State Fire Marshal Seeks Authority to Inspect Cannabis Production Sites, Says Move Is a Safety Measure

Senate Bill 25, introduced by State Fire Marshal Mike Dzczak, would update Nevada statute to let the Division of the State Fire Marshal perform plan reviews, conduct inspections and enforce fire- and life-safety provisions for cannabis cultivation and cannabis production facilities, with an emphasis on extraction/production sites that handle hazardous materials.

Dzczak told the committee the change is meant to address facilities that have begun operating in rural areas where volunteer fire departments may lack the technical expertise or interlocal agreements needed to evaluate hazardous-material handling and extraction processes. "We have had... facilities like this that were not permitted. They no 1 knew what they were doing, that have blown up and injured, people. It's it's likely to happen," Dzczak said, explaining why state oversight was needed.

Key provisions and clarifications: the bill removes an obsolete organization requirement in NRS 477.101 to allow internal reorganization without a BDR; it adds cannabis cultivation and production facilities to NRS 477.03 so state fire marshal staff may do plan reviews and inspections; it also adds language in NRS 477.0305 to allow local fire or law enforcement to request state fire marshal investigators when an incident causes "an injury or financial loss greater than $2,000,000," and to allow counties with population greater than 100,000 to request assistance. Dzczak estimated there could be about 25 production/extraction facilities statewide that would fall into the rural, non-interlocal category.

Regulatory and fee questions drew sustained committee attention. Senator Rogich and others asked whether the Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board (CCB) and local authorities already regulate these businesses. Dzczak and his staff said the division did discuss facilities with the CCB and received lists and tours of existing sites; Dzczak said, "This is not enacting further regulations on the cannabis facilities. This is saying my the regulations of the state fire marshal apply throughout the state. So the minimum fire codes apply throughout the state." He added the state fire marshal's code is the baseline; local jurisdictions may impose more stringent standards.

On fees, Dzczak said the State Fire Marshal is "100% fee based" and that plan-review fees would apply for tenant improvements or new facilities; annual inspections required by statute would not typically carry additional inspection fees. "The fees are generated normally ... from plan reviews," he told senators, adding that routine annual inspections are not charged to businesses.

Industry and stakeholder testimony reflected mixed views. Will Adler, representing Green Thumbs Industries, said illicit extraction in unlicensed locations poses risks but that licensed cannabis producers have already been subject to intensive local review and special-use permitting: "By and large, that is in no way the cannabis industry of Nevada." Adler suggested the state focus on unregulated operators and consider grandfathering or transition terms for already-built licensed facilities.

Technical staff answered operational questions: Albert Rees, Bureau Chief of Fire Protection Engineering, said the public-assembly language added for cannabis facilities addresses gatherings ("if one of these facilities would like to have some kind of public assembly... for training or any kind of purpose where there's 50 or more persons, that's when this would be brought into place").

Committee members asked for workshops and coordination among the Fire Marshal's Office, the CCB and local jurisdictions. Dzczak said he was willing to hold workshops and work with stakeholders to refine language and reach consensus on enforcement scope and fee practice.

No formal vote was taken during the hearing; the bill sponsor and stakeholders said they would continue work on a friendly amendment and further consultation.