Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/11/2003 03:30 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 9 - CLEANUP OF ILLEGAL DRUG SITES
SENATOR GUESS, bill sponsor, explained the purpose of the bill
is to ensure illegal drug sites are cleaned up before they are
reoccupied. The responsibility for the clean up rests with the
property owner although the government does set standards and
procedures for the clean up.
In Alaska there are between 25 and 50 sites that require
cleaning each year. It's important these sites are cleaned
because of the adverse health effects on children in particular.
SENATOR GUESS advised members the bill passed the House during
the previous session and had been scheduled for the Senate
floor. She introduced a draft committee substitute (CS) that
made two changes. At the request of law enforcement, she added
new drugs and chemicals to the list. This change occurs on page
5 beginning on line 16. The second change is at the request of
the Administration to make sure the testing procedures are
adequate and the sampling of the site is appropriate. This
change occurs on page 4, line 30. The Administration also
requested a change on page 6, line 9 making it possible for the
owner to certify and submit satisfactory evidence that the
property is clean.
In Alaska there is currently no process to follow after law
enforcement posts a notice on a property following an illegal
lab bust. SB 9 will ensure the property owner is notified of the
procedures of sampling, testing and decontamination and that
they self certify that all the procedures have been met before
the property is reoccupied. She noted a property could be sold
prior to clean up provided the owner disclosed the condition of
the property.
To date no police force or municipality has stated any objection
to the bill.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked the record to reflect Senator Cowdery joined
the meeting.
CHAIR TAYLOR called for a motion to adopt the CS for discussion
purposes.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to adopt 23-LSO186\H Lauterbach
2/11/03 as the work draft.
There being no objection it was so ordered.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether the state would be responsible for
clean up of the sites, since the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) has the testing equipment, and would a
borough or municipality be financially responsible.
SENATOR GUESS said DEC would set the clean up standards but the
property owner would be the responsible party.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether lien holders would be notified.
SENATOR GUESS said the property owner of record would be
notified.
SENATOR COWDERY pointed out the property owner and lien holder
were not one and the same.
SENATOR GUESS replied, to her knowledge, the lien holder would
be notified as well.
SENATOR COWDERY asked about neighbor notification in multi unit
facilities and who would be responsible for residuals that might
migrate to adjoining units such as in a town home.
SENATOR GUESS replied it is her intent that the property owner
where the bust was made is responsible for the entire clean up
including any residuals that might migrate to adjoining or
adjacent units.
She thought someone from law enforcement could explain how they
handle notification in multi unit complexes.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how an adjoining property owner would
become aware of an event if they were away from home at the time
of the posting and arrived home after the clean up was completed
and the sign was removed.
SENATOR GUESS replied that case is not explicitly addressed but
it was a matter of how law enforcement agencies notify.
SENATOR COWDERY then asked if the bill includes every controlled
substance.
SENATOR GUESS said it includes those substances law enforcement
and other experts deem hazardous to human health.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether there was anything currently in
statute or regulation setting contamination levels to trigger a
clean up.
SENATOR GUESS replied there is nothing in regulation or statute.
CHAIR TAYLOR pointed out required notification information is
given beginning on page 1, line 13 and concluding on page 3,
line 18. However, he didn't find mention of a requirement to
notify lien holders. He asked whether the bill contained all the
changes requested when the bill was heard in the Senate
Judiciary Committee the previous session.
SENATOR GUESS assured him the changes were included.
SENATOR DYSON agreed with Senator Guess that property owners
have an obligation to know what happens on their property, but
he wondered whether the bill addressed the drug manufacturer's
responsibility for decontamination costs.
SENATOR GUESS replied the bill does not address that
responsibility. That would have to be in the rental or lease
agreement. Page 4, line 5 says the lease or rental agreement
isn't voided so a property owner could look for restitution
under that contract. She has yet to find a way to place direct
responsibility on the shoulders of the individual(s) who caused
the contamination.
SENATOR DYSON noted tradition suggests the person who did the
harm pays for the remedy and property owners should be held
responsible only after all opportunities to recapture clean up
costs from the perpetrator have been exhausted. He admitted to
the difficulty involved in that approach. Although drug
manufacturing is lucrative, the manufacturer frequently has few
or no resources to attach.
He asked whether property owners would be required to do a pre
test before starting clean up procedures.
SENATOR GUESS said there is no pre test requirement; property
owners may clean up then test.
SENATOR DYSON asked how much the testing might cost.
SENATOR GUESS said estimates range from one and two thousand
dollars per site.
SENATOR COWDERY expressed continued concern about contaminant
migration in condominium and town home situations. Although the
intent is good, he is troubled about ultimate responsibility and
the level of contamination that would trigger a clean up
requirement.
SENATOR GUESS said she would make sure his concerns were
addressed. She made it clear the process starts when a law
enforcement officer determines there has been an illegal lab.
SENATOR DYSON admitted to having reservations about the bill
saying he must remind himself of the central issue, which is the
health of the next tenant or owner. He thought there should be
ways to make sure judges pay attention to getting restitution
for property owners for clean up costs when imposing sentences.
CHAIR TAYLOR clarified that under a rental agreement there is a
requirement to return the property, fair wear and tear excepted,
in the same condition as when rented. A security or damage
deposit is usually given to secure this agreement. That
contractual relationship is available for the property owner to
bring a suit against the individual for a minimum of six years.
Because the owner would be notified almost immediately if their
property was posted as an illegal drug site, the owner could
quickly find out the extent of their obligations and the
potential costs of clean up. Restitution would be available
through the criminal action at sentencing or through a civil
action brought by the damaged property owner after the fact.
Unfortunately, frequently there are no assets to attach.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked Tim Rogers whether he had anything to add.
TIM ROGERS testified via teleconference the Municipality of
Anchorage supports the bill.
AL STOREY testified via teleconference the Alaska State Troopers
support the legislation.
KURT KORNCHUK, Anchorage Police Department representative,
testified via teleconference and reported there were 25 drug
labs seized in 2000, 35 in 2001 and to date they have cleaned up
13 drug labs in 2003. Any law enforcement officer involved in
the seizure of the labs has been involved in at least 40 hours
of training. They are generally able to identify sites that are
grossly contaminated and could bring DEC in to determine whether
contaminants had migrated. He said the department does support
the legislation.
CHAIR TAYLOR expressed concern about enforcement personnel's
exposure to contaminants.
He then asked Larry Dietrick why it would cost the state $98,000
to develop the regulations and protocols.
LARRY DIETRICK, Acting Director for the DEC Division of Spill
Prevention and Response, explained the fiscal note is based on
the prior bill and reflects the costs associated with property
owners providing evidence to the department that the clean up
was done. The department was to review the information and
verify that decontamination, sampling and testing was done to an
acceptable standard. This was a review and approval capacity,
which would require an estimated half time position.
The\H version CS reflects the self-certification provisions,
which would drop the annual $58,200 Personal Services costs from
the fiscal note. Contractual costs of $35,000 are for the
department to work with a clean up contractor to develop
standards for the property owner. Analytical methods,
contaminant standards, sampling protocols, laboratory methods
and decontamination methods would be established. The intent is
to develop a book the property owner could use to plan and carry
out the clean up. The $35,000 is a one-time cost. Out year costs
of $11,000 are contingency costs for additional contaminants
that weren't initially identified.
CHAIR TAYLOR observed the out year costs are hypothetical and
significant.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if the owners could perform the clean up
work.
MR. DIETRICK explained the intent of the bill is for the
department to establish the procedures and the property owner to
consult those guidelines and see that the work is done.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if drug clean up presented a hazard like
asbestos abatement.
MR. DIETRICK replied the current draft of the bill calls for the
department to maintain a list of contractors with expertise to
perform analysis and clean up. Some states require contractors
to be certified by the state, but that isn't what is currently
proposed. For the smaller situations that are generally found in
Alaska, listing rather than certification is acceptable.
CHAIR TAYLOR made a motion to amend by inserting "and any lien
holders of record" after the word "property" on page 2, line 3
and after the word "property" on page 3, line 7.
There was no objection to amendment 1.
There was no further testimony.
CHAIR TAYLOR asked for a motion to move the bill from committee.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move CSSB 9 (STA) and modified
fiscal note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|