S.J.R. 23 and communication with Nevada's congressional delegation would insure that Nevada has an input into the process. Ray E. Bacon, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufacturers Association, came forward in support of S.J.R. 23. He outlined the information he had gathered in reference to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission which, he said, scared him. He said in support of S.J.R. 23, he believes this is more important to the economic issue in Nevada than the nuclear waste dump "will ever be." He said his group totally agrees with the recommendations outlined by Mr. Reed from Sierra Pacific Power Company. Bob Hadfield, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), indicated he was testifying at this hearing as a member of the Public Advisory Committee of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. He came forward to outline somewhat of a different prospective from what has been previously heard at this hearing. Mr. Hadfield said his concern was heightened when he attended most of the public hearings throughout the west which were sparsely attended and those present did not understand the issue. Mr. Hadfield said his additional concerns were heightened when he contacted his colleagues throughout the United States, mainly commenting to the people in the west, and they did not seem to be too concerned. Mr. Hadfield said members of the Public Advisory Committee are charged with making sure the public is involved in this process and the fact that these hearings have a meaning, and he added, there will be another series of hearings. Mr. Hadfield concluded his remarks by indicating he is concerned with the process, which he said does not seem to be working. He said he is in support of S.J.R. 23 because he believes it will help bring more attention to this matter, that perhaps more people will become aware of what it is. He suggested Nevada is in a threatened state from this. Mr. Hadfield added he believes it is an issue that should be addressed by the Nevada Legislature and he believes this resolution brings greater pressure to bear, brings more public involvement and "as a member of the pack, I welcome it." Mr. Hadfield said as a representative of Nevada's counties, they also support S.J.R. 23. Gaylyn Spriggs, Lobbyist, Rayrock Mines, said the mining industry is aware of the problem and it is concerned with the impact on Nevada as well as the neighboring states. She testified Rayrock Mines is in support of S.J.R. 23. Chairman Rhoads asked for a motion to amend and do pass S.J.R. 23. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.J.R. 23. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS JACOBSEN AND JAMES WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Rhoads adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m . RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Natural Resources May 29, 1995 Page