Legislature(2003 - 2004)

02/19/2003 01:04 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 59 - CLEANUP OF ILLEGAL DRUG SITES                                                                                         
[Contains discussion of CSSB 9(STA).]                                                                                           
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the  next order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL  NO. 59,  "An  Act  relating  to the  evaluation  and                                                               
cleanup  of sites  where certain  controlled substances  may have                                                               
been  manufactured  or stored;  and  providing  for an  effective                                                               
CHAIR  McGUIRE informed  the committee  that  each member  should                                                               
have  a  new  fiscal  note  for HB  59  from  the  Department  of                                                               
Environmental Conservation (DEC).                                                                                               
Number 1209                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  moved  to   adopt  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB 59,  Version  23-LS0341\D,  Lauterbach,                                                               
2/18/03, as  a work draft.   There being no objection,  Version D                                                               
was before the committee.                                                                                                       
The committee took an at-ease from 1:27 p.m. to 1:28 p.m.                                                                       
Number 1268                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM,  testifying as the  sponsor of HB  59, began                                                               
by informing the committee that  this legislation originated from                                                               
a request by the Fairbanks  North Star Borough emergency services                                                               
coordinator.    He  noted  that   last  year  there  was  similar                                                               
legislation in the Senate.  He  explained that current law has no                                                               
provision for  a requirement by  the Department  of Environmental                                                               
Conservation  (DEC)  to  expect the  cleanup  of  methamphetamine                                                               
laboratories.   The idea  is to  clean up  illegal drug  sites so                                                               
that  properties that  have been  rented or  leased and  used for                                                               
methamphetamine laboratories aren't  re-rented and leased without                                                               
proper cleanup.                                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM explained the  changes encompassed in Version                                                               
D.   He  directed attention  to page  5, line  9, of  HB 59,  and                                                               
pointed out  that Version D  does not include the  language, "the                                                               
capacity to perform  the testing procedures".   That language was                                                               
deleted per the  request of the DEC.   He then turned  to page 6,                                                               
line  1,  and   said  that  the  language,   "the  owner  submits                                                               
satisfactory  evidence to  the department  that"  was changed  in                                                               
Version  D so  that it  now reads,  "the owner  certifies to  the                                                               
department  under   penalty  of   unsworn  falsification".     He                                                               
indicated  that this  penalty changes  the liability  for cleanup                                                               
from the DEC to the owner of the property.                                                                                      
CHAIR McGUIRE closed public testimony on HB 59.                                                                                 
Number 1515                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA posited  that HB  59 seems  to properly  set                                                               
forth standards for cleanup  of methamphetamine laboratory sites.                                                               
However, he expressed  the need to be sure that  there really are                                                               
methamphetamine  laboratories being  transferred  to new  tenants                                                               
without first  being cleaned up  so as not  to cause a  danger to                                                               
people.  He  asked if there was evidence that  would support that                                                               
this danger really exists.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM provided  the following  three examples.   A                                                               
cabin  at  Arctic  Lake  was  being  used  as  a  methamphetamine                                                               
laboratory, and although  the police dismantled it,  there was no                                                               
mechanism  by which  the state  could  require the  owner of  the                                                               
property  to  clean  it  up  and ensure  that  it  was  safe  for                                                               
habitation.   Thus, because  the DEC can't  be required  to check                                                               
the  property, the  potential  danger for  the  next occupant  is                                                               
significantly dangerous.   Additionally,  there was a  motel room                                                               
in    which   a    methamphetamine   laboratory    was   created.                                                               
Representative  Holm relayed  his  understanding  that it's  very                                                               
easy  to  air out  and  clean  out  a  property while  still  not                                                               
removing  the  affected  carpet or  baseboard.    Without  proper                                                               
cleaning  to  ensure  a  location  is  habitable,  there  is  the                                                               
potential for  dangerous drugs to  affect the brains  of children                                                               
[who may be at the property at a  later time].  Also, there was a                                                               
methamphetamine laboratory found  in a corner of  the Aspen Hotel                                                               
in Fairbanks.                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  asked if there is  any information available                                                               
that  would address  the extent  of  any existing  danger to  the                                                               
public under today's absence of a law.                                                                                          
CHAIR  McGUIRE  pointed  out that  the  committee  packet  should                                                               
include  an article  entitled, "IS  THERE A  METH LAB  COOKIN' IN                                                               
YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?"  This article  discusses the potential health                                                               
impacts    from    exposure   to    methamphetamine    laboratory                                                               
contaminants,   such  as   nausea,  skin   and  eye   irritation,                                                               
headaches, respiratory  problems, et  cetera.  She  stressed that                                                               
[methamphetamine] is a known carcinogenic.   She relayed that the                                                               
article also discusses some of  the items that could indicate the                                                               
existence  of  a  methamphetamine   laboratory.    Chair  McGuire                                                               
pointed  out that  the committee  packet should  also include  an                                                               
article  from the  Fairbanks Daily  News  Miner, which  discusses                                                             
some of the specific incidents.                                                                                                 
Number 1798                                                                                                                     
JOS  GOVAARS,  Staff to  Representative  Jim  Holm, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, referred to the article  [entitled, "IS THERE A METH                                                               
LAB  COOKIN'  IN  YOUR  NEIGHBORHOOD?"] which  he  found  on  the                                                               
Internet.    [That article  relayed]  that  the potential  health                                                               
hazards  from the  chemicals  in  methamphetamines are  dependent                                                               
upon the length of time one  has been exposed to [those] hazards,                                                               
as  well as  the size  of  the methamphetamine  laboratory.   The                                                               
small laboratories that  fit in the trunk of a  car don't pose as                                                               
serious  a health  hazard as  would a  methamphetamine laboratory                                                               
the  size of  the committee  room.   Contaminants  can soak  into                                                               
furniture,  carpets, draperies,  and even  sheetrock and  ceiling                                                               
tile.    Furthermore,  some  of the  chemicals  can  lay  dormant                                                               
because  some are  heavier than  air  and thus  can end  up in  a                                                               
basement or  the crawl space of  a house.  Mr.  Govaars said that                                                               
[the  existence of  methamphetamine  laboratories]  is a  serious                                                               
problem that needs to be addressed.                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said  that it's clear that  the chemicals are                                                               
dangerous substances.   He  asked whether  there is  any evidence                                                               
that people  are transferring potentially dangerous  homes to new                                                               
tenants/buyers.  He again expressed the  need to be sure that the                                                               
aforementioned is an existing problem.                                                                                          
MR.  GOVAARS  said that  he  has  heard  stories from  people  in                                                               
Fairbanks  in   which  homes   that  were   once  methamphetamine                                                               
laboratories  are reinhabited  by other  people [with  no cleanup                                                               
taking place].   Furthermore,  two hotels  in Fairbanks  have had                                                               
methamphetamine  laboratories this  year.   He said  he questions                                                               
how many people may be  exposed to methamphetamine chemicals left                                                               
behind  in a  hotel room  after a  methamphetamine laboratory  is                                                               
Number 1926                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  McGUIRE  acknowledged  Representative Gara's  concern  and                                                               
also  asked  whether  there   is  evidence  that  methamphetamine                                                               
laboratory  sites   aren't  being  cleaned  before   being  [made                                                               
available for habitation].                                                                                                      
MR.  GOVAARS answered  that he  doesn't  have any  documentation.                                                               
Currently,  there  is  no  statute  specifying  the  tracking  of                                                               
methamphetamine  laboratory  locations;  this  legislation  would                                                               
establish standards  so that methamphetamine laboratories  can be                                                               
tracked and cleaned up.  This is a good first step, he said.                                                                    
Number 1990                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  referred to page  5, lines 8-10,  of HB
59, and  pointed out that  the language, "that have  the capacity                                                               
to  perform  the  testing  procedures  and"  wasn't  included  in                                                               
Version  D.    He  relayed his  understanding  that  because  the                                                               
requirement that  the department  determine whether  a laboratory                                                               
has the  capacity [to perform testing  procedures] would engender                                                               
a  fiscal   note,  the  department   wanted  to   eliminate  that                                                               
requirement.   He recommended that  in the  notification process,                                                               
laboratories should  not only state that  they want to be  on the                                                               
list but  also that they have  the capacity to perform  the test.                                                               
He characterized  the aforementioned as a  reasonable requirement                                                               
that doesn't  cost anything.   He asked  if there is  any problem                                                               
with adding  language such  that Version D,  page 5,  lines 8-10,                                                               
would  read as  follows:   "The  department  shall establish  and                                                               
maintain a list  of laboratories in the state  that have notified                                                               
the  department that  [they]  have the  capacity  to perform  the                                                               
testing  procedures  and  that  they  wish  to  be  on  the  list                                                               
maintained under this subsection".                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM responded  that he  didn't have  any problem                                                               
with  the  aforementioned.    However, he  said  that  he  didn't                                                               
believe a laboratory  would want to be on the  list unless it was                                                               
going  to provide  the  service and  thus  [capacity to  perform]                                                               
wouldn't need to be specified.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  he  could  foresee  laboratories                                                               
wanting  to  be on  the  list  without  having the  capacity  [to                                                               
perform the test].   If a laboratory is required  to specify that                                                               
it has  the capacity [to  perform the test],  then it will  be on                                                               
the record that they do have the capacity.                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM said  that  he didn't  have  a problem  with                                                               
[that language].                                                                                                                
Number 2123                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON, also, expressed  interest in knowing the                                                               
number of individuals that have  been harmed in these situations.                                                               
He said he views this legislation as preemptive in that respect.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM agreed that this legislation is preemptive.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he  likes the legislation, and noted                                                               
that he  generally supports  anything that  is related  to public                                                               
safety and  is prudent.   He informed the committee  that Senator                                                               
Gretchen Guess has [similar] legislation  [SB 9], although [there                                                               
are a  few differences].   One  of the  differences is  that [SB]                                                               
seeks the  name and mailing  address of any lienholder  of record                                                               
for the property  where the site is located.   Furthermore, under                                                               
the  standards  for  determining   fitness,  [SB  9]  lists  more                                                               
substances than does HB 59.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  said although he hadn't  really reviewed [SB
9], one of  the differences is related to the  need to maintain a                                                               
minimum  of bureaucracy.   Representative  Holm said,  "The other                                                               
portion of it  where it wasn't the  same has to do  with the fact                                                               
that we don't think it's  necessary ... because Section 46.03.530                                                               
... (b) is implied in the  bill."  He explained that the problem,                                                               
if one  requires a title search  to find the owner  of record, is                                                               
that it  adds a  burden to  the department;  he remarked  that he                                                               
didn't  believe this  was  necessary.   Therefore,  HB 59  merely                                                               
refers to certification of the owner.                                                                                           
Number 2258                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out  that although the legislature is                                                               
under pressure not  to increase the budget, HB  59 is accompanied                                                               
by a fiscal  note.  He expressed concern that  the funds going to                                                               
this  program will  have to  come from  some other  program.   He                                                               
opined that  the committee needs to  be able to assess  the risks                                                               
that   are   [supposedly]   being  avoided   by   adopting   this                                                               
legislation,  and  measure those  against  the  risks created  by                                                               
underfunding  another program.    He suggested  that  one way  to                                                               
obviate his  concern would be to  make HB 59 contingent  upon the                                                               
receipt  of adequate  legislative  funding.   Such a  contingency                                                               
would provide him  comfort that the protection afforded  by HB 59                                                               
is not coming at the expense  of another protection that might be                                                               
more important  to people.   Representative Gara  maintained that                                                               
he wanted  to know the real  risks with regard to  whether people                                                               
will  be harmed  without HB  59.   However, he  did note  that he                                                               
might be leaning in favor of the legislation.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  SAMUELS stated  his  belief  that the  individual                                                               
running the methamphetamine laboratory,  not the landlord, should                                                               
be responsible  for cleaning  the site and  paying for  the DEC's                                                               
[testing costs].                                                                                                                
Number 2371                                                                                                                     
MR. GOVAARS informed the committee  that he has spoken about that                                                               
issue  with  Legislative Legal  and  Research  Services, and  the                                                               
concern expressed is  that there is criminal and  civil law being                                                               
mingled.   However,  the  issue  is being  reviewed  in order  to                                                               
develop  a [mechanism]  for reimbursement.   Mr.  Govaars pointed                                                               
out that  the fiscal note in  members' packets is for  HB 59, not                                                               
[Version D].                                                                                                                    
TAPE 03-8, SIDE B                                                                                                             
MR.  GOVAARS  indicated that  the  fiscal  note for  [Version  D]                                                               
should be significantly less than for the original legislation.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM,  in   further  response  to  Representative                                                               
Samuels's comments,  mentioned that  [the issue  of who  pays for                                                               
the  cleanup and  testing] would  be a  civil matter  between the                                                               
[perpetrator] and the landlord.   He explained that he approached                                                               
this matter  as a state  function in which society  should demand                                                               
that it  is taken care  of prior  to the time  unknowing citizens                                                               
are subjected [to the hazards of methamphetamine laboratories].                                                                 
Number 2334                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   relayed  his  belief  that   this  is                                                               
definitely an area in which  the perpetrator should be ordered to                                                               
make  restitution.   However, half  of the  time the  perpetrator                                                               
will  have absconded,  have  hidden his/her  assets,  or have  no                                                               
money.   Still, he  said that  he understood  that Representative                                                               
Holm's desire is to cleanup these sites fast.                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM  agreed  and   clarified  that  he  is  more                                                               
concerned  about protecting  [society] rather  than who  pays the                                                               
bill.  If  one chooses to rent property, the  landlord is subject                                                               
to those  leasing and  renting the property.   However,  he noted                                                               
that  if someone  breaks  into property,  then  it's a  different                                                               
CHAIR McGUIRE relayed her sense  that this is veering dangerously                                                               
close to the collateral source rule.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  that   he  didn't  know  whether                                                               
insurance generally  covers this  sort of  act by  a tenant.   He                                                               
suggested that  someone may want  to review this matter  and make                                                               
sure that insurance covers this when possible.                                                                                  
Number 2220                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  informed the committee that  there were                                                               
some amendments made to [SB 9]  that this committee might want to                                                               
review.   On  page 3,  lines  9-10, the  following paragraph  was                                                               
added:   "(4) the name and  mailing address of any  lienholder of                                                               
record for the  property where the site is located".   On page 5,                                                               
lines 22-24,  the following  items were  added:   "iodine, sodium                                                               
hydroxide,  red  phosphorus,  lithium  metal,  sodium  metal,  or                                                               
another substance for which the  department has set a limit under                                                               
(b)  of this  section".   And  the following  text  was added  to                                                               
proposed Sec. 46.03.530(b), beginning on page 5, line 27:                                                                       
     The department  shall also determine whether  there are                                                                    
     other   substances   associated   with   illegal   drug                                                                    
     manufacturing sites  that may  pose a  substantial risk                                                                    
     of physical  harm to persons  or animals that  enter or                                                                    
     occupy the  site and shall  adopt regulations  that set                                                                    
     limits   for   those   substances   for   purposes   of                                                                    
     determining whether  the property for which  notice was                                                                    
     received under AS 46.03.500 is fit for use.                                                                                
MR. GOVAARS  pointed out  that a  difference between  CSSB 9(STA)                                                               
and HB 59 is  related to the fitness for use,  which can be found                                                               
on page  6, line  10 [of  CSSB 9(STA)].   Basically,  [under CSSB
9(STA)],  the   owner  submits   satisfactory  evidence   to  the                                                               
department that  the site is  clean.  However, there  was concern                                                               
that if  the lienholder  was included  there would  have to  be a                                                               
title search.                                                                                                                   
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked  that the fiscal note  in members' packets                                                               
from the  Division of Spill Prevention  & Response is for  HB 59,                                                               
not Version  D.   She requested  testimony regarding  whether the                                                               
changes  [incorporated  in  Version  D]  would  have  any  fiscal                                                               
Number 2101                                                                                                                     
LARRY DIETRICK,  Acting Director, Division of  Spill Prevention &                                                               
Response,  Department of  Environmental Conservation,  noted that                                                               
[the  division]  has  worked  with the  sponsor  on  the  changes                                                               
incorporated in  Version D.  The  changes on page 5,  line 9, and                                                               
page  6, line  1,  were  both changes  [the  division] felt  were                                                               
necessary  for the  department to  be able  to reduce  the fiscal                                                               
note and [the division's] role.   The intent was to make the bill                                                               
self-implementing  in  order  to protect  public  health  without                                                               
developing  a  new government  service  that  would add  a  large                                                               
fiscal  note.    Upon  preliminary   review,  he  said  that  the                                                               
aforementioned changes  encompassed in  Version D  are acceptable                                                               
to the department.  With  regard to laboratory certification, Mr.                                                               
Dietrick said that laboratory certification  is quite costly.  He                                                               
said that  according to  his interpretation  of [Version  D], the                                                               
laboratories  with  the  analytical  capability  to  provide  the                                                               
services  specified in  the legislation  would simply  notify the                                                               
division and the laboratory would then be placed on the list.                                                                   
MR. DIETRICK  turned to the  deletion of the language  "the owner                                                               
submits satisfactory  evidence to the department".   The deletion                                                               
of that language  clarifies that the department  won't review the                                                               
work and the cleanup,  but rather the owner will do  so.  Both of                                                               
the  changes incorporated  in Version  D  ratchet the  division's                                                               
role  down to  what the  division believes  to be  an appropriate                                                               
role  from   a  fiscal  standpoint  while   still  achieving  the                                                               
sponsor's  goal  of  protecting   public  health  by  having  the                                                               
division establish  the standards.   The standards  would include                                                               
the appropriate  cleanup standard  for each  parameter identified                                                               
in the legislation.  Furthermore,  the division would develop the                                                               
guidelines for  sampling the property and  the analytical methods                                                               
that  the laboratory  would use  to perform  the analysis  of the                                                               
samples.  The division would  also develop guidelines for cleanup                                                               
based  on  a variety  of  laboratory  situations, from  a  simple                                                               
suitcase-type  laboratory, to  a large,  complex laboratory  with                                                               
ventilation systems.                                                                                                            
MR.  DIETRICK said  that by  providing  a set  of guidelines  and                                                               
standards for a  range of conditions, the hope would  be that the                                                               
property owner  could use the  standards to determine what  to do                                                               
and whether  help is  necessary and who  is available  to conduct                                                               
the  analytical  work.   The  aforementioned  measures leave  the                                                               
division out of  an oversight role and  the unsworn falsification                                                               
is  an additional  incentive for  the property  owner to  perform                                                               
cleanup correctly.  Therefore, the  division's role is to set the                                                               
standards, maintain the laboratory  list, de-list properties that                                                               
have  cleaned  up, and  adopt  the  guidelines [via  regulation].                                                               
[Version D]  substantially shrinks  the division's role  in terms                                                               
of  review  and approval  and,  thus,  the  fiscal note  will  be                                                               
changed accordingly.   He  estimated that  the fiscal  note would                                                               
probably be cut in half, adding  that the initial cost of setting                                                               
the standards  will make the  initial costs higher, and  that the                                                               
out-year costs will depend upon  the number of new chemicals that                                                               
are discovered in the future.                                                                                                   
Number 1831                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA relayed  his understanding  that [a  version                                                               
of] SB  9, the companion  to HB 59,  passed the House  last year.                                                               
He asked  Mr. Dietrick if  he would know the  differences between                                                               
the two bills.                                                                                                                  
MR. DIETRICK answered  that [the department] has  worked with the                                                               
sponsor of  SB 9 this  year.  The two  areas of concern  [for the                                                               
division] are the same areas that were addressed by the sponsor.                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  turned to  the scaled-back  role of  the DEC                                                               
and inquired  as to what  mandates enforcement  of this so  as to                                                               
ensure cleanup is done by the guidelines.                                                                                       
MR. DIETRICK  answered that [HB  59] makes  it very clear  who is                                                               
responsible -  the property owner.   With  the self-certification                                                               
method  being subject  to a  penalty, Mr.  Dietrick said  he felt                                                               
that there is  a fairly decent incentive for a  property owner to                                                               
do the correct  thing.  He noted that the  capacity in this state                                                               
to  perform this  kind of  cleanup is  available.   With all  the                                                               
aforementioned and  a good set  of standards and  guidelines, Mr.                                                               
Dietrick said he believes this goes  a long way to accomplish the                                                               
goal.   However,  he did  acknowledge that  there may  a need  to                                                               
revisit this  and create a  more sophisticated  cleanup procedure                                                               
and  tighter controls  to increase  confidence  [that cleanup  is                                                               
achieved].  He characterized [Version D] as a good start.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG noted  that he  was the  author of  the                                                               
asbestos legislation.  He asked  if there would be similar health                                                               
risks  to  the  people  involved in  cleanup  of  methamphetamine                                                               
MR.  DIETRICK said  that he  wasn't sure  he would  qualify as  a                                                               
health expert on the effects.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  expressed  the   need  to  review  the                                                               
MR.  DIETRICK pointed  out that  the  knowledge of  the types  of                                                               
chemicals  and  levels  of concentrations  and  their  impact  on                                                               
health are just coming to light.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG informed  the  committee that  [health]                                                               
problems  [related to  asbestos] occurred  for years  and led  to                                                               
tremendous  tort exposure.   He  asked if  [this legislation]  is                                                               
going to expose  a group of laboratory technicians  or workers to                                                               
some significant health risks.                                                                                                  
MR. DIETRICK  highlighted that  one of the  items for  which [the                                                               
department] will  set standards  will be for  the decontamination                                                               
guidelines,  including  the   personal  protection  requirements.                                                               
Within those [personal protection  requirements], what one has to                                                               
do for  protection of the  cleanup crew  should be included.   In                                                               
further response  to Representative Gruenberg, Mr.  Dietrick said                                                               
he  envisions that  the decontamination  guidelines and  training                                                               
would go hand in hand.                                                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that  on page 5, line 21, of                                                               
[CSSB 9(STA)],  the contaminant  mercury is  listed.   Mercury is                                                               
terrifically  contaminating, he  remarked, and  thus is  of great                                                               
Number 1460                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  explained that  he introduced HB  59 because                                                               
of the children who could possibly be exposed to these toxins.                                                                  
MR. DIETRICK reiterated that he  isn't a health expert.  However,                                                               
he  explained   that  normally,  numerical  standards   could  be                                                               
established such  that certain  situations would  be covered.   A                                                               
risk-based approach could also be  used.  The risk-based approach                                                               
takes into consideration the nature  of the operation, the levels                                                               
of  concentrations, and  the types  of individuals  who would  be                                                               
exposed.  The aforementioned is done  on an individual basis.  He                                                               
noted  that generally,  healthy  male adults  can sustain  higher                                                               
dosages of contaminants than can  more sensitive populations such                                                               
as infants.  Since one number  wouldn't suffice in all cases, the                                                               
numerical  standard would  be more  conservative.   Mr.  Dietrick                                                               
said that the standards established  would probably be based on a                                                               
child's  dosage.   Mr.  Dietrick explained  that  [the DEC]  will                                                               
write  a  request  for  proposals (RFP)  to  have  the  standards                                                               
created  [by] one  of Alaska's  consultants who  will review  the                                                               
literature and the standards of  other states.  He mentioned that                                                               
Washington, Oregon, and Missouri  have established some standards                                                               
and numbers.                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  directed attention to page  5, line 26,                                                               
of  [Version D],  which in  part  reads:   "The department  shall                                                               
establish  guidelines   for  decontamination   of  sites".     He                                                               
expressed  the  need  to  be  sure  that  the  language  includes                                                               
training and protection of the workers.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  remarked that  he believes  [the discussion]                                                               
to be moving a bit away from  the thrust of the legislation.  The                                                               
thrust of  HB 59  is to  protect young  people.   He acknowledged                                                               
that  protections  for  workers  and others  could  be  included,                                                               
although he characterized that as  muddying the bill.  He related                                                               
his desire to move HB 59 along.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said  that he would be  offering an amendment                                                               
to address the concerns of  Representative Gruenberg.  He offered                                                               
his belief  that if  the aim  of this  legislation is  to protect                                                               
people rather  than harm them,  people could be placed  in harm's                                                               
way  by telling  these individuals  what to  remove without  also                                                               
specifying how they should protect themselves.                                                                                  
Number 1131                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG made  a  motion to  adopt Amendment  1,                                                               
which read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                     
     Page 5, line 9:                                                                                                            
          Between "that" and "they"                                                                                             
          Insert "they have the capacity to perform the                                                                         
          testing requirement and that"                                                                                         
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON  asked if the sponsor  viewed Amendment 1                                                               
as a friendly amendment.                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  noted  that  there is  a  misprint  in                                                               
Amendment 1; instead, it should read:                                                                                           
     Page 5, line 9:                                                                                                            
          Between "that" and "they"                                                                                             
          Insert "they have the capacity to perform the                                                                         
          testing procedure and that"                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM asked  whether  the  changes encompassed  in                                                               
Amendment 1  [as amended]  would have  any ramifications  for the                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that  Amendment 1 [as amended]                                                               
says that  the proposed laboratory  must state in its  notice [to                                                               
the DEC]  that they  want to  perform the  testing and  also that                                                               
they have  the capacity to  do so.  He  said he didn't  intend to                                                               
add any expense to [the department].                                                                                            
MR. DIETRICK  said that [the  department] agrees with  the intent                                                               
of having the laboratories  "self-represent" their capability [to                                                               
perform testing].  Mr. Dietrick  noted that the Department of Law                                                               
reviewed this.  He said:                                                                                                        
     It  would appear  that  if they  have  the capacity  to                                                                    
     perform the testing procedures,  if that is preceded by                                                                    
     the  list  of laboratories  in  the  state [that]  have                                                                    
     notified  the department  they  have  the capacity,  if                                                                    
     this meets  that self-certifying intent, then  we agree                                                                    
     conceptually with that.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that he no objection to Amendment 1.                                                                   
CHAIR McGUIRE removed  her objection.  Noting that  there were no                                                               
further objections, Amendment 1 [as amended] was adopted.                                                                       
Number 0926                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  made a motion  to adopt Amendment  2, which,                                                               
on  page 5,  line 26,  after "guidelines",  would add  "including                                                               
guidelines to  protect the  health and  safety of  those removing                                                               
the controlled substances,".                                                                                                    
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
The committee took an at-ease from 2:30 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA  explained  that  the DEC  has  relayed  its                                                               
intent to include  guidelines related to health  and safety; thus                                                               
his understanding is that Amendment  2 wouldn't add to the fiscal                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he had no problem with Amendment 2.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he  would like to be known as                                                               
a co-sponsor of Amendment 2.                                                                                                    
CHAIR McGUIRE removed  her objection.  Noting that  there were no                                                               
further objections, she announced that Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                 
Number 0752                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention  to page 5, lines 22-                                                               
24, of  [CSSB 9(STA)] and  requested that the  following language                                                               
be  added:   "iodine, sodium  hydroxide, red  phosphorus, lithium                                                               
metal,  sodium   metal,  or  another  substance   for  which  the                                                               
department has set a limit under  (b) of this section".  He asked                                                               
[Mr. Dietrick] to comment.                                                                                                      
MR.  DIETRICK  said  that  he  hasn't  had  any  discussion  with                                                               
[Senator   Guess],  although   he   understood   that  there   is                                                               
potentially  a  wide  range  of  chemicals  associated  with  the                                                               
[methamphetamine]  laboratories.     He  pointed  out   that  the                                                               
legislation  includes   a  provision  allowing   those  chemicals                                                               
discovered at a later time to be added.                                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  highlighted  that the  most  important                                                               
language is "another  substance for which the  department has set                                                               
a limit under (b) of  this section."  The aforementioned language                                                               
is  not  currently  included  in  [Version  D].    Representative                                                               
Gruenberg said  that this  seems to be  important language  as it                                                               
provides the department with an important authority.                                                                            
MR. DIETRICK  relayed his belief that  the department's authority                                                               
to add other  substances already exists, since the  DEC could add                                                               
another substance via regulation.                                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM indicated  that the  aforementioned language                                                               
appears to be unnecessary.                                                                                                      
Number 0509                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG informed  the committee  that Title  17                                                               
includes  a list  of controlled  substances -  narcotics.   Every                                                               
time someone  wants to  add another  controlled substance  to the                                                               
list  of  illegal   drugs,  an  amendment  is   required  by  the                                                               
legislature.  However, this legislation  allows the department to                                                               
add another  compound via regulation  and, thus,  avoid returning                                                               
to the legislature each time.                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM pointed  out  that  on page  5,  line 6,  of                                                               
[Version D],  the language specifies that,  "The department shall                                                               
establish procedures for  testing property that may  have been an                                                               
illegal  drug  manufacturing  site".   He  highlighted  that  the                                                               
language  doesn't refer  to a  specific illegal  drug, it  merely                                                               
says,  "illegal drug".   Therefore,  he  surmised, if  a drug  is                                                               
later  determined  to  be  illegal,   it  would  fall  under  the                                                               
aforementioned language.                                                                                                        
CHAIR  McGUIRE  relayed  her  belief that  it  wouldn't  hurt  to                                                               
provide a broad grant of  authority via language specifying such.                                                               
The debate, she remarked, is in  regard to how many substances to                                                               
list at the moment.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM  inquired as  to the  language that  would be                                                               
used.  He said  that he wasn't opposed to a  laundry list, as was                                                               
suggested, although  it isn't inclusive  and doesn't  have future                                                               
inclusiveness.  Therefore,  he indicated that it may  be best not                                                               
to mention any specific drugs, chemicals, or volatiles.                                                                         
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  pointed out that the  language to which                                                               
Representative  Holm  referred earlier  on  page  5, line  6,  of                                                               
[Version  D], refers  to procedures  for testing.   However,  the                                                               
section [to  which he  is referring]  addresses property  not fit                                                               
for  use.   Representative Gruenberg  offered that  the following                                                               
language could be used, "if  sampling and testing of the property                                                               
under 46.03.520 shows the presence  of a substance that for which                                                               
the department  has set a limit  under (b) of this  section", and                                                               
then not put anything [under standards for fitness] section.                                                                    
MR.  DIETRICK clarified  that currently,  [Version D]  identifies                                                               
four compounds for  which the property is unfit  if the standards                                                               
are exceeded.   He  directed attention to  page 6;  proposed Sec.                                                               
46.03.570(b)  of  [Version D]  is  the  mechanism for  adding  or                                                               
subtracting from the current list  of four compounds.  Therefore,                                                               
he surmised  that the question  is whether the  four contaminants                                                               
listed   are  the   correct  core   group  to   characterize  the                                                               
contamination  resulting  from  the  type  of  drug  laboratories                                                               
encountered in  Alaska.  Mr.  Dietrick said he couldn't  speak to                                                               
the aforementioned because of the lack of data.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected, stating  his belief that at                                                               
the very least,  the phrase, "or another substance  for which the                                                               
department has set a limit under  (b) of this section", should be                                                               
added.   He clarified  that this language  should be  added under                                                               
proposed   Sec.  46.03.530(a),   on  page   5  of   [Version  D].                                                               
Representative   Gruenberg  acknowledged   Representative  Holm's                                                               
earlier statement  that if  the broad  authority is  being given,                                                               
then  additional   language  isn't  necessary.     To  that  end,                                                               
Representative Gruenberg  said that  all the  language [referring                                                               
to specific contaminants]  could be eliminated and  then the bill                                                               
would simply refer  to "a substance for which  the department has                                                               
set a  limit under (b)  of this  section".  However,  he surmised                                                               
from Mr.  Dietrick's comments  that it would  be helpful  [to the                                                               
department] to  have those four substances  included.  Therefore,                                                               
he inquired as to whether Mr.  Dietrick wanted there to be a list                                                               
of substances and if so, how many would he recommend.                                                                           
Number 0056                                                                                                                     
CHAIR McGUIRE  stated that she  understood not wanting  a laundry                                                               
list [of substances],  but what she liked was the  latter part of                                                               
Representative Gruenberg's amendment:   "or another substance for                                                               
which the department has set a  limit under (b) of this section".                                                               
Chair McGuire said  she didn't know that she  would eliminate the                                                               
list  of four  substances, since  those have  been identified  as                                                               
core elements present [in a methamphetamine laboratory].                                                                        
TAPE 03-9, SIDE A                                                                                                             
Number 0008                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  McGUIRE suggested  the following  language:   "or  another                                                               
substance for which  the department has set a limit  under (b) of                                                               
this section".                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  withdrew his  suggestion, which  he, at                                                               
that point,  called Amendment  3, and,  after discussion,  made a                                                               
motion to adopt the following as new Amendment 3:                                                                               
     Page 5, line 17:                                                                                                           
     Delete "and"                                                                                                               
     Page 5, line 18, after "compounds":                                                                                        
     Delete "."                                                                                                                 
     Insert "and another substance  for which the department                                                                    
     has set a limit under (b) of this section."                                                                                
CHAIR  McGUIRE  noted  that  there  were  no  objections  to  new                                                               
Amendment 3.  Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted.                                                                               
Number 0282                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to  [CSSB 9(STA)], page 5, line                                                               
27, through page 6, line 1, which read:                                                                                         
     The department  shall also determine whether  there are                                                                    
     other   substances   associated   with   illegal   drug                                                                    
     manufacturing sites  that may  pose a  substantial risk                                                                    
     of physical  harm to persons  or animals that  enter or                                                                    
     occupy the  site and shall  adopt regulations  that set                                                                    
     limits   for   those   substances   for   purposes   of                                                                    
     determining whether  the property for which  notice was                                                                    
     received under AS 46.03.500 is fit for use.                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG asked  if  the aforementioned  language                                                               
would  be  a helpful  addition  to  [Version D  of  HB  59].   He                                                               
stressed  that he  didn't want  to add  any money  to the  fiscal                                                               
MR. DIETRICK  specified that  what would  impact the  fiscal note                                                               
would  be  when  a  new   contaminant  arrives  and  necessitates                                                               
establishing  new  standards,   cleaning  guidelines,  analytical                                                               
methods,  and  sampling  protocols.    The  current  language  of                                                               
[Version D]  would necessitate  preparation of  initial standards                                                               
for  the compounds  listed, he  remarked, noting  that additional                                                               
contaminants would be added if and  when they are identified as a                                                               
chemical of concern associated with a drug laboratory.                                                                          
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised,  then, that the aforementioned                                                               
language from CSSB  9(STA) wouldn't add a fiscal  note because it                                                               
isn't  contaminant specific.   Therefore,  he again  asked if  it                                                               
would be helpful to have that language in Version D.                                                                            
MR. DIETRICK remarked that although  the language itself wouldn't                                                               
trigger a fiscal note, the addition of a new contaminant would.                                                                 
The committee took an at-ease from 2:55 p.m. to 2:58 p.m.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he would offer  the aforementioned                                                               
language [from CSSB 9(STA)] as an  amendment to Version D if [the                                                               
sponsor] would like to add it.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  HOLM said  that adding  that language  would take                                                               
the  legislation on  a different  path, which  he didn't  want to                                                               
Number 0495                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON  moved to  report the  proposed committee                                                               
substitute  (CS)  for  HB 59,  Version  23-LS0341\D,  Lauterbach,                                                               
2/18/03,   as  amended,   out   of   committee  with   individual                                                               
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  asked whether  the committee  wanted to                                                               
wait for a new fiscal note for the new CS.                                                                                      
Number 0535                                                                                                                     
CHAIR McGUIRE,  after stating that  the new fiscal note  from the                                                               
DEC  would  be forthcoming,  and  hearing  no objections  to  the                                                               
motion, announced that  CSHB 59(JUD) was reported  from the House                                                               
Judiciary Standing Committee.                                                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects