The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Monday, March 1, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 3142 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Chairman

Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.

Mr. Bob Beers

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Mrs. Jan Evans

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Major General Tony Clark, Adjutant General of the Nevada Office of the Military and Chairman of the Governor’s Commission on Workplace Safety and Community Protection

After roll call, Chairman Buckley noted in January of 1998 there was an explosion at the Sierra Chemical Plant in Sparks, in which four workers were killed and six were injured. In response to the explosion Governor Miller created the "Commission on Workplace Safety and Community Protection," known as the "Clark Commission" and appointed Major General Tony Clark Chairman. The Clark Commission was instructed to analyze Nevada’s laws, regulations and policies pertaining to the manufacturing of explosives and recommend any changes that would improve safety in the industry.

Major General Tony Clark, adjutant general of the Nevada Office of the Military, and chairman of the Governor’s Commission on Workplace Safety and Community Protection, gave the committee an overview of the results of the recommendations from the commission (Exhibit C). The commission made 29 recommendations, 15 of which were adopted by executive orders, some of those remaining were the subject of A.B. 110, A.B. 111, A.B. 112, and A.B. 253. Those bills ensured employees who worked in the explosive manufacturing industry were paid by the hour, not on a "piecework" or "piecemeal" basis. All safety training, instruction and planning were to be in languages understood by workers. It was recommended, within 90 days, any organization involved in the manufacturing of explosives or hazardous materials put into effect a safety plan, overseen by state regulators. If there was a fatality, and the deceased employee lived outside the U.S., the insurance carrier would be required to send the remains back to the home country of the deceased employee. The Emergency Medical Division (EMD) was to work with local emergency responders to insure their plans "dovetailed." Individuals who performed the function of county zoning were to look into the types of businesses for which they were licensing and ensure there were appropriate distances between those businesses, and any other businesses or residential areas. The State Lands Division was to assist small counties to enact appropriate regulations and ordinances, because small counties did not have the research capabilities the large counties had.

Assemblyman Dini asked Major General Clark whether or not there was state control over explosive manufacturers on railroad land. Major General Clark stated the commission was aware of federal regulations concerning "demilitarization of ordinance," and they used background and materials from the Dave Zimmerman Plant in Hawthorne to formulate the recommendations of the report. Mr. Dini suggested that it be further researched.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the bodies of the individuals who had been killed in the Sierra Chemical Plant explosion were returned to Mexico. Major General Clark stated the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) was only able to pay for the transportation of the bodies to the continental limits of the U.S., so burden of transporting the remains across the border was placed on the families of the victims. That was the reason for the recommendations made by the commission.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if the "hazardous materials" to which Major General Clark had made reference were all related to explosives, or if "chemically hazardous" material was included. Major General Clark stated the hazardous materials were those used in explosive manufacture. Mr. Nolan noted under federal requirements, each county was required to establish a local emergency planning council (LEPC), which was assumed to be aware of every industry’s explosive and dangerous chemical potential at each property. There was no indication in any of the bills that required notification to the LEPCs about such findings, Mr. Nolan asked if those issues were discussed in the commission. Major General Clark stated all of the information which would be necessary to evaluate various counties and any of the industries that were dealing with hazardous materials and explosives was available. The assumption was made that under the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) all LEPCs received such information.

Chairman Buckley asked Major General Clark to describe the findings made on the effect of paying workers "piecemeal" in the explosive industry, whether or not it was commonplace, and if piecemeal pay had any impact on the Sierra Chemical explosion. Major General Clark stated their investigation indicated it did not appear to be commonplace in the industry; other explosives manufacturing plants paid workers by the hour. It was the commission’s opinion that piecework pay forced workers to work faster than they should when dealing with hazardous substances; shortcuts were taken in order to produce more "canisters" so pay would be increased. When a new employee was given on-the-job training it was not in as much detail as it should have been in order for that employee to operate safely on the line. So the conclusion was reached that piecework pay in the manufacture of explosives "could well have been" one of the causes in the Sierra Chemical Plant accident.

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on A.B. 110.

Major General Clark testified in favor of A.B. 110 in which he reiterated prior testimony on page 1 of Exhibit C, and added the commission did not intend for the bill to apply to the mining industry or its employees.

Assemblyman Hettrick commented he agreed the "piecework" definition in the bill could be a problem in terms of the manufacture of explosives, and agreed with the amendment not to include the mining industry on that basis. However, Mr. Hettrick was concerned with the inclusion of "handling, transportation, or storage" of explosive materials. Much of the transportation was paid on a basis of miles traveled by a truck driver. Mr. Hettrick was not sure that was the commission’s intent. A storage facility would charge by the square foot used to store the explosive materials, Mr. Hettrick did not know how an hourly rate could be applied. Because the bill was very broad he thought the language needed to be very specific to only apply to the manufacture of explosives, or other industries may be affected. Major General Clark pointed out the original Bill Draft Request (BDR) was more specific than the bill.

Chairman Buckley noted that drafting changes sometimes happened in the drafting process, and clarification was necessary to determine exactly where the legislation was targeted, and amended language on that point was necessary for work session. Ms. Giunchigliani did not realize mining paid on a piecemeal basis. Major General Clark stated he was not certain they did, but sometimes additional compensation was given in addition to hourly pay, based on piecework type activities. Occasionally mining operations prepared Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO) on-site in order to blast in the mining process. There may have been additional pay to an employee’s hourly pay when he/she handled explosives. Major General Clark did not think transportation was as much of a concern to the commission as the concern with the on-site manufacture and storage of explosives. Ms. Giunchigliani noted transportation of explosives needed to be addressed differently because the truck drivers needed to be adequately trained and informed about what they were hauling. There could be a danger not only to the drivers but communities as well.

Chairman Buckley pointed out individuals who represented many different industries were going to testify and could comment on that. She assumed interstate commerce and regulation safeguards were in place, but inquiries could be made to determine if that was the case.

Assemblywoman Evans noted the work done by the Clark Commission was very specific to the Sierra Chemical plant explosion. She asked if A.B. 110 addressed chemical companies that dealt with toxic or hazardous materials because without proper handling, safeguards, and training, employees could be at very high risk. Major General Clark stated that had been discussed in the commission but was not the specific focus, the manufacture of explosives was. Some of the recommendations made by the commission could apply to businesses that had employees working with extremely hazardous materials, such as chlorine. Ms. Evans clarified A.B. 110 did not specifically provide any safeguards for businesses that dealt with hazardous chemicals.

Mr. Hettrick referenced page 2, line 3, of A.B. 110 and noted a portion of the definition for explosives read "any part thereof may cause an explosion." He recommended the magnitude of the explosion be defined, because a cap gun could be confirmed to cause an explosion. With the current definition, any device that caused any kind of rapid combustion would be included. Major General Clark noted other individuals who were present to testify also had concerns about that issue, and would address it. Some individuals preferred the Department of Transportation (DOT) definition, and he made note the current language was not the language used in the original BDR.

Allen Biaggi, administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), addressed Ms. Evans’ concern and stated the Clark Commission focused on explosives, but there were a number of other programs that dealt specifically with chemical hazards, two of which were the Process Safety Management within Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA), and the Chemical Accident Prevention Program within NDEP. Those programs dealt with the processes involved in large-scale chemical operations with regard to safety training to insure catastrophic accidents did not occur.

Chairman Buckley thanked him for the clarification, and noted witnesses were free to address Mr. Hettrick’s prior question as well. She noted the definition would refer back to the NRS chapter in which wages or compensations paid to an employee. She noted most of the people who signed in were in favor of all of the bills, and she would allow those individuals to give "general testimony" on all of the bills at once.

Tom Stoneburner, representing the Alliance for Worker’s Rights (A.W.R.) in Reno, gave testimony in favor of all four bills. In a very shocking manner, the Sierra Chemical Explosion brought a number of very serious problems to light. Four Nevada workers were killed, and a number of others were seriously injured, some of whom remained physically impaired. The Sierra Chemical plant was dedicated to one of the most dangerous types of explosive manufacturing processes, and it seemed the plant had been completely ignored by federal, state and county government agencies. Buildings that no one knew existed were blown up in the blast.

In talking with the survivors, A.W.R. discovered some of the workers had been employed at Sierra Chemical for 14 years, and had never seen an inspector of any kind at the plant. A process that was thought to be highly regulated and monitored, was in fact not. The federal, state and county government agencies responsible for the protection of the community and the plant, responded in a "dismal fashion" before the explosion. Governor Miller enacted the Clark Commission, and a comprehensive package of bills was designed to "create a shield" around the explosive industry to protect the community in the future. After the accident many changes were made to the industry in zoning, planning, and the process of training.

Mr. Biaggi gave testimony that safety regulations needed to be translated and provided to workers in a language they understood, inspections and coordination between the inspecting agencies should be regulated, and follow-up investigations should be mandatory in the explosives industry. He stated it did no good to enact those regulations if no one performed the inspections.

Mr. Biaggi noted the process of piecework pay was easy to understand: the faster an individual worked, the more money he/she made. That process was contrary to everything known about safety in the explosives industry. When a Nevada worker was killed, the State of Nevada should send the body home, even if that worker was not from the U.S. The fact that activists were forced to collect money to transport the remains of workers killed in the Sierra Chemical Plant explosion across the U.S./Mexico border was an embarrassment to Nevada, and should never be repeated.

David Going, deputy chief of Nevada OSHA, introduced John Wiles, division counsel for the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR), and stated their support for A.B. 110, but suggested the definition of "an explosive" be changed to a more modern and international definition which he provided to committee members (Exhibit D). He suggested the scope of the bill be limited to the manufacturing of explosives only, and not include the use, storage, and handling of explosives. It needed to address a specific and targeted hazardous workplace.

Mr. Wiles noted the committee might want to have different definitions of explosives for each of the bills because they addressed different policy questions. The definition provided to the committee was primarily focused on A.B. 112. In reference to A.B. 110, there was a similar issue regarding Mr. Hettrick’s remarks that addressed the scope of the bill. There may be instances a different scope needed to be determined, given the different policy questions of each bill. A.B. 112 needed to be "narrowed down" so it addressed the manufacturing of explosives. He surmised A.B. 111 may need a more expansive definition to deal with a larger variety of instances. Mr. Wiles assumed Mr. Dini had referred to the "Buckley Powder" operation in Winnemucca, when he had asked about state control over explosive manufacturing on railroad land. The operation combined ammonium nitrate with fuel oil. He noted DIR pursued a violation on that facility, which was taken to the Supreme Court because the district court and the review board determined DIR did not have jurisdiction, the violations were determined to be under the Railway Transportation and Safety Act.

Chairman Buckley thanked Mr. Wiles for the suggestion of the possibility of different definitions and standards for each of the bills. Chairman Buckley asked from where the definition in Exhibit D came. Mr. Wiles replied it was from the Department of Transportation (DOT), it was also the international definition for explosives. Chairman Buckley clarified it was the Federal Department of Transportation. Mr. Wiles clarified further by stating it was 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 173.50.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted the definition in A.B. 110 should focus narrowly on manufacturing, and asked if "processing" could be considered a part of manufacturing. Mr. Wiles responded it depended on how it was defined. There may be good policy reasons for different definitions.

Chairman Buckley stated there were three areas that needed additional work by the committee 1) How a site was defined 2) The definition of explosive, and 3) Whether piecework would apply to transportation.

For the record, Chairman Buckley noted the Sierra Club’s support of the bills.

Rosa Molina, director of Latinos for Political Education, testified on behalf of workers injured in the Sierra Chemical explosion. She stated she was concerned because she estimated 90 percent of the workforce in the explosive industry was Hispanic, most of whom did not speak any English. She pointed out because the workers were from Mexico, only 3 out of the 16 who were employed at the Sierra Chemical plant at the time of the explosion spoke English. She did not believed the workers at Sierra Chemical were properly trained in a language they understood. Only individuals acutely in need of a job would take the risk of working with explosives. Workers needed to be trained in a language they understood from someone who spoke the language fluently. Some of the workers at Sierra Chemical had never been to school, and she pointed out how technical the instruction was in working with explosives. It was impossible to describe how the families of the victims in the Sierra Chemical explosion felt. The bodies were transported only as far as San Diego, and remained there until enough money was raised to send the bodies to Mexico. Ms. Molina noted when it came to money, "feelings did not count." She emphasized she was speaking about human beings who needed jobs and were willing to risk their lives to get one, those bills were about "compassion."

Chairman Buckley noted that feelings and issues all related to public policy. Sometimes there was nothing to be done about the past, but something could be done about the future.

Mr. Hettrick pointed out the issue of transporting bodies was addressed in a Bill Draft Request (BDR) from the interim committee on workers compensation, and similar testimony was heard. He noted, in fairness to Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (EICN) and the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS), those organizations did not have a choice, the law did not permit the transportation of the bodies to Mexico. However, that was going to change with the aforementioned BDR. Ms. Molina emphasized she testified to insure the BDR passed and to prevent such an incident from happening again. Chairman Buckley mentioned A.B. 253, recommended by the Clark Commission, dealt with the transportation of bodies, and was going to be addressed later in the meeting.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Ms. Molina if she had looked over A.B. 111, because it changed the definition for requiring issuance of documents in different languages, to "The document or videotape must be in a language and format that is understandable to each employee." She asked Ms. Molina if that was clear enough to insure the information was properly communicated. Ms. Molina stated in places where Hispanic workers dealt with chemicals, rules were not enforced. For example, if an Hispanic worker was given some type of training, that he/she did not understand, the supervisor had them sign a piece of paper which stated they were provided with proper training, so they could work. Ms. Giunchigliani did not want to create another loophole, because there were different dialects in Mexico, and simply because an individual was from Mexico, did not mean they understood all of those dialects. As long as employers were hiring individuals to do a job, they had a responsibility to those individuals.

Mary Wilson, political action chairman for the Reno/Sparks National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), also representing Reno Branch of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), stated both of those organizations supported A.B. 110, A.B. 111, A.B. 112 and A.B. 253, they felt that people needed to be treated with human decency.

Bob Fulkerson, state director of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), stated his organization wished to go on record in support of all four bills, and he complimented the Clark Commission members for their efforts in bringing the legislation forward. He surmised the bills would not only affect the explosives industry but would make Nevada a safer place to work.

Ray Bacon representing Nevada Manufacturers Association (NMA), testified next. He noted his organization represented Nevada manufacturers, and Sierra Chemical was one of their members. He also noted NMA had no objections to A.B. 110, providing the definitions were "cleaned up." The beginning of the definition of explosives on page 2, line 12 of A.B. 110 was the Alcohol Firearms and Tobacco (ATF) definition, however it did not include exceptions to the definition. There were six exceptions:

• "Any aspect of transportation of explosives, be it railroad, water, highway, air, or other related by the U.S. Department of Transportation."

• "The use of explosive material in medicine." He noted, as the definition was, it could encompass hospitals.

• "The transportation, shipment or receive of explosive materials for delivery to any agency of the United States, or any State, or political subdivision thereof."
• "Small arms ammunition or a component thereof."
• Commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to exceed 50 pounds, percussion caps, safety pyrotechnic fuses, quills, etcetera." He noted that addressed antique arms.

• "The manufacturer, under the regulations of the department of the Military." That exception dealt with military ammunitions.

Mr. Bacon stated if those exceptions were included in A.B. 110, NMA would not oppose the current definition. However, if the definition remained as it was, the bill had the potential of effecting every retailer that handled small arms ammunition, and he did not think that was the intent of the bill. As Mr. Hettrick had mentioned, even cap gun caps could be included. The bill was intended to focus on the manufacturers of explosives. Only five plants would be affected in the state. He noted another issue that may result was explosive manufacturing plants could be specifically included in S.B. 641 from the 1991 session, which regulated highly hazardous materials. He did not know why that inclusion was not made in 1991. Mr. Bacon noted under the regulations of S.B. 641, NDEP had licensed professional chemical engineers on staff who made determinations as inspectors.

He noted through the Clark Commission’s findings, occasionally inspecting the process of manufacturing the chemicals, was beyond the expertise of fire inspectors. The Sierra Chemical plant had not been inspected by local government in "quite some time."

Mr. Bacon pointed out regarding A.B. 111 many members of NMA and other manufacturing companies around the country had established policies which indicated individuals who did not have adequate literacy skills were not able to obtain employment in those places. He assumed that was going to become more common in plants that had major safety concerns. Imposed literacy skills were found to be in compliance with federal statutes, consequently, A.B. 110, A.B. 112, A.B. 111, and A.B. 253 would have the unintended effect of restricting who was allowed to work in those places.

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Bacon, in the "narrow" definition in A.B. 110, if there were any manufacturers that paid by the piece in terms of manufacturing explosives as it was defined in its most broadest sense in A.B. 110.

Mr. Bacon stated testimony in the Clark Commission was that paying workers by the piece was something that was done at Sierra Chemical and was "not common" in the industry. He pointed out there may have been other plants in the country that did, but individuals from the ATF were not aware of any other plants in Nevada that were paying by the piece, but that was not to say it was not being done.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there were other manufacturing plants known to pay workers who did not speak English an hourly wage. Even if the workers were not being paid piecemeal wages, she wanted assurance they were properly trained in safety.

Mr. Bacon stated A.B. 111 was nearly a duplication of the "Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act of 1986 Title III (SARA, Title III) under the "Community Right to Know" provision. SARA Title III focused on hourly wages, rather than piecemeal wages. Mr. Bacon clarified the "Community Right to Know" provision was part of an entire section in SARA Title III, which fundamentally affirmed every employer had the obligation to have material data sheets available on site, noting the chemicals with which employees were working, and exactly what the safety precautions were for all the materials at the site. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it was a requirement of SARA Title III, for employers to communicate that in a language understood by the workers. Mr. Bacon stated the requirement that employees know and understand the materials with which they were dealing was in place. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for a copy of that, so the committee would be able to discern where it needed to focus. If all of the focus was on piecemeal pay, workers could continue to be in jeopardy.

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Hughey to get a copy of SARA, Title III for the committee.

Assemblyman Nolan clarified within SARA Title III there was the "Community Right to Know" section as well as the "Employee Right to Know" section. Federal law required employees to be informed about work place safety in a way they understood, but it was not stipulated the training be in the employee’s "native tongue."

Georgi Cody, representing the Nevada Motor Transport Association testified next, and stated her organization appreciated the intent of A.B. 110, and the tragedy that brought the legislation forward, however, they had concerns with the inclusion of the word "transportation" on line 4, section 1, in the bill. The transportation industry was not paid by piecework, the standard pay was either per mile, by salary, by hourly wages, or by a combination of those three. Nevada Motor Transport Association wanted the word "transportation" taken out, because A.B. 110 was a "manufacturing" bill. The transportation of hazardous materials was covered under the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and the transportation industry was governed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The loads of hazardous materials that were being transported were subject to many rules and regulations.

Peter Kruger, representing Nevada Petroleum Marketer and Convenience Store Association (NPM&CSA), testified next. NPM&CSA was in the storage business of substances that may qualify under a broad interpretation of explosives. NPM&CSA would work with the committee to tighten up the definition so it did not include consumer products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and propane.

Russ Fields, president of the Nevada Mining Association, addressed a point brought up by Ms. Giunchigliani. Mining operations regularly used explosives, so A.B. 110, A.B. 111, A.B. 112, and A.B. 253 were very important to his organization. Mr. Fields disclosed that former Governor Miller appointed him as a member of the Clark Commission. He described how miners were paid a production bonus, a production target was established on a monthly basis. If the mine operations exceeded that production target a cash pool was paid out to all of the miners, who were all cross-trained. His organization was concerned A.B. 110 may preclude their use of production bonuses which was a long-standing method of pay in the mining industry.

Chairman Buckley asked Major General Clark to comment on the different definitions of explosives, and the mining and transportation industries.

Major General Clark stated the commission focused on the manufacture of explosives and explosive devices rather than transportation. Their concern with piecework pay was directed at employees who worked in the manufacture of explosives.

Chairman Buckley noted Mr. Hughey would define choices for the committee during work session

Mr. Nolan noted it would be helpful if the committee knew if Sierra Chemical had been sited for violations of the "Employee Right to Know" provision law under OSHA.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 110, and opened the hearing on A.B. 111, and stated Mr. Nolan’s question could be answered by Major General Clark.

Major General Clark provided an overview of A.B. 111 (Exhibit C, page 2). The bill would require a written safety program in all work places where explosives were manufactured or handled and that safety training, instructions, and plans be in a language the employees understood. That was to insure proper safety plans and instructions for dangerous industries were in place. It also insured employees fully understood the safety and training plans and how to make complaints if they felt there were unsafe conditions in the workplace. It was not intended to apply to the mining industry, it was only to apply to explosive manufacturing industries.

Chairman Buckley asked Major General Clark whether or not applicable federal laws were working and whether or not industries were already being required to make safety information available to employees who only spoke Spanish. Major General Clark stated it was not evident there had been any inspections by the federal agencies, nor was there any indication all of the employees had been instructed in all of the safety procedures and precautions that existed. In response to Mr. Nolan’s question, the implication drawn by the Clark Commission was the Sierra Chemical Plant had been in violation, but the commission was unable to garner that specific information because it was privileged information that was not able to be put on public record.

Ms. Giunchigliani wanted clarification if written safety plans were required in different languages but explosive manufacturers were not providing the plans to employees; or if there was a "loophole" in the unamended language which allowed explosive manufacturers to "get out" of developing safety plans. Major General Clark stated there were questions about whether there were complete safety plans available, and whether they were explained to the employees in a language they understood. Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to be certain when referring to "different languages" it meant languages understandable to each employee, regardless of which language it was. Major General Clark agreed, and noted testing may be required in order to insure the employee understood the safety instructions and training he/she was given.

Leonard Ormsby, general counsel with Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (EICN), clarified the records indicated by Major General Clark which were not made available to the commission did not deal with language, or anything that was the subject of A.B. 111. Loss control personnel conducted training on ergonomics and under the law that information was confidential. His organization did not have any information that was relevant to A.B. 111. The ergonomics training did not deal directly with the manufacturing or storage of explosives.

Chairman Buckley noted prior to the proposed deletions, the language of the A.B. 111, page 1, lines 11, 12, and 13, read "The division shall adopt regulations specifying the contents of such a document and establishing requirements for issuing the document in different languages." She asked if any of the safety documents at Sierra Chemical were provided in Spanish and if there was ever any investigation in that regard. Mr. Ormsby stated that investigation was the Division of Labor’s (DIR) jurisdiction, and John Wiles would address that question. Mr. Ormsby stated there were no indications of problems with any of the training his organization conducted on-site, nor was there any indication there was a language problem which prevented the training from being accomplished.

John Wiles provided the committee members with copies of the pamphlet, "Nevada Workplace Safety: Your Rights and Responsibilities" (Exhibit E), his organization produced. He referred to section 1 of A.B. 111 and noted the pamphlet, or "document" was required under NRS 618.376. A.B. 111 directly impacted the pamphlet because it would require the information to be "in a language and format that was understandable to each employee." The written workplace safety program, which was referenced in section 2 of A.B. 111, was a completely separate document, and it was also required to be made available "in a language and format that was understandable to each employee." His organization would enforce those requirements to the best of their ability, but it was unclear how they would go about it, given the "breadth" of languages that could be encountered in any given workplace. There could be instances when his organization may be required to evaluate workplace safety programs in languages in which they did not have the expertise to translate. DIR would have to turn to the community for assistance.

Chairman Buckley noted according to the current language in A.B. 111, Nevada DIR was to adopt regulations that established requirements for providing the document in different languages. She asked if regulations had been adopted.

It was Mr. Wiles’ understanding regulations were adopted during a period when the regulations were temporary, and had since "lapsed". Currently, English and Spanish versions of the workplace safety program were available for the employer to copy and use in the workplace in order to be in compliance with that provision in the law.

Chairman Buckley clarified according to the previous law DIR "shall" adopt regulations, and she asked whether or not there were regulations that existed which required English and Spanish safety programs be provided to employees. Mr. Wiles reiterated there were regulations, but they had lapsed. Chairman Buckley clarified the answer was "no."

Mr. Nolan wanted clarification if Nevada DIR was responsible for enforcing the federal requirements, which included the federal SARA title III and the "Employee Right to Know Act." Mr. Wiles stated material safety data sheets were within Nevada DIR’s jurisdiction, but SARA was not. Mr. Nolan stated through prior testimony he assumed there had never been federal intervention or a federal inspection conducted at Sierra Chemical and noted it was state OSHA that was responsible for conducting those investigations and enforcing the "Federal OSHA Act." Mr. Wiles noted Nevada DIR had cited Sierra Chemical for several violations, which were being contested, making them a litigated matter. He would to be very circumspect with his testimony about the particular case, as a representative of the Sierra Chemical Company was taping the hearing. The issues related to his organization’s inspection, or the lack thereof, of Sierra Chemical were in dispute. Chairman Buckley wanted to focus on the public policies behind the bills. Mr. Nolan’s intention was to determine whether or not portions of the language of A.B. 111 were already covered in law, and if Sierra Chemical was cited because individuals were not complying with those laws.

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Wiles if the Nevada Workplace Safety pamphlet was available in Spanish, to which he responded "Yes."

Ms. Giunchigliani referred to page 4, subsection 8, in A.B. 111 and noted by striking "excessive losses," which resulted in businesses with fewer than 10 employees being "left out" of the provision, and she did not understand why.

Mr. Going pointed out sections 2 and 3 were repeated, and section 2 expired on July 1 1999, when private companies were allowed to write workers compensation insurance in Nevada. Ms. Giunchigliani asked what would require a small employer to have a safety plan. Mr. Going answered there would be no such requirements. Ms. Giunchigliani noted that was something that needed to be addressed in work session, because that was an inappropriate loophole.

Mr. Hettrick mentioned constituents of his, a couple who owned a small drapery business, were concerned they were going to be required to have a detailed safety plan in order to hang drapes. He noted there was a reasonable limit in forcing a company to have a safety plan, especially regarding "Mom and Pop" businesses.

Jack Kim, Regulatory Specialist, Sierra Insurance Group, testified next. His organization supported the bill, but they had some concerns. To require a company to provide safety information in a number of different languages made the bill very broad. If an employer was choosing between two employees, and did not have the safety program in one of the individuals’ language, he surmised the bill might lead to some sort of discriminatory hiring. He agreed that safety programs should be made available, but he was concerned about the broadness of the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani made the point there were approximately 30 different Chambers of Commerce, which could translate the safety pamphlets.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 111, and opened the hearing on A.B. 112.

Major General Clark provided testimony in favor of A.B. 112 (Exhibit C, page 2). The bill would require the Division of Industrial Relations of the Department of Business and Industry to establish standards and procedures at all places where explosives were manufactured, used, stored, or handled. The bill would require the certification of those places and the employees engaged in those activities. He reiterated the legislation was not directed at the mining industry but only applied to the manufacturing of explosives and explosive devices.

Chairman Buckley noted a number of groups testified in favor of all the bills initially.

Chief Marvin Carr, Nevada State Fire Marshal, testified the only concern his organization had with A.B. 112 was the striking of the lines 15 and 16, on page 6, "The storage and use of explosives in any commercial construction, but not in mining or the control of avalanches," and on page 8, lines 16 and 17 "Use of explosives in any commercial construction, but not in the mining or the control of avalanches." He stated the State Fire Marshal’s Office currently licensed blasters and pyrotechnicians, and by doing so they were able to "track" individuals who used explosives in the State of Nevada. In the interest of safety, the State Fire Marshals Office wanted to continue to perform that function.

Chairman Buckley asked why the deletions were proposed. Mr. Carr did not know.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if A.B. 112 had a fiscal impact. Chairman Buckley responded the fiscal notes for all four bills had been examined and A.B. 110 had a fiscal note of "zero". For A.B. 112 the fiscal note for the first year was $203,000, and $173,000 for the second year from DIR, and the fiscal book read "see attached," but there was nothing attached. A.B. 253 and A.B. 111 were not in the fiscal book. She asked Mr. Hughey to follow up on all four bills, for the proper information for work session.

Mr. Wiles noted for a point of clarification the expansive definition in A.B. 112, would be "narrowed" and he did not think there would be a fiscal note after that process. Chairman Buckley clarified A.B. 111 did not indicate there was a fiscal note, which was the reason it was not in the fiscal book.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 112, and opened the hearing on A.B. 253.

Major General Clark testified on favor of A.B. 253, and referred to Exhibit C, page 3. A.B. 253 would allow for the payment of death benefits to include transportation of the remains of a deceased employee beyond the continental limits of the U.S. to his/her home country. He noted SIIS was only able to transport the remains of the deceased employees of the Sierra Chemical explosion to the boarder of the continental U.S. and the individual families were responsible for raising the funds to get the remains across the boarder. A.B. 112 would allow EICN, formerly "SIIS," to pay the cost of transporting the remains of deceased employees to their home.

Mr. Hettrick noted the fiscal impact of A.B. 253 would be to the insurance carrier that provided workers compensation, it would not have a fiscal impact on the general fund of Nevada. He noted the cost would be difficult to ascertain because it could not be priorly determined where the remains would be transported.

J. Christopher Ronay, president of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) did not testify, but submitted a letter which noted IME’s interest in working with the committee to develop reasonable legislation to ensure the protection of workers and the public (Exhibit F). IME’s "Safety Library Publication number 3," which was a suggested code of regulations for the manufacture, transportation, storage, sale, possession, and use of explosive materials, was also submitted for the record (Exhibit G).

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 253, and noted specific language of the bills would be clarified in work session. The hearing was adjourned at 5:40p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Meagen Colard,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: