U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

RESEARCH IN BRIEF

NOVEMBER 1993

PREVENTING ILLEGAL DIVERSION OF CHEMICALS:

A MODEL STATUTE

BY SHERRY GREEN

Letter from Michael J. Russell, Acting Director, National Institute of

Justice:

Chemicals diverted from legitimate commerce are used in the production of

illicit drugs such as cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, PCP, and LSD.

Controlling illegal diversion and use of such chemicals is essential to

limiting illicit drug production. Recent efforts to address this problem are

based on the belief that illicit drug production can be traced from the

records of chemical manufacturers and dealers of raw materials in the same

way that laundered money can be traced through financial records.

The principal U.S. statute to control chemical diversion is the Chemical

Diversion and Trafficking Act of 1988, which established record keeping

requirements and enforcement activities, initially for 20 chemicals.

The Act has already proven effective in limiting the international illicit

diversion of the identified chemicals and controlling some domestic

manufacturing. However, illicit drug production in the United States has been

rising at an alarming rate, with illegal domestic laboratories now capable of

producing enough stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, and narcotics to

satisfy demand for these substances.

Adequate record-keeping ensures that there are paper trails on chemicals sent

to illegal laboratories that make drugs. Thirty-two States, however, do not

require record-keeping of transactions involving chemicals identified as

necessary for producing illegal drugs. Criminals camouflage diversion of

chemicals by moving shipments through States without record-keeping

requirements.

To focus attention on the need for all State law enforcement agencies to

supplement Federal controls over chemical traffic and its diversion into

illicit drug manufacturing, the National Institute of Justice sponsored a

project to create a Model State Chemical Control Act. The Model Act seeks to

balance and accommodate the interests of law enforcement and legitimate

commerce. This Research in Brief explains how the Model Act can be used to

help halt the growth of illegal domestic drug manufacturing by stopping the

diversion of chemicals from legitimate to illegitimate purposes.

[End letter]

Law enforcement agencies around the world are using a variety of methods to

attack the illegal and deadly "industry" of illicit drugs. Enforcement

officials seize contraband substances, break up distribution networks,

disrupt money-laundering operations, and destroy crops. A critical part of

this multifaceted attack on drug trafficking is the control of specific

chemicals that are necessary to produce illegal drugs.

The United States is one of the world's leading producers and distributors of

the chemicals that are used to make controlled substances. Each year our

Nation exports more than 50,000 metric tons of chemicals to Latin America,

many of which find their way into the clandestine laboratories of cocaine-

and heroin-producing countries. In fact, seizures of illegal labs in Colombia

and other Latin American countries often uncover chemical containers with US.

company logos. Until 1989 much of the cocaine entering our country was

produced using chemicals originating in the United States.

Although there has been a decline in the export of chemicals for

manufacturing illegal drugs, there has been an increase in the chemicals'

distribution at home. Illegal domestic laboratories are now capable of

producing enough illicit drugs to satisfy U.S. consumers' demand.

In 1991 the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) supported a project to help

the States develop a legislative response to the problem of distribution of

chemicals and their manufacture into illegal drugs. To prepare the Model

State Chemical Control Act of 1992 (the Model), the American Prosecutors

Research Institute (APRI), the research arm of the National District

Attorneys Association, brought together investigators and prosecutors from

Arizona, California, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington State. In addition, APRI

solicited comments from the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) on the lessons they had learned at the Federal level and

sought to understand the concerns of the chemical and pharmaceutical

industries.

This Research in Brief describes how chemicals are used to make illicit

drugs, discusses existing Federal and State legislation to curtail the

diversion of chemicals for illicit drug production, and reviews the Model

statute.

DOMESTIC ILLICIT DRUG PRODUCTION

--Essential and precursor chemicals: All major illicit drugs except marijuana

are either extracted or synthesized in a process requiring chemicals that are

categorized as either "essential" or "precursor." Essential chemicals are

used to extract drugs, such as cocaine, from plants. Although these chemicals

do not become part of the drug's molecular structure, they are crucial to the

manufacturing process. Precursor chemicals are used to synthesize drugs (such

as PCP), which are not naturally derived. These chemicals do become part of

the drug's molecular structure.

--Clandestine Labs: Highly sophisticated laboratory operations are sometimes

necessary to manufacture drugs. For example, producing marketable quantities

of cocaine requires large-scale operations to handle the enormous amounts of

coca leaves and solvents required. On the other hand, illegal drug production

is often a simple process, without need of complex technology, sophisticated

education, or training. Many synthetic drugs such as methamphetamine and PCP

can be produced in someone's home with readily available laboratory

equipment. In fact, with equipment and precursor chemicals worth $200, a

criminal can in 18 hours produce a batch of methamphetamine with a street

value of $98,000.(ref. 1)

In the 1980's States faced an outbreak of clandestine laboratories because

chemicals were readily available on the open market or were easily diverted

from legitimate commerce. In 1986 the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics (OBN)

seized 28 labs, an almost 100 percent increase over the 16 labs seized in

1985. Another 100 percent increase in seizures occurred in 1988 when OBN

seized 62 laboratories, compared to the 30 labs seized the previous year.

From 1985 to 1987, Texas narcotics officers seized more than twice the number

of labs as OBN.

Clandestine laboratories range from small crude operations in sheds,

bathtubs, mobile homes, boats, and motel rooms to highly sophisticated

operations with professional quality laboratory glassware and equipment.

More than 80 percent of the clandestine labs in the United States produce

methamphetamines.(ref. 2) With a knowledge of chemistry equivalent to that

learned in high school, illicit lab operators are believed to produce 25 tons

of methamphetamines annually with a street value of $3 billion. Less than 1

percent of that amount is spent on the chemicals needed for production.(ref.

3)

CHEMICAL DIVERSION AND TRAFFICKING ACT

In 1988 Congress enacted the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act (CDTA),

Subtitle A of the Anti-Drug Abuse Amendments of 1988 (codified as amendments

to the Federal Controlled Substances Act). CDTA established record-keeping

and reporting requirements and authorized enforcement activities for domestic

and international transactions in designated precursor and essential

chemicals. Originally CDTA regulated machines for making the drugs into

tablets or capsules, 12 precursor chemicals, and 8 essential chemicals. Now,

27 precursor and 7 essential chemicals are on the CDTA list. Chemicals may be

added or deleted under standard Federal rule making procedures.

CDTA applies to any individual or legal entity that manufactures, distributes

domestically, imports, or exports any of the listed chemicals. The Act makes

the unauthorized trade in these listed chemicals equivalent to trafficking in

illegal drugs.

Each chemical has been assigned a threshold amount, by volume or weight, or a

threshold number of monthly transactions. Once the threshold has been reached

or exceeded, regulated individuals and entities must comply with Federal

record-keeping, reporting, and identification requirements. However,

threshold quantities do not apply to machinery; distribution of a single

tableting or encapsulating machine triggers CDTA provisions.

Among the provisions are requirements that purchasers supply proof of

identity in all regulated transactions. The type of identification required

depends on whether the customer is new, is an individual or established

business, is paying in cash, or is exporting the chemical to another country.

Records of regulated domestic transactions involving a precursor chemical or

a tableting or encapsulating machine must be kept for 4 years. For an

essential chemical, the record must be kept 2 years. Records must be readily

retrievable either at the business where the transaction occurred or some

other central location. Each record must contain specific information about

the transaction and is subject to inspection and photocopying by the Drug

Enforcement Administration.

CDTA requires that regulated individuals and entities report some

circumstances both orally and in writing to DEA. These include uncommon

methods of payment, loss or disappearance of a chemical, and suspicion that a

chemical has been diverted for illegal purposes. As with records, reports

must contain the date of the transaction, quantity of the chemical purchased,

name and address of each party, method of transfer, and other descriptive

details. On the basis of the reports or a lapse in record-keeping, DEA has

the authority to stop chemical shipments. Receipt of the required advance

notice of shipments can trigger DEA suspension when an illicit transfer is

suspected.

--The effect of Federal control: Shortly after implementation of CDTA, DEA

noted a downward trend in domestic illegal lab activity as measured by the

number of lab seizures. Of the 1,000 projected DEA lab seizures for 1989, 807

materialized. A sharper decline occurred the following year when DEA seized

521 laboratories. This decline was the first time seizures had dropped

significantly since 1981.

CDTA has also been successful in controlling exports of essential chemicals

to Latin America. But as the pathways to foreign buyers have narrowed, some

U.S. exporters have turned their attention to the domestic market.

Opportunities for diversion exist all along the domestic commercial chain.

Although CDTA's strict requirements help safeguard the legal transfer of

chemicals above the threshold levels, illicit operators are restructuring

their businesses to avoid Federal regulations. They are focusing their

efforts on States that do not have effective mechanisms for controlling

chemicals.

--Closing the door: The Office of National Drug Control Policy has estimated

that the world supply of cocaine in 1990 was 1,000 metric tons, or about 2.2

million pounds. To produce this amount of cocaine, millions of pounds of

essential chemicals were required for processing. But many of these chemicals

such as hydrochloric acid also have hundreds of legitimate uses, and for this

reason, they are common substances in international trade.

Criminals obtain these substances from manufacturers through theft, bribery

of employees, or even legal purchase, especially in areas that lack chemical

control laws or do not enforce them. Poor plant security can increase theft,

and some retail purchasers are actually "front companies" set up by producers

to disguise the illicit drug trade.

In addition, the vast international network of freight forwarders, brokers,

and agents provides access to chemicals through multiple sales transactions,

similar to money-laundering operations. In ports and free trade zones,

criminals can obtain the desired chemicals by repacking or re-labeling

materials.

CDTA has greatly decreased U.S. exports of essential chemicals to Latin

America. This Federal statute has added to costs borne by criminals, and the

new regulation and record-keeping requirements of the Act make it

increasingly likely that illicit operators are restructuring their businesses

to avoid Federal regulations. They are focusing their efforts on States that

do not have effective mechanisms for controlling chemicals.

THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE STATE CONTROLS

State regulatory and enforcement efforts are needed to supplement Federal

controls over the movement of chemicals into illegal channels. If State

officials can follow the trail of precursor and essential chemicals from the

chemical manufacturer to the illicit drug producer, then producers can be

identified and apprehended before they manufacture illegal drugs. Controlling

these chemicals, therefore, is a potent strategy that can help identify drug

criminals and interfere with their operations.

Effective regulation of chemical transactions could dry up the sources that

supply illegal labs. However, clandestine drug production is a nomadic

business. When chemicals become difficult to obtain in one locale, illegal

lab operators simply move their operations to a location where acquisition of

chemicals is less complicated. Differences in the extent of control exercised

by the States currently make that a fairly easy process. More consistent

State laws could curtail movement of illegal labs from State to State.

EXISTING VARIATIONS IN STATE CONTROLS

To date 18 States have sought to control the existence of clandestine labs by

enacting their own detailed chemical tracking requirements. Some

jurisdictions have incorporated these requirements into their controlled

substances acts already on the books, while others have adopted new, distinct

statutes.

--Number of chemicals: Colorado controls the largest number of chemicals (35)

while Montana regulates 9. The differences reflect each State's experience or

policy regarding diversion, abuse, and the potential illicit use of a

chemical. Nearly all of the States that have controls exclude prescription or

over-the-counter drugs, or both, from chemical requirements, with special

exemptions for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, norpseudoephedrine, and

phenylpropanolamine.

--Registration: All 18 States require a license or permit to lawfully

manufacture or transfer a regulated chemical. Only a few regulate the

purchase or possession of chemicals. Registration renewal generally happens

annually and involves a reasonable fee; the definition of reasonable varies

from a maximum of $25 in Arkansas to a minimum of $250 in New Mexico. Grounds

for denial, suspension, or revocation include fraud; drug law violations and

convictions; and denial, suspension, or revocation of Federal registrations.

--Record-keeping: Differences also occur in the requirements for

record-keeping. For example, several jurisdictions mandate that chemical

transfer records be kept for 2 years after the transaction date, but

Minnesota requires that records be kept for 5 years. Texas requires that

records of sales of laboratory apparatus also be kept. Hawaii and Missouri

maintain the confidentiality of information obtained through records.

Pennsylvania penalizes wrongful use of the information.

--Reporting: Required reporting of intrastate transfers and out-of-State

purchases also varies among States. In several States the regulatory agency

must be given 21 days advance notice of any chemical delivery. Some States

provide a monthly reporting alternative for individuals and entities with a

history of lawful use, a regular relationship with a recipient, or both.

While California and Montana require notice of receipt of chemicals within 3

days after delivery, Oregon allows 10 days. Ten States require that special

reports be submitted within 3 days after discovery of a theft or loss of

chemicals, and eight require reports within 3 days for a discrepancy in

quantities shipped and received. Iowa and Washington extend these deadlines

to 7 days.

--Exemptions: Medical professionals, agents, and licensed entities such as

common carriers are traditionally exempt from licensing or reporting

obligations. Some States expand the exemptions to include college chemistry

students, government employees, or researchers.

--Purchaser identification: Most jurisdictions mandate that individual

purchasers identify themselves with a photograph, proof of street or

residential mailing address, and signature. Some jurisdictions ask for the

purchaser's birth date, driver's license or other State-issued identification

number, year in which the purchaser's vehicle was manufactured, and vehicle

license tag number. Most business recipients must furnish an authorization

letter listing an identification number, an address, a phone number, and a

description of the chemical's intended use.

--Responsibility: Finally, there is no consensus among the States on which

government agency should be given regulatory responsibility. The 18 States

assign this duty to a wide variety of health, pharmaceutical, commerce, and

enforcement agencies.

ILLEGITIMATE USES FOR LEGITIMATE PRODUCTS

Many people recognize ephedrine as an ingredient in sinus medications.

However, consumers are often unaware that ephedrine is also the primary

precursor used to illegally produce methamphetamine (meth). In 1990, 53

percent of the clandestine meth labs seized by the Drug Enforcement

Administration used the ephedrine reduction method to produce the drug.(ref.

4)

State officials report that illicit meth laboratories in the West and

Southwest began using ephedrine after phenylacetic acid came under State

regulation. In northern California 85 percent of the seized meth labs used

single-ingredient ephedrine tablets. In Oregon officials discovered that

over-the-counter ephedrine tablets sold in the Portland area had become a

source of ephedrine for northwest meth lab operators.(ref. 5)

For this reason, ephedrine has been included in the list of chemicals

targeted for regulation under the Model State Chemical Control Act.

MODEL STATE CHEMICAL CONTROL ACT

In developing the Model State Chemical Control Act of 1992, the drafters

sought to close loopholes in existing Federal and State legislation and to

foster greater consistency among State regulations. Unlike most criminal

laws, the Model is a preventive measure. Its goal is to stop drug offenses

before they occur by preventing precursor and essential chemicals from being

diverted to illegal channels. It seeks to protect the interests of legitimate

commerce without limiting the ability of law enforcement to stop illicit

chemical transactions.

Monitoring every transaction involving a regulated chemical. The Model

creates a monitoring system that tracks 35 chemicals from source to use. It

covers a comprehensive range of chemicals controlled by States and the

Federal Government.

The Model's reporting and record-keeping requirements apply to every

transaction involving a regulated chemical, not just those exceeding a legal

threshold. Under Federal law, manufacturers and distributors do not have to

report or keep records on individuals or businesses who buy chemicals in

amounts below the legal threshold. Individuals can circumvent the law by

making multiple purchases of small quantities, thereby accumulating large

amounts of chemicals for clandestine production. Unfortunately, Federal

officials have no way of obtaining information about such transactions. The

Model permits State and local officials to address this type of diversion

activity, which would otherwise escape detection until after illegal use of

the chemicals.

The list of regulated chemicals can be modified by rule in response to

changes in diversion or use. Under the Model, State officials may regulate a

chemical on an emergency basis while awaiting completion of normal

rule-making procedures.

Emergency regulation is sometimes necessary to prevent imminent hazards to

public health and safety. Some chemicals are flammable or toxic and their use

must be controlled as soon as possible to prevent explosions, environmental

damage, or illness.

Registering manufacturers and distributors. Responsibility for the control of

regulated chemicals rests primarily with manufacturers and distributors.

Therefore, the Model requires that they annually furnish law enforcement with

detailed information about the sources, location, and amount of chemicals

available for sale. The purpose of annual registration is threefold:

--To convey to manufacturers and distributors an understanding of the

critical role they play in eliminating illegal chemical transfers.

--To help government officials determine if the chemicals found at

clandestine lab sites have been supplied by a legal or "underground" source.

--To help government officials more accurately assess the extent of illegal

diversion.

The drafters anticipate that the number of annual registrations to be

processed will be manageable. For example, in California officials currently

register only 40 to 45 companies per year.

Requiring permits to possess a regulated chemical. Permits identify which

persons intend to use specific quantities of chemicals for a specific

purpose.

With certain exceptions, every applicant for a permit must provide detailed

personal information, including a criminal history and notarized fingerprint

card. Based on this information, government officials ascertain the fitness

of a potential chemical recipient and ensure that the intended use is lawful.

The permit provision is modeled after Oklahoma's chemical control statute,

which extends the law beyond the traditional "receiving" category of

purchasers to individuals who want to "possess" a regulated chemical. By

requiring that they obtain a permit each time they seek to possess a

regulated chemical, the Model eliminates a significant loophole in many

existing statutes. For example, some illegal "cookers" manufacture controlled

substances using chemicals produced in their own clandestine laboratories.

They are not subject to existing regulation and liability provisions, which

apply solely to purchasers, because they do not buy the chemical from an

outside source. Under the Model statute, "cookers" would be subject to the

law because although they do not "receive" the chemicals, they nonetheless

"possess" them.

The Model's permit process protects legitimate commerce in two ways. First,

it exempts the owners and officers of publicly held corporations (those with

35 shareholders or more) from the disclosure requirements of permit

applications. These corporations are often fairly sizable businesses or are

headquartered out-of-State. Their shareholders and officers lack the personal

access necessary to illegally use or transfer regulated chemicals. The Model

assumes that there is no need for detailed background information or

fingerprint cards for such persons.

Second, the Model includes a reporting alternative for possessors who

demonstrate a history of regular, legitimate use. The risk of these

possessors diverting chemicals for unlawful purposes is less than with other

possessors. Therefore, they may submit retrospective monthly reports of

actual chemical use in lieu of obtaining permits. The Model prevents

unnecessary duplication by accepting copies of Federal reports containing

information about threshold amounts of regulated chemicals.

--Exempting individuals from regulation: The Model exempts common carriers

pharmacists, physicians, and other authorized practitioners from the

statute's requirements. Manufacturers can obtain a special exemption to

continue marketing bona fide drug products such as over-the counter sinus and

asthma medications. A special exemption is granted upon a finding by State

officials that a product is manufactured and distributed in a manner that

prevents its diversion. In making the finding, State officials consider the

product's packaging, advertising, and actual or potential for diversion.(ref.

6)

--Safeguarding possession of regulated chemicals: The Model contains a number

of safeguards to prevent unauthorized or unscrupulous persons from gaining

access to regulated chemicals. It specifies that the following persons are

ineligible to apply for a registration or permit:

Convicted drug offenders.

Persons who have had a prior registration or permit

Minors

Because juveniles are subject to milder penalties than adults, they

frequently have been recruited to become participants in criminal activity.

Therefore, making minors ineligible should preclude drug balers from using

juveniles to acquire chemicals for illegal purposes.

The Model also provides for denial, suspension, or revocation of a

registration or permit. Violation of the statutory rules, falsification of a

document, and similar acts are grounds for denial of authorized access to

regulated chemicals.

Spotting discrepancies in the flow of chemicals. The Model establishes four

information-gathering mechanisms to help State officials spot possible

diversion activities.

First, the Model requires manufacturers, distributors, and possessors to

report any suspicious transaction or circumstance. cash payments,

discrepancies between quantities shipped and received, and theft or loss of

chemicals are all examples of suspicious circumstances.

Second, the Model requires manufacturers, distributors, brokers, and traders

to provide monthly reports detailing every transaction involving a regulated

chemical. The reports allow officials to identify the true purchaser of

chemicals and ascertain whether the actual chemical use is consistent with

the stated intended use.

Third, the Model requires purchasers to submit information about themselves,

their permit or other authorization, and their vehicles prior to receiving or

distributing a regulated chemical. This provision, which incorporates

California's purchaser identification requirements, also facilitates

determination of the ultimate purchaser and the chemical's use.

Fourth, manufacturers and distributors are required to take inventory

annually and to keep all transaction records readily accessible for 4 years.

--Providing for enforcement: The Model vests State officials with the

authority to identify and respond to situations of noncompliance. It

authorizes limited warrantless inspections during regular business hours and

allows State officials to routinely inspect inventories, storage facilities,

records, papers, files, and equipment.(ref. 9) It also grants State officials

the power to subpoena witnesses and require document production. The Model

provides for stiff fines and terms of imprisonment for noncompliance.

To eliminate the economic incentive for this type of criminal activity, the

Model applies a State's drug forfeiture procedures to money and property used

in violation of the chemical diversion statute.

--Recovering expenses: As with any proactive regulatory scheme, the Model

requires a continuing investment of time and money. To prevent financial

strain on scarce State resources, a system of nonrefundable application fees

is recommended to help offset the cost of administering the program.

In addition, the Model imposes a special civil assessment on violators of the

statute to be used for cleanup of illegal laboratory sites. Seizure of

clandestine laboratories often reveals significant amounts of hazardous or

toxic waste and other byproducts that have been found. Under Federal law, law

enforcement agencies become liable for various cleanup and transporting

operations, damage to natural resources, and subsequent health risks that

remain after the lab is dismantled.(ref. 10)

Last year Oklahoma spent approximately $6,000 to clean up illegal labs, and

for several years California has spent more than $1 million a year for

similar tasks. However, these expenses were only for removing bulk

contamination. In the future site restoration through hazardous waste removal

may require even larger sums of money. The civil assessment will prevent

violators from escaping financial liability for the environmental damage they

cause and help States address the issue of long-term hazardous waste or

residual contamination.

APPLYING THE MODEL

The chemical control legislation in California, Oklahoma, Texas, and

Washington served as guides for creating the Model. Oklahoma and Texas

officials have already noted the positive effect of their legislation on the

struggle to eliminate illegal drug production. The Oklahoma Bureau of

Narcotics and Texas Department of Public Safety indicate that their States'

precursor laws significantly reduced the availability of chemicals throughout

Oklahoma and Texas. The reduction in supply has led to a decrease in

clandestine laboratory activity in both States. The Texas Department of

Public Safety reports that the availability of illicit amphetamine and

methamphetamine in Texas decreased about 50 percent during the 3-year period

since passage of its statute."

Despite the success of these States' efforts, the lack of adequate chemical

controls in many states provides illegal drug manufacturers with

opportunities to expand their production of controlled substances. The toll

in health, welfare, enforcement, and safety costs as well as human suffering

is incalculable. The Model is designed to help State policymakers and

criminal justice professionals develop legislation that will severely curtail

domestic illegal drug production while protecting legitimate commercial

interests.

COPING WITH CHEMICAL HAZARDS

Seizures of clandestine labs pose special problems for law enforcement

officers because many of the chemicals used in drug manufacturing are

dangerous. For example, acids and solvents are corrosive and flammable, and

some are highly explosive. About one-fifth of clandestine lab seizures result

from reports of fires caused by chemical processes.(ref. 7)

In addition, many precursor and essential chemicals are corrosive and can

cause lung and eye damage, even upon exposure to vapors emanating from the

lab. Furthermore, according to a study in California, one-tenth of seized

labs were booby-trapped with explosives or with disfiguring and poisonous

chemical devices.(ref. 8)

For these reasons, law enforcement experts recommend that police officers in

all areas of the criminal justice system be given special training in

handling these substances. They note that rural police agencies are just as

likely to encounter clandestine labs as urban police. Highway patrols and

other agencies in jurisdictions with large railroad and other transportation

hubs are likely to find such substances en route to a clandestine location.

NOTES

1. Impact of Clandestine Drug Laboratories on Small Business, 1988: Hearing

Before the Subcommittee on Regulation and Business Opportunities of the House

of Representatives Committee on Small Business, 100th Congress, 2d Session,

1988 (Statement of David Frohnmayer, Attorney General of the State of

Oregon).

2. Drug Enforcement Administration. Guidelines for the Cleanup of Clandestine

Drug Laboratories. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug

Enforcement Administration, 1990.

3. Laszlo, A.T. "Clandestine Drug Laboratories: Confronting a Growing

National Crisis." National Sheriff, 41 (1989): 9-14.

4. American Prosecutors Research Institute, Highlights of the Model State

Chemical Control Act. Alexandria, Virginia: American Prosecutors Research

Institute, 1991: 6-7.

5. American Prosecutors Research Institute, Highlights, pp. 6-7.

6. This provision is based on draft CDTA amendments negotiated between DEA

and chemical and drug manufacturers.

7. National Institute of Justice. Controlling Chemicals Used to Make Illegal

Drugs: The Chemical Action Task Force and the Domestic Chemical Action Group.

Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, January

1993: 3.

8. Laszlo, "Clandestine Drug Laboratories," 9-14.

9. This provision complies with New York v. Burger, 107 S. Ct. 2636 (1987).

10. These requirements result from provisions of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [42 U.S.C. 9601-9657

(1982), amended by 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (1988)] and the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. 6901-6992 (1988)]. Also, the Superfund Amendments

and Reauthorization Act [Public Law 99-499] makes owners of contaminated

property responsible for decontamination before it is sold. Thus, if a

property is confiscated by a local jurisdiction, seized through asset

forfeiture laws, and subsequently sold, the jurisdiction may still be

responsible for cleanup.

11. Jolley, Inspector Jerrell, and Inspector Kenneth Hailey. Chemical

Precursor Legislation: Texas Reduces the General Availability of Illicit

Amphetamine and Methamphetamine. Unpublished report, March 1991.

REFERENCES

American Prosecutors Research Institute. State Drug Laws for the '90s.

Alexandria, Virginia: American Prosecutors Research Institute, 1991.

Duncan, John. Clandestine Labs on Decline. Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics

Enforcement. Unpublished report, 1991-1992.

Duncan, John. Surviving Clandestine Labs. Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics

Enforcement. Unpublished report, 1991-1992.

Drug Enforcement Administration. Report summarizing State precursor control

laws. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement

Administration. Unpublished, 1991-1992.

General Accounting Office. Briefing report on the Drug Enforcement

Administration's implementation of the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act

of 1988. B-243007, April 1991.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the

author and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of

the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Sherry Green was a senior attorney at the American Prosecutors Research

Institute in Alexandria, Virginia, when she worked on this project to develop

the Model (supported by NIJ grant #91-IJ-CX-K002). She currently serves as

executive Director of the President's Commission on Model State Drug Laws,

which is reviewing the Model for possible inclusion in its report to the

States on recommended model laws.

Drafters of the Model in addition to Ms. Green were Steve Brookman, Oklahoma

State Bureau of Investigation, Mark Faull, Crime Strike, Phoenix, Arizona;

William Holman, San Diego District Attorney's Office; John Duncan Oklahoma

Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement; Katina Kypridakes, California Bureau of

Narcotics Enforcement; Harry Matz, U.S. Department of Justice; Michael Scott,

Texas Department of Public Safety; Richard Wintory, Oklahoma County District

Attorney's Office; and Ken Ronald, Drug Enforcement Administration. Katina

Kypridakes and Mark Faull assisted with the development of this Research in

Brief.

Readers who wish to learn more about how States can address the chemical

diversion issue may request a special information package that includes a

copy of the Model and accompanying commentary; sample State statutes,

regulations, and forms; and a chart of State chemical control requirements.

Interested persons should write the American Prosecutors Research Institute,

National Drug Prosecution Center, 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510,

Alexandria, VA 22314, or call 703- 549-6790.

NCJ 142974

[NOTE: The published report from which this information was input contains

accompanying charts and tables.]