MINUTES OF THE JOINT meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE and
mining
AND
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Seventy-First Session
February 21, 2001
The Joint Meeting of the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining and the Committee on Health and Human Services was called to order at 1:44 p.m., on Wednesday, February 21, 2001. Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 4100 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:
Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman
Mr. Tom Collins, Vice Chairman
Mr. Douglas Bache
Mr. David Brown
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. David Humke
Mr. John Lee
Mr. John Marvel
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
and
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto, Co-Chairman
Mrs. Kathy McClain
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Ms. Merle Berman
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mrs. Sheila Leslie
Mr. Mark Manendo
Ms. Bonnie Parnell
Ms. Debbie Smith
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
Mr. Wendell Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Marla McDade Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Darlene Rubin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mary Guinan, Nevada State Health Office
Chairman de Braga announced the joint committee meeting work session was a continuation of the hearings held the week before, February 12, 13, and 14, 2001. She referenced the Work Session Document (Exhibit C), prepared by Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, who would discuss the contents. Thereafter, Mrs. de Braga would entertain recommendations from the committee. In the event the allotted time of one hour was not sufficient, a subcommittee would be appointed to continue the discussion.
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst for Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining, presented the recommendations contained in the Work Session Document (Exhibit C). She referred to the background information, which was purposely brief because a more detailed report on leukemia and its possible causes would be presented at a later date. Rather, her document summarized the testimony the committee had heard to date and which had been grouped together under some common subject categories.
The concerns raised during testimony were:
· Agricultural and domestic chemical use;
· Cluster investigation;
· Water quality concerns;
· Possible implications of military activity; and
· Other environmental contamination.
Ms. Eissmann stated that from that list she had developed a list of possible recommendations for the committee’s consideration, among which were:
Ms. Eissmann stated Jerry Buk, NCES, spoke to the committee previouslyabout the Nevada GOLD (“Guarding our Local Drinking Water”) program in Fallon. The program ceased in May 2000 but it was being reinstated. The program educated the community about water quality issues by encouraging local citizens to take voluntary steps toward protecting the ground water resources. She then referenced 3 handouts from NCES included in Exhibit C:
She noted that NCES was in the process of updating that material, however, at the current time it was only available on the Internet and no funds were available for printing or distribution to well owners.
Additionally, Exhibit C contained information about the Nevada GOLD program and the recommendation set forth above would provide some money to NCES to update those 3 handouts, plus a new one on arsenic specifically, in a brochure format, print them, and help to distribute to the public. There were about 4,800 wells in the Churchill County area, and the approximate cost for printing 6,000 each of the 4 handouts was $1,000 each, or $4,000 total.
4. Allocate sufficient funds to NCES or Churchill County or other appropriate entity to undertake a well water testing assistance program. That would encompass having well owners take a water sample to the specified agency to have tested, preferably through the State Health Lab because the results then became part of a state data base that could be tracked over time. Once the water was tested there would be follow up education about what those results meant and the appropriate corrective methods available. The cost for that recommendation was $100 per test and assuming every well owner wanted a test, the overall cost would be $480,000. Another option would be a cost share with the state.
5. A letter that encouraged NCES to undertake a public education program about agricultural uses in the area. The committee had heard from people concerned about crop spraying, the use of pesticides and herbicides, as well as crop burning and other agricultural practices common in the area.
6. A committee letter or resolution to the city of Fallon that urged it to take steps to adhere to the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for arsenic as soon as possible.
7. As a result of concern that children had to drink the water at the schools, and the subsequent request that the schools provide bottled water, the school district estimated it would cost about $10,000 per school each year, or $80,000 annually, to provide bottled water; which was not sound for a school district trying to cut budget funds. Thus, the recommendation was for a bill authorizing a one-shot allocation to the Churchill County School District for installation of a local point-of-use treatment device at each of its eight schools. Ms. Eissmann did not have a cost estimate.
8. A letter to Nevada’s Division of Environmental Protection, which urged continued participation with the Health Division in its oversight capacity for environmental contamination.
9. A letter to Nevada’s Division of Environmental Protection, which urged continued monitoring of the progress of Project Shoal and the migration of surface and subsurface contaminates from the initial project site.
10. A letter to Nevada’s Department of Agriculture which urged assistance to the Health Division in the leukemia investigation by providing chemical use data and collecting and analyzing environmental samples to help identify problems resulting from the use of pesticides and herbicides in the Fallon area.
11. A letter to Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, which requested a technical proposal, budget, and timeline to identify environmental mutagens by screening air and water samples in selected homes and businesses in the Fallon area.
12. Regarding the leukemia investigation, a letter to Nevada’s Health Division that recommended, among other things:
· Testing of hair, tissue and blood samples from affected children;
· Provide information about investigation to the general public;
· Solicit input from public regarding possible cancer causes; and
· Address or consider concerns and possible health risks in its investigation, as detailed specifically in Exhibit C, pages 5 and 6.
13. Invite the Health Department to update the committees about its progress in the investigation at a meeting near the end of the 2001 Legislative Session.
14. A letter to the Health Division that requested it to examine Nevada’s Cancer Registry and current abstraction process to determine how it could be improved and how the lag time might be minimized. That letter should request the Health Division to undertake necessary steps to improve the registry and report its findings to the legislative committee no later than May 1, 2001.
Chairman de Braga complimented Ms. Eissmann on the thoroughness of her report.
Assemblywoman Leslie noted in going through the recommendations many were urging others to do things, to pay attention, and that should be done. However, she was more interested in action, what could be done to move the investigation forward. She expressed concern about the children who had already been diagnosed with leukemia but equally concerned about those who might be exposed and not be aware of it. She then asked the cost for item number 3.
Ms. Eissmann responded that the cost depended upon how much of an education campaign was undertaken. She said she did not have a figure for the postage or distribution costs. Also, she noted, that among the proactive steps she had omitted from item number 3 above, was that the NCES had an idea to develop a Nevada GOLD help desk whereby a NCES employee would provide professional technical expertise to the public if they called to request information about water testing. The cost for that was estimated at $39,000 annually and perhaps would only be needed on a short term, 2-year basis.
Mrs. Leslie said that was something the parents had mentioned, not having one place to call for information, and the help desk could be the answer to that problem.
Ms. Eissmann noted the Health Division (HD) had a number to call with questions and concerns about the actual investigation, however, the Nevada GOLD help desk would deal specifically with water quality, testing, and so forth.
Mrs. Leslie wondered if that technical expert would also take ideas from the public about what might be causing the problem. Ms. Eissmann said that might be a possibility, however, that position would be oriented towards water testing as opposed to the leukemia investigation, which was in the domain of the HD’s public information line. Mrs. Leslie felt that public information number had not been marketed widely.
Returning to the subject of recommendation number 3, the brochure, Mrs. Leslie said consideration should be given to how the message would reach the public. She was unsure that mailing it would be effective as it may be too passive. The focus needed to be on how aggressive a public education campaign should be waged; would a staff need to be hired. Ms. Eissmann reiterated NCES was in the process of reinstating Nevada GOLD, a program to educate the community about water quality that was staffed by volunteers. The allocation of funds suggested in number 3 above would assist the group in printing and distributing more brochures and to institute the help desk. The cost would be the $4,000 mentioned above, plus the postage and distribution costs unknown at that time, plus the $39,000 for the staff position.
Mrs. Leslie went over the costs for the other two items:
Chairman de Braga noted that Nevada GOLD had not tested for everything. She was unsure if there would be an additional cost if that program was more exhaustive, however it needed to cover more than it did currently; which was a test for biological and nitrate contaminates. Another option available was to take advantage of the University of Nevada’s (UNR) proposal to do selective testing. Ms. Eissmann responded that what was needed was to simply ask UNR to provide a technical proposal. The recommendation as now written did not provide money to them. She noted, too, that according to HD, there might be some federal funds available through the Agency for Toxic Substances and possibly that agency would take on that contract with UNR. In essence, what that recommendation would accomplish would be to get a technical proposal, the budget, and a timeline.
Vice Chairman Collins asked who did the actual testing. Ms. Eissmann responded there was no requirement domestic wells be tested, however if a subdivision was developed the developer had to do a test well and provide a water sample.
Assemblywoman Smith said she noted with interest that those who testified in the earlier hearings talked about the possibility of two things together triggering a cause. Since no mention of that was made in the work document was that something that should be or would be explored. Ms. Eissmann said that could be added to the summary of concerns raised. She would take steps to add that to the items under “cluster investigation” on page 1 of the work session document (Exhibit C). Further, if the committee chose to approve recommendation number 12 which had that same list, she would add that concern as well.
Assemblyman Lee noted arsenic appeared to be a buzzword but he was looking for preventive action under “military activities.” Presently it was confined to a geographical area with problems not apparent in the rest of Nevada. But, if the toxic and hazardous waste problems in Fallon were matched throughout Nevada, chiefly at Nellis, Hawthorne, Indian Springs, and so on, he believed the U.S. Government owed it to every community to tell them what was there. Finding the same chemicals in other military locales that were found in Fallon should send up an alert. Therefore, he suggested that if the recommended resolution was made, it could be worded to ask the government to give an accounting of what chemicals were present at specific other Nevada sites, that could help solve future problems. Ms. Eissmann agreed that expanding the resolution, if the committee agreed to follow that recommendation, could be done.
Assemblywoman Parnell asked about the pipeline and the hydrocarbons testing and noted that had not been mentioned specifically in the recommendations. Ms. Eissmann said that would be added to the list.
Assemblyman Carpenter noted that what was said concerning the jet fuel dumping needed to be further discussed or investigated.
Chairman de Braga then recessed the meeting to allow the members of the Health and Human Services Committee to leave for their committee meeting. The joint meeting of the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining and the Committee on Health and Human Services would reconvene the following day, February 22, 2001, at 3:30 p.m., in room 3161 as a subcommittee comprised of Chairman de Braga, Assemblywoman Koivisto, Assemblywoman Leslie, Assemblywoman Angle, Assemblyman Carpenter, and Assemblyman Neighbors.
Further, Mrs. de Braga stated that following the recess the Natural Resources Committee would reconvene as a subcommittee.
The meeting reconvened at 2:35 p.m.
Chairman de Braga returned to the matter of testing. Fallon NAS was doing water tests of its own, as was the city of Fallon. She was unsure whether the reservation, that used the same aquifer for its drinking water supply, was testing. However, all entities that were testing needed to compare the data collected.
Mary Guinan, State Health Officer, stated that the Health Division (HD), under the Safe Drinking Water Act, collected information on testing of municipal water supplies and those supplies that were covered by law which would exclude any testing. She did not know about the Indian reservation. Her department had spoken to the NAS many times about the water, however they had no jurisdiction over the federal facility. Nevertheless, she believed they had shared information about the water supply. When people sent samples to the state laboratory the results could be accessed. Many people claim to have had their water tested and that certain contaminants were found, therefore it was customary to request a copy of the report to verify that information. It was a frequent issue at community meetings. However, she said the department had never received any test results. She was anxious to get word to the community that if anyone had a test to provide that information to her office so an investigation could be undertaken.
Assemblyman Collins remarked that it did not sound like she was receiving the cooperation she needed. He noted testing for radioactivity was being done in southern Nevada outside the military test site. He asked if test wells had been done around the boundary edges on state or private land or easements.
Mrs. Guinan said there were difficulties with that. The State Health Office did have jurisdiction over a number of things, and there was cooperation from Fallon NAS. She noted the NAS did provide an alternate source of drinking water. The Fallon municipal water supply was something her department did have authority over, and had been working with them for years on the problem of arsenic among other things. She pointed out that well water was not regulated; it did not fall under the Safe Drinking Water Act, so neither the federal government EPA, nor the state had jurisdiction to demand individual wells be tested. Fallon and the county could make requirements.
Chairman de Braga believed the University of Nevada did the majority of private well testing and perhaps some private companies as well. She asked if it would be helpful if the university and those companies were required to report to the Health Office. Mrs. Guinan replied that many companies were qualified to test, and if they happened to use the state laboratory then the information was available to her, but it was an inconsistent approach. The problem, she noted, was that most people did not know what to ask for in terms of requesting a test. There were multiple tests. Moreover, when they received the results they did not know how to interpret them, as no standards accompanied the results. Among the people she interviewed who had tested their wells she found that they had tested for Ph factor, clarity, and so on; those were essentially cosmetic, and something the lender had required. Also, there was a wide range of costs involved depending upon what was requested. What was needed, she said, was to understand what water was tested for, the standards, and also determine if laboratories could offer a package that would include the things agreed upon. At the present there was mass confusion about testing; the people think the laboratory knows what to test for, they do not.
Assemblyman Collins said the state should have a standard and regulation in place. The state should regulate the issue in an appropriate manner instead of allowing water to be taken from contaminated wells and then, when that contamination caused illness, be faced with paying medical bills later on.
Mrs. Guinan said that in terms of how best to help now, it would be something the legislature would decide. It was her understanding that in most states well water was not regulated by any agency. Nevada was not unusual in that. It was a huge issue; the Safe Drinking Water Act did not cover that. There was no standard way that any state had handled the problem so there was no model to follow. Safe drinking water was an important health problem for everyone in the state; it was a critical issue to make sure the water was safe for all Nevadans.
Assemblyman Neighbors said he had a water sample from one of his mill ponds and there was a whole list of things he had to comply with. If all of the approximate 4,800 wells were tested at $125 per test, the cost would be around $500,000.
Chairman de Braga said she, too, had a test done by the University of Nevada. She asked if it would be helpful if those who did have their wells tested were required to inform the HD of any substances that exceeded allowable standards.
Mrs. Guinan felt it would be helpful but how that would work with the community would have to be negotiated. When there is a health risk, the Health Division ought to be made aware; what was the HD for if not to monitor. The State Health Office’s responsibility was to assess and determine if something could be prevented or treated. The situation was quite complex, she added, and many different agencies were involved. However, the issue was serious and should be considered diligently in an organized, systematic way to determine how it should be handled and how could the data be given. For example, sometimes the data could be collected in an aggregate form, so there was no identification of the household.
Chairman de Braga said she knew people could not be forced to test for the things they needed to test for, and every item was an added cost. There was a standard list if one wanted the whole package. Testing was extremely important in areas like the Soda Lake where wells were found to have such a huge concentration of contaminants there was no question about the health risk. It might require giving the Health Office some additional money in order to spread the word to the public that they needed to test their wells. Another consideration would be to have the university go forward with their plans to do some targeted testing where people could have their well tested free if they want to participate.
Various costs for testing were discussed and it was determined the university fee was $125, the State Health Lab was $100.
Mrs. Guinan noted the test should mimic the requirements for municipal water supplies, as that was considered to be a very prudent standard. Those things that have to be tested for in every municipal water supply in Nevada should be tested for in the wells.
Mrs. de Braga said the word needed to get out to the public, letting them know what was available in terms of test facilities. They could go to a private lab, the State Health Lab, or the university.
Assemblyman Claborn said the state was in a unique situation: There was a problem, no one knew how to solve it, and no one really knew what the problem was. He suggested the Governor call in a national response team for hazardous chemical materials and find out what the problem was. He noted the many resolutions presented but who really knew what the cause was.
Chairman de Braga responded that there was an excellent review committee and invited Mrs. Guinan to explain. Mrs. Guinan said that after the first phase of the investigation, an expert committee composed of people from outside the state: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Nevada, Reno, with Dr. Dudding, the chair of the Pediatrics Department, as part of the committee. All information and suggestions had been reviewed and asked the expert committee to recommend the next steps. The committee was in the process of preparing their report which should be available within the next three or four weeks. The committee did suggest a number of things, like the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a sister agency to the Centers for Disease Control, created by the “Superfund” legislation where they go and look at toxic substances in the environment. They could do environmental assessments as well as pathway analysis, to see how a substance might get into the population. That might be one of the recommendations and, if so, the Health Office would be requesting from the ATSDR that kind of assessment. There were several other suggestions on the kinds of things that could be done to examine the environment. There was an ongoing study of acute lymphocytic leukemia in which environmental dust in the household was examined for a number of substances, including pesticides, and the committee might recommend that also.
Mrs. Guinan said it was known there was an arsenic problem, but unknown whether it was related to leukemia. Also unknown was whether there might be another problem that was related to the leukemia. She was awaiting the expert committee’s recommendations and would be following through on them.
Assemblyman Lee mentioned in southern Nevada the water was hard and it corroded or destroyed the copper from the inside out. The soil often ate the pipe from the outside in. Residents had reverted to reverse osmosis systems, water softeners, salt, and charcoal filters. He asked if there was something that could pull out the arsenic in the water before it was ingested.
Mrs. Guinan said she was not an engineer but she knew that reverse osmosis did remove arsenic and many households in Fallon did have reverse osmosis processors. One of the problems, however, was that most people did not know what systems to get or how they were evaluated. That was something Assemblywoman de Braga asked her early on; was there some information that could be provided to the community to let them know what systems were available to take the arsenic out of the water, or any other contaminant. There was a pamphlet available describing the systems and the cost. It would be connected to the house water supply, not the well, thus it would clean the arsenic out of the municipal water system as well.
Mr. Lee remarked that in Las Vegas residents were given new showerheads and other things to aid in water conservation. He observed that the city of Fallon appeared to want to drop the matter in the state’s lap, but there were things the city council could do, like disseminate information learned to date, and so on. He asked if the city of Fallon was aggressively working in any of those
areas.
Mrs. Guinan felt they had been aggressively trying to find a system for getting arsenic out of the water but one of the issues was that many of those wells were not within the city limits thus it was a county issue. The mayor did not have jurisdiction outside the city limits. All those agencies and counties and cities had to work together to find a solution. Some of the leukemia cases were not within the city limits. There was no county health district for Churchill County, however there was a county health officer, Dr. Hawkenberry.
Chairman de Braga remarked the wells were mostly private in the county. The water system was underground and there were no requirements they be tested. She did not think anyone was advocating all wells be tested, although people would be wise to do that.
Assemblyman Collins said a law had been passed several sessions earlier that gave the state water engineer authority over all the wells, and there were 4,800 wells. He felt it would be simple to regulate or require that a copy of every test taken on a well be sent to the State Health Office. That regulation, he felt, should already be in place. Further, that the State Health Office should have a reliable source to determine tolerance levels and if it went beyond that, the owner needed to be contacted when the test was given. If the State Health Office did not already have that authority then the legislature should address that issue.
Assemblyman Mortenson said the suggestion was made that whatever had caused the cancer could have been something that was a “pulse” of some sort, because arsenic and other things had always been in the water. He wondered about radon, which had been a problem in many wells on a continuous basis but obviously not in the wells in Fallon as they had been tested for that. He wondered further if at some point in the past a “geological shake” had occurred and hardly noticed. Radon was known to be present after an earthquake, and perhaps that had happened and released a tremendous amount into the wells. That would not be detected on testing because it disappeared in a very short time span. Radon eventually ends up as radioactive lead and probably on the bottom of the well. He asked if sediment on the bottom of the well was ever tested and checked for beta.
Mrs. de Braga said she did not know. Perhaps the university could add that to its test criteria in the future.
With no further business coming forward, Chairman de Braga recessed the committee until February 22, 2001, at 3:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Darlene Rubin
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman
DATE: