MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      March 22, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order by Chairman Vivian L. Freeman at 1:30 p.m., March 22, 1993, in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Chairman

      Mr. John B. Regan, Vice Chairman

      Mr. Douglas A. Bache

      Mr. John C. Carpenter

      Ms. Marcia de Braga

      Mr. Peter G. Ernaut

      Mr. James A. Gibbons

      Mr. Roy Neighbors

      Mr. Robert M. Sader

      Mr. Michael A. Schneider

      Ms. Stephanie Smith

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman John W. Marvel, Assembly District 34

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Virgil Bucchianeri, Storey County D.A.; Robert Gronowski,

      Department of Agriculture; Jolaine Johnson, Nevada Division Environmental Protection; Kathryn Atamin, Silver City Resident; Tom Atkinson, Nevada Department of Wildlife; Allen Brinkerhoff, Brinkerhoff Ranch Inc.; Laura Hicks, Sierra Chemical Co.; Steve Mahoney, Nevada Department of Agriculture; Gerry Olson, Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Alan List, List Cattle Co.; John Bokich, Nevada Mining Association; Terry Crawforth, Department of Wildlife; Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers; Pete Illoway, Coastal Chem, Inc.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 189:

 

      Exempts from regulation certain uses of hazardous substances.

 

Ms. Jolaine Johnson, Chief, Bureau of Chemical Hazards Management, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection addressed the regulation of highly hazardous substances through the Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act (CCPA) (Exhibit C).

 

Mrs. Freeman thanked Ms. Johnson for the comprehensive, detailed report.

 

Mr. Sader said he understood the recommendation based on the advantage the Nevada Act had over Federal Regulation. He asked Ms. Johnson if there was any way to combine the forms and procedures for the three laws so business people and others would not have to deal with three different requirements.  Ms. Johnson replied the Clean Air Act requirements were not available as yet but the EPA was looking at the Nevada plan as a model program for other states. She felt a format and reporting requirements for facilities which would meet both Nevada Program requirement and OSHA standard requirement could be accomplished.  Mr. Sader asked if one set of inspections would take place and Ms. Johnson agreed it would be possible to coordinate the inspections.  Ms. Johnson said the CCPA inspections were to be performed at scheduled times and DEISH preferred random inspections which would be difficult to coordinate.  Mr. Sader asked if Ms. Johnson and the appropriate person from DEISH would come back to the committee during this session with a report on the coordination of fees, reports and inspections.  Ms. Johnson  agreed to present a report to the committee at a later date.  Mr. Sader asked Ms. Johnson for her view of exempting agriculture from the Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act (CCPA). 

 

Mr. Lew Dodgion, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, answered Mr. Sader's question and said it would be inappropriate to exempt an industry because it was an industry.  He stated an exemption should be based on the use of the chemical and whether a hazard or a potential hazard exists. Instead of exempting mining, agriculture or a company, there should be a procedure for the exemption based on the determination whether a particular operation would pose a hazard to the public or to  employees.

 

Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Dodgion about the size of the fees for agriculture and if relief were possible.  Mr. Dodgion replied relief for fees from one source of a regulated community would put a burden on the others in the regulated community.  If the fee was made lower for one industry it would be higher for someone else.  

 

Mr. Carpenter asked if the fees were not a matter of  manpower versus the money used to regulate an industry.  Mr. Dodgion said he was answering Mrs. Freeman's question on the premise of giving agriculture a break on fees, not eliminating the regulation of the agricultural industry.  He agreed with Mr. Carpenter, the fewer facilities regulated, the fewer resources needed and lower the cost.  Mr. Carpenter asked what the danger would be to the public if agriculture was eliminated from the CCPA.  Mr. Dodgion again stated it would depend on where the industry was located, how much regulated chemical the industry had and how the chemical was handled.  Mr. Carpenter asked what the existing hazard was from agriculture.  Mr. Dodgion stated there were no agriculture facilities registered or regulated by CCPA.  The chemical in question for agriculture would be anhydrous ammonia, and he was not aware of any problems or accidents resulting from this chemical in agricultural activities in Nevada.  Mr. Dodgion said anhydrous ammonia could pose a hazard to the public depending on where it was used.  Mr. Carpenter asked about the mining industry and what the problem would be if the industry were exempt from CCPA. The same criteria as mentioned for agriculture would relate to the mining industry, stated Mr. Dodgion.

 

Assemblyman John Marvel, District 34, spoke in support of A.B. 189.  He said he had many calls during the interim regarding S.B. 641 of the Sixty-sixth Session.  Mr. Marvel felt the committee should deliberate on the serious impact on agriculture and mining and would like to see an exemption for the two industries. 

 

Mr. Bokich, Chairman of the Environmental Committee, Nevada Mining Association and Manager of Environmental Resources for Independence Mining, said the industry was the most heavily regulated in Nevada, particularly those mines on federal lands.  Mr. Bokich felt the industry was adequately protected and most mines were remote from the public.  Mr. Sader asked which regulations would apply to the handling, storage and use of hazardous materials, such as chlorine, besides CCPA.  The National Environmental Policy Act, Superfund, SARA Title III, Air Quality Act, and the Mine, Safety and Health Administration comprehensively regulated the mining industry, said Mr. Bokich.

 

Mr. Alan List, List Cattle Company, testified from written testimony (Exhibit D).  Mr. List said the agricultural industry was trying to prove anhydrous ammonia did not create a hazard.  He did not agree with the proposal by NDEP to be able to exempt certain industries from the Act.  Mr. Sader asked what the danger would be with anhydrous ammonia.  Mr. List stated   anhydrous ammonia was an alkali product, very caustic, could cause burns on the skin and has a high infinity to water.  If a water valve was opened when a person was over a tank, the vapor could burn the eyes or lungs, stated Mr. List.  Most of the danger would be to people who handled the material during a transfer.  Mr. Sader asked if the chemical would explode, and Mr. List said it could explode under certain  conditions and was labeled as a flammable chemical.

 

Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, reiterated the support of A.B. 189 from an agricultural standpoint and would like to see anhydrous ammonia exempt from the list.

 

Mr. Allen Brinkerhoff of Brinkerhoff Ranch, Inc. would agree with the remarks made by Mr. List and Mr. Busselman.

 

Mr. Peter Illoway, Coastal Chem Inc. of Cheyenne, Wyoming and North Battle Mountain, Nevada stated he was neither for or against A.B. 189. Anhydrous ammonia was a non-flammable compressed gas and Coastal Chem Inc. was the basic manufacturer. Mr. Illoway spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit E).

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if Process Safety Management (PSM)

required a separate hazardous materials team for the chemicals on the property.  Mr. Illoway stated Coastal Chem Inc. was required by SARA Title III to have teams work on hazardous materials incidents, but did not know if PSM did.  Mr. Gibbons asked if the SARA Title III team could answer to any spill at the facility and Mr. Illoway said yes.

 

Mr. Danny Thompson, AFL-CIO, talked about the inspection pattern of OSHA and MSHA and said they did not have a set pattern of inspections.  OSHA manpower only allowed inspections if there was a complaint, said Mr. Thompson.  PSM would be required to inspect one regulated facility each year.  SARA Title III was in place when PepCon and Pioneer had accidents.  Mr. Sader asked if the reason AFL-CIO was opposed to deleting mining was because of the inspection capability under state law versus federal law.  Mr. Thompson felt it was not the intent of the legislation to burden agricultural.  The AFL-CIO agreed with Mr. Sader on the reporting mechanism, but felt the bill really allowed someone to pay for the inspections and regulations. 

 

Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Bokich and Mr. Illoway who inspected their facilities.  Mr. Bokich said the Mine, Safety and Health Administration inspects several times a year and did not come out only for response to accidents or concerns.  Mr. Carpenter asked if Nevada inspectors had visited the site since CCPA was enacted.  Mr. Bokich replied they had not.  Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Illoway about the construction of Coastal Chemical in Battle Mountain and wanted to know who had inspected the facility.  Mr. Illoway said many people from the state and Battle Mountain inspected the property.  Coastal Chemical started operation in July and went down with a problem until January and they now operated at about 8 or 9,000 tons a month.  Mr. Carpenter asked if OSHA would come out and inspect the facility.  Mr. Illoway said with Coastal Chemical being the largest user of anhydrous ammonia in Nevada with  1,600 tons of storage on site in northern Nevada, he was sure OSHA would be inspecting. 

 

Mr. Bache asked if MSHA had inspected the facility or the Division of Mine Safety, and was it OSHA or Deish which was on site.  Mr. Bokich said it had been the Federal Mine, Safety and Health Administration which had inspected the facility. Mr. Illoway said he did not know which agency had been to the facility.

 

The hearing on A.B. 189 was closed by Chairman Freeman.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 291:

 

      Authorizes cooperative agreements between state department of agriculture and local governments regarding placement or disposition of estrays.

 

Mr. Steve Mahoney, Director, Livestock Inspection Division, Nevada Department of Agriculture testified in favor of A.B. 291.  He stated the statutory responsibility to the livestock industry would be to protect it from losses through theft or through stray or estray livestock.  The department had no difficulty with A.B. 291 which would allow the department to enter into agreements with various counties regarding estrays.  The only concern the Department of Agriculture would have could be taken care of in agreements between the state and county. The statutes  required a time frame of one year to claim and prove ownership on stray or estray horses, and agreements could be addressed on the issue with the counties. 

 

Mrs. Freeman asked if the bill was only in regard to horses.  Mr. Mahoney said no, estrays could be any type of livestock.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if the bill would affect the open range laws of the state of Nevada.  Mr. Mahoney did not see where it would have any adverse effect. Would responsibility for expenses incurred for damages by estrays change the obligation of the property owner, asked Mr. Gibbons.  No, replied Mr. Mahoney, it would become a civil matter when livestock had trespassed through a legal fence and it could be proven. 

 

Ms. Gerry Olson, Executive Secretary, Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association, recommended passage of A.B. 291 with an amendment, and spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit F).

 

Mr. Schneider asked what the organization did and if they would like to see horses off the range.  Ms. Olson said they could round up the horses to reduce the population but did not want to see the horses off the range. 

 

Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Mahoney to come forward and discuss the suggested amendment.  He stated the Department of Agriculture did not have the funds to become involved in the control of population of feral horses. Mr. Mahoney stated there were as many homeowners in the Highlands who objected to the horses as those who want them protected.  He stated the Bureau of Land Management through the Federal Government had experimented with birth control methods with wild horses on public land. 

 

Ms. de Braga asked under what conditions people could gather horses which were on their property.  Mr. Mahoney said horses on private property would be under the provision of estrays, meaning unclaimed and unbranded.  Ms. de Braga asked if mustangs were considered estrays on private property.  Yes, stated Mr. Mahoney, on private property they come under the estray law.

 

Mr. Regan referred to the amendment which would insert the word "control," and suggested the word "may" was in the legislation and therefore the word "control" would still be used with "may" and would not obligate the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Mahoney stated his concern was the population control, birth control, etc. 

 

Mr. Virgil Bucchianeri, Storey County District Attorney, supported A.B. 291.  Mr. Bucchianeri talked about the problems this past winter with horses in Virginia City.  The horses were rounded up and some were adopted.  He wrote the bill to be able to negotiate with the state in situations when necessary. Mr. Bucchianeri said he would like to be able to approach the state on behalf of the county as suggested in A.B. 291.

 

Ms. Kathryn Atamin, resident of Lyon County and living in Silver City, stated they had a problem similar to Storey County.  There had been two sides to the wild horse issue in Silver City and the state law allowed very little room for compromise between the two positions.  A.B. 291 would allow the Department of Agriculture to cooperate with local governments so the problem could be resolved.  It would not mandate the Department of Agriculture it would only allow them to enter into an agreement with counties.  Ms. Atamin asked for support of A.B. 291.

 

Ms. Olson agreed with Mr. Regan's statements regarding the amendment to insert the word "control." 

 

The hearing was closed on A.B. 291.

 

SENATE BILL 116:

 

      Makes certain changes relating to discharge of sewage from vessels into waters of Nevada.

 

Mr. Tom Atkinson, Chief Game Warden, Nevada Department of Wildlife, supported S.B. 116.  The revisions the department  requested were to update old laws which were on the books and approximately 20 years old.  He stated, new language would properly reflect current state and federal laws.  Mr. Atkinson briefly outlined the sections of S.B. 116.  Section 1, subsection 1, of S.B. 116 set up the prohibitions for sewage entering into the waters of the state and subsection 2 made it unlawful to dump sewage into the waters of the state; subsection 3 allowed the commission to adopt regulations to enforce the provisions of S.B. 116; subsection 4 would be the penalty provisions; and subsection 5 provided into the definitions for the new law to go into state law.  Section 2, changed the language from boat to vessels; subsection 3 updated the law and put inspections under the Department of Environmental Protection.  Mr. Atkinson said it was a brief review but the principal objective was to update existing laws into current

federal and state provisions.

 

Mr. Carpenter asked what size boat the regulations were covering.  Mr. Atkinson said all sizes including 10 or 12 foot car-top boats. 

 

Conversation took place regarding sewage into waterways, the exemption of portable devices to be carried onto and off of a vessel, and the need to go to shore. 

 

Mrs. Freeman asked for anyone to speak for or against S.B. 116.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 116.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Sader asked about the provisions in section 1, subsection 5 of S.B. 116.  Mr. Atkinson explained the definition was acquired largely from federal law and those in 445. of the Nevada Revised Statute.

 

      THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.  (ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS AND ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)

 

      ********

 

SENATE BILL 120:

 

      Increases amount of change account used by department of wildlife.

 

Mr. Terry Crawforth, Deputy Director, Department of Wildlife, supported S.B. 120 and stated the bill would increase the amount of the department's change account. 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 120.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.  (ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS AND ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)

 

      ********

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SENATE BILL 121:

 

      Makes various changes relating to petroleum products.

 

 

Mr. Robert Gronowski, Director, Division of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture, requested and supported S.B. 121.  He stated the bill was introduced to strengthen the enforcement of violations on diesel fuel.  When A.B. 812 of the Sixty-sixth session was passed, diesel specifications were added to gasoline specifications which the Board of Agriculture must adopt.  Diesel was not added to gasoline as being something which was against the law to violate the standards.  The bill would make it illegal to violate the standards on diesel adopted by the board similar to the standards on gasoline.  Old terminology was changed in the statute as it made it difficult to enforce.  The recommendation was for exact terminology to be applied to each type of petroleum product which had to be advertised and sold in Nevada, and standards would apply to those specifically.

 

Mr. Peter Krueger, Nevada Petroleum Marketers Association, supported S.B. 121, especially the provision which would give the Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures the administrative powers to correct and to prosecute the violators of fuelite.  He said there was a problem particularly in the southern part of Nevada where persons avoided the federal and state diesel taxes by blending products which currently were nontaxable. The only relief for the Department of Agriculture would be the courts under the old provision.  The association supported the bill to help maintain the quality of the product the legitimate operator would sell.

 

Mrs. Freeman asked for anyone to speak in favor or against S.B. 120.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 121.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT.  (ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)

 

      ********

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Carpenter stated the hearing on A.B. 189 should include those individuals who inspect the mines such as the Department of Industrial Relations, Mine Inspection, which would be Gordon Pickett and Donna Lewis or David Going of the same department.

 

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      PAT MENATH

      Committee Secretary

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining

March 22, 1993

Page: 1

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining