MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session April 19, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, April 19, 1995, Chairman John C. Carpenter presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Norris, Civil Engineer Department, University of Nevada, Reno; Chuck Jonner, Clark County; Bob Valceschin, Civil Engineer Department, University of Nevada, Reno; Bill Albright, Desert Research Institute; Robin Bain, Clark County Sanitation District; David Rowles, Clark County Health District; Clare Schmutz, Clark County Health District; Royce L. Hackworth, Elko County Commission; Jim Polkinghorne, City of Elko; Jack Sheen, Washoe County District Health Department; Frank Cassas, Lockwood Landfill; Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Chapter Sierra Club; Jan Gilbert, League of Women Voters; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Scott Tyler; David Emme, Nevada Department Environmental Protection; Patricia D. Cafferata, Lander County. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Carpenter. Roll call was taken with all members in attendance. A.B. 471 would be addressed first and Ms. Robin Bain testified on the bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 471 - Prohibits sale and certain use of phosphate in laundering. Ms. Robin Bain, Plant Manager of the Clark County Sanitation District facilities in Las Vegas, Nevada testified from prepared testimony (Exhibit C). Ms. Bain said the rate payers really stand to gain if the legislation was passed from the perspective of holding costs down and avoid expensive upgrades to remove more and more phosphorus as the years go by. Ms. Bain talked of the phosphoric acid in coca cola and said even broccoli usually has phosphorous in it and has been an essential nutrient of life. Consumers were blind to the amount of phosphorus in commodities. Mr. Bache asked of the 18 states who ban phosphorus, was California one of the states. Ms. Bain said no, it was not one of the 18 states, but felt it was due to most of their discharges going to the ocean. She said Nevada was forced with going to the Colorado River in southern Nevada and to the waters in the state to meet very stringent phosphorous limits. Mr. Bennett said the bill directly addresses phosphates, which has a distinct chemical formula different than phosphoric acid and the other phosphorous products mentioned. Was the bill written to go after all the phosphates or all the phosphorous products. Ms. Bain said it was meant to incorporate the phosphorous compounds in detergent. The reason the term was used was because in the industry usually it would be in the form of STPP, but it was meant to encompass any phosphorous found in detergent. Mr. Carpenter questioned what the penalty would be if someone was caught using the product with phosphorous in it. Ms. Bain asked the question of their attorney and said it would be considered a misdemeanor. If someone wished to file a grievance against someone using detergent with phosphorous or selling the product they would approach it through NDEP or even through Metro. She likened it to the same way if motor oil was being poured down the storm sewer, which is illegal, you could file a grievance and have it dealt with properly. Mr. Carpenter asked if someone from NDEP would like to speak on the subject. Mr. Dick Reavis, Deputy Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection commented on A.B. 471. He said the testimony Ms. Bain had given concerning the impact of phosphorus on receiving waters was accurate and was a nutrient of considerable concern and regulated in every stream and lake in Nevada. The water quality standards which have been established on the Truckee River for Reno/Sparks, on the Las Vegas wash for Clark County and the city of Las Vegas all contain restrictive standards on phosphorus which required the removal of phosphorus. If the permits were complied with the NDEP had no concern. Mr. Reavis agreed with Ms. Bain's comments on constructing facilities, the first cost for phosphorus removal and the operating cost in terms of chemicals were also accurate and was an expensive process to meet the water quality standards. NDEP has no position on whether the bill should be adopted or not. He did say phosphorus was a problem and the removal was an expensive process. Mr. Bennett asked if the removal would be a secondary, tertiary step treatment of effluent and what percentage cost would it increase a secondary effluent stage as we see currently. Ms. Bain said in southern Nevada they use a chemical treatment to remove phosphorus. The actual cost of chemicals and electricity would be approximately five dollars a pound, but when analyzing the cost of the basins the water was in, and the pumps, labor, etc., it would bring the total to $13.16 per pound. She noted there was a plant in this area which did have a biological phosphorus removal system and believed it was a flow strip process. Mr. Bennett asked if there was technology to remove the phosphorus mechanically through a filter or gravel back wash which was done in most secondary treatments. Ms. Bain explained the system used in Clark County. Mr. Carpenter asked if she knew of cleaning detergents available for commercial laundries which have very little phosphorus. Ms. Bain said she had contacted one of the largest commercial laundries, Mission Linen, and they as a corporation ban phosphorus for use in their business, and have done so for many years. The research staff would call some of the industries using laundries and the bill would be discussed at a work session. The hearing was closed on A.B. 471. ASSEMBLY BILL 470 - Revises provisions governing disposal of solid waste. Mr. Carpenter explained, Ms. Brenda Erdoes would testify if the state had the right to take over the regulation of the disposal of solid waste. He said A.B. 470 was the first attempt to meet the Federal Government head on regarding disposal of solid waste, although there had been many resolutions opposing Federal mandates. Ms. Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, was somewhat skeptical something could be done which would be effective. When looking at the draft and how it worked Ms. Erdoes and the bill drafter felt they had accomplished the goal by taking the landfills in Nevada out from under the Federal Act. She said the very first objectives of the sub-chapter said, "the objectives of this sub- chapter to assist in developing in an encouraging methods the disposal of solid waste which are environmentally sound," and continues on. The act goes on to state, if a state chooses to adopt a plan and have it approved by the administrator they could become eligible for grants of assistance under this chapter. Many times Federal Acts, when the federal government was attempting to encourage the states to act in a certain way, will hold as a carrot for the state to comply, a grant of money. There was some case law which for example said "the only sanction deriving from noncompliance, the act and the regulations that are accompanying it, for noncompliance was ineligibility to receive Federal funds and perhaps technological aide." "There is no provision in the act for a state doing what you're doing in this proposed bill draft, that is to basically unapprove a plan that is already approved." However, there is a provision which said the Federal Government or the administrator can unapprove our plan, and the state would become ineligible for grants in aide which had been set up in the 1980's under this act, until the state began to come into compliance. She suggested there was a very good argument even though there was no specific language in the act regarding state's unapproving their plans, the same would be true the Federal government could unapprove and then Nevada could unapprove it and the same sanctions would apply, being ineligible for grants under the program, but nothing else would happen. Ms. Erdoes said as they read the act, what the bill would do would take the state out from under this act and the regulations which accompany it. However, there was a provision in 42 USC which said if there was an imminent hazard which might have resulted from a landfill, the administrator could come in and bring suit on behalf of the United States in the public district court, to immediately restrain the persons contributing to this imminent hazard. She said this statement would remain in effect. She did not want to mislead the committee, if they enacted the bill, under her reading of the act, the administrator could still under an imminent hazard, come in and sue and it would go to court and they would decide if there was a hazard or not. Mr. Humke referred to section 6 of page 3, A.B. 470, dealing with the commission for review, inasmuch as this commission has legislators sitting on it. Ms. Erdoes corrected Mr. Humke and said it would be a separation of powers problem, and asked him to look at page 2, lines 45 and 46, a legislator may not be appointed to the commission. Mr. Carpenter questioned the unfunded mandates and legislation passed in Congress and wanted to know if any of the legislation passed would fit into the situation the committee was concerned with. He said the unfunded mandates were to cost the local entities over $100 million. Ms. Erdoes said she would be happy to look into the federal legislation. When she had checked earlier nothing had become effective. Mr. Carpenter referred to a letter from the Reno Disposal Service who were opposing A.B. 470 and asked for comments about the particular areas raised in the letter (Exhibit D). Ms. Erdoes commented on the statement Nevada cannot repeal the law itself, which was true. She said it would not be effective in Nevada once the bill was passed. Ms. Erdoes could not find the specific requirement on synthetic liners the letter referred to. The regulations on the issue were voluminous and she would make no guarantees but would be happy to look at any specific citations. Mr. Carpenter expressed Mrs. de Braga's sentiments when she said of the landfills, "one size doesn't fit all," what would be a successful program in Las Vegas or Reno, would not be a successful program in Tonopah or Mina. Mr. David Emme, Chief, Bureau of Waste Management, Division of Environmental Protection, spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit E). Mrs. de Braga asked about the extension for rural counties of one year. Mr. Emme said the latest information from EPA in Washington, D.C., would give the rural counties a two year extension instead of a one year. The deadline would be extended until October 9, 1997. She also asked Mr. Emme to explain the fiscal note he referred to. The cost of the commission for review and supporting it in addition to the solid waste program budget which now exists, was taken from NDEP's biennial proposed budget. Mrs. de Braga said Mr. Emme was saying it would be more local work rather than federal work. He replied the tire fee currently supports regulatory programs in the division and in the two health districts and A.B. 470 would divert the revenue back to the local governments who collect the fee. The mandated regulatory programs would still be there but the funds to support them would not. Mr. Carpenter suggested he could elaborate on the funding. A memorandum received on the tire fee revenue (Exhibit F), did explain a certain percentage of the tire fee goes to the Clark County Board of Health, the Washoe County Board of Health, NDEP and a small percentage to the Department of Taxation. He would amend the bill to leave the funding intact. Mr. Bennett questioned the significance of an exemption for small, arid landfills. Mr. Emme said the regulations the Federal government originally adopted in 1991, included an exemption for small arid landfills from the groundwater monitoring requirement. In May of 1993, USEPA was sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council and EPA lost the lawsuit and the court ruled monitoring was required at all landfills. The bill would restore the exemption through an act of Congress, because the court ruled on Congress' original action. Mr. Bennett questioned if it was a sure thing we would get the exemption. Mr. Emme said the bill had been passed out of committee unanimously on March 23rd and headed for the floor. After being asked about the extension of time by two years for the landfills by Mr. Bennett, Mr. Emme said he had expected it to be published in the Federal Register within the next month. The carrot for the state of Nevada did not include a financial incentive, there was no federal money available to support solid waste and the regulation of solid waste. The reference to funding and grants was in the statutes when RICCA passed in 1980, at the time some money was available for planning purposes and for local governments and states to complete plans. The only carrot which exists was the flexibility in the regulations for states with approved programs. Mr. Humke asked about the fiscal note and Mr. Rosse, Deputy Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection, said the fiscal note had been submitted to administration on April 17th. Mr. Rosse said the bill reads, revenues from the tire fees would be distributed back to the local municipal governments. It would leave no revenues to run the solid waste management division. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Emme about the small dump regulations. A great deal of discussion took place regarding the 20 ton a day cap for small dumps and which cities would fall under the 20 ton cap. There was discussion of the problem of dumping in the sagebrush and small landfills being open to accept refrigerators, etc. Mr. Emme was asked what he would do to maintain the small dumps without spending a large amount of money. He talked about putting up a fence, having the landfill open only certain hours, educate residents, etc. Mr. Carpenter was concerned about the dumping which was taking place in the sagebrush and the cost of the dumps which takes money out of the community for other important issues. He noted if there was not more leeway from the Federal government two years would not be of help. Ms. Patricia Cafferata, District Attorney, Lander County, testified from prepared testimony (Exhibit G). Ms. Cafferata said her interest in landfills came from working in many of the small counties. She too emphasized "one size does not fit all." Landfills cannot be confined to certain times where mines in some areas work a 24 hour schedule. One can change the times the dumps were open but they cannot change the way people dump. Ms. Cafferata noted many of the issues which had been brought forward before on the small communities and the use of their landfill. The proposal for Lander County would be $1.5 million to come into compliance, which would be 25 percent of Lander County's budget. She noted it would be interesting to know what the fiscal impact would be for the 15 rural counties. In Lander County with a population of 6,000 the cost would be $25,000 per person to be in compliance. She talked of the discord by citizens of the small communities and the mandate by the Federal government. Mr. Frank Cassas, General Counsel for the Lockwood Landfill, spoke from (Exhibit D). He felt by solving one problem by A.B. 470 the state would create another problem. He noted the committee should talk to the Attorney General, and have the lawyers on the committee look the bill over extensively. The carrot of flexibility was brought out by Mr. Cassas if Nevada were an approved state. He continued on with many of the issues which had been brought forward in previous testimony. Mr. Cassas felt this bill would generate a great deal of lawsuits. Mr. Bennett asked if the regulations were based on sound science and common sense. Mr. Cassas was not defending the federal regulations and explained the earlier version which was twice as stringent. Discussion took place regarding the small communities and the problems everyone would encounter if the state passed A.B. 470. Mr. Carpenter suggested we use the tire fee and haul all the garbage to Lockwood. Elko landfill would cost $2 million. Mr. Tom Isola, Vice President of Silver State Disposal, Las Vegas, noted the Apex landfill and the Laughlin landfill comply either way. Whether you keep the state plan or go without the state plan, both of the landfills were lined and comply with federal regulations. Lockwood would not comply as they were not lined. Mr. Isola talked about the small counties and how they were able to comply. Nevada being an approved state was offered flexibility for the small communities. He talked of driving to the small areas of Nevada such as Ely and Elko. He tried to answer their questions to the best of his ability. He looked at the state and could not understand putting in a transfer station in Jackpot and moving the garbage to Elko. He talked of putting all the garbage in the United States in one valley of Nevada and no one would even know it and the environment would not be contaminated. Mr. Isola gave many examples of what the small communities could do to come into compliance. He also felt the dump should be operated on a limited basis and only open one or two days a week. Show how to recycle and where to broker for those recyclable items. Why truck garbage miles, open small dumps and keep the cost down. The garbage cost in Las Vegas is $9.80 a month for twice a week pickup. Mr. Isola felt communication in Nevada was of the upmost importance. The state and private enterprise needed to go into the field and explain some more to the people. He felt the engineers were the biggest problem in the state, telling cities landfills will cost $100's of thousands to do everything and charge them $25,000 for the information. Silver State Disposal has nothing to gain no matter what would be done. From a Nevadan's point of view he felt a mistake was being made by pulling back the state solid waste plan. Mr. Carpenter asked if Mr. Isola said private enterprise could take over Ely and Elko and make a profit. He said he not only knew private enterprise could do it from his viewpoint, but he also talked to the garbage man from Ely, who was at the meeting along with a substantial number of people asking questions. Mr. Isola tried to explain to him it was a perfect time to come up and say "city, I need an exclusive franchise to do business here, an exclusive franchise for recycling, I will operate your landfill, but we will charge, we have to charge you can't do everything for nothing, but a reasonable fee, go out and handle these for them." He would even talk to the garbage companies and tell them how to do it. Between Reno and Las Vegas the two disposal companies handle 98 percent of the garbage in Nevada. They would be interested in going forward in all of the communities. Economics were there, there is money in garbage or he would not be doing it, stated Mr. Isola. Mrs. de Braga asked if Mr. Isola could pick up garbage and recycling and maintain a landfill in the rural counties for the fee he had been talking about in Clark County. He said it depended on the type of rural community she was talking about. If talking about Jackpot, no you would not give them curbside pickup but you would provide a pit dumpside and the county would pay for it to man it one or two days a week, fence it, and put in a recycling program. Jackpot could utilize the equipment they currently have. Twenty tons a day was nothing, in Clark County they handle 4,000 tons a day just in Las Vegas. She said Esmeralda County has three communities in the County and they were a great distance apart with a total population of 700 residents. How could this type of program be set up in an area and be affordable to the average citizen. Mr. Isola replied three separate landfills in the community, especially if they were under the 20 tons a day limit and handled the same way as described earlier. They do not have the funds to cover up the dumps and monitor them. Very little garbage would be generated and they do not have any tax revenue. It has been a real tough situation for this type of rural area. When these types of things become difficult and very unaffordable, it defeats the intent of the landfill. The rural areas have the option of going out and digging a pit and throwing garbage in, or just leaving it in the desert. He said without enforcement nothing works, and he did not mean throwing someone in jail with a large fine. In Clark County there was a small fine for people they catch and the fine was split with those who turn them in. The fine in most cases would be to clean up the mess they created in the desert. Mrs. de Braga noted when the fine was cheaper than having your garbage hauled away it would not make a whole lot of difference. Nevada can comply with what the Federal intent was, but the route to achieve the intent requires some state control or some common sense to modify it. Mr. Isola understands the law in the same way Frank Cassas interprets the Federal regulations. If you repeal this law you will make it twice as tough for the state of Nevada to comply to the Subtitle D Federal standards. Region 9 would have jurisdiction over the state of Nevada and those regulations for solid waste landfills were stringent. The best advice he could give the committee would be to have attorneys read the law and come back with their interpretation. Mr. Bennett discussed with Mr. Isola what needed to be done to have a landfill which falls under the 20 ton regulation such as Esmeralda. Mr. Carpenter asked what had happened between the first hearing and this one. Now he was hearing that Jackpot, Mountain City, etc., did not have to be closed. Mr. Isola said he did not know the status of the landfills before they were closed. If a new landfill were opened with a 20 ton per day volume going in, he knows what the laws would be to manage the landfill. Mr. Emme said the decision to regionalize Elko County, haul the waste into the city of Elko landfill, was the decision of Elko County. The regulations did not say the landfills had to be closed, the regulations said you have to comply. What their consultant apparently did was to compute the cost for opening up small landfills in each of the communities and compared it with the cost of hauling the waste. Mr. Carpenter said everything the committee had heard from Humboldt, Lander and Elko was all the landfills had to be closed to comply. What did they have to comply with they do not have to comply with now. Was an engineer selling the counties a bill of goods. Mr. Emme said he did not review the cost perhaps the costs were an over estimate of the value of compliance. The engineers try to figure out the cost of what it would be to comply with the landfill. Mr. Carpenter felt with five employees paid from the tire fund, there should be enough manpower to inform the few counties who need help of costs, etc., without the counties hiring expensive engineers. He asked if they wanted to keep the Jackpot landfill open, what would they have to do. Mr. Emme said the regulations which take place in October of this year, would have to comply with the operating standards. Covering the waste at the end of the operating day with soil or even a tarp, control public access to the site, exclude hazardous waste by a screening program for unacceptable waste and monitor for methane gas and if buildings were on site, methane monitors would be needed in the building. Mr. Isola noted methane monitoring sounds all encompassing, but the gauge was small and could be carried in hand. If the guage would be triggered while checking the area and buildings then a more precise instrument would have to be used. Mr. Isola explained, in our dry climate, most landfills would not show any methane gas. He noted the regulations often sounded more difficult than they were. Mr. Emme did not think the regulations would be relaxed further except for groundwater monitoring. There was a move to relax regulations for small arid sites as far as groundwater monitoring. Mr. Carpenter felt closing the rural landfills to only one or two days a week would be a real problem. Mr. Emme did not have an answer for him. Mr. Carpenter informed the committee many of the members had to go to other meetings. He called for a sub committee meeting to hear those who had come to testify. Mr. Neighbors, Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Bennett were present for the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Charles Jenner, Clark County, Department of Public Works, spoke from written testimony, (Exhibit H). Mr. Neighbors asked how Searchlight was handled. Mr. Jenner said they now have curbside collection, those who do not have to take their garbage to a authorized landfill until the transfer station was built. They have to take it to Boulder City or Laughlin and thought they would have trouble with illegal dumping, but they have not. Searchlight had their own dump before the regulations from the Federal government. The cost would have been prohibitive to make the dumps into a regulatory landfill. Mr. Jenner said all of the rural landfills were closed due to the cost. It would have cost residents $20 to $30 a month to keep the landfills open. It was much cheaper to have Silver State Disposal contract the pickup. Mr. Bennett asked how garbage was handled at Indian Springs and the Correction Center at Indian Springs. Indian Springs has a collection service and was looking for a site for their own transfer station. He was not able to answer how the prison disposed of their garbage. Mr. Bennett expounded on the unfunded mandate by the Federal government and the problems of fear and the carrot extended to those who comply. Mr. Carpenter expressed his concern for the rural areas in the state. The rural areas near populous areas in Clark County had been able to do a good job. Those other rural areas throughout the state without a large populous near them were having difficulty. He expressed his concern of not hurting those areas that have complied. Mr. Neighbors asked how the prisons at Jean and others were handled. Mr. David Rowles, Director of Administration, Clark County Health District has been the solid waste management authority for Clark County. He said it was his understanding the state health division has a contract with NDEP to collect the garbage at the Jean prison. Mr. Royce Hackworth, Elko County Commission, referred to the testimony given in the February 22 meeting. Elko County does understand and supports state control over the disposal of solid waste. We believe the state does have a sovereignty position and if we were capable of handling it following the 10th Amendment, this was an area the state should be in. However, we still have concerns about the funding sources needed for the disposal of solid waste in Elko County. Whether it would be required by the Federal government or the state presently Elko County does not have a funding source available to pay for a solid waste management system. Elko County needs state support on the funding source to implement the plan which had been submitted to NDEP, such as the proposal for a one half percent increase on the sales tax as a source. Elko was also looking for other alternatives for solid waste. Mr. Lee Chapman, Elko County Commissioner, went to Apex to look at Silver State Disposal's recycling facility to see what other alternatives Elko could come up with. Mr. Hackworth said they had taken the position sites would need to be closed, the monitoring cost would be prohibitive. They had taken the advice of the engineering firms and what they had stated to the Commission. The cost submitted was for $2,273,000 for five years including 18 transfer stations. Mr. Jim Polkinghorne, Mayor of Elko, noted to his best recollection the annual operating cost before compliance for the dumps was between $400 to $500,000 a year. He gave information relating to improvements and cost of land. They also talked about the costs and mandatory pickup service. The tax rate and total budget for the county was discussed. The Mayor of Elko said he had heard testimony which changed his feelings. He felt if the problem was reduced to square one, it would not be feasible to truck 100 miles over county dirt, gravel roads and snowed in communities, to truck garbage which has no intrinsic value, very little environmental value, very little danger to human beings, and truck it 100's of miles, using diesel fuel. He felt the landfills should be opened up in the outlying areas of Elko County. Mr. Polkinghorne said the most creditable people in Elko County had been working on the plan for years. City managers, city engineers, county engineers, county commissioners and others have worked as learned and dedicated people and came up with multiple transfer stations scattered throughout the county. It was the consensus of everyone, we could not go with the little local landfills and mandated closing them. He said he was chagrined to have it come up at this hearing the landfills would not have to be closed. How come a month and six months and two years ago they had to be closed and now all of a sudden to hear you probably do not have to close them. He was very disturbed over this turn of events. Mr. Bennett said it was his concern that the engineers, etc., did not advise them to push NDEP with a minimum set of guidelines and negotiate from the bottom up and not the top down. The Mayor did not know if this had happened or not. Mr. Hackworth reiterated what they had to do to comply. Mr. Carpenter said if they were given the two year extension it would help. Meetings like this and meetings which have been held before and all the resolutions must be getting someone's attention. Mr. Carpenter felt the bill could help and the Federal Government could not prove anyone was in imminent danger. Mr. Hackworth was very concerned with the dumping in the desert where they will. Mr. Polkinghorne said the enforcement of people dumping anywhere in the county was absolutely impossible. He noted with the half cent sales tax there would not be a tipping fee at the landfills or the transfer stations, it would be paid by everyone. Mr. Hackworth stated if the state took over and the Federal government felt a program was not in compliance the way they wanted, they would step in and take it over. He said in the mining industry, not complying, might make mine waste have another set of stringent regulations on the mining industry. Someone from the industry might have further information. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Isola the capacity and cost of a transfer box which could be put at a gate for landfills which were open only two or three days a week. The biggest open drop box Mr. Isola knew of was 50 cubic yards which could be moved easily. The cost would be approximately $3,000, the truck to pull it would be the biggest expense along with the manpower and fuel. Mr. Isola said the city of Las Vegas made money from the landfills along with Silver State Disposal and he felt there was no reason other counties could not do the same. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Isola if he felt the landfills needed to be fenced and covered. What was wrong with the way the landfills have always been. He thought it would be better than dumping in the desert. Mr. Isola said the open pit was burning all the time and was not a good way to handle solid waste. He noted hazardous waste was a problem in this country. If someone has a 55 gallon drum of hazardous waste and have to pay $300 to dispose of the waste and knows of a pit at Searchlight, etc., they will dump it. He felt that was the problem of an open facility. Having a drop box open would still give someone the opportunity to dispose of hazardous waste. A discussion took place regarding what to do with the rural landfills. Communication was thought to be the best way of educating people on the use of landfills which were only open on certain days. Mr. Scott Tyler, Professor of Hydrology, University of Nevada, Reno, did not speak for or against the bill. He felt the committee was looking for some solutions or perhaps some ideas. Mr. Tyler had dealt with hazardous waste, municipal waste, low level and high level radioactive waste and was currently on a National Academy of Sciences panel reviewing low level radio active waste sites in California and has seen them all. He asked to speak in respect to the proposed legislation and also the small towns and the rural landfill aspect. All the federal environmental legislation was designed around eastern standards. High rain fall, shallow groundwater, lots of people around, was what the legislation was written for. They did allow the states the option if they complied with the spirit of the law to give themselves some alternative designs. In the west the alternative designs were necessary. Something which takes into account the environment and the dry soils. It still did not mean you could dig a hole and throw stuff in anywhere you want to. The rural cities need to site a new landfill, however, they cannot afford to hire a consultant to pick a site. A design manual or a guidebook was needed for the small towns and counties to use to site and get them through the regulatory process to design and operate a landfill. There was a wealth of information in the University system, and state and county extension people, so there was expertise all around the state to put something together to hand to the small towns. With respect on daily covers and fencing, some covers were needed. There seems to be enough flexibility in the current legislation and the rules of the NDEP. Fencing the site and closing it would create some problems. He explained a site he worked on which was open all the time and received municipal waste, until an exterminator came by and dumped 150 gallons of rat poison. Approximately eight years later everyone who had wells around the landfill were contaminated with vadium, a heavy metal, which was toxic. The reason it happened was because the landfill was open, people could come in and dump anything they wanted, there were no controls. If a site was opened with no controls, Nevada will get hazardous waste. The public has to be educated. Mr. Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club, expressed the local chapter's opposition to the bill. He said they recognize the problem of the smaller rural communities and the issues with the problems. The small rurals have problems not only with the expenses of landfills but with health care costs, etc. The Sierra Club has expressed the problems be a matter of public policy to assist the rurals because they were part of the state. He said there was a feel of good will not only in this body but in general throughout the state to support the rural communities. Mr. Johnson suggested the committee look at two areas, one would be funding of solid waste facilities in the rurals must be recognized as a statewide problem. The particular problem in Elko County had not generated sympathy. In the metropolitan area of Clark County the individual household paid about what the County Commissioners were expressing was their cost to the system, including hauling from Jackpot in the rural small communities. Mr. Johnson agreed it was not ecologically or economically sound to haul from Jackpot. It has to be done from the standpoint of total system cost and still would be less than the metropolitan areas pay now. Understanding the problems and forcing someone to pay when they have had it for free. The sales tax in some areas would cover a significant portion of the cost and would spread it around. The ability to deal with the state agency and regulations was a problem. The choice of picking these kinds of suits come with legal fees to the winning side. The choice of picking the EPA as an opponent for a law suit would have other consequences. It would not be simply EPA coming down on your head, the site at lockwood would be under real threat by public interest groups who would file a suit and would prevail. He noted there were many other areas that would be better to challenge on the 10th amendment. The Supreme Court was the one who interprets the constitution. Mr. Johnson said Ms. Erdoes gave accurate information that the plan can be withdrawn. There were other problems which happen, one is the public interest lawsuit. A lot of the consulting firms simply say it is cheaper to close and haul than it is to maintain under what was perceived as the monitoring. He agreed with Mr. Carpenter, most people in the rurals like to empty their garbage when they want. Sometime in the future the toxic chemicals in the dumps will be a liability. The Sierra Club was concerned with lowering of standards. In the metropolitan areas the Sierra Club did not wish to see at risk what has been a reasonable workable system. The two issues were funding, how do we pay for these issues. The customers, those who generate the waste, have to take some portion of it. He commended the committee for the hearing as it helps in communication. He would encourage the continuation of dialog, keep the pressure on the division, put the heat on the national legislators. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Johnson about finding batteries in Apex and if his battery of lawyers would come in. Mr. Johnson said they were interested in regulatory basis of what was happening. "This type of bill is the flag that they would see that could test the case of whether the Federal government is indeed following their standards and their rules. Does the dump at Lockwood comply with the Federal standards. No, there is no case going forward or could you anticipate one against the state in this particular instance because there is an accepted plan the good will was there." Mr. Bennett said there is an accepted plan but by passage of this bill the lawyers would come running into Lockwood and say this did not meet Federal plans but it has been agreed upon and looked on with a little science and common sense and it was not a threat, but since it did not meet the plans we will come in and sue you. They would ignore your state plan and simply ask the Federal government does this operation comply with the Federal standards and plan, said Mr. Johnson. The lawsuit would be against the Federal government for nonenforcement of their standards. A great deal of discussion took place between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bennett regarding the regulations for landfills and how and for what means the Federal government would sue. Mr. Bennett said the question would be, was Nevada being over regulated. Mr. Johnson said he was simply stating his opinion of what public interest lawyers would do. There were other groups who have the same kind of interests as the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club does not hold for civil disobedience, they have built their reputation on being law abiding. Mr. Bennett asked what would it take to get the fed's attention to get the laws changed. Mr. Johnson said he thought the feds have the attention of the small rural areas in arid communities and environments. Mr. Carpenter said the over $2 million the Elko plan would cost was just for the operation of the landfill and transporting. What we would pay for the disposal company to pick up at homes and take it to the landfill would still remain in effect. He asked if the Sierra Club was actively seeking exemptions and working to make the laws more workable with grant extensions. Mr. Johnson said not as much as they should be, it is policy to enter into discussions, but it would not be Sierra Club's policy to encourage over regulations. The club strongly holds and sees themselves as a watchdog organization, and do not wish to see a diminishment of health and safety standards. Mr. Carpenter said if the law were passed and the Sierra Club came after Lockwood, it would be a great idea, and where were these organizations coming from. They were not out there to protect the environment. Mr. Johnson said Mr. Carpenter was misrepresenting the motivation. If there were laws and regulations we hold those laws should be abided by and they should be followed. Mr. Carpenter said he was not saying we should not follow those regulations. More discussion regarding Federal regulations and lawsuits by the Sierra Club were expressed by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Carpenter emphasized A.B. 470 was to give latitude to the NDEP to work out the problems and regulations concerning the landfills. He noted whether the bill passes or not he felt a lot of good had come out of the discussions. Mr. Bennett said the question was who was best prepared and in the best position to decide what was best for Nevada. Would it be Nevadans or would it be the District of Columbia, A.B. 470 said Nevadans. Ms. Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters of Nevada submitted written testimony (Exhibit I) in opposition to A.B. 470. Mr. Carpenter thanked everyone for coming and discussing the issues. The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining April 19, 1995 Page