« Courts - "In Britain, Web Leaves Courts Playing Catch-Up " | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 2 NFP) »

Monday, March 30, 2009

Ind. Law - "Meth lab cleanup a hassle for landlords"

On August 6, 2006, the ILB posted this entry, headed: "Who should pay price for meth messes?" Here is what I wrote at the conclusion of the entry:

Here is the proposed rule, #06-125, published in one of the final issues of the Indiana Register. A public hearing was held on 6/27/06. All that remains now is for the IDEM Commissioner, after reviewing the public comments, to finalize the rule.

What does the proposed rule require? Think of a person with a rental property, or a farmer with an outbuilding, that had been turned into a meth lab without the knowledge of the property owner. The duties of the property owner are described starting on p. 6 of the document. The owner of the contaminated property shall clean up the property as required under the new rule before further use of the property or transfer of any interest in the property. (318 IAC 1-3-2) The property must be decontaminated under the supervision of a qualified inspector. (318 IAC 1-3-5)

How much is this going to cost the property owner? Nowhere in the information in pages 1 and 2 of the proposed rule does anyone venture a quess. But the cleanup contractors will make money. See this statement on p. 2:

[T]he economic impact of this rulemaking cannot be meaningfully quantified at this time. Compliance with this rule will be a significant cost to property owners affected by this rule. At the same time, compliance with this rule would allow remediation contractors, wrecking contractors, and other contractors to receive payment for services performed under this rule. The Department expects the costs to property owners to roughly balance the benefits to contractors who clean up these properties.
Well yes.

So does this proposed rule go beyond the directive set in the authorizing statute? Or is it the statute that places these responsibilities on the property owner? In either case, if not the property owner, then who should be responsible for the cost of the cleanup?

The "authorizing statute" is IC 13-14-1-15, found at SECTION 6 of SEA 444-2005 (at p. 4 of the PDF).

Here are background ILB entries from 12/27/04, 1/1/06, 8/6/06, and 3/23/07.

Today Virginia Ransbottom has this lengthy report in the South Bend Tribune. Some quotes:

PLYMOUTH — Growing along with the number of illegal methamphetamine labs are landlords left with contaminated housing to clean up.

"It's up to the property owner to get a certificate of decontamination," said Wes Burden, Marshall County Health Department administrator.

After the meth suppression unit removes the bulk of a meth lab's contents, it's Burden's job to condemn the property and inform owners they need proof of cleanup from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. * * *

"It costs at least $1,500 to get tested and prove a meth lab site is clean," Burden said. "And if it's not, it could cost tens of thousands of dollars stripping off walls and floors."

According to Indiana's drug lab cleanup rule that protects future occupants from exposure to chemicals, property owners must hire an inspector qualified by IDEM.

"But there aren't any in the area, and the closest one in Fort Wayne wants over $2,000 just to inspect the place," said Rex Crump, a property manager for more than 240 apartments in the area.

"That doesn't include if the walls need to be torn out, and the only company qualified to do that is the same company that does the testing," Crump said. * * *

Crump's now hoping a local business will earn IDEM certification to become an inspector that doesn't charge as much for testing. Crump's other option is to leave the dwelling uninhabited.

Although Crump conducts credit, criminal and background checks on tenants, looking to the future, he's started a zero-tolerance drug policy, asking tenants and staff to report any suspicious behavior and immediate eviction for violators.

He's also joined Plymouth Mayor Mark Senter's anti-meth commission.

"It's another era of the rental business," he said. "We don't know if it can be covered by a special insurance rider, but it should be a higher felony count if it endangers other people."

The health administrator said the penalty for noncompliance with IDEM's decontamination rules falls under a code violation and is a class B misdemeanor.

"We check them during the day to make sure no one has crossed the tape line," Burden said. "But eventually the (abandoned dwellings) will slip through the cracks."

Here is IDEM's website on cleanup of illegal drug labs.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 30, 2009 11:35 AM
Posted to Environment | Indiana Law