MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING
Sixty-seventh Session
March 29, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order by Chairman Vivian L. Freeman at 1:45 p.m., March 29, 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 Marvel, District 34
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director
OTHERS PRESENT:
Danny Thompson, Nevada State A.F.L.-C.I.O.; Gordon Pickett, Division Mines Inspection; Dan Stevenson, Independence Mining Company; Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Steve Mahoney, Nevada Department of Agriculture; Allen Brinkerhoff, Brinkerhoff Ranch Inc.; David Going, Director Department Environmental Industrial Safety and Health; Gerry Olson, Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association.
The meeting was opened by Chairman Freeman. She informed the committee no meeting had been scheduled for Wednesday, March 31. Mrs. Freeman stated the committee had heard 42 out of 50 bills received in Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining.
ASSEMBLY BILL 291:
Authorizes cooperative agreements between state department of agriculture and local governments regarding placement or disposition of estrays.
Mr. Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, gave a brief overview of what had transpired on the bill in prior hearings. He said there was a recommended amendment on pg. 2, line 6 to enter the word "control." Mr. Welden stated by adding the word "control" there might be instances where local government could obtain financing for fertility control programs and if the Department of Agriculture agreed this would allow them to put the factor into the agreement.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 291.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
SENATE BILL 131:
Defines phrase "to take" for purposes of certain statutory provisions relating to wildlife.
Mr. Welden stated Terry Crawforth, Department of Wildlife, said the department had reviewed S.B. 131 and agreed it would be appropriate to remove the words, "hunt, pursue, fish and stalk."
ASSEMBLYMAN SADER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 131.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.)
********
ASSEMBLY BILL 189:
Exempts from regulation certain uses of hazardous substances.
Mr. Carpenter introduced Gordon Pickett, Administrator, State Division of Mines Inspection, to offer information in regard to activities and mine safety throughout the state. Mr. Pickett referred to a handout (Exhibit C), which outlined Nevada Revised Statutes 512.170. Mr. Pickett said at present 409 mines were identified within the state of Nevada, and last year over 600 inspections were accomplished fulfilling the requirements of the statute. The five mines which fell under the authority of the hazardous chemical program were listed on Exhibit C. All mines were active during the inspections with the exception of Nevada Goldfields Mine at Kingston. He stated the mines were some distance from a community of any size. The Nevada Goldfields Mine at Kingston was to be in production in the near future. Battle Mountain Gold Co., Copper Canyon Mill, discontinued activity in the use of chlorine last week and no longer have chlorine on the mine site. The mine would be completely inactive in the near future. Mr. Pickett said three main chemicals were used in mining operations, chlorine, sulfur dioxide and nitric acid. None of the chemicals used were flammable or explosive but did become airborne in a gaseous state. Mr. Pickett stated the mines using the chemicals mentioned had extensive monitoring systems with well-trained personnel who might be directly associated with the operations. There had never been a reported accident from any of the operations from the chemicals in the twelve years of Mr. Picketts tenure with the program.
Mrs. Freeman asked if the mines which did have the chemicals on-hand were abiding by the regulations and did not have a reported accident. Mr. Pickett said there were no reported accidents from the five mining operations which handled and used the chemicals related to within the particular program. She asked if none of the other mines used chlorine, sulfur dioxide and nitric acid. He said not in the quantities which required reporting to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mrs. Freeman questioned if the amounts were small enough they did not come under the provisions of statute. Mr. Pickett agreed and said the processing in other mines might be of a different nature which would not require the use of the particular chemicals mentioned.
Mr. Neighbors asked if chemicals were used where they would be roasting the ore with complex ore as opposed to the leaching process. Mr. Pickett said the primary use for chlorine would be to create a chemical change in the mineralization of the ore from sulphide ore to oxide ore and these would be the operations which have the complex ores and utilize the chlorine.
Mr. Carpenter asked if a leak occurred and gas was expelled in the atmosphere, how far would it travel. Mr. Pickett said it would depend on the wind regarding how far the gas would travel. Chlorine would be two and one half times the density of air and would settle along the ground and into lower areas and would not move very fast. The alarm systems have been set to go off at one part per million, which would be very minor. The operators would isolate the system to shut off any leaks, purge the system and identify where the leak generated from. Special procedures would be followed to repair the leak with well-trained personnel, stated Mr. Pickett. He said all personnel who work in a particular area carry a five-minute respirator at all times. Mr. Carpenter asked what would happen to the gas. Mr. Pickett said it would dissipate rapidly with any outside breeze. He stated chlorine was a commonly used chemical.
Mrs. Freeman said the issue was public safety. She asked Mr. Pickett as State Mine Inspector if he was satisfied the laws and regulations protect public safety, and he agreed the mining industry was protecting public safety.
Mr. Regan asked if chlorine was more of a problem in an enclosed space rather than in the use of mining in an open area. He gave an example of chlorine on a submarine. Mr. Pickett agreed and suggested it dissipates very rapidly and the quantity released would be minimal. Mr. Regan reiterated the mines monitor on a 24 hour, 7 day a week system.
Mr. Carpenter introduced Mr. Daniel Stevenson, Safety Superintendent, Independence Mining Company, who testified from prepared testimony (Exhibit D). Mr. Stevenson stated the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) regulated the mining industry closely. He said there were distinct differences between Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and MSHA. MSHA was able to inspect mining companies more frequently than OSHA. MSHA was required by law to inspect mines at least twice per year, and Independence Mining Company had seen MSHA six times a year. The general inspection by MSHA consisted of three weeks at each visit. Public safety was a very important consideration and the ranchers who were neighbors to the mine had not noticed chlorine or toxic vapors coming from the property. He indicated there would be a total at any one time of 280 people which might be affected by any release, and most would be employees. Mr. Stevenson asked for the committees support in passage of A.B. 189.
Mr. Danny Thompson, representing Nevada State A.F.L.-C.I.O.
testified on A.B. 189. He said he had worked for Stauffer Chemical Company which was the largest producer of chlorine in the Western United States. Mr. Thompson emphasized how dangerous chlorine was as a chemical. Stauffer Chemical produced chlorine in huge quantities and economically would ship it to users like miners in a liquid state. The gas was dried with sulfuric acid and compressed with compressors which ran off of anhydrous ammonia and was liquified. He stated if a coffee cup full of chlorine was poured out in the committee room, everyone in the room would most likely die. Mr. Thompson said he had been hospitalized twice, once from chlorine and once from chloral. He explained the type of monitoring system which existed in Stauffer and Pioneer Chemical plants. He suggested everything which had been told to the committee was correct with the exception of the amount of chlorine released would be dependent on what it would do. The chlorine would go to a low place, like a fog down a mountain, and would also depend on where the wind was blowing. Mr. Thompson said he was not for or against anything and was proposing an amendment to allow ranchers to use anhydrous ammonia as a fertilizer in the quantities used. He did not believe Coastal Chemical in Battle Mountain should be exempt.
Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Thompson if Coastal Chemical was regulated by safety practices. Mr. Thompson said they were regulated by OSHA as far as he knew.
Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Thompson if he was proposing to exempt use of anhydrous ammonia as a fertilizer to ranchers, but asked what about the mines. Mr. Thompson said he did not believe the mines used anhydrous ammonia. Mr. Schneider asked if the A.F.L.-C.I.O. had any problem with chemicals used in the mines. Mr. Thompson said yes, the regulated chemicals used by the mines came under regulations currently in place.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Thompson what S.B. 641 of the Sixty-sixth session would do to improve the safety of the mining operations when they were regulated by both the state and federal government. Mr. Thompson said he believed the legislation afforded the opportunity to look at a regulated facility. MSHA would be at the mines more often than OSHA because of the small number of mines compared to what OSHA was required to cover. Product Safety Management from OSHA stated they would inspect a regulated facility once a year which would meet the requirements. Under S.B. 641 of the Sixty-sixth session every regulated facility was to be inspected every year. There would be a disincentive in the law which required payment for what was kept on the property. Mr. Carpenter felt the mines would be inspected at least once by the state and twice by the federal government. Mr. Thompson said he supported the amendment on consolidation of paperwork.
Ms. Smith asked, if she manufactured a chemical or hazardous material to be used for agriculture or mining purposes, did it mean she would be exempt under A.B. 189. Mr. Carpenter said when he introduced the bill he felt if an amendment was needed, it could be done. It would not exempt any plant which manufactured chemicals, and they should not fall into the wide umbrella of agriculture. Only the mines which use the chemicals should be exempt.
Mr. Neighbors said he had worked around chlorine and had a problem at one time changing a tank. He experienced a shot of chlorine and it was dissipated immediately in the open. Mr. Thompson said he had a five minute respirator in his mouth and it did not last five minutes, it depended upon the concentration. He stated water mixed with chlorine makes hydrochloric acid which would take the hair off of a person's body. It would also eat up a valve over a period of time so it could not be turned off.
Mr. Regan related his experience in a submarine with chlorine, but he noted mining and agriculture would not be using chlorine in a closed environment and the monitoring systems would be a safety measure. He stated manufacturing chemicals and the use of those chemicals in agriculture and mining would be two different issues.
Mr. Ernaut stated Nevada Revised Statutes 459 were written as a reaction to the PepCon and Pioneer disasters, and the mining and agriculture industry became caught up in the aftermath. He felt it had been proved beyond a doubt the mining industry was regulated sufficiently and A. B. 189 would take away some of the duplication of regulation.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 189.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Smith felt agriculture had brought a clear and compelling case why an exception was needed along with a situation of urgency because it is time for spring planting, and the exception should be granted. Mining had brought some problems to the committee but she did not feel they were urgent enough to be taken care of tomorrow or next week to change any situation. Ms. Smith felt the mining industry made a clear case there were problems with S.B. 641 of the Sixty-sixth session and some amending and fine tuning needed to be done. She pointed out as legislators and people responsible for public policy, it would be irresponsible to say "any use, any substance, any purpose, for an entire industry is ok with us," and she did not believe legislators were elected to do so. Mining needed to be helped out, and Ms. Smith explained she was not antimining, but to react because of the urgency of the agricultural industry and throw mining in would not be an urgent situation. Ms. Smith said she would vote against the motion. She was supportive of agriculture and would like to see another bill draft to clean up S.B. 641 of the Sixty-sixth session.
Mrs. Freeman said on behalf of agriculture, Mr. Guild who represented the Stockmen's Association, explained because of the spring season, farmers would need the anhydrous ammonia soon for fertilizing crops. A.B. 189 would need to be processed within the next two weeks.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN SMITH, SADER AND FREEMAN VOTED NO.)
********
Chairman Freeman remarked to Ms. Smith, if she wished to draft a companion bill a committee introduction would be in order. Ms. Smith questioned what the purpose would be as they would already be exempt. Mrs. Freeman suggested it would not be to late to address the issue a second time.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
PAT MENATH
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining
March 29, 1993
Page: 1