The Joint Hearing of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Finance was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Monday, February 15, 1999. Chairman Morse Arberry, Jr. presided in Room 1214 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice-Chair

Mr. Bob Beers

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mrs. Vonne Chowning

Mrs. Marcia de Braga

Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. John Marvel (Excused)

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

Mr. Robert Price

Senator Neal

Senator Jacobsen

Senator Rawson

Senator Coffin

Senator O’Donnell

Senator Mathews

Senator Raggio

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

The Chair recognized George Pyne, Executive Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada (PERS), to present the budget of that agency. Mr. Pyne introduced agency representatives Laura Wallace, Investment Officer; Ann Schleich, Chief Accountant; and Paula Darragh, Manager of Information Technology.

Mr. Pyne referred committee members to (Exhibit C), page SPEC PURPOSE-0, of The Executive Budget which was not originally provided. That page included PERS measurement indicators that reflected continued growth in the areas of membership, benefit recipients, and payroll. Also reflected were the number of information programs provided by PERS, the number of members that received counseling, the average response time to written inquiries, administrative costs, the market value of PERS’ portfolio, and the funded health of the system in terms of the ratio of assets to liabilities.

Mr. Pyne then addressed personnel expenditures. PERS had 43 classified positions and 6 unclassified positions. With the exception of merit increases, no pay raises were budgeted in the upcoming biennium for the 43 classified positions. Less than half of the employees in those positions were eligible for merit increases because they had reached the top of their respective pay ranges. He referred committee members to The Executive Budget, page SPEC PURPOSE-3, and explained the statutory framework to determine the compensation for the six unclassified position was found in NRS 286.160 which stated, in part, "The Retirement Board shall fix the annual salaries with the approval of the Interim Retirement Committee of the Legislature. Increases can only be granted however, if the funds are approved by the Legislature." The Executive Officer and Administrative Assistant were not scheduled to receive pay increases. The Investment Officer, Operations Officer, and Administrative Analyst were scheduled to receive merit increases for each year of the biennium. The Manager of Information Technology was scheduled to receive a merit increase in the first year of the biennium that placed her at the top of her pay range. Mr. Pyne explained the Investment Officer and Operations Officer were paid according to a five-step pay range established by the Retirement Board. The Investment Officer’s annual pay would increase from $80,307 (step 3) to $84,053 (step 4) in FY 2000. A final step increase would occur in FY 2001, increasing the annual pay to $87,975. The Operations Officer’s annual pay would increase from $73,308 (step 1) to $76,728 (step 2) in FY 2000 and to $80,307 (step 3) in FY 2001. The Administrative Analyst was currently being paid the equivalent of a grade 41-9 in the state’s classified service ($51,110 annually). In FY 2000 that pay would increase to
$53,488 (grade 41-11), and to $58,597 (grade 41-15) in FY 2001. The Manager of Information Technology was equivalent to a grade 43 in the state’s classified service. That position was scheduled for a merit increase from step 13 to step 15 in the first year of the biennium. The Manager of Information Technology’s current annual pay of $61,345 would increase to $64,227.

Mr. Pyne said PERS had requested the addition of one Benefits Examiner position (grade 32) and one Computer Systems Technician IV position. Addressing the Benefits Examiner position, he explained the number of PERS benefit recipients had increased nearly 13% (from 17,583 to 19,836) during the period July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1998. More significantly, the average number of benefit estimates had increased by over 100 per month and that represented a 27% increase when comparing the final 6 months of 1998 to the 3 years ended June 30, 1998. The increased demand for benefit estimates was, in part, the result of PERS information programs. In FY 1998 PERS staff provided 157 programs to 3,702 members. Many of those programs stressed the need for retirement planning. Referring committee members to Exhibit C, measurement indicator 5, Mr. Pyne pointed out PERS had projected
125 programs for FY 1998 while the actual number of programs was 157. While PERS had projected "people counseled" at 4,200, the actual figure was 4,400 during the same period (measurement indicator 4). The 4,200 annual figure was projected through FY 2001. Through its programs and individual counseling sessions, Mr. Pyne said PERS had seen over 8,000 individuals in FY 1998 to emphasize and stress the need for retirement planning. He pointed out nowadays, people were more attuned to their individual retirement needs and were involved in financial/retirement planning. The additional Benefits Examiner position was needed in order for PERS to meet increased demand, function with adequate internal controls, and provide timeliness in response. The Retirement System’s technology replacement vendor had indicated, in order to support the agency’s new technological environment, eight full-time positions were necessary. The Computer Systems Technician IV position brought staffing to eight. Job responsibilities would include functioning as the lead help desk, frontline operational troubleshooting, and oversight of the two Computer Tech III positions. Those two positions were responsible for image system maintenance and other support activities to include scanning and indexing of documents. Mr. Pyne reminded committee members the Computer Systems Technician IV position was originally requested during the 1997 Legislative Session. That request was delayed until the implementation of the current technological environment.

Mr. Pyne explained PERS entire overtime request was found in the base category of The Executive Budget. He said the technology project was very labor intensive and required a great deal of staff time. Staff would be expected to accomplish their normal caseload work and participate in the project. The technology project would remain a high priority through the end of the coming biennium. Mr. Pyne felt the correct way to achieve the completion of the project was with near-term overtime expenses.

Mr. Pyne began to address the "out-of-state travel" category. Chairman Arberry interrupted and recognized Senator Raggio who requested clarification of measurement indicator 10, percent of real return on investments. Mr. Pyne explained "real return" was total return over inflation and pointed out inflation had been running at a very low level. For example, there had been a 17percent return through December 1998. Senator Raggio asked why a small projection of 3 percent had been shown in FY 1998 in the category of percent of real return on investments. Mr. Pyne explained the 3 percent represented PERS’ long-term expectation of 8 percent over time as well as overtime inflation of
5 percent. He said it was tough to know what inflation would be over the funding horizon of the plan. The Retirement Board’s current projection covered the next 20 to 30 years during which the assumption of a 5 percent inflationary exception was not unreasonable. The 3 percent return was then added to that figure. Senator Raggio asked the yield for the last two measurable years. Mr. Pyne explained PERS expressed its return in terms of yield plus appreciation on investments. For the period ended
December 30, 1998, that return was approximately 17 percent. For the period ended July 30, 1998, that return was approximately 15 percent and for the period ended July 30, 1997, approximately 13 percent to 15 percent. Senator Raggio asked the number of money managers PERS contracted with and Mr. Pyne responded somewhere between 21 and 23. Senator Raggio asked how often the performance of money managers was analyzed and how often they were replaced. Mr. Pyne said money managers were replaced only if they exhibited poor performance. Quarterly performance reviews for the various money managers were conducted at the PERS office every three to six months. Senator Raggio asked what types of money managers PERS used. Mr. Pyne explained the asset allocation was 40 percent stocks, 50 percent fixed income, and 10 percent real estate. Using the stocks discipline as an example, he said money managers may include growth or value managers as well as index managers. Senator Raggio requested a list of current money managers and their classifications.

Senator Raggio asked if the requested positions, one classified and one unclassified, would reduce the overtime requirement. Mr. Pyne responded that it would in the long-term; however, in the near-term he did not believe so.

Senator Raggio asked if there were any requests for change in the existing contribution rates. Mr. Pyne explained contribution rates were effective July 1st of each odd-numbered year based on the actuarial valuation of the prior even-numbered year. The 1998 actuarial valuation revealed contribution rates would remain the same except for those employees contributing under the employee/employer paid plan, in which case the rate was being reduced from 10 percent employee/employer to 9.75 percent each employee/employer paid. He thought that reduction was included in the Governor’s budget.

Senator Raggio asked if PERS was still on target toward actuarial soundness. Measurement indicator 11 reflected the ratio of assets to liabilities nearing
80 percent. Mr. Pyne explained the 1985 legislature had set PERS on target to fully fund the system by the year 2024, over a 40-year amortization period.
26 years into the schedule, PERS was on target. Senator Raggio felt the term "fully-funded" represented a moving target pending upon who did the analysis. With the increased number of recipients, vis-a-vis the increase in active members, the Senator asked if present contribution rates would maintain the target percentage. Mr. Pyne responded that it would. The increase in membership growth assisted in keeping the pressure on the rates down because those new members were helping pay off the Retirement System’s unfunded liability.

Referring to The Executive Budget, Decision Unit E-130, Senator Raggio questioned the purpose of a second opinion actuarial review performed every ten years. Mr. Pyne said a second opinion study had been performed by Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company in 1990 at the request of the legislature. The second review looked at the assumptions and methods that The Segal Company, PERS’ actuary, used to determine liabilities and cost of the plan. He said, in accordance with Retirement Board policy, a second opinion study was performed every ten years. The second opinion study also met an industry standard for PERS to achieve the Public Pension Coordinating Counsel Achievement Award in Program Excellence. Senator Raggio then questioned the selection process. Mr. Pyne said a request for proposal was sent to all prominent actuarial firms in the country.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who disclosed she was a public employee. Senator Raggio also disclosed he was a recipient under the PERS plan for prior service.

The Chair recognized Senator Neal who disclosed he was not a recipient under PERS plan and asked how many dollars were in the fund. Mr. Pyne indicated approximately $11.5 billion market value. Senator Neal asked the growth rate of the fund per year. Mr. Pyne replied return on investments through
December 30, 1998 was approximately 17 percent.

The Chair recognized Vice-Chair Evans who commented on the fact judges did not contribute to the Retirement System and wanted to know the actuarial impact over time. Mr. Pyne responded that as the result of S.B. 36 (1997) PERS performed a study, the results of which resulted in a bill draft request to be introduced this legislative session. He explained the judges system was a "pay me now or pay me later" type of situation not unlike Social Security. Social Security was not funded on an actuarial reserve basis and no contributions were set aside for investment purposes that would realize a compounded return to fund future benefits. As the result of S.B. 36 (1997) PERS performed a study, the results of which resulted in a bill draft request this session.

Mr. Pyne referred committee members to The Executive Budget, page SPEC PURPOSE-1, and pointed out the significant increase in the out-of-state travel category "work program" from FY 1998 "actuals." Out of-state travel for PERS consisted of one trip for each of seven board members and three of five police/fire committee members. Staff travel was also included. He explained in the "base" year, three of the seven board members were unable to travel; one due to illness and two due to workload constraints. Three trips were added back into the budget so all board members could continually upgrade their knowledge and experience related to the administration of the retirement plan and their fiduciary obligations. PERS felt the training was invaluable to the board members’ decision-making process.

In The Executive Budget, E-129, page SPEC PURPOSE-4, the Retirement System had requested its Medical Adviser be allowed to participate in an industry-sponsored conference related to disability retirement. Mr. Pyne said there were a number of "new and interesting" types of ailments and diseases, for example chronic fatigue syndrome, that were difficult for the Retirement Board to deal with when making disability retirement determinations. Attendance at the conference would assist the Medical Adviser and provide the opportunity to discuss issues with peers and learn of industry standards.

In The Executive Budget, E-181, page SPEC PURPOSE-8, one additional trip had been requested to allow the Administrative Analyst to attend the annual National Association of Investment Officers (NASIO) conference. Mr. Pyne explained that as the portfolio continued to grow, it became increasingly necessary to ensure individuals responsible for monitoring and managing the retirement fund were given every opportunity to enhance their expertise.

In The Executive Budget, E-179 and E-175, also on page SPEC PURPOSE-8, PERS requested training funds for its Chief Accountant to attend the National Government Finance Officers Association and for its Internal Audit staff to attend their national conference.

Mr. Pyne addressed the next category of the budget, in-state travel. The increases reflected in The Executive Budget were directly related to customer service. Additional statewide benefit counseling trips and an additional liaison officer and payroll clerk training trip would provide both members and employers with a better understanding of rights and responsibilities under the Retirement Act. In The Executive Budget, E-136, page SPEC PURPOSE-6, in-state travel was increased in the internal audit area to provide for additional employer audits conducted by PERS staff.

Chairman Arberry interrupted and asked if there was any category within PERS budget that required attention. Mr. Pyne said one category was the second opinion actuarial review as well as an internal control audit and annual financial audits.

Senator Raggio asked Mr. Pyne to address E-137 (pilot imaging project) in The Executive Budget, page SPEC PURPOSE-6. Mr. Pyne explained PERS had imaged new member files to the optical disc system since September of 1993. There were, however, approximately 100,000 hard-copy member files that had yet to be imaged. The Las Vegas PERS staff was unable to view the hard-copy files and as a result could not perform the functions of a full-service office. Completion of the imaging project would remedy that situation and provide staff with the opportunity to provide better services and be able to better track workflow within the agency. The pilot imaging project was scheduled for the second year of the biennium and would entail the imaging of 10,000 member files to determine the level of effort required for preparation and indexing.

The Chair recognized Senator Neal who referred committee members to the last page of The Executive Budget, page SPEC PURPOSE-10, the total expenditures category, and asked for an explanation of the difference between the "actual" of $7.5 million, the "work program" of $9.4 million, and the "agency request" of $9 million. Mr. Pyne explained the difference represented the continuation of the total business systems replacement effort that began in 1996. The difference reflected the costs of different phases of the project which, he pointed out, was on-time and on-budget. Senator Neal commended PERS on its expenditure of $7.3 million to administer an $11 billion fund. Mr. Pyne said the administrative costs of the plan were less than 1 percent of total payroll contributions, and much less than 1 percent of the total fund.

The Chair recognized Senator Mathews who expressed her concern that
54 percent in "out-of-state travel" seemed extreme. PERS’ additional request in the second year of the biennium took that amount to 69 percent. She said if every budget reviewed by committee members requested those kinds of increases, even where justified, the General Fund would be broke just sending people out-of-state.

The Chair recognized Speaker Dini who referred committee members to Exhibit C, measurement indicator 11, the ratio of assets to liabilities, and asked if that represented PERS unfunded liability. Mr. Pyne responded that was correct. For every dollar of liability, PERS had 80 cents in assets. Speaker Dini asked the status of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund and asked if there was adequate funding. Mr. Pyne explained the "funded ratio" represented the combination of both the Police and Firemen’s Retirement Fund and the fund for regular members. The regular member fund was actually a higher ratio than the police/fire fund. He said the police/fire fund was not lagging terribly behind and the contributions were in place to fully fund that system as well by the year 2024.

The Chair recognized Mr. Perkins who disclosed he was a member of PERS. He referred committee members to Decision Unit E-137, the pilot imaging project, and asked how that project was different from the existing optical imaging system. Mr. Pyne explained Optika Company provided the software and hardware for the project. Mr. Parks asked if an optical system already existed, what was the necessity of engaging a vendor for $200,000 to perform what appeared to be an identical project. Mr. Pyne said the upgrade of the member files to the optical system had nothing to do with the actual scanning of member file information.

The Chair recognized Mr. Beers who asked if PERS was currently scanning new employee documents and, if so, why an outside vendor was being engaged to scan documents of old employees. Again, Mr. Pyne explained there were 100,000 files that included between 20 to 100 pieces of paper each, many of which were not essential to retirement. The volume of the project suggested the need for vendor assistance. Mr. Beers commented a vendor would normally be engaged when something new was being taught, but asked if PERS could not accomplish the project quicker and cheaper using existing staff that had already been trained. Mr. Pyne explained the decision to use an outside vendor was based on discussions with its quality assurance consultant who advised an outside vendor was the most cost-effective way to complete the project. Mr. Beers disclosed his wife was a member of PERS.

The Chair recognized Senator Raggio who wanted to dispel any misimpression that the $11.5 billion retirement fund cost only $7 million to administer. He pointed out PERS money managers received a percentage and/or commission for services and asked what that amount was. Mr. Pyne said the money managers, collectively in terms of dollars, received approximately $14 million per year, or 14 basis points. One basis point was equivalent to one hundredth of one percent. Senator Raggio asked if an increase in contribution rate was requested for members of the Legislative Retirement Fund. Mr. Pyne said there was actually a drop in the annual contribution requirement from $218,000 to $166,000 this year. Senator Raggio assumed the imposition of term limits had changed the actuarial finding and Mr. Pyne said that was correct. PERS had advised its actuary of the term limit change and appropriate adjustments had been made.

The Chair recognized Senator Neal who commented PERS had 43 classified staff positions and 6 unclassified staff positions. He asked the necessity for the six unclassified positions. Mr. Pyne explained the Executive Officer, Operations Officer, and Investment Officer had historically been the three unclassified positions charged with the day-to-day administration of PERS. The Executive Officer served at the pleasure of the Retirement Board. The Investment Officer and Operations Officer served at the pleasure of the Executive Officer. He said those three positions needed to be unclassified as together they were the team that, in conjunction with the Retirement Board, ran PERS. The Administrative Analyst, Administrative Assistant, and the Manager of Information Technology positions had been made unclassified at one time or another over the years. Mr. Pyne said given the fact PERS had an $11 billion fund and received over
$400 million per year in employee contributions, the Retirement Board felt those positions should be paid at a higher level than what the State Department of Personnel was willing to pay and therefore had been unclassified. That was his best recollection of the history of PERS unclassified positions. He added the statute defined all other positions were to be under the classified service. Senator Neal asked if the money managers received their salaries from the interest that accrued from the $11 billion fund. Mr. Pyne explained the money managers actually received fees based on how much money they managed, not the return. Senator Neal commented if the fund did not make any money the managers were still paid and Mr. Pyne responded that was correct.

The Chair recognized Bob Loux, Executive Director, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, to present the budget of that agency. Mr. Loux introduced agency representative Trudy Stanford, Accountant.

Prior to addressing the budget, Mr. Loux thought it important to discuss the status of Yucca Mountain oversite project and recent developments surrounding the project. He said the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Secretary of Energy intended to make a suitability decision regarding Yucca Mountain by mid-year 2001. In order to move in a direction to support that decision, DOE had issued a number of documents which imposed significantly on the budget of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.

Mr. Loux explained in December 1998 DOE put forward a viability assessment regarding Yucca Mountain’s viability, as opposed to suitability, as a repository. The assessment, by design, was independent of regulation. The site was not compared to health or regulation standards but rather assessed the various hydrologic and geologic facets and how those facets performed in order to project overall performance. As the viability assessment was published, DOE confirmed a number of issues material to the program. First, the assessment reaffirmed Nevada’s view the groundwater system at Yucca Mountain moved very rapidly both in the unsaturated zone above the repository site and in the saturated zone below the repository down to the water table level. Mr. Loux explained that was important because at the beginning of the project, DOE had projected it would take 10,000 to 20,000 years for surface water at Yucca Mountain to reach the repository level, only 800 to 1,000 feet below the surface. The data now suggested that time frame was as little as another 50 to 100 years for water to move from the repository level to the water table level (the Amargosa Valley aquifer).

As the result of that revelation, DOE began to perform additional work on other ways to retard or slow down the migration of radionuclides that might leave the repository from waste packages. He said DOE was now trying to justify the need for a waste package that surrounded each canister of waste in the repository and that would last approximately 750,000 years. To date, DOE had not specified the metal or metal alloy material to be used in the waste package. Most of the data, however, focused on the use of a nickel alloy called C-22. Mr. Loux said that at recent performance assessment meetings DOE had conducted with the Technical Review Board and other scientific bodies, it was asked to show its overall model of the system. For example, they showed the pathways and timeframes that surrounded the escape of radiation from the repository. The fact there was very fast ground water at the site lead to the conclusion that more engineering was necessary to make up for the deficiencies in geology or hydrology.

Mr. Loux said there was a great deal of uncertainty in DOE’s "numbers" as revealed in the viability assessment. For example, DOE had predicted they could obtain doses as low as 25 millirems to the "maximally exposed individual" at 20 kilometers from the repository. That "minimally exposed individual" standard, expected to come from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, would be the standard for Yucca Mountain. He said the problem with DOE’s numbers was the prediction of a 25 millirem dose included between six and eight orders of uncertainty, which meant the doses could be as low as .00025 millirems or as high as 25,000 millirems. After 20 years of study at Yucca Mountain at a cost of approximately $3 billion, and with only two years of study left, it was unlikely the uncertainty in those numbers would be reduced by any appreciable amount, thereby leaving a great deal of uncertainty about the contribution of hydrology and geology to the overall system.

Mr. Loux said while running the various hydrologic, geologic, and engineering models for performance assessment, DOE had been asked to isolate each performance component, whether it be the waste package, the geology, or the hydrology, and compare those components. The critical part of that exercise showed when DOE was asked to pull out the 750,000 year proposed waste package, the remaining Yucca Mountain environment provided very little or no protection whatsoever. DOE had planned to rely almost exclusively on metal containers to provide 95 percent of the waste isolation capability at Yucca Mountain while less than 5 percent of the entire waste isolation would be contributed by the natural hydrology and geology at the site.

He said one of the reasons Yucca Mountain was advertised as being originally selected was its natural waste isolation capabilities. DOE had often indicated the site provided ideal waste isolation capabilities, superior to any other site they had looked at in the country. After 20 years, it had been determined Yucca Mountain itself provided very little to no waste isolation capabilities. DOE’s performance and viability assessments reflected the deliberate release of radiation into the Amargosa Valley aquifer. Due to the size of the aquifer, DOE believed radiation would be diluted and dispersed evenly through the entire aquifer and prevent an individual dose of radiation higher than the 25 millirems.

The Chair recognized Senator O’Donnell who referred committee members to The Executive Budget and said it represented a re-hash of prior budgets. He asked if the project had been stopped. Mr. Loux said the project had not been stopped. Senator O’Donnell referred to testimony thus far as propaganda. Of the agency request for $1.3 million, $600,000 was money the legislature had lent to the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects to keep the agency financially viable to this point. He noted the budget reflected $1.3 million from a Federal Hazardous Waste Grant and asked why a budget of $1.3 was being requested to find out whether or not there would ultimately be a Yucca Mountain project when in Nevada there were children without homes, foster programs that were in disrepair, and people with disabilities that could not find a place to live. Senator O’Donnell wanted to know if the interim storage had been stopped. He pointed out that during the recent Presidential fiasco, the public was able to count votes and thereby predict an outcome. In the case of Yucca Mountain, Senator O’Donnell said no one was counting votes and asked if anyone had, since the passage of the federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, put forward any legislation to amend that Act to remove Nevada.

Mr. Loux responded no legislation had been introduced to remove Nevada from the Act. While he admittedly was not an expert in how people voted, Mr. Loux said Nevada’s two senators believed they had a margin of one to two votes to sustain a promised Presidential veto of the interim storage legislation. If Mr. Loux thought the interim storage would be stopped, Senator O’Donnell asked why the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects had asked for a $1.3 million budget. Mr. Loux explained the Yucca Mountain project would proceed along two separate tracks; one being a scientific/technical track and the second, a political track. He was not, at that time, willing to predict which track the decision would be made on but said Nevada must be prepared to interact in both arenas. In view of the Yucca Mountain decision to be made in two years, Mr. Loux said the existing budget over the next biennium would allow the agency to be effective in both arenas. Unless the rules changed again, it was his opinion the Secretary of Energy would have a difficult time demonstrating the site could meet health and safety standards. On the political track, the legislation not only established an interim storage site at Yucca Mountain, but would basically throw out all of the health and safety rules. Senator O’Donnell asked what were the chances of having the Federal Government throw out or change safety and health rules in the future. Mr. Loux thought those chances were reasonably slim given the way votes looked in the U.S. Senate as told to him by Nevada’s U.S. Senators.

He said Governor Guinn would be addressing what Nevada needed to do in the political arena in order to support the activities of its Congressional delegation to thwart legislation in support of the Yucca Mountain project. Mr. Loux said the budget, as proposed, was aimed at addressing and dealing with the scientific and technical questions at the site. The agency could be very successful in that arena. The program Governor Guinn would be addressing, as the result of the Nuclear Waste Summit, was more focused on how to deal with the political end of the project. The Governor’s strategy in the political arena would become clear in his address. Senator O’Donnell said a resolution had recently been sent to Congress in objection to the storage of nuclear waste in Nevada. In view of the fact no one had attempted to take Nevada out of the Federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Senator O’Donnell personally felt the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects had no chance of keeping Yucca Mountain from becoming a nuclear-waste storage site. He commented one morning Nevadan’s would wake up to nuclear waste being shipped through its various towns and cities, and no one would have been working with the Federal Government to determine population safety. Mr. Loux agreed with Senator O’Donnell that the Yucca Mountain project had not been stopped and that Nevada was not working hand-in-glove with the Department of Energy (DOE). He felt, however, the agency requested budget, together with proposed activities, would allow the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects to address the majority, if not all, of the health and safety issues.

The Chair recognized Senator Neal who asked Mr. Loux if there had been a train through northern Nevada last year that carried nuclear waste. Mr. Loux said one train crossed northern Nevada last year. The Governor’s office had requested the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects coordinate DOE Emergency Preparedness training and other activities to ensure there would be diminished health and safety consequences should there be an accident during that shipment.

The Chair recognized Senator Rawson who had been watching the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility in New Mexico and commented that facility had started receiving waste. He noted the waste going to that facility was listed as "transuranic" and/or high-level waste and wondered why Nevada could not redefine a portion of the WIPP site for waste scheduled to be stored at the Yucca Mountain site. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, Mr. Loux said the scientific community believed the embedded salt found at the WIPP facility would be a good performer for high-level waste. That opinion, however, had changed. Mr. Loux explained the real problem with high-level waste and embedded salt was the high level of heat generated. That generation of heat did not occur with transuranic waste. While salt would be elastic, the high heat would cause some attraction water to migrate towards the embedded salt rather than moving away from it.

Senator Rawson asked if it were possible to store half or a third as much material in each canister and thereby decrease the amount of heat produced. Mr. Loux replied there were at least two schools of thought on the use of heat in the repository. Originally, DOE was of the view low heat would be better until it discovered the unsaturated zone was at about 80 percent saturation as opposed to 40 to 50 percent saturation as originally thought. As a result, DOE wanted to raise the internal temperature of Yucca Mountain above the boiling point of water in an attempt to condense and drive the moisture away from the heat and keep it from coming in contact with the waste. Subsequent analysis, however, showed that as the material condensed and drove away, it actually dropped a great deal of its sediments into the fractures and faults around the waste packages themselves, and sealed them off. As the material cooled off and recondensed, more moisture was actually condensed on top of the canisters than was originally thought. Mr. Loux said there had been a conference in January 1999 in Las Vegas regarding the possibility of a ventilated repository that would provide for free air movement. A ventilated repository would reduce the heat and its ability to drive away moisture. He explained there were a number of trade-offs involved with a high-thermal-loaded repository versus a low-thermal-loaded repository. DOE had not settled on that issue but had discussed a very high-thermal-load repository that would require sealing up the facility to eliminate heat escape. Mr. Loux said there was now some school of thought that the repository should remain open and available for retrieval of materials at a later date. That question had not been resolved.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who commended the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects in view of the issues it had dealt with during the last 12 years. Those issues included not only the scientific and political side, but the emotional side. She felt the legislature had undermined itself by the mixed-message it had been sending. Those mixed messages allowed Congress to see Nevada as divided. That division should be recognized and there should be no finger pointing at the agency. She expressed her concern that working with DOE was like the fox watching the hen house. She felt DOE’s agenda was entirely different from Nevada’s.

Ms. Giunchigliani expressed her budgetary concern in the policy shift regarding the transfer of funds from the Department of Transportation Highway Fund and asked who made that decision, was it the agency’s, or was it the Governor’s recommendation to offset those funds. Mr. Loux responded, "a little bit of both." The agency had talked about how to reduce the burden on the General Fund because it had historically operated from federal funds. In taking a look at tasks and activities the agency wanted to conduct relative to transportation, Mr. Loux said it became apparent that many of those same kinds of activities could be funded with the resource from the Highway Trust Fund and thereby offset the burden to the General Fund. He said the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects wanted to analyze highway conditions, accident rates, fatality rates, and other highway impacts, and felt the Highway Trust Fund was an appropriate match for those funds. Ms. Giunchigliani said she had heard stories there were trains constantly crossing Nevada with other types of hazardous materials the public was not always aware of. Mr. Loux said he suspected that may be true, but indicated he was not cognizant of the number of shipments. Other than the previously-mentioned shipment, he was not aware of any other spent fuel shipments across Nevada. Ms. Giunchigliani requested an explanation of the rationale to transfer $400,00 from the Highway Trust Fund in each year of the biennium. Mr. Loux said that amount was related to the specific activities the agency wanted to conduct. Ms. Giunchigliani requested more factual information be provided to committee members to include specific projects and associated dollars.

The Chair recognized Ms. Cegavske who said an energy company had contacted her approximately 1 year ago. That company had performed extensive research for the storage of its own nuclear waste. She was under the impression that if a company made the waste, it stored the waste, and asked if Nevada was under the same impression. She also asked if the waste could be reused. Mr. Loux said nearly every utility in the country, regardless of whether an interim storage facility existed, had engaged in "at reactor dry cask storage." That storage involved pulling the spent fuel assemblies from the cooling pools and placing them in either dry concrete or steel cylinders and locating them somewhere on the utility’s premises. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission had certified dry cask storage was as safe as a repository for the next 100 to
140 years. Each reactor site in the United States had the physical capabilities to provide dry cask storage and many used that type of storage out of economic necessity. He explained the utilities did not feel dry storage was an adequate solution, even in the short-run. Those utilities had obligations with the citizens of their respective states for power, and storing waste on-site was not part of the bargain. On-site dry storage bailed out the Federal Government from its responsibility to store waste.

Consequently, utilities throughout the nation continued to press for interim or repository storage. While those utilities would not comment on the safety of on-site dry storage, they had made the argument it would be better to have all waste at one location rather than at 70 or 80 reactor sites across the country. Mr. Loux said there were technologies described as being out in the future some 50 to 60 years that might transmutate, or burn up, some of the longer-lived high-level waste elements of spent fuel and turn them into low-level waste. That technology was, however, decades and billions of dollars away. Reprocessing was an issue discussed regarding spent fuel. A determination had been made that reprocessing was not a solution to the waste problem and probably created more volume of waste. In "reprocessing", spent fuel elements were submitted to a chemical bath that would break down elements allowing for the separation of useable uranium and plutonium. The result was a liquid chemical radioactive byproduct that, by volume, was more than the spent fuel itself. The liquid could be solidified into glass logs, however, there was no reduction in the total mount of waste. Mr. Loux said many countries were reprocessing more out of economic necessity due to the lack of inexpensive sources of raw uranium to use in their reactors. For a number of years the United States had a ban on reprocessing which had been lifted by President Reagan. No utilities would engage in reprocessing without large federal subsidies as it was a very expensive process. Mr. Loux said the United States had reprocessed, primarily in the defense industry to acquire plutonium, uranium, and other materials for weapons programs by running reactors at Hanford, Washington, and Savannah River, South Carolina. Those reactors generated spent fuel. That material was in liquid form, very difficult to manage and track, and was leaking into the Columbia River.

The Chair recognized Speaker Dini who questioned the deletion of the Attorney General cost allocation. Mr. Loux said the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects held discussions with the Attorney General’s Office regarding its financial difficulties. As a result, the Attorney General’s Office allowed the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects to waive partial payments for its attorney general and her services. He said that situation would continue into the biennium.

The Chair recognized Senator Raggio who commented the reason the legislature had to allocate General Fund dollars to the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects was the result of the decision by the Department of Energy (DOE) not to fund the agency’s issues. DOE’s decision was based on an audit that reflected the agency had mis-spent the funding. He said some of the reasons for the decision and the audit findings were the fact that contractual services had not met the criteria for which the money had been allotted. The budget now included more than $1 million each year for contractual services which he hoped would be derived from the federal funding. He understood federal funds could not be used for state salaries and other state expenses. Senator Raggio asked what assurance the legislature had that contractual services would be utilized in a compliant manner. The mission of the agency, created by executive order, and pursuant to the federal criteria, was to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the State of Nevada and its unique environment and economy. Senator Raggio felt Nevada had strayed from that mission and asked if the current administration had directed the agency to stay within the policies and mission statement established at the time of its creation. Regarding the granting of contracts, Senator Raggio asked if the legislature would have assurance the agency would stay within those legitimate parameters and not award contracts for other purposes. Mr. Loux said the answer was, "yes." The Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects had not proposed any public relations contracts. He said the Governor had made the clear distinction between a scientific/technical program as proposed in the agency’s budget, and a program that was more political in nature.

In recent testimony before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, under questioning from Congressman Barton, Governor Guinn committed that if Congress restored the federal money, Nevada would spend those monies according to the rules and regulations defined to date. Although he personally opposed the Yucca Mountain site, Senator Raggio felt it was unfair Nevada had not received at least $100 million per year during the course of the siting process.

Continuing, Senator Raggio pointed out The Executive Budget included approximately $700,000 for engineering, socio-economic, technical advisors, and legislative committee. The E-800 category included approximately $395,000 for technical contractors, transportation services, and technical advisors. He asked if a significant portion of those funds would be utilized through involvement with the University System. Mr. Loux said the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects planned on putting those contracts out to bid. To the extent the University System had capabilities and could compete in those bid processes, it would be used to the maximum extent possible. For example, he said there was probably expertise within the University System to provide analysis of the new waste package material. Senator Raggio felt strongly the University System was comprised of a strong scientific community. Mr. Loux understood the Senator’s concern and assured him the University System would be used to the maximum extent possible. Continuing, Mr. Loux ensured committee members that studies that had been and would be engaged in would be objective and on target.

Mr. Loux remarked the Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Geologic Survey now had to admit Nevada’s model, data, and view of the site was correct. Those agencies had adopted the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects’ work almost wholesale as being the accurate model for Yucca Mountain and that level of work by the agency would continue.

The Chair recognized Senator Neal who asked how many high-level nuclear waste sites existed nationwide. Mr. Loux said there were none. Senator Neal then asked about the number of sites at which waste was stored and Mr. Loux responded there were approximately 79 to 85 sites where spent fuel and
high-level waste were currently being stored. Senator Neal asked how many defense sites existed, and Mr. Loux responded approximately six. The Senator then asked if Nevada had rejected the transport of waste into the state and Mr. Loux said the legislation passed in 1979 included the prohibition of both spent fuel and defense high-level waste. The Senator asked if Nevada was rejecting defense high-level waste. Mr. Loux explained his concern was regarding the Yucca Mountain site and how it performed and was not sure a differentiation could be made between the health and safety consequences from either spent fuel or high-level waste. Given the fact the majority of the United States Naval Fleet was nuclear powered, Senator Neal asked if Nevada had rejected that type of waste. Mr. Loux said if the question was if the Yucca Mountain site could not adequately isolate that type of waste either, the answer would be, "yes." Senator Neal asked if the federal policy governing the acceptance of waste from a nuclear reactor had changed, and Mr. Loux replied it had not. Senator Neal asked if Governor Guinn or Nevada’s Congressional Delegation had proposed any change to the federal policy. Mr. Loux indicated several changes had been proposed. Senator Neal asked for a listing of dates those proposals had been made.

Regarding Mr. Loux’s comments on the transmutation of wastes, Senator Neal said he considered those comments as a slam to the resolution he had introduced that dealt with that subject. He expressed his displeasure regarding the statement Mr. Loux had made regarding the transmutation research being 50 years out while he (Mr. Loux) had explained the reprocessing of waste technology was available today. Senator Neal asked if Mr. Loux differentiated between reprocessing and transmutation of waste, and Mr. Loux replied he did. Senator Neal asked for an explanation. Mr. Loux explained reprocessing was a technology that had been utilized by the United States and other countries throughout the last several decades. To his knowledge, no one had successfully transmutated waste to date. His information regarding the length of time and cost came from a briefing done by Los Alamos National Laboratories and appeared to most of the scientific community to be the premiere organization looking at the technology. The difference was the question of whether transmutation would happen in the future and the fact reprocessing was in use today. Senator Neal asked if Mr. Loux was aware scientists in Nevada were looking at the transmutation of waste and he advised he was aware scientists at the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) had begun to look at the issue.

The Chair recognized Senator Jacobsen who asked how the $400,000 per year transfer from the Highway Fund would be accomplished and how the funds would be used. Mr. Loux said the transfer would be to the agency’s budget and would be used for transportation-related work, i.e., highway conditions, accident rates, fatality rates, and whether or not Nevada’s highways could handle the proposed heavy-haul trucks. Senator Jacobsen expressed his concern regarding proposed transportation routes. He then asked why Nevada could not access the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund and said it seemed strange Nevada was using its own money to fight as well as protect itself. Mr. Loux explained the monies historically allocated to Nevada from the Federal Government had came from the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund as did the monies the Department of Energy (DOE) used to look at the Yucca Mountain site. In 1996, Congress terminated funding to Nevada. In 1998, $250,000 worth of funding was renewed. The administration’s budget for the coming year included $5.4 million from the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund. He said recent discussions with house members indicated they were possibly willing to lift their objection to the allocation of federal monies and it was possible Nevada would see some resumption of federal monies by October 1999.

The Chair recognized Senator O’Donnell who asked if there was any prohibition on refunding monies the legislature had advanced to the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects to keep that agency open in the interim. He asked did the ability exist to transfer any of the $1.3 million the federal government had allocated back to the General Fund to replace the $600,000 the legislature had spent during the interim. Mr. Loux said the two resolutions from the Interim Finance Committee that transferred money to the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects to keep the office going this fiscal year included a clause that required reversion to the contingency fund should federal funds become available during the course of 1999.

Mr. Loux started his budget presentation and said the overall amount of the budget was almost identical and consistent with the FY 1999 authorized budget. There were three or four major areas of importance he wished to address. One was the revenue stream which had changed. He said in past years the entire revenue had come from the federal government and, more recently, with some allocation from the interim finance contingency fund. The agency’s proposed budget recommended approximately $1 million in state funds and anticipated perhaps as much as $322,000 in new Nuclear Waste Fund monies as well as the transfer of $400,000 from the Highway Trust Fund in each year of the biennium. Additionally, the agency anticipated receiving $90,000 in each year of the biennium from the Western Governor’s Association. Historically, that association had received grant money from the Department of Energy (DOE) to coordinate the transportation of waste and foreign reactor fuel shipments through Nevada to the WIPP facility.

On the expenditure side, Mr. Loux explained the agency had proposed a restoration of two positions previously cut in cost-saving measures due to the loss of federal money. Those positions included a Management Assistant I and a Researcher Planner. The Management Assistant I position was critical as a backup to the one existing clerical position. At times there was no phone coverage in the office. Additionally, there was a large backlog of filing that hampered the timely retrieval of pertinent information. The Researcher Planner position would assist in contract management in the areas of socio-economic health studies as well as environmental work, and would be critical if the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund monies were restored.

Mr. Loux explained the agency’s equipment budget requested the replacement of four office chairs, a file server, eight personal computers, one laptop computer, two printers and supporting installation and software. He said existing office furniture came from Silver State Industries in the mid-1980’s and was in a state of disrepair. Since the public information contractor had been dropped, the agency did much of its public information work through its website, as well as contract invoicing via e-mail. The agency’s existing system was not up-to-date enough to deal with current needs.

Lastly, Mr. Loux addressed contracts which represented over $1 million of the agency’s budget. He provided the following breakdown:

• $400,000 for transportation;
• $125,000 each for geology and hydrology;
• $85,000 for environmental issues; and
• $365,000 for other issues such as fluid inclusion.

He explained the issue of fluid inclusion had been raised by a Russian scientist who brought up the issue of hydrothermally formed material in the tunnels at Yucca Mountain. Monies would also be expended on material science as well as the waste package containers, an area that had not been researched. Work would be continued on the base-line health studies and the socio-economic impacts on Nevada. Lastly, he said, monies would be expended in engineering as it related to repository design and those affects on performance.

The Chair recognized Senator Raggio who asked how the grant from the Western Governor’s Association would be expended. Mr. Loux said the allocation of funds from the Western Governor’s Association was based on whether the Department of Energy (DOE) provided coordination grants to the association. If granted, those funds would assist the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects to coordinate training with other state agencies to include the Health Division, Division of Emergency Management, Forestry, and the Division of Environmental Protection. That training would relate to waste shipments leaving Nevada, California, and the Pacific Northwest and transversing Nevada to the WIPP facility. He explained those funds would pass through to other state agencies for their training, travel, and involvement in assuring shipments leaving or transversing Nevada were accomplished without incident. Senator Raggio felt, if the agency’s budget were approved in any form, there should be a much closer liaison between the legislative oversite committee, the agency, and the executive branch.

The Chair asked for public comments and recognized M. Lee Dazey, Northern Nevada Director of Citizen Alert who provided the following verbatim testimony:

The Chair asked for questions. In view of above- and below-ground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site, Senator Neal asked what could be done with existing waste from those detonations. Ms. Dazey said the existing waste needed to be characterized. Low-level waste needed to be removed from the trenches at the Nevada Test Site because over a geologic amount of time, that waste would seep into the ground. She was not certain why Senator Neal had addressed those types of questions to her because she was certainly not an expert in that field, but said Citizen Alert, in conjunction with a project by the University System, worked on a risk analysis that brought forth the public perspective. Ms. Dazey said part of the problem was that even with the large amount of contamination at the Test Site, Nevada had not received the federal funds to clean it up. Meanwhile, the contamination moved further and further into Nevada’s environment. Senator Neal asked how long Ms. Dazey had lived in the state of Nevada and she responded, "since 1988." Adding some personal history to her testimony, Ms. Dazey explained her husband was Western Shoshone and had died of leukemia 5 years ago. His mother had grown up in Duckwater, Nevada. The Western Shoshone people told stories of contamination coming off the test site area in the form of pink clouds which crossed over the reservation and their gardens had shriveled up as a result. She felt very strongly that Nevada needed to think responsibly on this issue and commented the quickest solution was not necessarily the best solution for future generations.

The Chair recognized Senator Jacobsen who expressed his concern that Citizen Alert wanted the legislature to support the agency’s budget request carte blanche and felt to date, the state had not received its money’s worth. Senator Jacobsen felt the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects was one-sided. He said the situation was not going away, that nuclear waste was both a national and international problem and the legislature had some responsibility to the sailors serving on nuclear-powered ships. Senator Jacobsen said the agency should have been preparing for the Yucca Mountain test site being opened. Ms. Dazey commented on the growing environmental movement, in particular the
anti-nuclear movement, in the United States, whose ongoing principle was that nuclear waste should be stored as close to the source of generation as was possible. She said the issue was multi-faceted and there was a worldwide growing movement toward nuclear-free zones.

The Chair asked if there was additional testimony and recognized Judith Schmidt, registered environmental health specialist and member of the Legislative Committee for the Nevada Public Health Association. The Nevada Public Health Association (NPHA) was an affiliate organization of the American Public Health Association. Ms. Schmidt offered the following verbatim testimony:

The Chair recognized Senator O’Donnell who asked Ms. Schmidt that, as an environmental health specialist, was she concerned about the health and welfare of the population of the State of Nevada. Ms. Schmidt responded she was. That being so, Senator O’Donnell asked if she would be willing to negotiate for benefits to mitigate any harmful affects that may occur during the

shipments of waste across Nevada. Ms. Schmidt said if the outcome of the process led to those types of shipments then yes, benefit negotiation would be necessary. She said until the determination of site suitability and safety had been made, it was critical the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects continue its role in analyzing the assumptions being made regarding the site.

The Chair recognized Senator Coffin who said there was a great deal of truth in Mr. Loux’s testimony that DOE had not completed its studies. He felt the issue was political even though Nevada had been trying to force it into a scientific mode. Senator Coffin sensed an extraordinary amount of trust in the Department of Energy (DOE) which had been called the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). After 50 years of life in southern Nevada, he had a hard time trusting DOE. Although in his opinion Hazel O’Leary was not much of an energy secretary, Senator Coffin said she had opened up the books and revealed the secrets of the AEC and the DOE. The public had not been aware the military had accidentally dropped nuclear bombs inside the continental United States and then covered it up in the name of cold war national security. He said the public should be very skeptical of information regarding this issue.

The Chair asked for testimony for or against the issue and recognized John Hadder, who worked for Citizen Alert and a member of the Great Basin Green Alliance. Mr. Hadder expressed his appreciation to be able to speak before committee members. Citizen Alert had been involved with an education program with schools in Nevada that involved nuclear issues. Many of the teachers Mr. Hadder had talked to were very interested in the issue. In fact, one teacher supported the idea of a nuclear waste dump in Nevada. The role of the Citizen Alert program was to provide information to allow future citizens of Nevada to make intelligent decisions regarding nuclear issues. He found the perspective of high school and middle school students to be very interesting. Common questions were "why do they continue to make nuclear waste if we haven’t got a place to put it?" and "what is the solution?" His response to those questions was that to date there was not a good solution, that scientists were working on ideas like transmutation, even though no evidence existed that transmutation was a viable solution for the near future. The students found it amazing that nuclear waste had continued to be generated and wondered why Nevada had been chosen for a test site. Mr. Hadder explained the political process to students. There was a great interest expressed by students regarding what they could do to stop the site. Many students were very interested in gathering petitions and signatures and community support, in an expression of support for funding of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. One student had asked Mr. Hadder if "they" cared, referring to the Department of Energy (DOE). Mr. Hadder responded he certainly hoped so. Students were feeling very concerned because they realized they would inherit the decisions that were made.

The Chair recognized Senator O’Donnell who answered the student’s question of "why in Nevada" and said the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects office created a video tape that would scare any normal individual half to death. That video was then sent to half the country, as well as provided to the viewing audience along the waste travel route. He explained that because states did not want waste transported through their state, and since Nevada had only four electoral votes, we were chosen. He felt the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects office was somewhat responsible for the fear generated in the United States regarding nuclear waste. Quoting Morley Safer from 60-Minutes, Senator O’Donnell said, "if you don’t feel comfortable sending all this nuclear waste to Nevada, then why don’t you write your own senator and tell him you want to keep it in your own state." Mr. Hadder felt that was an interesting assessment that was after the fact. Having seen the video, Mr. Hadder said the content was good, although some of the information should be updated. He explained the information brought to students was as factual and complete as possible and was not intended to scare them.

The Chair recognized Senator Neal who asked if representatives from Citizen Alert had talked to the people at Lathrop Wells or the citizens of Beatty or Caliente. Mr. Hadder responded Citizen Alert’s program goal was to eventually reach every individual in the state. He said Citizen Alert had spoken with children that lived along the route used to transport foreign waste in 1998. Senator Neal said those individuals closest to the site usually had a different opinion than the people in northern Nevada.

Senator O’Donnell asked if it were better to have nuclear waste stored at Yucca Mountain or at an earthquake zone in the Sacramento valley, upwind of Lake Tahoe and Reno. Mr. Hadder argued the San Ono Fre location was not as dangerous as the Senator felt. Yucca Mountain was at least as unstable as the Sacramento valley location. Mr. Hadder said dry cask storage could be isolated from the environment and was a good means of storage in the short-term.

The Chair recognized Sandy Rizzo who testified on behalf of herself and the Nevada State Green Party. Ms. Rizzo felt the responsibility Nevadan’s had was to prepare and not rush into a decision. She explained children were dying in Long Island, New York that lived around the nuclear research reactor lab as the result of a leak. Those children were being diagnosed with a rare form of cancer attributed solely to radiation. She said those people living around the Hanford weapons plant in the State of Washington had their thyroids removed as the result of testing and subsequent leaks. The fish in that area were being born mutated and genderless. She said Nevada needed to build a strong defense in all areas against the madness in order to save lives here and across the country. Funding the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects office was the best defense. The Nevada State Green Party urged the full funding of the agency.

The Chair recognized Senator O’Donnell who thought it was interesting that Ms. Rizzo did not want any people around the nuclear waste sites to be affected by the nuclear waste that existed or leaked, but did not want to have it removed either. He said that thinking seemed incongruent.

The Chair recognized Ms. Giunchigliani who thanked the Chairman for giving the public an opportunity to testify. She felt people advocating negotiations were selling their souls to the devil. At some point in time, she said, committee members needed to stop bashing people for coming forward and offering their opinions.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Debbie Zuspan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman

DATE:

APPROVED BY:

Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman

DATE: