►
From YouTube: 2/17/2021 - Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Thank
you.
I'd
like
to
welcome
everybody
to
today's
meeting
of
the
assembly
committee
on
natural
resources,
so
call
this
meeting
to
order.
Remember
before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
remind
everyone
to
please
mute
yourself
when
you
are
not
speaking
in
order
to
minimize
background
noise
and
with
that
will
the
secretary,
please
call
the
rule.
D
B
A
Before
we
start
I'd
like
to
make
a
couple
of
quick
housekeeping
announcements,
members
of
the
public
can
provide
testimony
in
a
variety
of
ways
and
participating
meetings.
Information
on
how
to
participate
can
be
found
on
the
legislature's
website,
including
on
every
agenda
for
our
committee
meetings,
as
well
as
from
the
help
page
which
can
be
accessed
from
the
header
at
the
top
of
every
page.
A
With
that
we
will
move
on
to
our
first
item
on
the
agenda
today,
which
is
assembly
bill.
31.
With
that,
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
31..
This
bill
revises
provisions
governing
the
nevada,
petroleum
products,
inspection
act
before
we
start
with
the
bill
presentation.
A
I
just
want
to
remind
anybody
watching
that
anybody
joining
this
meeting
by
camera
or
video
conference
is
either
a
committee
member
staff
or
presenter.
Currently,
no
one
else
is
joining
our
meetings
on
camera.
With
that
welcome,
back
administrator
motivic
go
ahead
and
proceed
whenever
you're,
ready
and
start
by
introducing
yourself
for
the
record.
E
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
present
this
bill
to
you
this
afternoon,
and
I
am
actually
with
your
permission,
mr
chair,
going
to
ask
that
dr
bill
stradizky,
who
is
our
senior
petroleum
chemist
in
the
department,
give
the
bill
presentation
today.
He
is
our
premier
subject
matter
expert
in
the
department
on
all
things,
petroleum
and
fuels,
and
so
I'm
pleased
to
introduce
him
to
the
committee
and,
with
your
permission,
we'll
have
him
present
the
bill.
E
I
would
note
that
we
do
have
an
amendment
to
present
to
the
bill
with
your
agreement,
to
hear
that-
and
I
will
do
that
at
the
conclusion
of
dr
strajewski's
presentation
on
the
bill
as
introduced.
F
Good
afternoon,
am
I
properly
unmuted?
You
are
all
right
good
afternoon,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
natural
resources
committee.
As
administrator
matiavich
said,
my
name
is
dr
william
stragieski,
I'm
the
senior
petroleum
chemist
with
the
department
of
agriculture,
and
I
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
the
bill
this
afternoon.
F
After
every
after
a
review
of
nrs
chapter
590
in
the
past
year,
this
bill
was
prepared
primarily
as
a
clean
up
for
the
chapter.
However,
the
bill
does
also
add
some
new
authority
as
well.
I'd
like
to
review
the
various
sections
of
the
bill
and
the
additions
and
updates
that
are
proposed
section.
One
of
the
bill
adds
authority
to
adopt
specifications
of
diesel
exhaust
fluid
or
def
to
chapter
590..
F
Def
is
a
fluid
that
is
part
of
the
emissions
controlling
catalytic
conversion
system
in
modern
diesel
engines,
as
def
has
become
more
commonplace
in
the
market.
It
is
reasonable
to
expect
that
the
product
that
consumers
purchase
meets
specifications
likewise,
my
colleagues
in
weights
and
measures
are
looking
into
inspections
of
the
metering
of
def
much
as
they
already
do
with
fuel
dispensers.
F
Historically,
as
authority
over
establishing
specifications
for
different
petroleum
products
was
added
to
chapter
590,
some
authority
was
granted
to
the
board
and
others
to
the
state
sealer.
This
change
is
meant
to
provide
consistency
in
such
authority,
granting
it
exclusively
to
the
board
of
agriculture.
F
Section
9
event
amends
590.105
to
include
reference
to
def
in
addition
to
petroleum
products
and
motor
vehicle
fuel
sections.
10
11
and
12
will
include
references
to
the
added
language
concerning
def
as
part
of
the
nevada,
petroleum
products,
inspection
act
and
we'll
add
those
to
nrs,
590.120,
590.140
and
590.150
respectively.
F
F
56561.412
section
2,
which
discusses
expenditures
to
be
used
for
carrying
out
provisions
of
chapter
590,
so
the
def
is
included
in
that
section.
15
provides
transitory
authorities
for
officers
or
agencies
during
the
process,
during
which
responsibilities
for
adoption
of
regulations,
administration
of
agreements
and
contracts
and
enforcement
actions
during
the
period
in
which
the
responsibilities
are
transferred.
Pursuant
to
this
bill
and
finally,
section
16
sets
out
effective
dates
for
the
other
sections
of
the
bill.
F
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
for
allowing
me
to
present
the
various
sections
of
ab31.
A
E
Certainly,
mr
chairman,
if
that's
your
desire,
I'd
be
pleased
to
do
so
again
for
the
record
cadence
matiavich
and
with
apologies
to
the
committee
and
your
staff.
I
know
it's
always
a
little
annoying
when
a
bill
presenter
brings
an
amendment
to
their
bill,
but
as
a
little
bit
of
background
to
why
we're
bringing
this
amendment,
which
I
hope
that
the
committee
received
the
the
text
of
that
and
has
the
pdf.
E
G
E
Great
sorry,
I
might
have
had
a
little
bit
of
internet
latency
there.
So
just
a
little
bit
of
background
on
on.
Why
we're
bringing
this
amendment,
we
have
experienced
twice
recently
two
separate
incidents
where
we
identified
aviation
fuels
that
were
not
within
specification,
but
had
a
great
deal
of
difficulty,
getting
cooperation
from
the
operator
of
the
aviation
fuel
facility
in
allowing
our
inspectors
to
seal
the
outlets
of
the
dispensers
and
the
storage
tanks
containing
this
off-spec
fuel.
E
In
most
many
cases
with
retail
motor
fuel
dispensers
they're
open
to
the
public,
our
inspectors
have
ready
access
to
those.
However,
at
airfields
oftentimes
the
fuel
dispensing
equipment
is
behind
a
secured
access
area
and
we
need
assistance
from
the
from
the
fuel
supplier
in
order
to
access
those.
And,
unfortunately,
we
are
seeing
a
trend
when
we
identify
a
problem
with
aviation
fuel
that
these
operators
are
not
wanting
to
cooperate
with
us
and
are
in
fact
challenging
and
in
some
cases,
denying
access.
E
And
so
this
promo
proposed
amendment
relates
directly
to
those
two
recent
experiences
and
I'll
walk
through
that
language
and,
of
course,
be
pleased
to
answer
any
questions
as
to
how
we
think
that
that
might
assist
us
in
addressing
those
circumstances.
So
really,
the
amendment
has
two
primary
purposes.
E
The
first
is
to
extend
the
existing
provisions
that
exist
within
subsection
three
of
nrs
590
100,
which
makes
it
unlawful
for
any
person
officer,
agent
or
employee
thereof,
to
refuse
to
permit
the
state
sealer
of
consumer
equitability,
the
appointees
thereof
or
any
member
of
the
nevada
highway
patrol
to
perform
the
duties
prescribed
in
some
section
3
to
all
of
the
duties
within
590
100.
And
so
again
it
would
be
any
of
the
duties
that
our
inspectors
or
nevada
highway
patrol
would
be
undertaking
to
carry
out
the
provisions.
E
In
most
cases,
the
fuel
station
owner
or
operator
wants
to
be
able
to
address
the
issue
as
soon
as
possible
and
from
an
operational
perspective,
more
often
than
not
nda
can
meet
a
time
frame.
That's
shorter
than
24
hours.
Excuse
me
when
I
say
mda,
the
department
of
agriculture
can
meet
a
time
frame,
that's
shorter
than
24
hours
to
get
the
site
to
to
get
to
the
site
to
remove
that
feel.
E
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I've
got
to
be
honest
with
you.
This
english
teacher.
I
learned
a
lot
about
petroleum
that
I
had
no
idea
about
before.
So
thank
you
for
spreading
the
light
on
that
stuff.
So
the
first
question
I
have
is
on
the
initial
language
that
was
presented
as
it
would
be.
On
page
five,
it's
basically
section
three
point,
five
point
c:
when
it
it's
it's,
usually
it's
using
the
word
latest
and
so
usually
that's
in
regs.
B
So
I
didn't
know
if
there
was
a
reason
why,
for
legal
reasons,
you
were
using
the
word
latest
as
opposed
to
using
that
in
regs
or
if
there
was
some
other
discussion
where
maybe
we
need
to
know
about
why
that
phrase
is
being
utilized,
so
I
don't
know
if
that's
for
the
for
the
presenters
of
the
bill
or
for
legal.
Mr
chair
I'll,
let
you
decide
who
gets
to
answer
that.
B
A
All
right,
mr
amburn,
is
there
anything
that
you'd
like
to
to
add
in
regards
to
this
question.
H
Thank
you
chair.
What's
alan
ambron
for
the
record
in
regards
to
the
use
of
latest
in
this
situation,
I
think
it
would
essentially
mean
the
same
as
like
most
recent
or
the
most
current,
I'm
not
necessarily
seeing
a
reason
why
this
would
cause
an
issue
in
that.
A
Yeah
first
administrator
matthias
was
there
anything
that
you
wanted
to
add.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
the
record,
cadence
meteovic
and
through
you,
mr
chair
to
assemblywoman
anderson
in
in
this
case.
We
are
actually
adding
the
definition
for
diesel
exhaust
fluid
into
the
statute,
and
so
because
of
that
definition
includes
a
reference
to
an
iso
standard.
E
We
would
indicate
that
it's
the
latest
version
similar
to
a
discussion
we
had
earlier
this
week.
I
think
the
reference
there
to
latest
version
allows
the
statute
to
continue
to
mature.
If
that
iso
standard
were
to
be
updated,
it
continues
that
on
rather
than
requiring,
subsequent
updates.
Just
to
update
that
specific
provision.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
assemblywoman
anderson
for
the
question
and
to
administrator
mathiavitch
and
mr
amburn
for
the
clarification.
I
know
that
we
are
striving
to
ensure
that
our
statutes
can
adjust
as
some
of
the
materials
that
they
reference
also
change
over
time.
So
next
I
have
assemblywoman
titus.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
apologize
for
looking
away,
but
I
pulled
up
the
amendment
on
my
other
computer
here,
so
I
could
read
exactly
what
that
was,
and
I
do
have
access
to
it.
So
thank
you
for
that
and
my
question
is
around
the
amendment.
I
just.
I
think
I
need
some
clarification.
I
We
have
a
diesel
vehicle,
so
I
understand
the
process
of
the
fuel
etc.
My
concern
is
that
if,
if
this
is
a
private
property
and
whether
it's
an
airport
or
wherever
it
is
at
private
property,
this
is
allowing
somebody
to
come
on
to
somebody's
private
property.
I
Without
their
permission,
the
folks
must
allow
them
there
aren't
things
like
search
warrants,
usually
indicated
in
this
and
some
sort
of
process.
Before
you
get.
You
must
let
somebody
on
your
private
property.
Can
you
clarify
that,
for
me,.
E
For
the
record
cadence
meteovic
through
you,
mr
chairman,
to
assemblywoman
titus,
there
are
certainly
certain
circumstances
where
access
to
property
might
require
a
court
order
or
a
warrant.
E
And
again
I
will
defer
to
your
legal
counsel,
because
I
am
not
an
attorney,
but
there
are
provisions,
even
within
article
two
of
the
us
constitution,
on
search
and
seizure,
where
there
are
immediate
concerns
for
public
safety
that
certain
police
powers,
if
you
will
are
granted,
may
be
granted
through
state
statute.
E
And
this
would
be
an
example
of
that,
where
the
action
that
we
would
need
to
take,
particularly
in
the
case
of
an
aviation
fuel
which
is
off
specification
which
is
dispensed
into
an
aircraft
engine,
could
have
severe
consequences
that
we
have
the
ability
to
take
the
enforcement
action
that
we
need.
E
Again.
There
is
existing
authority
within
the
statute
for
us
to
access
the
the
property
and
to
be
able
to
take
those
samples
and-
and
that
is
unlawful
for
someone
to
prohibit
us.
And
when
I
say
us
I
mean
the
inspectors
of
the
department
and
also
the
highway
patrol
and
extending
those
provisions
to
all
of
the
duties.
E
So
not
just
the
sampling,
but
if
the
sampling
were
to
reveal
that
that
fuel
or
other
product
did
not
meet
specification
to
to
be
able
to
take
such
action
to
seal
those
so
as
to
provide
for
that
public
health
and
safety
assurance.
I
Threats
you're
using
your
quote
of
the
constitution.
You
require,
you
quoted,
you
know
clear
and
eminent
danger,
doctrines
for
police
powers
etc,
but
I'm
wondering
if
you
see
a
tank
out
there
and
it
doesn't
have
a
label
on
it.
I
You're
gonna
have
a
you,
can
do
this
without
having
to
get
any
kind
of
a
warrant,
just
walk
out
there
and
seal
it
if
it
doesn't
have
a
label
on
it.
That's
the
other
concern
that
I
have
you
could
without
knowing
what's
in
there.
If
it
doesn't
have
a
label,
you
just
conceal
a
container.
Is
that
already
allowed,
or
would
this
bill
extend
that
authority.
E
For
the
record,
cadence
matijevic
through
you,
mr
chairman,
to
assemblywoman
titus,
so
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
these
that
this
particular
authority
relates
only
to
the
instances
where
we
have
have
found
and
demonstrated
that
the
fuel
does
not
meet
the
specification.
E
This
does
not
extend,
so
it's
it's
only
in
the
section
that
that
has
to
do
with
fuel
or
the
or
the
other
products.
As
dr
strajewski
discussed
earlier,
diesel
exhaust
fluid,
or
something
else
like
that.
If
it
is
found
to
be
off
specification
in
the
case
where
it's
a
labeling
or
advertising
or
other
issue,
that
that
is
not
within
590
100,
and
so
these
provisions
don't
extend
there.
I
Okay,
yeah.
I
was
just
a
little
concerned
that
if
you
found
something
that
wasn't
labeled,
you
could
seal
it
off,
but
you'd
have
to
document.
You
have
to
take
the
sample
figure
out
what
it
is
and
then,
depending
on
what
it
is,
you
can
choose
to
do
based
on
your
authority,
but
just
because
a
tank
has
something
in
it
and
it's
not
labeled.
E
This
amendment
would
not
give
us.
Excuse
me
for
the
record
cadence
mateovich.
This
amendment
would
not
give
us
that
authority.
We,
we
do
have
certain
authorities
that
exist
within
statute
that
outline
what
actions
we
may
take.
What
types
of
notices
we
must
provide
opportunities
for
appeal
of
any
actions
that
we've
taken.
This
is
very
specific
to
where
we
would
find
a
fuel
or
other
product
that
would
be
used
in
an
engine
to
be
off
specification
to
be
able
to
take
these
actions
during
regular
business
hours.
E
It's
not
that
we
can
access
their
property
at
any
time,
but
during
their
the
hours
that
they
are
open
for
business,
that
they
would
need
to
provide
us
with
access
and
and
not
prohibit
us
from
performing
our
duties
prescribed
in
the
statute.
I
And
don't
misunderstand
me:
as
a
pilot,
I
certainly
appreciate
you
protecting
me
when
I
taxi
up
to
a
tank
in
some
little
backwoods
airport.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
know
the
fuel
that
happens
to
be
going
into
that
airplane.
So
I
understand
the
need
for
regulation.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
also
always
concerned
about
personal
property
rights
and
versus
public
safety
and
want
to
make
sure
we
have
some
clarity
there.
So
thank
you
for
for
that.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
and
mr
amber.
I
just
want
to
give
you
the
opportunity
as
well.
If
there's
any
additional
clarity
you
want
to
provide
on
this
section
of
statute
or
regulatory
authority
in
in
regard
to
assemblywoman
titus's
question.
H
Of
course,
thank
you,
chair
watts,
alan
amburn,
for
the
record.
I
might
take
just
a
little
bit
longer
than
normal,
just
to
kind
of
walk
through
a
couple
of
these
points.
H
So
in
regards
to
section
8,
this
statute
gives
the
state
still
a
consumer
equitability
the
ability
to
enforce
the
provisions
of
the
sub-chapter,
this
petroleum
act
and
so
there's
a
variety
of
actions
that
they
can
do
before
I
jump
into
subsection
3
in
the
amendment.
I
do
want
to
talk
about
closing
and
sealing
of
outlets,
because
I
believe
that
just
came
up
that
was
subsection,
4
of
section
8.
H
So
that's
a
fairly
limited
authority
that
they
have,
but
that
is
a
separate
authority
and
the
authority
that's
being
discussed
in
subsection
three
and
then
the
authority
that
we're
talking
about
in
the
amendment
in
subsection
three,
the
ability
that
the
state
sailor
of
consumerization
what
they
isn't
the
ability
the
prohibition
was
that
it
was
unlawful
for
any
person
to
refuse
to
permit
the
state
sealer
of
consumer
equitability
to
take
such
samples
or-
and
it's
also
unlawful
for
a
person
to
prevent
or
attempt
to
prevent
the
state
sealer
consumer
equitability
from
taking
those
samples.
H
So
basically
it
is
implied
that
there
is
a
prohibition
on
keeping
the
state
sailor
of
consumer
equitability
outside
of
your
property.
It's
an
implied
prohibition,
but
it's
not
explicitly
stated
in
subsection
three,
I'm
going
to
switch
to
my
screens
from
looking
away.
That's
why,
in
the
amendment
we
remove
that
and
instead
we
apply
that
throughout
that
entire
section.
H
And
we
make
that
implicit
authority
explicit
by
saying
that
it's
unlawful
for
any
person
to
pro
it's
unlawful
for
any
person
to
refuse
to
permit
the
state
sailor
of
consumer
equitability
or
any
appointees
thereof,
or
any
member
of
the
nevada,
highway
patrol
access
to
the
property
or
equipment
or
to
hinder,
obstruct,
prevent
or
attempt
to
hinder,
obstruct
or
prevent
the
state
seal
of
consumer
equitability
and
those
other
persons
and
the
performance
of
their
duties.
H
And
so
what
this
amendment
is
doing
is
not
only
is
it
applying
to
the
entire
section,
but
it's
also
bringing
forth
that
ability
to
enter
onto
properties.
Making
that
explicit
the
cash
that
is
provided
in
the
amendment
to
limit
that
ability
to
enter
property
is
that
it
has
to
be
doing
regular
business
hours
in
regards
to
privacy
rights
for
business
properties.
As
that
compares
to
personal
properties.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
just
got
trying
to
write
down
this
as
fast
as
I
could,
but
I
finally
got
the
amendment.
Thank
you
robin
for
telling
me
where
to
go.
C
C
I
know
they
do
the
diesel
trucks,
so
these
wouldn't
comply
to
the
diesel
pickups
that
you
you
fill
up
on
the
at
the
at
the
regular
gas
stations
and
then
blue,
put
the
exhaust
fluid
in,
would
it
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
that.
That's
my
number
one
question.
Then
I'd
like
to
do
a
follow-up
on
what
assemblywoman
titus
had
to
say,
which
was
access
to
business,
but
what
about
branches,
farming
and
that
kind
of
stuff
you
keep
saying
businesses
but
you're.
C
E
For
the
record,
cadence
matijevic
through
you,
mr
chair
to
assemblyman
ellison,
so
your
first
question
I
think,
relates
to
the
provisions
of
the
bill
is
introduced
which
have
to
do
with
diesel
exhaust
fluid
and
diesel
exhaust
fluid
is.
It
is
used
in
both
light
and
medium
duty,
diesel
engines
I'll
admit,
I'm
ignorant
as
to
whether
or
not
in
heavy
heavy-duty
diesel
engines.
E
E
I
think
that
might
have
been
the
product
that
you
were
referring
to
assemblyman
ellison
when
you
said
blue
def,
that
is,
that
is
one
brand
and
and
more
commonly
it
is
becoming
available
at
retail
motor
fuel
stations
where
it
is
dispensed
from
a
pump
similar
to
how
to
how
retail
motor
fuels
are
dispensed
today
and-
and
yes,
this
this
bill
very
much-
does
relate
to
that
product.
E
E
We
think
that
this
product,
similar
to
the
other
products
that
are
governed
in
this
chapter,
that
are
put
into
engines
of
motor
vehicles
and
and
other
other
machines
in
this
state,
that
the
consumers
of
that
product
have
should
have
have
an
expectation
that
the
product
is
going
to
perform
properly,
that
their
engine
will
perform
properly
when
it's
used,
and
so
we
felt
it
necessary
to
establish
those
definitions.
E
I
would
note
that
we,
similarly
to
motor
vehicle
fuels
and
other
things,
align
our
definitions
with
those
that
are
established
by
uniform
regulation
and
standard
setting
organizations
such
as
astm
and
the
national
conference
on
weights
and
measures,
and
and
these
definitions
that
we
are
adding
to
our
statutes.
That's
where
those
come
from.
E
E
I'm
not
aware
of
any
place
that
that's
taking
anywhere
that
that
takes
place
in
our
state,
but
I
suppose,
if
some
point
in
the
future
it
did
then
it
would
apply.
But
no.
This
is
not
intended
to
to
apply
to
cases
where
someone
may
have
a
supply
of
fuel
held
on
their
property
or
ranch
for
their
private
use.
This
is
really
addressing
commercial
fuel
sales,
be
it
for
automobiles
or
aviation
or
any
other
use
in
any
other
engine.
C
Thank
you
and
I
really
appreciate
the
clarification
and
I
know
about
a
truck
you
know
we'll
sign
in
and
talk
about
the
the
commercial
use
on
on
the
blue
fuel
so
I'll.
Let
them
do
that,
but
I
do
appreciate
the
clarification
I'd
like
to
get
it
on
the
record
about
the
small
farms
and
ranching
they
they
don't
sell
the
product.
They
just
use
a
lot
of
it,
usually
mostly
in
farming.
C
A
Thank
you,
mr
ellison.
Are
there
any
other
questions
for
the
department
on
ab31.
A
Hearing
none
we'll
go
on
to
testimony
we'll
start
with
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
31
again
to
provide
testimony.
You
must
register
online
at
the
legislative
website.
Registrants
will
receive
a
phone
number
meeting
id
and
instructions
to
join
the
meeting
for
those
testifying,
please
remember
to
clearly
state
and
spell
your
name
and
limit
your
testimony
to
two
minutes,
we'll
be
timing.
Each
speaker
to
ensure
everyone
is
given
a
fair
opportunity
to
speak,
and
with
that
we
will
move
to
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
31
will
broadcast
and
production
services.
J
J
K
B
K
Yourself,
good
good
afternoon,
chairman
watts,
members
of
committee,
peter
krueger,
it's
p-e-t-e-r
krueger
k-r-u-e-g-e-r
today,
representing
the
nevada,
petroleum
marketers
association.
K
It
is
we're
obviously
in
support
of
this
measure
as
as
introduced
and
I'll
say,
we're
also
enter
in
support
of
the
amendment
as
presented
here
this
afternoon,
very
basically
depth
or
diesel
exhaust
fuel
is
becoming
very
commonplace
and
that
the
point
was
well
made
that
a
purchaser
should
can
expect
and
should
expect
that
the
quality
of
the
product
meets
all
standards
like
anything
else
as
something
as
demand
increases.
K
Some
people
see
a
that
are
unscrupulous,
often
tend
to
offer
product
that
is
off
spec
or
at
a
at
a
such
a
inexpensive
price.
Some
may
choose
to
buy
it
so
not
to
belabor
the
point
I
do
want
to
commend
the
committee.
They
got
one
heck
of
an
education
here
this
morning
this
afternoon
on
all
things,
weights
and
measures,
so
we
do
stand
in
support
of
both
the
bill
as
written
ap
31
and
the
amendment.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
J
D
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
paul
enos
that
is
e-n-o-s.
I
am
the
ceo
of
the
nevada,
trucking
association
here
today,
speaking
in
support
of
ab31
mr
chair,
this
is
a
component
that
has
been
required
to
be
in
diesel
engines
by
the
epa
since
2010
doesn't
matter
whether
it's
light
medium
or
heavy
duty.
It
is
a
fluid
that
is
sprayed
into
the
exhaust
made
up
of
dna,
deionized,
water
and
urea.
D
So,
ultimately,
what
you're,
having
coming
out
of
the
stack
or
exhaust
pipe,
is
nitrogen
and
water,
so
it
is
something
that
our
industry
has
been
using
for
over
a
decade.
When
you
don't
have
good
def,
it
will
shut
your
engines
down.
We
do
have
trucking
companies
here
in
nevada
who
have
had
to
deal
with
this.
We
do
think
having
a
standard
is
a
good
thing,
and
that
is
why
we
are
supporting
this
bill.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
and
with
that
we'll
move
on
to
neutral.
If
anyone
is
neutral
on
assembly
bill.
J
J
A
All
right,
thank
you,
administrator
machiavitch.
Do
you
have
any
closing
remarks
that
you'd
like
to
make
on
this
bill.
E
Mr
chairman,
for
the
record,
cadence
matijevic
other
than
to
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
the
bill
and
answer
your
committee's
questions.
No
final
comments.
Thank
you.
So
much.
A
Thank
you
for
the
presentation.
It
was
definitely
very
enlightening
with
that.
We
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
31
and
with
that
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
40..
This
bill
revises
provisions
relating
to
petroleum
storage
tanks.
With
that,
I
believe
we
have
administrator
lovato
presenting.
A
G
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
chairman
watts
and
members
of
the
committee.
I'm
greg
lovato
administrator
of
the
nevada
division
of
environmental
protection.
I'm
here
today
to
present
ab40,
which
proposes
changes
to
the
statutes
governing
the
fund
for
cleaning
up
the
charges
of
petroleum,
also
known
as
the
petroleum
fund
with
me
today
are
jeff
collins,
chief
of
the
bureau
of
corrective
actions
and
mike
cavill
manager
of
the
petroleum
fund
program
within
the
bureau
of
active
actions.
G
First,
I'd
like
to
provide
some
background
on
the
trolling
fund.
The
petroleum
fund
was
first
established
in
the
1989
legislative
session
to
assist
operators
of
underground
storage
tanks,
generally
gas
stations
in
meeting
federal
requirements
for
financial
responsibility
to
address
releases
of
petroleum
substances
into
the
environment.
G
G
G
For
most
cases,
the
fund
has
a
10
co-payment
requirement
so
that
a
release
which
costs
1
million
will
be
paid.
Approximately
900
000
for
the
fund
and
100
000
from
the
operator
for
operators
meeting
the
definition
of
small
business,
which
is
currently
defined
in
statute
as
a
business
which
receives
500,
000
or
less
in
gross
annual
receipts
from
the
business
where
the
tank
is
located.
G
G
This
change
has
been
proposed
in
response
to
an
audit
finding
and
recommendation
from
the
governor's
finance
office
division
of
internal
audits
in
a
june
25
2019
report
on
the
petroleum
fund
in
that
report.
The
division
of
internal
audits
found
that
through
march
2019,
approximately
two
percent
of
overall
fund
expenditures
since
1989
had
gone
to
businesses
meeting
the
current
statutory
definition
of
small
business
stated
another
way.
G
Petroleum
marketers
noted
the
following:
the
average
convenience
store
has
2.8
million
in
annual
sales
as
compared
to
500
000,
for
definition
of
small
business
and
of
that
2.8
million
annual
sales.
2.2
million
comes
from
fuel
sales
representing
approximately
837,
000
gallons
of
fuel,
so
ab40
in
section
6
removes
the
definition
of
small
business
from
statute
and
proposes
to
allow
the
board
review
claims
to
redefine
the
definition
of
small
business
by
regulation.
G
The
board
review
claims
includes
members
representing
the
public,
regulated
industry
and
government
agencies
and
continues
to
successfully
update
fund
policies
with
transparent
review
and
robust
engagement
from
stakeholders.
Ndep
will
perform
additional
research
and
comparisons
on
options
for
changing
the
definition
of
small
business,
including
thresholds
based
on
gross
income
net
income,
fuel
sales
and
fuel.
Throughput
ndep
will
also
explore
options
for
indexing
or
updating
the
definition
on
a
periodic
basis,
which
will
be
facilitated
by
moving
the
statute
by
I'm
sorry
by
moving
the
small
business
definition
from
statute
to
regulation.
G
In
addition
to
the
above
and
in
a
situation
of
an
operator
that
was
responsible
for
a
release
to
a
property,
they
do
not
own.
The
revised
definition
would
allow
the
property
owner
clear
access
to
the
fund.
In
the
event,
the
operator
is
unable
or
does
not
perform
the
investigation
or
cleanup
the
other
sections
of
ab40,
including
2
4,
5,
7
and
8
provide
additional
conforming
changes
with
federal
definitions
and
other
cleanup
I'll
describe
briefly
section
2
revises
the
definition
of
storage
tank
to
include
distribution
piping
associated
with
that
storage
tank.
G
This
revision
is
necessary
because
many
releases
are
from
distribution
piping
and
not
the
storage
tank
itself.
This
provision
also
more
consistently
aligns
with
the
federal
definition
of
underground
storage
tanks.
Finally,
the
word
storage
is
added
in
many
instances
of
tank
to
clearly
indicate
where
the
definition
applies.
G
G
One
is
to
pass
a
tank
and
line
leak,
tightness
test,
as
outlined
in
federal
storage
tank
requirements
within
six
months
prior
to
paying
the
registration
fee,
which
is
already
required
under
nrs445c340
or
the
operator
can
provide
required
monitoring
records,
I.e.
They
must
show
passing
results
for
the
tank
and
typing
during
the
previous
six
months
prior
to
paying
the
registration
fee.
G
The
change
really
just
corrects
a
mathematical
error
in
the
existing
statutes
to
make
sure
that
the
numbers
match
the
text,
basically
making
sure
the
total
amount
paid
from
the
fund
pursuant
to
that
subsection
in
nrs445c
380
subsection
2,
so
that
the
total
amount
paid
in
any
one
fiscal
year
from
two
or
more
storage
tanks
under
the
control.
The
operator
qualifying
as
a
small
business
must
not
exceed
1.9
million
for
cleaning
up
and
1.9
million
of
third-party
damages.
G
The
correct
amount
should
actually
be
1.95
million
because
for
small
business
they
have
a
50
000
cap.
So
this
just
makes
sure
that
the
statute
matches
what
the
text
already
says
and
that's
the
purpose
of
that
amendment
is
mostly
just
clean
up.
So
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
present
ab40
to
the
committee
and
I'm
ready
to
take
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and,
and
thank
you,
sir,
for
presenting
this.
I
have
a
question
regarding
previous
owner
responsibility
and
I'm
just
curious.
There's
no
definition
on
how
far
back
that
responsibility
is.
So
I
just
need
some
clarification.
I
So
under
section
one
when
you
say
owns
and
then
number
two
you
say
previously
owned
and
you
say
said:
controlled,
responsible
operation,
management,
stored
tank
immediately
before
the
use
of
the
storage
tank
was
discontinued,
but
some
of
this
stuff
may
have
been
out
there
a
long
time
and
they
sold
it
decades
ago,
but
they
were
the
one
that
had
it
used
when
they
sold
it,
but
the
new
owner
hasn't
done
anything
with
it
and
sat
there
for
a
decade.
Now
or
so-
and
this
is
just
I
don't
have
any
examples.
I
G
Thank
you
assembly,
one
titus
greg
lovato
for
the
record.
So
to
answer
your
question,
I
think
it'll
help
to
kind
of
separate
into
two
parts.
You
know
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
is
mostly
to
allow
those
who
may
not
have
operated
the
tank
access
clear
access
to
the
fund,
it's
not
to
establish
or
assign
liability.
So
I
just
want
to
make
clear
that
that's
not
what
this
statute
is
for.
This
is
for
administration
of
the
petroleum
fund
and
administration
of
claims.
G
Now
to
answer
your
question
in
general,
you
know
we
look
to
other
sections
of
nrs,
so
that
would
be
445a
our
water
pollution,
control,
statutes
and
nrs
459
related
hazardous
materials
and
also
federal
statutes
regarding
liability
for
releases
of
hazardous
substances.
So
so
it's
really.
It
really
becomes
fat
specific
in
terms
of
determining
liability.
G
There's
generally,
ownership
of
land
in
the
past
or
ownership
or
operation
of
the
equipment
would
make
someone
potentially
liable,
but
there
would
have
to
be
further
evaluation
to
determine
you
know
how
much
control
they
had,
etc,
and
so
so
it's
kind
of
a
complex
question
in
terms
of
establishing
liability,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
that's
not
what
this
statute
intends
to
do.
G
This
statute
merely
intends
to
allow
those
who
may
not
have
operated
the
tank
to
clearly
have
access
to
the
fund,
so
they
can
perform
cleanup.
If
that
makes
sense,.
I
Well,
that
does
but
again
just
to
be
clear.
I
mean
my
concerns.
Is
you
and
I
both
have
had
many
discussions
over
the
anaconda
site,
and
that
has
been
in
litigation
for
a
long
time
and
the
debate
was
and
it's
who's
responsible?
How
far
back
can
you
hold
these
companies
accountable,
and
I
just
was
trying
to
get
some
clarification
on
in
in
this
particular
section,
one
just
relating
to
okay,
somebody
just
who
just
previously
owned
it
do
they
have
to
apply?
I
Because
I'm
not
it's
not
clear
to
me
the
obligations
of
the
previously
owned
person
and
where
they
would
be
held
accountable,
as
opposed
to
you're,
saying
that
they
would
be
allowed
to
apply
for
funds
with
your
explanation
and
that's
why
you
put
it
in
there.
So
I
guess
that's
where
I:
why
would
the
pre
owner
want
to
apply
for
funds
as
opposed
to
whoever
the
current
owner
is?
So
I'm
just
not
following
that
logic
that
you
had
on
why
the
previous
owner
would
be
responsible
or
listed.
G
Thank
you
so
much
greg
lovato
for
the
record,
so
so
again,
just
the
the
the
notion
with
this
particular
amendment
to
the
statute.
This
proposed
amendment
is
to
allow
somebody
who
may
not
have
operated
the
tank
when
it
was
in
service
to
have
access
to
the
fund.
So
that's
that's
the
goal
of
this
one
here
in
terms
of
how
far
back
can
liability
go?
I
would
say
that's
really
fact
specific
and
is
really
something
that
we
could
evaluate.
You
know
more
deeply
through
a
discussion
with
with
legal
counsel.
G
You
know
it
it
is.
It
is
not
straightforward
and-
and
so
you
know,
you
know
some
of
the
examples
that
you
alluded
to
in
terms
of
the
anaconda
mine
site,
which
you
know
isn't
dealing
with
petroleum
substances.
G
You
know
liability
has
to
be
established
through
some
very
specific
findings,
and
so
just
because
someone
operated
a
property
at
one
time
doesn't
automatically
make
them
liable,
and
so
I
don't
know
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
I'm
answering
your
question,
but
I'm
hoping
that
I'm
explaining
what
the
purpose
of
this
particular
amendment
is
here.
I
Right
and
you
have
actually
and
thank
you
for
that,
because
it
for
me,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
what
the
purpose
of
even
defining
that
in
this
particular,
where
were
you
going
with
that
definition?
Why
did
you
need
to
clarify
previously
owned,
and-
and
so
so,
thank
you
very
much
for
that
clarification,
and-
and
I
appreciate
your
comments
and
responses
and
thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
question.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair
I'll,
make
mine
quick
for
you,
it's
good,
seeing
you
again,
mr
lovato,
I
got
a
couple
small
questions
number
one
when
they
first
come
out
with
this
program
on
tanks-
and
I
mean
it
was
a
large
impact
to
the
old
gas
station,
but
before
they
got
a
tenth
of
the
way
through
they
run
out
of
money
and
these
programs
weren't
available.
So
it
fell
back
on
to
the
providers.
The
owners
is
that
correct.
G
Well,
thank
you
so
much
ellison
for
the
question
greg
lovato
for
the
record.
You
know
I
I
don't
have
a
complete
knowledge
of
the
history.
G
I
know
that
when
you
know
like
many
states
in
the
late
80s
early
90s,
when
nevada
started
a
petroleum
fund,
you
know
there
might
have
been
certain
projections
in
terms
of
how
many
releases
there
would
be
how
severe
they
would
be,
how
much
it
would
cost
to
clean
them
up,
and-
and
I
do
we
just-
did
some
research
and
preparing
for
this
hearing
and
we
realized
that
the
fund
was
having
some
trouble
keeping
up
with
with
reimbursements
and
and
the
fund
was
amended
back
in
1995
to
basically
allow,
for
you
know
additional
reimbursements,
and
so
I
think,
for
the
most
part
we've
been
able
to
keep
up,
and-
and
I
guess
that's,
the
main
benefit
of
the
fund
is,
for
you
know,
100
in
enrollment
per
tank.
G
You
know
you
get
coverage
of
up
to
a
million
per
release
per
tank
and
you
know
the
cost
is
born
by
you
know
everyone
who
uses
petroleum.
So,
truly
you
know
everyone
shares
in
addressing
these
issues,
but
right
now
we
aren't
having
the
the
problems
that
you
mentioned,
although
I'm
thinking
that
maybe
in
the
early
90s,
when
the
program
is
first
starting
up,
there
could
have
been
some
projected
shortfalls.
C
And
then
follow-up,
mr
chair
go
ahead
and
on
section
four
line
two,
it
says
before
surge
tank
is
eligible
for
coverage
provided
under
nrs445c
each
operator,
who
is
required
to
pursue
the
subsection
one
of
nrs
who
chooses
to
register
the
storage
tanks.
But
the
problem
was
now
under
this
before
they
can
cover
them.
They
they
have
to
supply
and
do
operations
to
sniffers
at
them.
Tanks
is
that
correct.
G
Thank
you,
assimilate
allison
gregota
for
the
record,
so
I
might
start
trying
to
answer
this
question
and
then
just
quickly
refer
it
to
our
staff
here.
So,
in
regard
to
the
grant
program,
I
I
don't
think
that
we're
going
to
be
affecting
the
grant
program
at
all
with
the
changes
here
that
we're
proposing
in
terms
of
what
you're
speaking
of
in
regard
to
sniffers,
I'm
not
sure
if
you
guys
have
a
sense
of
would
you
need
more
clarification.
G
Okay,
I'll
refer
you
to
mike
campbell's.
L
Yeah
good
evening
ellison,
my
name
is
michael
cavill
with
the
nevada
division,
environmental
protection,
I'm
the
trolling
fund
supervisor.
L
So,
with
regard
to
sniffers,
I
think
you're,
referring
to
one
specific
test
that
can
be
used
to
test
these
systems.
It's
called
the
tracer
chest
where
they
will
essentially
introduce
helium
or
some
other
tracer
into
the
tank
that
they
can
then
look
for
by
drilling
holes
around
it
and
then
trying
to
pick
up
that
that
that
chemical,
as
I
said,
it's
a
very
specific
test,
if
you
wanted
to
use
that
test
to
register
the
fund,
you
could,
but
there
are
very,
there
are
a
lot
of
other
tests.
L
That
would
also
be
accepted
that
are
more
common
volumetric
tests
and
non-volumetric
tests,
so
that
that
particular
sniffer
test
is
not
required.
With
regard
to
testing
in
general
to
register
in
the
fund,
there's
a
couple
different
ways
to
go
about
it
and
that's
what
this
section
tries
to
clarify
one
is
you
have
to
test
the
piping
in
addition
to
the
tank
that
was
missing
in
the
in
the
original
statute?
L
The
second
is
like
the
the
stats
that
we're
amending.
You
can
use
the
tightness
test
and
before
it
was
pretty
specific
to
tank,
where
again
we're
specifying
piping
and
that
tightness
test.
When
we
say
that
is
generally
a
third-party
tester
comes
out
to
the
site,
that's
paid
for
by
the
operator,
and
they
do
a
sight-on-scene.
L
You
know
kind
of
snapshot
and
time
test
on
the
tank
and
line
they
pressurize
or
apply
it
back
into
that
tank
and
look
for
release.
So
that's
one
method
and
that
test
would
have
to
be
done
six
months
within
six
months
prior
to
paying
the
fee
and
applying
for
registration
essentially
into
the
fund.
So
before
release
occurs,
we
want
to
verify
we're
not
enrolling
tanks
that
have
already
leaked
or
leaking
the
second
test
method
that
we're
referring
to
where
we
talk
about
280,
43c
and
2804.
L
I'm
sorry
where
we
talk
about
storage
tank
is
being
monitored
for
discharge
and
the
discharge
does
not
occur.
We
want
to
allow
tank
operators
to
use
existing
leak,
detection
testing
that
they're
already
doing
on
site.
All
these
operators
are
required
by
federal
and
state
regulation
and
statutes
to
our
sorry
regulations
to
monitor
the
tank
and
the
pipeline
for
releases
continuously
and
periodically.
Generally,
it's
a
monthly
test
on
the
tank
as
a
line.
L
So
if
an
operator
is
already
doing
this
and
they've
already
installed
the
equipment
to
do
this
on
their
own,
we
want
to
accept
those
testing
those
test
records
as
long
as
they're
passing.
They
show
that
there's
no
leak
to
the
system
instead
of
making
them
go
out
and
hire
a
third-party
tester
to
do
a
tightness
test.
But
thank
you
so
really.
What
this
does
is
provide
an
operator
two
options
to
show
us
that
their
tank
systems
are
not
leaking
before
we
provide
registration
of
the
system.
C
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
thank
you
guys
for
for
clarifying
that.
I
know
people
that
removed
the
tanks,
pumps
and
everything
and
then
removed
all
the
dirt,
but
they
still
doing
testing
almost
eight
nine
years
later,
ten
years
later
and
they're
doing
it
to
this
day.
So
it's
good
to
know
this
and
and
I'll
see
if
I
can
contact
the
owners
and
maybe
they
can
get
with
you
and
and
get
some
clarification
for
this,
because
they're
they're
still
doing
testing
to
this
day.
A
M
Very
much,
mr
chairman,
I
guess
I'd
just
like
to
get
a
feel
for
since
they're
going
to
be
doing
this
by
regulation,
which
we
typically
don't
have
a
definition
and
regulation.
We
usually
define
it
in
statute
and
then
they
extrapolate
on
it
into
the
regulations.
So
what
do
they
think?
Small
business
will
look
like,
because
my
definition
of
small
business
may
be
totally
different
than
someone
else's.
G
Definition,
thank
you.
Assemblyman
carlton
greg
lovato
for
the
record,
so
you
know
right
now
we're
looking
at
what
the
available
options
might
be.
We
want
to
look
at
other
states
to
see
what
you
know:
options
that
they
put
forward.
Try
to
see
what,
as
I
mentioned
in
my
in
my
testimony,
whether
we
should
be
basing
it
on
it.
It's
complicated,
they're,
basing
it
on
you
know
gross
receipts
or
you
know:
net
income
or
fuel
throughput.
You
know,
there's
there's
a
variety
of
different
ways.
G
It
could
be
defined
and
I
think
what
we
want
to
do
is
is
probably
just
you
know,
we're
going
to
go
through
a
public
process.
That's
going
to
include
you
know
a
few
board
meetings.
Normally
what
we
do
is
we
reach
out
to
stakeholders
who
have
an
interest
and
we
propose
something.
We
take
that
before
a
board
meeting
hear
comments
on
that.
We
take
it
back
and
revise
it
through
some
workshops.
We
do
have
some
suggestions
already
from
the
troy
marketers
on
what
that
could
look
like,
but
you
know
we're.
G
Actually,
I
don't
think
we're
set
on
one
definition
right
now,
so
you
know,
as
as
I
mentioned
in
our
in
our
in
our
opening
statement.
I
think
the
real
purpose
of
the
petroleum
fund
was
early
on.
You
know
a
lot
of
small
operators
didn't
have
access
to.
You
know
insurance,
and
so
the
petroleum
fund
was
able
to
provide
that
insurance
so
that
they
could
get
access
to
financial
assurance,
and
so
it
I
think
when
the
audit
came
through,
you
know
their
view.
G
G
I
mean
you're,
probably
talking
about
more
like
sole
proprietorships,
or
you
know
ones
that
aren't
part
of
a
larger
organization,
but
I
agree
with
you:
there
could
be
many
different
perspectives
and
that's
why
we
want
to
spend
you
know
more
time
going
through
it
and
we
recognize
that
you
know
even
after
we
get
through
that
process
that
you
know
will.
Hopefully,
you
know
coalesce
on
something
and
and
be
able
to
present
that
to
the
legislative
commission
for
final
approval.
So
I
realized
I
didn't
answer
your
question,
but
it
is
something
that
you
know.
M
And-
and
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
if
I
may,
you
came
pretty
close
looking
at
sole
proprietorships,
I
know
a
lot
of
gas
stations,
you
pull
up
to
they've
got
the
nice
big
sign
and
you
can
recognize
it
and
you
see
that
sign
all
over
the
state
and
in
other
states.
So
I
don't
think
those
would
be
the
people
that
we
would
consider
small
businesses.
I
think
the
goal
of
this
was
to
help
those
not
maybe
non-franchisees,
maybe
looking
at
their
financial
stability.
What
the
actual
dollar
amounts
look
like.
M
I
just
don't
want
to
see
small
business
defined
and
such
that
you
know
we're
we're
helping
folks
who
have
you
know
multi-billion
dollar
resources
across
this
country
and
across
the
world.
So
I
think
we
want
to
be
very
careful
on
how
we
want
to
define
this
to
make
sure
we're
really
helping
the
people
that
we
want
to
help
in
this.
So
thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
carlton.
I
saw
some
head
nods,
so
I
think
there
is
some
agreement
that
a
shift
from
the
current
financial
definition
and
statute
towards
something
more
along
those
lines
is
something
that
the
legislature
would
encourage
the
division
to
pursue.
A
I
have
one
other
brief
question,
and
that
is-
and
you
can
speak
to
this
in
closing
remarks
if
you'd
like,
but
I
know
that
this
is
going
to
be
presented
during
testimony,
but
there's
another
amendment
provided
by
the
marketers
in
the
convenience
store
association,
and
I
was
wondering
if
the
division
would
like
to
comment
if
they
have
seen
it.
If
that's
considered
a
friendly
amendment
or
if
you
need
more
time
to
review
or
have
a
position
on
it.
G
Thank
you,
chairman
watts,
greg
lovato
for
the
record.
Yes,
we,
we
have
had
a
chance
to
review
the
amendment
proposed
by
the
petroleum,
marketers
and
convenience
store
association
and-
and
I
would
say
that
you
know
we're
we're
not
opposed
to
that
amendment,
provided
there
are
some
safeguards
on
accessing
the
second
million
so
I'll.
Let
the
petroleum
marketers
describe
it,
but
they're
talking
about
raising
the
per
release
amount
from
one
million
to
two
million.
G
You
know
that
reflects
rising
costs,
since
the
patronage
statute
came
into
existence.
It's
also
recognizing
that
longer-term
cases
that
have
affected
groundwater
that
I
think
that
assemblyman
ellison
was
referring
to
earlier,
can
require
that
second
million,
and
so
you
know
our
perspective-
is
that
we
feel
like
there's
adequate
safeguards
in
place
through
a
petroleum
fund,
reimbursement
and
claims
process.
G
But
I
think
we
want
to
make
sure
that
before
someone
accesses
the
second
million
that
there's
a
specific
compliance
schedule
in
place-
and
I
understand
that
the
detroit
marketers
and
convenience
store
association
understands
that
request,
and-
and
with
that
proviso,
we
would
be
not
opposed
to
the
amendment.
A
Thank
you
for
for
that
administrator
lovato.
We
appreciate
that
clarification
and,
after
the
amendment
is
presented,
we'll
give
you
an
offer
the
opportunity
to
make
any
remarks
in
closing.
So
with
that
hearing,
no
other
questions
we'll
move
on
to
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
40..
I
know
that
some
of
the
stakeholders
interested
in
this
bill
are
already
aware,
but
again
to
testify
and
support.
You
support
the
legislation
as
it
is
been
originally
presented.
So
with
that
will
broadcast
production
services.
J
K
A
A
Thank
you
with
that.
We
will
move
to
testimony
in
opposition
and
again
for
those
watching
testimony
in
opposition
to
the
bill
as
introduced.
This
includes
those
wishing
to
provide
an
amendment
to
the
bill
so
will
broadcast
and
production
services.
Please
see
if
we
have
anybody
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
on
assembly
bill
40.
J
K
Thank
you,
chairman
watt,
member
of
the
committee,
peter
krueger
p-e-t-e-r,
kruger
k-r-u-e-g-e-r,
with
the
nevada,
petroleum
marketers
association.
Yes,
we
have
offered,
and
it's
presented
on
nellis
a
request
to
amend
the
bill
ab40
as
written.
Our
request
has
been
discussed
already,
but
simply
in
the
30
years.
It's
our
feeling
that
in
the
30
years
that
the
fund
has
been
existed
in
existence,
the
limit
has
been
on
clean
up
one
million
dollars
we're
proposing
in
section
six.
K
K
We
have
agreed
that
and
while
the
specifics
haven't
been
detailed,
but
we
have
agreed
that
that
before
a
second
million
could
be
accessed,
the
restrictions
would
be
in
place
by
the
division
that
would
make
it
that
certain
limits,
certain
requirements
would
be
would
be
needed
before
that
second
million
could
be
accessed,
and
I
I
wanted
to
say
to
in
simply
offering
this
amendment
that
that,
while
it's
been
addressed,
that
the
the
governor's
office
of
finance
and
their
internal
audit
division
also
recognized
during
their
audit,
that's
been
referred
to
previously,
that
to
to
help
prevent
access,
or
let
me
say
it
this
way-
to
help
prevent
fund
monies
dipping
into
what's
called
the
third
party
liability,
and
that's
simply
when
the
fund
was
created,
that
if,
if
petroleum
product
from
a
leaking
tank
migrates
off
the
site
where
the
tank
is
a
owner
and
operator
or
I'm
sorry,
a
a
owner
of
that
site,
where
it
migrated,
could
receive
of
assistance
up
to
a
million
dollars.
K
That
does
not
change
at
all.
But
it
does
highlight
the
need
we.
The
fund
has
been
using
that
money
and
I
I
will
say
that
the
attorney
general
is
and
his
office
is
looking
at
whether
that
policy
that
was
adopted,
I
believe
2007,
is
a
correct
one,
but
regardless
the
need
to
raise
this
to
two
million
dollars
to
recognize
costs
of
all
increased
is
absolutely
essential.
K
So
with
that
I
know
there
are
some
other
speakers,
including
a
a
tank
owner
that
had
experience
with
the
need
for
a
the
second
million.
I'll
conclude
my
remarks,
mr
chairman,
and
stand
for
any
questions.
If
there
are
any.
A
I
Thank
you
so,
mr
cougar,
looking
at
your
amendment,
I
thought
the
amendment
you
mentioned
applying
for
the
extra
2
million,
but
then
looking
at
your
amendment,
it
actually
suggests
that
it
says
it
would
our
recommendation
for
a
new
small
business
definition
and
so
would
be
the
annual
sale
of
one
million
not
just
applying
for
that
second
million.
I
So
is
your
amendment
about
applying
the
second
million,
or
is
your
amendment
about
the
definition
of
new
small
business
being
the
sale
of
1
million
gallons
as
opposed
to
1
million
dollars
worth
of
fuel,
so
1
million
gallons
or
1
million
dollars
of
fuel?
So
I
just
needed
some
clarity
on
your
amendment.
It
reads
our
recommendation
for
a
new
small
business
definition
would
be
the
annual
sale
of
1
million
or
less
gallons
of
diesel
fuel.
K
Yes,
ma'am,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee
through
you
to
assemble
the
woman
titus.
If
I
left
you
with
that
impression,
our
amendment
only
addresses
the
limit,
which
is
currently
one
billion
dollars,
we're
proposing
that
limit
for
cleanup,
not
small
business.
Our
amendment
does
not
address
the
small
business
definition
that
mr
lovato
and
the
agency
has
spoke
to.
K
So
our
amendment
simply
asked
that
that,
because
the
1
million
dollars
were
set
more
than
30
years
ago,
that
and
costs
like
everything
else,
have
gone
up,
that
we
suggested
two
million
dollars
we
are
in
support,
and
mr
lovato
referred
to
a
letter.
I
wrote
the
attorney
general
some
time
ago,
just
talking
about
the
small
business,
so
we're
on
board,
with
working
with
the
agency
to
define-
and
I
think
assemblywoman
carlton
addressed
it
correctly.
K
That
times
have
changed
back
in
89.
500
000
was
probably
true.
Well,
it's
not
true
today,
where
convenience
stores
are
and
are
producing
a
lot
more
revenue.
If
that's
one
of
the
terms,
so
hopefully
that
clear
clarifies
misunderstanding:
if,
if
I
left
a
few
assemblyman
titus.
I
Yeah,
thank
you
because
I
saw
two
different
amendments
that
were
submitted
by
you
and
the
one
that
I
the
one
one
of
them
said
you
recommended
the
definition
for
small
business.
So
I
appreciate
that.
That's
not
what
your
discussion
now
in
sb40
you're
just
requesting
the
expansion
and
that
this
letter
was
written
in
2019.
C
Yes
miss
colton
and
mr
kruger,
and
I
were
here
at
the
time
that
that
they
were
going
through
a
lot
of
this
and
miss
colton's
got
a
lot
of
history,
but
mr
krueger,
you
and
I
we
went
over
this
quite
a
bit
and
where
we
were
running
out
of
funds
and
these
small
places
these
little
bitty
old
gas
stations
along
the
highways
that
went
broke
and
and
the
cleanup
was,
was
way
beyond
what
monies
were
available
and
you-
and
I
know
of
one
that
was
well
over
two
million
dollars
for
just
one
in
to
this
day.
C
K
Mr
chairman,
through
you
to
assemblyman,
ellison,
you're,
correct
and-
and
it
was
mr
lavato
referred
to
it
in
the
mid
90s-
there
were
some
fun
payments
that
were
prorated
because
there
was
not
enough
money
but
that
that's
that
situation
didn't
last
more
than
a
year,
everybody
got
their
money.
What
was
approved
now,
just
because
you
I
want
to
assure
the
committee
just
because
you
as
a
tank
owner
operator,
asks
for
a
million
dollars.
K
K
The
fund,
as
it
was
as
again,
mr
lovato
so
correctly
said,
has
been
generating
excess
money
that
is
given
to
or
actually
say,
not
given
to,
but
is
provided
by
statute
to
ndot
and
and
then
in
many
cases
ends
up
some
of
that
money
helps
fund
rtc's
in
clark
and
clark
and
washoe.
I
believe
so.
There's
there's
plenty
of
money
and
the
other
thing
that
I
think
the
committee
needs
to
know
as
over
the
years.
K
This
is
a
good
thing
for
the
environment.
Tanks
have
become
the
old
ones,
have
been
removed
and
replaced
with
better
tanks
with
monitoring
that
was
referred
to,
so
the
number
of
claims
has
has
decreased,
but
you're
right.
There
are
a
number
of
legacy
claims
that
are
out
there
over
on
lake
tahoe
cave
rock.
There
was
a
claim-
and
this
this,
if
it
hadn't
been
for
the
fun
there's
and
also
south
lake
tahoe.
K
There
is-
and
I'm
not
a
a
an
engineer,
but
there
was
a
likelihood
that
the
the
petroleum
product
could
have
leaked
into
lake
tahoe.
So
hopefully
that
answers
the
question.
There
is
enough
money,
it's
being
managed,
as
we've
learned
better
and
the
equipment's
better.
Hopefully
that
answers
the
question.
Assemblyman
ellison.
A
A
I
don't
have
any
questions
that
I'll
add,
but
I'll
just
say
that
I
encourage
you
to
continue
to
work
with
the
division,
to
ensure
that
these
concerns
are
addressed
also
with
so
many
different
financial
figures
in
different
sections
of
the
statute,
just
making
sure-
and
I
think
you
were
clear
with
the
intent
when
you
spoke
on
the
record
here,
but
making
sure
that
any
ultimate
additional
amendment
aligns
all
of
those
financial
figures
with
with
the
intent
provided.
A
M
And
I
I
could
have
wait
till
closing,
but
I
I
just
want
to
put
this
out
there
so
that
they
can
provide
it
if
the
agency
could
provide
the
dollars
that
are
in
the
fund.
What
they've
looked
like
over
the
last
six
eight
years
so
that
we
can
take
a
look
at
it?
They
would
provide
it
to
you
and
then
you
could
share
it
with
the
rest
of
us.
M
J
N
N
N
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
some
of
the
activities
involved.
The
assessment
remediation
of
sites
subject
to
patrolling
product
releases.
They
include,
but
are
not
limited
to
soil
borehole
drilling
groundwater
monitor
well,
installation,
soil,
groundwater
and
vapor
sampling,
extensive
laboratory
testing,
contaminant
soil,
excavation
hauling
and
off-site
treatment,
conceptual
model,
design,
remediation
equipment,
purchase
and
installation
system,
operation
maintenance
for
two
to
ten
years,
quarterly
site,
sampling
and
report
preparation
and
many
others
over
the
past
30
years,
particularly
over
the
last
decade,
costs
associated
with
these
activities
have
increased
substantially.
N
Thirty
years
ago,
as
I
know,
a
million
dollars
is
generally
sufficient
to
cover
the
cost
of
these
activities
today,
especially
for
sites
in
nevada,
where
groundwater
has
been
impacted,
it's
simply
not
enough,
and
owners
and
operators
are
forced
to
access
the
third-party
damages
million
dollars.
As
mr
lovato
and
mr
kruger
alluded
to
in
preliminary
conversations
with
ndep
staff
regarding
the
increase
in
coverage,
staff
indicated
that,
should
this
committee
agree
with
the
requested
coverage
increase,
they
would
recommend
a
cost
control
mechanism
be
implemented
once
the
first
million
dollars
has
been
exhausted.
N
N
In
closing,
the
nevada
state
petroleum
fund
has
been
an
excellent
program
in
assisting
owners
and
operators
with
environmental
cleanups.
Again
I
strongly
support
increasing
the
fund
coverage
for
petroleum
banks
from
the
current
one
million
dollars
per
currency
to
two
million
dollars.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
J
J
J
J
D
I'm
the
manager
of
el
park,
petroleum
located
in
elko
nevada.
I
come
to
you
today
to
support
increasing
the
nevada
petroleum
coverage
for
leaks
from
petroleum
product
tanks
from
one
million
to
two
million
dollars.
During
my
30-plus
years
at
el
park
petroleum,
I
have
overseen
assessment
and
remediation
activities
at
about
half
a
dozen
facilities.
D
D
For
example,
we
have
seen
costs
to
purchase
and
install
remediation
equipment
increase
400
to
500
percent
over
the
last
decade.
As
a
result,
we
have
been
forced
to
access
the
funds,
third-party
coverage
of
one
million
dollars
to
continue
site
mediation
activities
at
two
of
our
sites.
It
is
possible
that
we
will
need
to
access
the
funds
third-party
coverage
for
an
additional
site.
D
In
general
terms,
although
we
recognize
the
necessity
to
complete
site
cleanup,
we
are
not
entirely
comfortable
accessing
the
third
party
party
coverage
because
it
will
no
longer
be
available
in
the
event
litigation
for
damages
does
occur.
We
have
found
the
nevada
petroleum
fund
to
be
an
excellent
program
over
the
years
and
strongly
support
the
program.
D
A
G
Thank
you,
chair
watts,
no
closing
remarks,
thank
you
for
the
committee's
time
and
we
will
look
forward
to
getting
assignment
carl
in
the
information
she
requested
on
the
past
six
to
eight
years
of
petroleum
fund
revenues
and
expenditures.
A
A
Thank
you
for
that
and
for
your
presentation
and
with
that
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
40.
with
that
we'll
move
on
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment
as
a
reminder
to
provide
public
comment
by
phone.
You
must
register
online
at
the
legislative
website
where
you'll
be
given
information
on
how
to
participate.