MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY JOINT Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining AND HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Seventy-First Session
March 6, 2001
The Joint Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining and Health and Human Serviceswas called to order at 12:00 p.m., on Tuesday, March 6, 2001. Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman, Natural Resources
Mr. John Carpenter, Natural Resources
Mr. Harry Mortenson, Natural Resources
Ms. Sharron Angle, Health and Human Services
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto, Chairman, Health and Human Services
Ms. Sheila Leslie, Health and Human Services
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Marla Mc Dade Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
June Rigsby, Committee Secretary
This joint subcommittee meeting represented the second in a series of leukemia cluster work sessions. A document (Exhibit C), prepared by Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst, was distributed to the six-member subcommittee. The work session document contained 14 categories of recommendations for review and revision.
Chairman de Braga commenced discussion of category 1: Military Activities. The first suggested action was a letter to the U.S. Navy urging it to fully disclose to the Nevada Health Division all toxic and hazardous materials kept at the Fallon NAS. A carbon copy would be sent to the Nevada Congressional Delegation.
The second category of recommendations was Mandatory Water Quality Testing Through Parceling. The focus of that action would be a revision to Chapter 278 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that would expand water quality testing of land divided through parceling. The cost, estimated at $3,000, was cited as a key concern.
Ms. Eissmann offered, as an alternative, the support of the interim study of water statutes S.C.R. 5, currently referred to the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 5: Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of quality and quantity of ground water within State of Nevada. (BDR R-310)
Chairman de Braga asked if it would include water recharged from surface sources. Ms. Eissmann stated that it appeared it would, however, if there was uncertainty, Assemblyman Carpenter suggested an amendment to include surface water. Chairman de Braga declared that this bill appeared to be the right approach. The county would be the agency to encourage residents to seek well water testing.
Ms. Eissmann clarified that the proposed legislation would not impact all wells, only those that were part of the parceling process. A subdivision was described as five lots or more, and a parcel was four lots or less. Chairman de Braga cited the example of a piece of land divided into ten parcels, each with an individual well. That was the reason for the interim study, according to Ms. Eissmann. The other half of the issue was the notification of residents in areas known to have higher levels of contaminants.
Assemblywoman Koivisto raised the issue of real estate disclosures when the property changed ownership. If new water testing requirements were enacted, the sale of the land could be jeopardized. Chairman de Braga stated that the real issue was education, and landowners in certain areas with known contaminants should be made aware by the county or the Nevada State Health Division. The Soda Lake area of Fallon was given as an example of extremely high levels of arsenic in domestic wells. It was unknown how many of the residents were notified of the levels.
Chairman de Braga agreed that a letter of support should be drafted stating the subcommittee’s support of S.C.R. 5. It would be a good start, however there still was an immediate need for people to be notified of contaminants. In regard to costs for water testing, Chairman de Braga described the basic test as $100 and covered arsenic, nitrates, and bacteria. It did not include heavy metals or benzene. Herbicide and pesticide testing was estimated at an additional $300. Mrs. Koivisto added that soil testing should also be considered.
Ms. Eissmann clarified that the Health Division did not have the legal ability to keep the results of their environmental testing confidential. They did have the legal right to protect the results of human testing. The Health Division considered the value of expanding the confidentiality to environmental testing. That could be accomplished with a BDR; however, Chairman de Braga expressed confusion over the limits of the confidentiality. Protecting the identity of the person was covered. If the physical address was known, it could hurt property values. All agreed that this dilemma should be covered under real estate disclosure law.
The other aspect of this problem was, even if the water test results were known, would the prospective buyer know how to interpret the report. If the bill was changed to extend confidentiality to environmental testing, it would be imperative to identify the area, and it would be up to the individual to ask for water testing results.
In summary, the letter of support to S.C.R. 5 would go to the Senate Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations. That was distinct from the committee’s BDR. The bill would allocate sufficient funds through the Cooperative Extension Service to undertake a public education campaign. It ould target residents of Churchill County using domestic wells and inform them of the need to test the water and to consider point-of-use treatment options.
Chairman de Braga added that the public information brochures were already available through the Cooperative Extension and the Nevada GOLD program. Ms. Eissmann clarified it would cost $4,000 to reprint the four brochures. A telephone help line, staffed by one additional person, was suggested as a means to disseminate information to the public. The estimated annual cost was $39,000.
Chairman de Braga asked for clarification of what was meant by coordination of efforts. In response, Ms. Eissmann stated that the Cooperative Extension Service would be in charge of the water-testing telephone hot line. The Health Division already had implemented a telephone hot line for the leukemia investigation. Chairman de Braga stated that funding a second position would defeat the goal of coordination of efforts. If it was agreed that the Nevada State Health Division should be the lead agency, they should accept assistance from the University of Nevada and the Cooperative Extension. The Health Division was reported to be testing the well water of the victim families in Fallon.
Assemblyman Mortenson stated that there should be as many agencies as needed to investigate, and each could report back to the legislature. Chairman de Braga clarified that the Nevada Health Division had declared itself as the lead agency for coordinating research. Assemblyman Koivisto concurred that there had to be a central clearinghouse for receipt of information and findings.
Chairman de Braga added that if federal funds were used, the Health Division would have to rely on the recommendations of the expert panel. She expressed hope that the expert panel would continue to oversee the investigation and that a report would be issued to the subcommittee. The Health Division had a meeting with the panel of experts; however, no report had yet been issued to the committee. The members of the panel included Dr. Guinan, Dr. Todd, Dr. Brown of the Nevada State Lab, Dr. Dudding, Dr. Leslie Robinson, Dr. Tom Sinks, Dr. Alan Smith, and Dr. Malcom Smith of the National Cancer Institute.
There was general agreement among the subcommittee members that the Nevada State Health Division would be the lead agency in charge of the investigation. In response to Ms. Eissmann’s question on the printing of brochures, Chairman de Braga clarified that the contents of the brochures (Exhibit C) should be coordinated with the Health Division.
Chairman de Braga voiced concern over the limited number of tests offered in the Cooperative Extension brochures. Ms. Williams asked if expansion of testing was a stated condition of receiving funds for brochure printing. Chairman de Braga stated that it would not be a condition, and residents would have to make their own decisions about paying for additional testing. As such, educational information would have to be simple and forthright in order to be effective.
If the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Service was charged with dissemination of information, the Nevada Health Division, as the lead agency, could oversee the contents of the printed material. If the $1 million funding was approved, the Health Division needed to go to Interim Finance for approval of spending at various stages of their investigation. Chairman de Braga stated that the $4,000 for printing of brochures would be part of the $1 million. For clarification, there would be no money requested in the BDR under discussion.
Chairman de Braga confirmed that dissemination of educational information by the Health Division would be a condition of the $1 million funding, however the Health Division would not directly receive the money. A fund would be set aside, and it would be administered by the legislature. Requests for disbursement of money would be submitted to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Chairman de Braga warned the subcommittee that allowing access to the funds by multiple agencies could invite duplication of effort.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the subcommittee would endorse the recommendations of the expert panel of scientists and physicians. Chairman de Braga stated that approval would take the form of encouragement to the Health Division to adopt the recommendations of the experts. Assemblyman Carpenter expressed the need for an interim report from the Health Division.
Assemblyman Mortenson echoed the concerns of the subcommittee and stated that the Health Division might be inclined to only perform routine tests that had always been done. The leukemia cluster investigation dictated unusual and thorough testing, such as tissue samples that were assayed for a multitude of substances. Chairman de Braga agreed and stated that it should be included in the letter to the Health Division. The letter should also inform the Health Division of the offer by Cooperative Extension to disseminate information to the public.
Ms. Eissmann made reference to item #4, a Water Well Testing Assistance Program (Exhibit C), and asked about the 4,800 wells in the Churchill area. Assemblyman Mortenson asked why testing efforts were not targeting just the water of the victim families. Ms. Eissmann explained that those were two different issues, and the Health Division was already engaged in water testing for the affected families.
In regard to item #5 (Exhibit C), Chairman de Braga explained it would be the letter to the Department of Agriculture requesting establishment of an educational program for residents who used agricultural chemicals. Ms. Eissmann stated the program could be managed either by Cooperative Extension or by the Agriculture Department. The subcommittee was reminded by Chairman de Braga that if pesticides were a likely cause, there would have been more cases of acute myelocytic leukemia (AML), not acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL). That raised the issue of the scope of the Health Division’s epidemiological study. Chairman de Braga encouraged the subcommittee to ask the Health Division for expansion of their study group to include earlier cases of leukemia. The current focus was described as too narrow.
Assemblyman Mortenson encouraged the subcommittee to pursue information from the Department of Agriculture. Chairman Koivisto echoed his concerns and added that, although some pesticides had been outlawed, they might still be used in remote rural areas. Ms. Eissmann directed the subcommittee to item #10 (Exhibit C) that recommended the Agriculture Department assist the Health Division with its investigative work.
Chairman de Braga directed Ms. Eissmann to contact the Agriculture Department for a list of approved pesticides. Testimony had been heard during a recent committee hearing of the aerial application of two approved pesticide chemicals, that, when combined, produced devastating health problems in the person exposed to the spraying. Ms. Eissmann explained that item #10 was suggested by the Health Division following the leukemia hearings.
Assemblyman Mortenson shared his concern about hearing a lot of feel-good, make-good programs. He wondered how much of those would actually contribute to the discovery of the cause of the leukemia cluster.
Chairman de Braga referred the subcommittee to items #6 and #7 of Exhibit C and addressed the problem of arsenic in the city drinking supply. The first recommendation was to draft a letter to the city of Fallon urging it to accelerate its arsenic removal work and to do whatever was necessary to adhere to the new EPA standards for arsenic. Progress in that area would have the added benefits of allaying public fears and improving the image of the city.
In response to Assemblyman Carpenter’s question on the cost of new technology, Chairman de Braga stated that most arsenic removal options were very expensive. Reference was made to the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the multi-million dollar costs for a state-of-the-art water treatment (arsenic removal) system.
Chairman de Braga determined that a letter should be drafted to the city of Fallon requesting an update on its water treatment programs and a comparison with water treatment efforts at the Fallon NAS. It had been suggested that the NAS become a water supplier to the community if the Navy developed a state-of-the-art water purification system.
Discussion moved to item #7, a bill authorizing a one-time allocation to the Churchill County School District for the installation of point-of-use water treatment devices at each of eight schools. Estimates of cost were $10,000 per school to provide bottled water, and that was suggested as a more affordable alternative to treatment options. It was recommended by Chairman de Braga that accurate estimates of costs should be calculated.
Regarding items #8 and #9 (Exhibit C), a letter to the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) would be drafted urging its continued participation with the Health Division. Chairman de Braga noted that air and soil testing had not been performed and, therefore, should be addressed in the NDEP letter. The monitoring of airborne contaminants and subsurface water contamination in the Project Shoal area was recommended.
Assemblyman Mortenson reminded the subcommittee of the issue of depleted uranium that had been raised during the leukemia hearings. It would be helpful to know if the Fallon NAS had ever used depleted uranium in practice military operations. If wind carried contaminated material off the base, children might have been exposed. It was agreed that issue should be included in the letter to NDEP.
In regard to recommendations to the Department of Agriculture, item #10 (Exhibit C), Ms. Eissmann reported that environmental monitoring of pesticide residue was in progress. Chairman de Braga suggested that the wording of the letter be more specific and include air, ground, and water testing.
The screening of water and air for environmental mutagens was the topic of item #11. A proposal had been received from Dr. Dean Adams, Researcher in the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada. He was scheduled to testify before the subcommittee on March 8. Ms. Eissmann reported that the Health Division expressed interest in Dr. Adams’ proposal and suggested that federal funds might be available. The testing was described as extensive and very costly.
The letter to the Nevada Health Division, item #12 (Exhibit C), contained multiple categories of issues. The first was the recommendation to test the hair, tissue, and blood of the affected children and families. That issue was entangled with concerns for confidentiality. Balancing the need for public information with the risk of escalating public fears was the challenge. For that reason, as well as the issue of privacy, the Health Division had been cautious about information shared with the public. Chairman de Braga suggested that the judgments of the Health Division had been reasonable in that area and perhaps should be left alone. Encouragement would be to continue with their hotline work and to keep an open mind on all possibilities in their investigation.
In a related matter, Ms. Eissmann reminded the subcommittee of the need to investigate the combination effects, where two or more agents had created a disease-provoking situation in the children. That was judged to be much more difficult to pinpoint and would include studying combinations of household chemicals as well as agricultural agents. Mosquito spray, pesticides, and herbicides were reported to be used in non-agricultural settings (e.g., schoolyards). As such, the recommendation should not be limited to investigation of agricultural environments.
The lag time in the Nevada Cancer Registry was a prominent topic during the leukemia hearings. Legislative approval of additional funds could address the problem; however, Chairman de Braga expressed her pessimism about that option. The need to update the Nevada Cancer Registry was acknowledged as critical. Ms. Williams described the registry funding as a combination of state and federal monies. Assemblyman Koivisto made mention of a bill proposed by Assemblyman Berman that created a cancer plan. The plan was designed to distribute resources as opposed to retroactively monitoring cancer cases.
Ms. Williams explained the registry lag was primarily caused by the time it took to extract the data in hospital records. Ms. Eissmann reported that Nevada was the only state that charged hospitals a fee to perform that function. The recommendation in the letter to the Health Division would be structured as an offer to help expedite the reporting lag in the registry.
The investigation of other disease clusters in the Fallon area and the issues of immunizations and viral agents were suggested for inclusion in the letter to the Health Division. On the subject of a possible link with animals, Chairman de Braga reported that a local veterinarian had offered to help with the cluster investigation. Animal testing would be included in the list of recommendations to the Nevada Health Division.
The wording for the recommendation on water quality needed to be expanded to include Churchill County, not just the city of Fallon. Chairman de Braga reported the Health Division had made an agreement with Fallon that they would not be forced to filter drinking water until the federal government had established an acceptable level. Notice had been sent to all water users in the area that the water was not safe, however the effectiveness of that blanket approach was unknown. Because follow-up was lacking, the subcommittee would recommend it in the letter to the Health Division.
Investigation of military activities, fuel dumping, and general contamination by hazardous materials at the Fallon NAS was described as a critical piece of the Health Division’s work. That effort would be supported by a letter directly to Kinder Morgan, the owners of the fuel pipeline, asking that the line be rerouted around the city. Pipeline testing data was not readily available; however, Ms. Eissmann stated that official monitoring reports had always given the pipeline good ratings. Assemblyman Koivisto expressed doubts about the ability of Morgan Kinder to visually inspect a pipeline that was underground for most of the route. The letter to Morgan Kinder should ask specifically about pipeline inspection procedures, age of the pipeline, and if surrounding soil was monitored for fuel contamination.
The migration and wind drift of military chaff during military training exercises was stated as harmless by the military, however Chairman de Braga expressed her doubts. Neighbors in Fallon had reported air borne clouds of chaff near the military base testing areas.
Microwaves from radar systems, surface radiation from Project Shoal, radon, depleted uranium, volatile organic compounds, synthetic organic compounds, PCB’s, and MTBE were listed under the category of other environmental contaminants for inclusion in the list of recommendations. Industrial pollutants, from businesses such as Kennametal and New American Tec, would be added to the list.
Communication with the Health Division would include an invitation to present an update to the subcommittee. This letter would also request that the Health Division conduct a through examination of the Nevada Cancer Registry and report ways to improve the timeliness of the system.
River testing for Strontium 90 would be placed under the category “environmental contaminants.” Animal studies would be added to cluster investigation category with viral links. Reports of radioactive fallout from the 1950’s atomic bomb testing had been suggested for inclusion in the study. Because no theory should be discarded, the issue of radioactivity warranted additional research.
Because these categories of environmental contamination were often federal in origin, it was suggested that letters be drafted to the Fallon NAS, the Secretary of the Navy, the Department of Energy, and the Pentagon, with a copy to the Nevada congressional delegation. By reaching out to all levels of the federal bureaucracy, it was hoped that answers would be more forthcoming. Assemblyman Angle encouraged that reference be made to the leukemia hearings, specifically to the testimony concerning the use of jet fuel in diesel trucks and for weed spraying. Substances such as benzene and halon should be included in the letter.
The final point of discussion was the wording of the committee BDR. Ms. Eissmann asked for clarification on the issue of confidentiality and the Nevada Health Division. Requiring the testing of all private wells was judged to be almost impossible given the estimated cost of $3,000 per well. The process of public education by the county and the testing of targeted areas by the Health Division were the most feasible approaches. Human testing was by consent, and the results were confidential. Environmental testing would also be by consent, and, if the results were held as confidential, participation was predicted to be greater. Confidentiality would not be guaranteed in cases where a substantial health hazard was detected.
Chairman de Braga illustrated a discrepancy in confidentiality regulations. If water was tested by the Health Division or by a private water-testing laboratory, the results were protected from publication. If the University of Nevada conducted the testing, the results were considered public. As such, it was suggested that the BDR contain wording that required private laboratories to report significant contamination findings to the Nevada Health Division. Significant results would be those air, soil, or water sources that exceeded acceptable federal levels.
Ms. Eissmann summarized by stating that the first part of the BDR related to the confidentiality of the names and addresses of properties tested. The results would be reported to the Health Division in cases where significant contaminants were detected. The Health Division would then have the ability to investigate the situation without publicizing the name and address of the property. Overall public health risk would have to be made known to the public.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:21 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
June Rigsby
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman
DATE: