Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/01/2002 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 382-CLEANUP OF ILLEGAL DRUG SITES Number 1982 CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL NO. 382, "An Act relating to the evaluation and cleanup of sites where certain controlled substances may have been manufactured or stored." Number 1971 REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 382, told the committee that when an illegal [drug manufacturing] laboratory is raided in Alaska, law enforcement sends the residential property owner notice [of the raid] and removes major contaminants [from the site]. However, there are no guidelines or any direction for the [property] owner on how to clean up the site before [another tenant] moves in or the [property] is sold. There is no penalty if the [property owner] decides to repaint the walls and rent the property rather than clean it up. She said there are responsible [property] owners who want to clean up the sites, but the state doesn't have guidelines set forth. However, other [property] owners aren't so responsible and rent the site, even though there could still be [drug residue] on the walls and in the carpet, which could pose a health hazard to [an occupant]. Number 1798 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS turned attention to Section 2 and said it would provide direction regarding the cleanup of an [illegal drug] site. The law enforcement agency would notify the property owner and the department, and the owner would be provided with guidelines for cleaning up the site. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS pointed out that the [cleanup] would be the responsibility of the property owner, and the state wouldn't pay any part of that. The bill stipulates that if the site is to be used for residential purposes, then it must be cleaned up. She said the [property] owner has the choice not to clean up, but the site cannot be occupied or sold until it is done. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS turned attention to [proposed AS 46.03.510] and said the property has to be determined fit for use before it can be transferred, sold, leased, or rented. Also, it makes any current contracts on the property voidable, but it doesn't make any past contracts voidable, so a mortgage would still be valid, for example. Property can be sold if written disclosure is made to the prospective transferee or purchaser that the property has been determined to be an illegal drug manufacturing site and hasn't been determined to be fit for use. Furthermore, [under subsection (c)] a person who knowingly uses, transfers, sells, leases, rents, or occupies property of [in violation of the section] is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to page 3, lines 21-23, and asked why the disclosure doesn't accompany the transfer of a sale document. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS deferred to Nathan Johnson. Number 1650 NATHAN JOHNSON, Staff to Representative Gretchen Guess, Alaska State Legislature, answered that the reason for the aforementioned provision is because of concern in the real- estate community about having the disclosure recorded. That would create a [permanent] record, which some people find objectionable. He said that was an effort to appease that concern. CO-CHAIR MASEK remarked that if the property owner complied, then it wouldn't be necessary [to record the disclosure]. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS offered that if [the disclosure] was recorded, it would be a [permanent] record. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if sale of the property would be permitted if the property wasn't cleaned up. She also inquired whether there would still be protection for the buyer. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS answered in the affirmative. She turned attention to [proposed AS 45.03.520] and said the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) would establish procedures for testing the property and establish a list of laboratories in the state that have the capacity to perform the testing procedures. This is to ensure that the property owner uses a laboratory that can perform the appropriate testing of the property. Number 1455 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS brought attention to [proposed AS 46.03.530] and mentioned the four substances [lead, mercury, methamphetamines, and volatile organic compounds] that are known to cause health hazards, and that the department would set forth in regulation the levels required to be met for [determining] fitness. She said this was put into regulation, rather than into statute, because science constantly changes regarding what levels are appropriate. She mentioned concerns that there are many more chemicals which are harmful, and that there's not an easy way for those to be [included] in regulation or statute. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS highlighted [proposed AS 46.03.540]. She told members it is important that the guidelines are followed, not only so the [site] is safely cleaned up, but also so that the hazardous material is disposed of correctly. She mentioned that disposal has been more of a problem than anything else. Number 1358 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS turned attention to [proposed AS 46.03.550] and indicated the determination would be made by the department regarding whether a property would be fit for use if the owner had submitted satisfactory evidence to the department that the property was cleaned up according to the guidelines, that testing had been performed, and that it had been determined that the chemical levels meet the requirements. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS brought attention to [proposed AS 46.03.560] and indicated the section sets forth the number of days from the time the property owner receives notice that the owner has to comply. Regarding [proposed AS 46.03.570], she indicated the section sets forth the duties of the department and regulations. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS mentioned an outline that highlights the general impacts of the illegal [manufacturing] labs and the health [risks] involved, especially in regard to lead and mercury. She addressed questions that she'd received regarding HB 382. The first question asked was why the [property owner] isn't [required] to clean up the [site] if the owner isn't going to [rent or sell] it. Her response was that the levels of [hazardous chemicals] are harmful if there is an occupant [living in the site], but not if it is vacant. She added that it seemed "overreaching" to tell the [property owner] that he/she had to [clean up the site if it was vacant]. She added that there is no disclosure [required] at this time. Number 1281 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said there were lots of questions on why DEC [would be the administering department]. She explained that in states with similar statutes, the responsible department is usually health and social services. However, it would be more expensive to have [a department other than DEC administer the provision] because DEC already has the equipment and the procedures in place. The fiscal note reflects a cost of $10,000 to [initiate the program] and $2,000 a year [in expenses] thereafter. She added that putting the responsibility with [the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)] "would have been a whole new position and department, which didn't seem very responsible." REPRESENTATIVE GUESS reported that Oregon and Washington State have [addressed this issue]. Washington [State] is finding that it should have [addressed] this at a state level [rather than] a local level. Alaska has many small communities, she noted, and [it doesn't make sense] to force the local government to have the expertise; it is more efficiently done at a state level. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS highlighted letters of support from the Anchorage Police Department, the Alaska State Troopers, and [municipalities]. She mentioned that Alaska State Troopers have been put in the position of telling a property owner there has been an illegal [manufacturing] site, but they haven't been able to direct the owner anywhere to ensure the site is cleaned up. Number 1130 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked if there is any recourse for a [property owner] to civilly recover the [cost] of cleaning up the site. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS answered that she hadn't addressed that issue. She said her intent was that the option should be open. She said she doesn't think it is the government's responsibility; it's the [owner's] responsibility because it is that person's property. She said it is costly to test and clean up, and that she has no problem with [recovering those] costs. She mentioned that she is unsure whether [a method for recovering costs] should be included in the bill, but said she is willing to look into it and ensure that the option is available. Number 0959 MR. JOHNSON suggested that almost every existing housing lease would cover that situation and give the [property owner] civil recourse. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE agreed that most leases would [provide an avenue] for civil recourse. She said, however, she would like to have a specific right of action in the bill for the property owner to recover those actual fees and costs that incur. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS indicated she would address the [cost- recovery] issue. Number 0860 CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked if the bill was in the current committee - rather than the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing Committee - because DEC would be the [administering entity]. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS answered in the affirmative. Number 0800 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER requested an estimate of the number of [illegal manufacturing] labs located in rural Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS referred the question to the Alaska State Troopers. She mentioned that the [illegal manufacturing labs] are a problem in Anchorage; because of aggressive law enforcement efforts in that area, the labs are moving toward the Matanuska-Susitna area and Kenai. She said according to the Alaska State Troopers, there are some labs in Ketchikan. She referred to the chemicals involved in illegal labs and the transportation needed. Fortunately, she said, there have not been [illegal labs] found in rural Alaska. She also mentioned that there would be additional costs for the testing to be done in rural areas. CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to an article from the Frontiersman in Wasilla, dated February 15, 2002, which said Palmer's district attorney office has received 54 new "meth" [methamphetamine] cases to prosecute this quarter, compared to Anchorage's 57 new cases for the same period. She indicated the problem is growing in that region. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER mentioned a case involving a [methamphetamine] lab found in Juneau in a duplex. She said the neighboring tenants' infant had experienced [increased] sickness [during that time]. She asked what the recourse was for the parent of a young child who has sustained health problems because of a methamphetamine lab. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS offered her understanding that there wouldn't be recourse under HB 382 because it only addresses cleanup of the site. She asked [Mr. Johnson]: If there were an illegal manufacturing lab in a duplex, could the other side still be rented out? Number 0583 MR. JOHNSON answered that it would be at the discretion of the police officers involved, depending on the heating system; if there was a forced air system, for example, the chemicals could be spread throughout the entire duplex. Mr. Johnson also said that in terms of recourse, HB 382 does address it. He mentioned that other states have worked on legislation specifically to address [illegal manufacturing labs'] effects on children and to increase penalties, which could be considered in future legislation. Number 0534 REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to AS 46.03.530 and asked why asbestos wasn't included in the [bill]. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS indicated asbestos isn't a chemical used in manufacturing illegal drugs. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said asbestos is used when there is a large amount of heat in a specific area; although asbestos hasn't been used in quite some time, it is readily available. Moreover, asbestos used in those labs is usually secondhand, which is more dangerous, he suggested. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS deferred to Mr. Johnson. MR. JOHNSON said none of the other states [HB 382 was modeled after] had a problem with asbestos at methamphetamine lab sites. He added that although it might exist at some sites, this [issue addressed in the bill] relates to specific things used in methamphetamine labs only, because "we don't want people ... to feel as though, as we come for a drug lab, that we're looking to address other shortcomings of their property." REPRESENTATIVE GUESS referred back to Representative Fate's question. She said the [specific language] referring to the four substances [was included] because those are the known four [substances used in drug labs]. She indicated her two proposed solutions [for later changes as more information becomes available] were these: to simply give DEC the authority to add in regulation other substances known to be harmful; or to have the legislature, after a year, evaluate whether there should be a change [in statute reflecting such regulations implemented by the DEC]. She said she had amendments drawn up for both scenarios. She told Representative Fate the problem is that there could be other things that are used but which aren't specified in the bill, "and we need to grapple with that." REPRESENTATIVE FATE said asbestos is not general and is illegal to have in a public facility. It is not cumulative like lead, [which is included in the bill], he said. He offered his view that asbestos is much more dangerous than lead. He indicated he would like asbestos to be added to the statute. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS indicated she wouldn't object to amending HB 382 to include asbestos. Number 0201 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS mentioned that [HB 382] is not intended to correct conditions in homes that haven't had illegal drug manufacturing. He offered his view that there are probably rules elsewhere which require that homes be safe. REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered his belief that usually asbestos isn't found in the home; it is brought in for protection against the high [temperature] necessary to manufacture [drugs]. Number 0077 REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT mentioned that older-style linoleum found in some homes is laced with asbestos. He also said he has concerns that some of the aforementioned chemicals are potentially more dangerous than the four [substances listed in the statute]. He suggested that the scope of the bill be kept to a methamphetamine [lab] scenario. CO-CHAIR MASEK remarked that she thought the [bill's scope was being broadened] too much. TAPE 02-13, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE FATE proposed a conceptual amendment, to have the language read, "any harmful chemical or substance associated with methamphetamine production". MR. JOHNSON suggested "clandestine" lab, because although this legislation largely addresses meth labs, other [drug labs need to be included]. He said the two amendments [mentioned by Representative Guess] would open up the issue for DEC to consider and add chemicals and substances in the future. CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to page 4 [lines 14-21], standard for determining fitness, and said it was spelled out clearly and didn't require more items to be added. What is already listed should deal with the bill's intent, to ensure that these chemicals are going to be cleaned up and taken away, so that whether it's a house or an apartment, it would be cleaned up, ready, and safe for someone to rent. She asked that Representative [Fate] withdraw his [conceptual amendment]. Number 0275 REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated the conceptual amendment was withdrawn. Number 0304 JULIA GRIMES, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, testified via teleconference in support of HB 382. She said clandestine methamphetamine labs are a dangerous problem all over the United States and, as with every drug trend, have reached Alaska. Law enforcement in Alaska has heeded the experiences of states in the Northwest and Midwest, taking an aggressive stance toward detection and eradication of meth labs, and prosecuting suspects found to be associated with them. She explained that because of that aggressive stance, the number in the state dropped from 50 labs in year 2000 to 21 labs in year 2001, based on statistics from the annual drug report. MS. GRIMES said detecting, eradicating, and prosecution are only a part of the [solution]; she feels [Alaska] has an obligation to be equally aggressive in evaluating how harmful the sites are once they are vacated by law enforcement officers and to protect the health of innocent [people] seeking [a residence]. She said, "We would just support this bill, and see it as being another aggressive and progressive way to keep from getting behind the eight ball, if you will, in a problem that can easily overrun an area, and a dangerous problem." Number 0526 TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator, Municipality of Anchorage, testified via teleconference. He told the committee [illegal manufacturing laboratories] are an increasing problem throughout Alaska that needs to be addressed. He said the belief is that [HB 382] sets up a very good process to ensure that properties are made safe for future tenants. Despite added cost to rental property owners, he said the belief is that the safety of the future definitely outweighs the added cost. He concluded, "We commend this bill to you for passage." Number 0597 REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if lead and mercury are part of the manufacturing process of these [types of] drugs. Number 0605 KURT KORNCHUCK, Detective, Anchorage Police Department (APD), via teleconference, answered that mercuric chloride and lead acetate are essential ingredients in a process for manufacturing methamphetamine. He mentioned that asbestos is used in large- scale drug manufacturing labs, but hasn't been seen in Alaska since 1996. Most of the heating is done on small, portable electric burners with glassware, rather than a commercial-type reaction vessel. REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if a [property owner] would be forced to strip the walls if lead were found on them.. He also asked whether the background level is taken into consideration with regard t the lead. MR. KORNCHUCK said the [question] falls beyond [APD's] level of expertise. He added: We're very thankful for this kind of bill because we're a little frustrated when we go in. Of course, we're wearing all of the protective gear, protective suits, breathing apparatus, rubber boots, and gloves. And when we leave, we simply notify the landlord and post the property. MR. KORNCHUCK said he didn't know what the testing procedures entail. He mentioned that [illegal drug labs] are a very big problem. He said when he'd worked on [enforcement relating to] clandestine laboratories in California, some local health departments would come out [to the site] and take samples so they could have an idea of the manufacturing process and what they should look for when they went back in, to give a piece of property a clean bill of health. Number 0810 MR. KORNCHUCK concluded by saying HB 382 is outstanding legislation that he was very surprised and happy to see come forth. He said [HB 382] provides a tremendous benefit for people with children who unknowingly rent [these sites]. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether the law enforcement officers who [raid] meth labs are in the [federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)]. MR. KORNCHUCK answered that specialized, trained officers including state troopers, local police officers, and federal investigators go through one-week training in which they learn industrial-hygiene techniques, proper use of equipment, what to look for, and how to be safe. Only those who are certified to enter clandestine drug laboratories are allowed to participate in the raids and the cleanup process. In addition, a highly specialized group of individuals in the state get together for annual certification every year and talk about the new drug trends. CO-CHAIR MASEK remarked that Section 2 requires testing of property before continued use if a law enforcement officer has determined that the property was an illegal drug manufacturing or storage site. Number 1021 JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, testified via teleconference, relating her understanding that there is a possibility of false positives for lead and mercury. There are guidelines for laboratories to use to recognize that possibility, she said. Number 1087 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS offered Amendment 1, which read: Page 4, line 22-24, following "Sec.46.03.540. Decontamination requirements. (a) If" Delete "testing under AS 46.46.03.520 shows the presence of a substance that exceeds the limits set by regulations adopted under AS 46.03.530 and" Page 4, line 25, following "property," Insert "for which a notice has been issued under AS 46.03.500," REPRESENTATIVE GUESS explained that if property is found to be the site of an illegal manufacturing lab, and if the property owner knows he/she wants to clean up the property, Amendment 1 would allow the property owner to skip initial testing of the property, clean up the property in accordance with the guidelines, and then have the property tested to ensure that the standards have been met. This would save the owner the expense of testing the property twice. Number 1220 REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved that the committee adopt the foregoing as Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1248 REPRESENTATIVE GUESS again addressed the subject of new substances that might be used in illegal drug manufacturing. She offered two slightly different amendments [discussed previously] that would broaden the language in [AS 46.03.530] and allow the department to [periodically] review information related to illegal drug manufacturing, identify hazardous substances used in the manufacturing, and add [regulations]. Representative Guess mentioned concern among law enforcement officers about limiting the number of substances included in this section. [There was an at-ease from 3:06 p.m. to 3:08 p.m., during which the two amendments mentioned by Representative Guess were withdrawn.] CO-CHAIR MASEK explained on the record that she thought the amendments were too broad and shouldn't be included. She said the bill already identifies hazardous chemicals associated with illegal manufacturing laboratories. She therefore had asked that the proposed amendments be recalled. Number 1492 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA began discussion of conceptual Amendment 2. Referring to page 3, lines 4-7, she asked what the property owner's recourse would be when a lease is voided because of illegal drug manufacturing. Representative Kerttula suggested amending paragraph 1, line 8, to include "or lease" after "promissory note". MR. JOHNSON said it would be beneficial because if the renter has a clandestine lab, then the lease [can be voided]; moreover, it would provide the property owner recourse for the voided lease. Number 1650 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why only the renter would be excluded and not the user or lessee. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that subsection (b) covers the transfer and sale. She said including the word "lease" would probably cover [Representative Green's concern]. She indicated the amendment should be conceptual so the correct language can be used to provide protection for the landlord. Number 1759 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved to adopt the foregoing as conceptual Amendment 2. There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 1772 CO-CHAIR MASEK turned attention to the fiscal note for DEC. She gave a brief synopsis of the fiscal note expenditures. She indicated operating costs would be $12,000 for FY 2003 and $2,000 per year thereafter. Number 1917 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report CSHB 382 [HB 382, as amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 382(RES) was moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|