Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
04/25/2005 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB241 | |
| HB269 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HCR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 269 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 241 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 269-HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RELEASE LIABILITY CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 269, "An Act relating to contribution actions relating to the release of a hazardous substance; and providing for an effective date." JANE PIERSON, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, read the following statement [original punctuation provided]: HB 269 deals with fixing the uncertainty caused by the United States Supreme Court's December 2004 decision in, Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services, Inc. Alaska's hazardous substance remediation statutes are modeled after the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) The US Supreme Court found in the Aviall decision that, a responsible party cannot bring a contribution action until such time as the party has been sued by the state or federal government, or has entered into a formal administrative settlement of liability. The Aviall decision puts into question the rights of Alaskan's who conduct voluntary cleanups on properties contaminated by hazardous substances to undergo contribution actions against other potentially responsible parties. Voluntary cleanups of contaminated sites form the vast majority of environmental cleanups conducted in the State of Alaska. These voluntary cleanups allow the state to focus its limited resources on monitoring responsible party cleanup actions, instead of undertaking costly administrative or judicial enforcement actions to force cleanups, or undertaking cleanups at public expense. The right to contribution actions against other potentially responsible parties creates an important incentive for voluntary remediation, by allowing responsible parties to undertake effective cleanups themselves, and then be able to recover some of those costs from other potentially responsible parties, who fail to voluntarily undertake or assist with the clean up. The purpose of HB 269, is to respond to the Aviall decision by clarifying the language in AS 46.03.822(j), ensuring that responsible parties who conduct voluntary cleanups may bring contribution actions against other potentially responsible parties. HB 269 has the support of both the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Governor's office. This is not an area of law where Alaska can afford to have the common law decisions of the court out pace our codified laws. For the reasons stated above I urge the committee to pass HB269. 2:31:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked for an explanation. MS. PIERSON said if there was a gas spill on your property, and you were not the one who spilled it but you clean it up, then you cannot sue the guilty party until the government instigates an action. She said HB 269 changes our statutes so that once the state or federal government has identified other responsible parties you can sue them for their part in the spill. 2:32:50 PM BENJAMIN BROWN, Legislative Liaison, Department of Environmental Conservation, said the Supreme Court came to an odd decision and said unless you have a right to a contribution action under certain sections of the act, then you can't go after a third party defendant. The Alaska Supreme Court has not yet made a similar decision, but it could, he said. The bill will prevent a future problem based on this "arcane interpretation" by the U.S. Supreme Court. 2:35:22 PM BRETT TOSTEVIN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Law (DOL), said the DOL supports HB 269 because it allows people who do voluntary cleanup to try to get costs covered even if they have not been sued, and it would removes the confusion brought about by the Supreme Court decision. Voluntary cleanup can occur "without us having to incur additional costs or enforcement actions or have to bring lawsuits against people simply to allow them to have a right of contribution against other people who are liable." Without HB 269, a monkey wrench could be thrown into the state's voluntary cleanup program. The bill would allow a contribution action after the issuance of the potential liability determination by the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the bill defines what that may determination be. The bill will encourage voluntary cleanups in the future and not reward recalcitrant parties. 2:40:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked who would be opposed to the bill. MR. TOSTEVIN said he does not know of any. 2:41:17 PM GEORGE LYLE, Private Attorney, Anchorage, said he has clients who own properties that were contaminated by previous owners. Current owners are obligated to clean up the properties, but they should retain the right to go after the parties responsible for the contamination, he stated. The owners tend to volunteer to do the cleanup with the understanding that they could eventually seek recovery from the people who actually caused the problems. He urged the committee to pass HB 269. 2:43:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved to report HB 269 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 269 passed out of committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|