Methamphetamine Lab Clean-Up and Remediation Issues

Order Code RL32959

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Methamphetamine Lab Clean-Up and

Remediation Issues

Updated March 13, 2006

-name redactedSpecialist in Life Sciences

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Methamphetamine Lab Clean-Up

and Remediation Issues

Summary

Methamphetamine (meth), a drug with limited medical use and high potential

for abuse and addiction, is a subject of widespread concern. Once associated mainly

with the West Coast and white, male, blue-collar workers, illicit meth is now used

by diverse population groups nationwide, with concentrations in the West,

Southwest, and Midwest. Meth is supplied primarily by clandestine labs in

California and Mexico. The drug is relatively simple to make from easily obtained

recipes, but access to certain ingredients has become more difficult. Meth production

in small, toxic labs (STLs) increased initially due to the successful closure of some

“super-labs” (labs capable of making more than 10 pounds of meth in a 24-hour

cycle), relative ease of making meth, continuing demand for the drug, and desire for

potential wealth and involvement in a criminal underground social activity.

Although the greater fraction of meth used and distributed across the nation comes

from super-labs, the sheer number of STLs, their geographic diffusion, and their

residual impacts have prompted concern in Congress, state and local governments,

law enforcement agencies, and real estate and other groups.

Meth labs have many significant and widespread residual impacts. According

to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), there were 9,092

STLs and related meth sites in 2000 and 17,356 in 2003; the number has been

declining since. These sites can be found in a wide range of places, such as

apartments, motel rooms, abandoned buildings, and packed in car trunks in parks and

other locations. Meth makers can use common items such as mason jars, coffee

filters, hot plates, over-the-counter medications containing pseudoephedrine or

ephedrine (e.g., Sudafed and some other nonprescription decongestants), acetone,

hydrochloric acid, and anhydrous ammonia. Making meth can result in eye and

respiratory irritations, chemical burns, explosions and fires, toxic wastes, and

contaminated surroundings. Some residual impacts of meth production threaten the

health and welfare of children removed from meth sites. This report focuses on the

residual environmental impacts of STLs.

Cleaning and remediating a meth site can cost more than $200,000, depending

on the magnitude of contamination. State and local governments that incur expenses

cleaning a site can apply to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for

reimbursement, up to $25,000 per incident. Alternatively, rather than incur costs and

apply for a capped reimbursement, state and local governments can notify DEA of

a site, and DEA will perform and pay for cleaning. In addition, funds have been

available from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to

redevelop a former meth production site.

No uniform federal guidelines or standards exist governing the process or the

endpoint for cleaning or remediating STLs. Across various states, acceptable levels

of meth residue, after remediation, range from 0.05 to 0.1 micrograms of meth per

100 square centimeters of surface. Twelve congressional bills, one enacted into law

in March, relate broadly to meth site cleaning or remediation. This report will be

updated as warranted.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Production and Trafficking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Residual Impacts of Meth Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Cleaning and Remediating Meth Labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

EPA Alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

EPA Reimbursement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

HUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Clean-Up and Remediation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Standards and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Congressional Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Grants and Authorities for Clean-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

To Establish Remediation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

List of Tables

Table 1. Number of All Meth Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2. United States EPA Local Governments Reimbursement

Program Clandestine Meth Lab Reimbursements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 3. United States DEA Meth Lab Clean-Ups and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Methamphetamine Lab Clean-Up

and Remediation Issues

Introduction

The geographic and societal diffusion of the illicit production of

methamphetamine (meth) has spread hazardous manufacturing wastes, and related

concerns, into communities nationwide. The need to reduce the potential safety,

health, and environmental hazards of these wastes, by cleaning and remediating the

sites of illicit production, consequently also has spread nationwide. “Clean-up” is the

term often used to describe removing gross, or large-scale, contaminants, such as

equipment and large quantities of chemicals; clean-up is usually done for the purpose

of securing evidence for criminal investigations, and for reducing imminent hazards

such as explosions or fires. “Remediation” is often used to describe removing

residual, or small-scale, contaminants such as chemical residues in carpeting or walls,

usually for the purpose of rehabilitating a facility for reoccupancy or reuse.

While there are many ways to make meth, the most common way begins with

over-the-counter medications containing pseudoephedrine or ephedrine,1 and often

involves cooking with acetone, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, ether, and

anhydrous ammonia to serially concentrate and purify the meth. Cooking meth,

which can result in eye and respiratory irritations, chemical burns, explosions and

fires, toxic waste products, and contaminated surroundings, can be dangerous to the

meth “cook,” to the people and community around the lab, and to those persons who

first come upon the lab, such as fire fighters, law enforcement officials, emergency

medical technicians, or social welfare workers. There are reports of emergency

medical technicians and police officers suffering burns, eye and respiratory

irritations, nausea, and other injuries not just at meth labs, but even from treating

persons removed from the labs.2

Depending on the process used and the skill of the cook, each pound of meth

produces about six pounds of hazardous waste. Illicit meth “cooks” usually dump

this waste into sewers, streams, rivers, or the ground near the lab (which may be

farmland, or land over groundwater supplies), along highways, in parks and forests,

or on hiking trails. Water used to extinguish lab fires also carries toxic chemicals

into the environment. Cooking meth can also infuse carpeting, walls, furniture, water

1

Pseudoephedrine, for example, is an active ingredient in products like Sudafed and some

other over-the-counter decongestants.

2

United States Department of Health and Human Services-Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, “Public Health Consequences Among First Responders to Emergency Events

Associated With Illicit Methamphetamine Laboratories,” at [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/

preview/mmwrhtml/mm4945a1.htm].

CRS-2

supplies, and the ground with toxic chemicals.3 Residues of meth have been

measured as high as 16,000 micrograms per 100 square centimeters of surface, with

levels as high as 300 micrograms per 100 square centimeters as long as six months

after the last cook, sometimes far from the actual cooking area.4

While health effects on a user from direct use of meth have been well-studied,

long-term health-effects research on exposures to substances associated with illicit

meth production has just recently begun. Such health-effects research considers

impacts on children, as well as on adults, who might be in the vicinity of a methmaking site.

There are no uniform federal guidelines or standards governing the clean-up or

remediation of former meth sites, either for meth residues themselves, or for

chemicals related to illicit meth production, partly because there is a lack of healtheffects research upon which to base such guidelines or standards. “Guidelines,” as

used in this report, are discretionary recommendations, often using the word

“should.” “Standards” are mandatory, nondiscretionary regulations which must be

followed, often denoted by words like “shall” or “prohibited.” Guidelines may be

developed by regulators into more stringent standards.

There generally have been four main approaches to cleaning meth sites. The

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can respond directly when a

pollutant or contaminant at an STL site presents an imminent or substantial danger

to public health or welfare, but most STLs do not rise to this level.5 For most STLs,

state and local governments can pay to clean a meth site, then apply to EPA for

reimbursement which is capped at $25,000 per incident. Alternatively, rather than

pay directly for clean-up and later apply for reimbursement from EPA, state and local

governments instead can notify the United States Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA), in the United States Department of Justice, and DEA will take responsibility

and arrange for clean-up. In addition, there have been funds available from the

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to redevelop of a former

meth site.

The approaches to remediate meth sites are more variable, involving private,

local, and state decisions. Remediation is an additional cost, after clean-up. Neither

EPA nor DEA funds are available for remediation. Owners of contaminated private

3

United States Department of Justice-Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

“Clandestine Drug Labs.” [http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=274].

4

Testimony by John W. Martyny, industrial hygienist and associate professor of medicine

at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver, given at the United States

House of Representatives’ Committee on Science March 3, 2005 hearing on H.R. 798

“Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2005”; this testimony is available at

[http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/mar3/March32005.htm].

5

Federal Register, vol. 63, no. 32, Feb. 18, 1998, pp. 8284-8291. For more information

about Superfund, see CRS Report RL31154, “Superfund: A Summary of the Law,” by (nam

e redacted), and “Superfund: The Hazardous

Waste Cleanup Program,” by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, available at [http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/

orientat/rom62.pdf].

CRS-3

property, e.g., an apartment building or a motel, need to decide whether remediation

is sensible; remediation cost estimates may exceed the value of the property. Local

or state governments need to decide whether to remediate or restrict access to a

contaminated public area, e.g., a hiking trail or parking lot in a forest. Remediation

is discussed further in the section below on “Clean-up and Remediation Procedures.”

Remediation costs vary, depending on the severity of contamination with meth

and/or meth-related compounds. The average cost to clean a meth lab is estimated

to range from $1,500 to $3,000, with some clean-ups exceeding $200,000.6 The cost

of remediating an average-size site has been estimated at $50,000, according to the

U.S. Department of Justice.7

Several factors contribute to the geographic and societal diffusion of illicit meth

production and use.

Background

Methamphetamine (meth) is a Schedule II narcotic under the Controlled

Substances Act (CSA), Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and

Control Act of 1970. CSA regulates the manufacture and distribution of drugs, and

places all drugs into one of five schedules. A drug in Schedule II, like meth, has

current accepted medical use and has high potential for abuse.8 Meth has limited

medical uses for the treatment of narcolepsy, attention deficit disorders, and obesity.9

This report focuses on illicit use and production of meth, and subsequent clean-up

and remediation issues.

Production and Trafficking

Meth production, trafficking, and abuse, in general, are concentrated in the

western, southwestern, and midwestern United States. Meth is primarily supplied by

clandestine laboratories in Mexico and California. There are some “super-labs” (labs

6

United States Drug Enforcement Administration. “DEA Cracks Down on Meth

Manufacturing With ‘Operation Sanctioned Sins’.” January 7, 2005. Available at

[http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/seattle010705p.html].

7

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, “Clandestine

Drug Labs,” available at [http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=274].

8

A drug in Schedule I has no current accepted medical use and has high potential for abuse;

examples include heroin, marijuana, and peyote. Examples of drugs in Schedule II include

cocaine, morphine, OxyContin, and amphetamine. A drug in Schedule III has current

accepted medical use and medium potential for abuse; examples include opium and Tylenol

with codeine. A drug in Schedule IV has current accepted medical use and low potential for

abuse; examples include Darvocet, Xanax, and Ambien. A drug in Schedule V has accepted

medical use and lowest potential for abuse; examples include Phenergan and Lomotil.

9

United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-National Institute on Drug

Abuse. “Research Report: Methamphetamine Abuse and Addictions.” January 2002.

Available at [http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/methamph/methamph.html].

CRS-4

capable of producing in excess of ten pounds of meth in one twenty-four hour

production cycle) in Mexico and the United States producing meth and other drugs,

with vast networks of transporters, distributors, and money brokers who distribute

not only meth, but also cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and MDMA (more commonly

known as “ecstasy”). While meth made in super-labs is for broad distribution, meth

made in small-scale labs tends to be for personal use or limited distribution.

Successful closure in the United States of some super-labs, the relative ease of

producing meth, the continuing demand for the drug, and the desire for potential

wealth and involvement in a criminal underground social activity, contributed to an

increase, through 2003, in meth production in small clandestine labs, also known as

small, toxic labs (STLs).10 Official data aggregate the numbers of meth labs, dump

sites, chemicals, glass, and other equipment, and are reported as meth incidents.

Since 2003, the nationwide numbers of meth incidents has declined, as shown in

Table 1.

Table 1. Number of All Meth Incidents

(including labs, dump sites, chemicals, glass, and equipment)

Calendar Year

Number of Incidents Nationwide

2000

9,092

2001

13,537

2002

16,212

2003

17,356

2004

17,170

Source: United States Drug Enforcement Administration, National Clandestine Laboratory Database.

“Total of All Meth Clandestine Laboratory Incidents,” [http://www.dea.gov/concern/map_lab_

seizures.html].

According to state law enforcement and public health professionals, the decline in

meth incidents that occurred between 2003 and 2004 was the result of a few factors:

!

!

!

10

Some states and retailers began to institute policies to restrict access

to nonprescription pseudoephedrine-containing decongestants, a

common meth ingredient.

Over time, the number of states and retailers restricting access to

meth ingredients increased, which made the tactic of traveling to a

nearby state or store that did not have a policy to restrict access to

meth ingredients more difficult.

Some pharmaceutical companies reformulated their nonprescription

decongestants to exclude pseudoephedrine.

Drug Enforcement Administration. “Drug Trafficking in the United States.” Available

at [http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/drug_traffickingp.html].

CRS-5

!

Stiffer sentences for those convicted of illegally making meth further

discouraged involvement with STLs.11

In December 2005, Iowa state authorities reported a decline of approximately

80% following the passage, in May 2005, of a state law restricting access to

pseudoephedrine.12 Subsequent to the passage of similar laws, state officials in

Oklahoma and Oregon each reported a decline of approximately 50%.13 The decline

is expected to be seen nationwide, when complete 2005 data become available.

Although only 20% of illicit meth used in the United States comes from STLs,14

the sheer number of such labs, their residual impacts, and their geographic diffusion,

have prompted concerns in Congress, state and local governments, law enforcement

agencies, and real estate and other groups.

Residual Impacts of Meth Labs

There generally are greater concerns about the environmental wastes from STLs

than from super-labs, for several reasons. First, there is a trend for super-labs, and

their wastes, to be in Mexico, where the ingredients for illicit meth can be obtained

more easily than in the United States. Second, production processes used in STLs

tend to be less efficient than those used in super-labs, and small-scale “cooks” tend

more often to be careless, resulting in proportionally more contaminants (in the meth

and in the environment) than production processes in super-labs. Third, while there

are fewer super-labs, there are thousands of STLs across the United States:

approximately 9,000 domestic small-scale labs with capacities under 10 pounds in

11

Comments made by several participants at the Midwestern Governors Association

Regional Meth Summit, held in Indianapolis, Indiana, December 14-15, 2005, including

Marvin Van Haaften (Director of Iowa’s Office of Drug Control Policy), and Bruce Liebe

(Illinois State Police). Available at[http://www.in.gov/cji/methfreeindiana/summit/index.

html].

12

Ibid.

13

Office of Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry. “Governor Henry Urges Other States to

Adopt Versions of Oklahoma Law Combating Meth.” September 29, 2004. Available at

[http://www.governor.state.ok.us/display_article.php?article_id=373&article_type=1].

Hon. Greg Walden.

Letter, January 3, 2006.

Availabl e at

[http://www.oregonmethwatch.org/walden%20letter.pdf]. Reducing the number of STLs

can reduce environmental hazards and remediation costs, but some drug agents, emergency

medical personnel, and addiction counselors note that meth supply has not declined, because

of increased imports, and the higher cost and potency of imported meth is resulting in more

overdoses and addictions, and more burglaries to pay for the imported meth; there have been

suggestions for increased research and development, possibly through the National Science

Foundation, for more effective demand reduction programs and treatments for overdosing.

14

DEA statistics in “Senators predict passage of meth law,” article by Joseph Rose in The

Oregonian, February 25, 2005, at [http://www.nationaldec.org/news/2005-02-25-Portland

Oregonian-Senators-OADEC.pdf].

CRS-6

2000,15 and 17,000 in 2004.16 Fourth, these small-scale labs can be geographically

scattered among a wide range of sites, such as apartments, motel rooms, abandoned

buildings, even packed in car trunks and moved among parks and other locations.

Fifth, the range of wastes from STLs can be more varied and unpredictable than

super-lab wastes, because small-scale, independent “cooks” may develop a new

recipe or use any of a number of meth recipes available on the internet. The range

of recipes and resulting wastes may be driven by the local availability of critical

ingredients or equipment. The range of substitutes for pure ingredients and

sophisticated production equipment may include common items such as

decongestants from retail and convenience stores, mason jars, coffee filters, hot

plates, pressure cookers, plastic tubing, and gasoline cans.

There is a range of residual impacts of small-scale labs. Children of some STL

“cooks” have been found in residences where their parents were making meth. Meth

levels as high as 5,000 micrograms per cubic meter of air have been measured during

a cook, which “almost ensures that anyone (including children) in the vicinity of the

cook will test positive for meth. Some children taken from home meth labs may

show permanent damage to their respiratory tracts and possibly to their nervous

systems.”17 The health and social welfare of these children, whether with or removed

from their parents, are issues of concern, research, and cost. Further, some meth

“cooks,” and others in the illicit drug business, have been armed and mentally

imbalanced.18 Consequently, there is a range of residual social impacts associated

with STLs.

Cleaning and Remediating Meth Labs

There have been four main ways to clean and redevelop a former meth lab site:

two involve EPA, one involves DEA, and the last involves HUD.

EPA Alone

A local government, state or regional entity, or an individual can notify EPA

about a possible meth lab.19 The Agency will study the site and its findings will help

steer the next actions to be taken. For example, under the Comprehensive

15

Drug Enforcement Administration. “Drug Trafficking in the United States.” Op. cit.

16

United States Drug Enforcement Administration, National Clandestine Laboratory

Database. “Total of All Meth Clandestine Laboratory Incidents.” [http://www.dea.gov/

concern/map_lab_seizures.html].

17

John W. Martyny, op. cit.

18

United States House of Representatives, Committee on Science, op. cit. Compiled from

testimonies given by six witnesses; all testimonies are available at [http://www.house.gov/

science/hearings/full05/mar3/March32005.htm].

19

The process by which EPA and other entities are notified about an incident, such as

discovery of a meth lab site, is described in “How The System Works”, which can be found

at [http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/er/nrs/nrsworks.htm]; related information can

be found at [http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrcback.html].

CRS-7

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (P.L. 96-510, also known

as CERCLA or Superfund), EPA can respond directly when a pollutant or

contaminant may present an imminent or substantial danger to public health or

welfare, taking responsibility for cleaning the site under Superfund. Most STLs do

not rise to this level, however, and other actions may be taken.20

EPA Reimbursement

A local or state government can choose to clean a meth lab site, paying for costs

by itself. The local or state government then can apply to EPA for reimbursement

under Section 123 of CERCLA, via the Local Governments Reimbursement

Program. Reimbursement is limited to $25,000 per incident. The numbers of

reimbursements and dollar totals are shown in Table 2.21

Table 2. United States EPA Local Governments Reimbursement

Program Clandestine Meth Lab Reimbursements

Fiscal Year

Number of

Reimbursements

Total Dollars

Reimbursed

Dollars Per

Reimbursement

2002

20

$36,043

$1,802

2003

12

$37,003

$3,084

2004

9

$19,189

$2,132

2005

7

$15,426

$2,204

Total

48

$107,661

$2,243

Source: Personal communication with EPA in February 2006.

The number of applications for reimbursement has been declining in proportion

with the number of reimbursements, as shown in the table.22 One possible reason is

the relative difficulty of using this process: the state or local government must first

incur the clean-up expenses, and then, with proper evidence of expended costs, apply

to EPA for reimbursement, which, if approved, may be received by the state or local

government within six months of the Agency’s receipt of the application. A second

possible reason is that this type of reimbursement is capped at $25,000 per incident.

Another possible reason relates to another alternate way to clean a meth site: notify

DEA.

20

Federal Register, vol. 63, no. 32, Feb. 18, 1998, pp. 8284-8291. For more information

about Superfund, see CRS Report RL31154, “Superfund: A Summary of the Law,” by (nam

e redacted), and “Superfund: The Hazardous

Waste Cleanup Program,” by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, available at [http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/

orientat/rom62.pdf].

21

Information about EPA’s Local Governments Reimbursement Program can be found at

[http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/er/lgr/index.htm].

22

Personal communication with US EPA on May 12, 2005.

CRS-8

DEA

There is growing awareness that DEA has taken responsibility for cleaning meth

lab sites, without the need for upfront payment by state or local governments. The

numbers of DEA clean-ups have been rising while applications for reimbursement

via EPA’s program have been declining. DEA clean-ups have been performed by a

decreasing number of contractors: e.g., ten in 2001, four in 2004. The average cost

per site generally has been decreasing, largely because of increasing clean-up

efficiency resulting from increasing levels of expertise. The numbers of sites and

dollar totals are shown in Table 3.23

Table 3. United States DEA Meth Lab Clean-Ups and Costs

Calendar

Year

Number

of Sites

Total Dollars

Spent

Dollars

Per Site

2002

7,534

$21,720,000

$2,883

2003

8,837

16,950,000

$1,918

2004

10,037

18,935,000

$1,887

2005

8,897

17,791,000

$2,000

Total

35,305

75,396,000

$2,136

Source: Personal communication with DEA in February 2006.

HUD

Federal funds to redevelop a former meth production site have been available

through HUD’s Brownfields Economic Development Initiative. In its FY2007

budget request, HUD proposes to consolidate its Brownfields program into its

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.24 There were funding and

other limits in HUD’s program; further information may be obtained from HUD’s

Brownfields website.25 How many federal dollars were used, through HUD’s

Brownfields program, to redevelop former STLs cannot be determined, because HUD

did not record the nature of the problem that led to the brownfield.

Budget levels for HUD’s Brownfields program for FY2005 and FY2006 were,

respectively, $24 million and $10 million (with a $10 million rescission). HUD, in

its FY2007 budget request, proposes to consolidate its Brownfields program into its

23

Personal communication with DEA in February 2006.

24

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. “FY2007 Budget

Summary.” Available at [http://www.hud.gov/about/budget/fy07/fy07budget.pdf].

25

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Brownfields Economic

Development Initiative.”

Available at [http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/

economicdevelopment/programs/bedi/index.cfm].

CRS-9

CDBG program and has requested $0 for Brownfields.26 The portion of CDBG’s

budget that will be available for redeveloping former meth sites is not specified.

Total budget levels for CDBG for FY2005 and 2006 were, respectively, $4.7 billion

and $4.2 billion; $3.0 billion has been requested for FY2007.27

Clean-Up and Remediation Procedures

Clean-up and remediation are likely to require special training and equipment.

While there currently are no uniform clean-up or remediation procedures, the range

usually includes one or more of the following measures: removal of contaminated

items which cannot be cleaned (this may involve outdoor as well as indoor items,

such as soil, water, carpeting, and wallboard); ventilation; chemical neutralization of

residues; washing with appropriate cleaning agents; encapsulation or sealing of

contaminants; providing alternate water supplies; and/or controlling access to the site

with fencing and signs. Extremely contaminated structures may require demolition,

especially if clean-up and remediation costs are projected to exceed the commercial

value of the structures.

While the decision to clean a meth site is aided by the availability of EPA and

DEA funds for clean-ups, the decision to remediate a meth site may be more difficult.

Neither EPA nor DEA funds are available for remediation, an additional action and

cost after clean-up. An owner of a contaminated private property, e.g., an apartment

building or a motel, needs to decide whether remediation is sensible; remediation

cost estimates may exceed the value of the property. An owner may seek financial

assistance for remediation from local or state governments. Local or state

governments need to decide whether to remediate or simply restrict access to a

contaminated public area, e.g., a hiking trail or parking lot in a forest.

Remediation cost is determined largely by the severity of contamination, but

also by the decision at which level of cleanliness to stop remediation efforts.28

26

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. “FY2007 Budget

Summary.” Op. cit.

27

28

Ibid.

DEA reports the average cost to clean a clandestine lab is estimated to range from $1,500

to $3,000, with some clean-ups exceeding $200,000 depending on the severity of

contamination. DEA also reports that it spent an average $2,600 to clean each of 297 STLs

in the state of Arizona in 2002, and $3,000 to $9,000 to clean each clan lab in Arkansas.

The state of Minnesota reports state lab clean-up costs “at a minimum of $5,000 per site,”

and the state of Montana reports state lab clean-up costs of $15,000 per lab in 2001.

Remediating a clandestine lab is a further expense; the cost of remediating an average-size

site is estimated by DOJ to be $50,000. (See “Clandestine Drug Labs,” available online at

[http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=274].) “DEA Cracks Down on Meth

Manufacturing With ‘Operation Sanctioned Sins’.” January 7, 2005. Available at the

following website: [http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/seattle010705p.html].

Cazenavette III, George J. (DEA Special Agent). “Statement Before the House Judiciary

Subcommittee on Crime.” February 25, 2000. This information is available at the following

address: [http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct022500_01p.htm]. Backstrom, James

(continued...)

CRS-10

There are currently no federal guidelines or standards governing clean-up or

remediation processes.

While the endpoints for clean-up are relatively

straightforward — i.e., that sufficient evidence has been procured for successful

prosecution and that imminent hazards, such as explosion or fire, have been

eliminated — the endpoints for remediation are less clear. As mentioned earlier,

EPA and DEA funds previously described are for clean-ups only. No EPA or DEA

funds are available for remediation.

Nine states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Minnesota,

Montana, Tennessee, and Washington) have feasibility-based remediation standards

specific to meth. A feasibility-based standard considers costs as a key factor. Levels

of meth residue below the standards are considered acceptable. The nine states’

standards range from 0.05 to 0.1 micrograms of meth on every 100 square

centimeters of surface.29 While some state standards only address residual meth

itself, others have acceptable levels for meth-related chemicals, such as volatile

organic compounds and corrosives.30 Some states require remediation “to be

completed by a state-licensed or otherwise certified professional.”31 States and

localities also differ in requirements to notify potential buyers, renters, neighbors, law

enforcement departments, and other governmental agencies, and/or to maintain and

make available public records of a facility having been contaminated with meth, and

whether the facility was remediated.32

While some feasibility-based standards exist, standards based on health effects

or risk do not. Standards based on health effects or risk address the question, “to

what level do we need to minimize (remediate) a contaminant in order to prevent the

28

(...continued)

C. (Dakota County Attorney). “Methamphetamine: A Statewide Concern.” January 21,

2005. This information can be found at the following address: [http://www.co.dakota.

mn.us/attorney/other%20resource%20materials/pdf/MethStatewideConcern.pdf]. City of

Kalispell (Montana) Police Department. “Stop Meth.” This information is available at the

following address: [http://www.stopmeth.com]. National Drug Intelligence Center.

“Methamphetamine.” October 2000. Available at [http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/

647/meth.htm].

29

National Multihousing Council and the National Apartment Association. Op.cit., and

Green (Esq.), Sherry. Testimony given to the United States House of Representatives

Science Committee on March 3, 2005. This testimony is available at[http://www.house.gov/

science/hearings/full05/mar3/March32005.htm]. Also, the White House Office of National

Drug Control Policy, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human

Services, “State Cleanup Standards,” available at [http://www.methresources.gov].

30

The setting of guidelines or standards for meth-related chemicals is complicated by the

variability of chemicals that may be used by any given “cook;” recipes can change over time

and location, depending on the ease of availability of ingredients, reduced odor and

detectability, or other factors.

31

32

Green (Esq.), Sherry. Op. cit.

A facility may lose market value even after being remediated. “Based upon this (Kansas)

limited data, there appears to be a fifteen percent value loss for the stigma of a home

associated as a meth lab, remediated and then offered for sale,” reported Rick Stuart, CAE.

Available at [http://www.accesskansas.org/kcaa/reports/meth.htm].

CRS-11

average person from having adverse health effects (e.g., become sick)?”33 Lacking

standards based on health effects or risk, states and localities are using the currently

limited research information to develop “the appropriate feasibility-based standard

that must be met by a clean-up contractor and/or industrial hygienist in order to

certify that a property has been decontaminated.”34

Standards and Guidelines

The task of remediating former meth labs is complicated by the lack of uniform

standards, for the reasons discussed above:

!

There are currently no uniform federal guidelines for the remediation

of former meth labs.

!

Research on health effects associated with clandestine labs only

recently began, so there is currently only limited health-effects

information to guide policy choices.

!

Feasibility-based standards, which consider costs, for remediating

clan labs exist, but differ among states and localities.

!

Existing feasibility-based standards differ in stringency of clean-up

level, need for certification of clean-up workers, and requirements

for reporting and recording the history of a facility’s association with

meth.35

The National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL) is working

toward a model act or model guidelines for the clean-up and remediation of meth lab

sites.36 Members of the Alliance have noted the need for federally funded short- and

long-term health-effects studies, health-based cleanup standards, and scientifically

validated field test-kits, as well as methods for sample-collection and remediation.

Having reviewed existing state and local laws, policies, guidelines, and ordinances

pertaining to meth lab remediation, NAMSDL released its preliminary outline of key

components that the Alliance may include in a draft model act or model guidelines:

33

Green (Esq.), Sherry. Op. cit.

34

Ibid.

35

Information underlying a guideline or standard may be challenged by an affected party,

via the Information Quality Act and Peer Review requirements. For further information, see

CRS Report RL32532, The Information Quality Act: OMB’s Guidance and Initial

Implementation, by (name redacted) and Mi chael Simpson, and CRS Report RL32680,

Peer Review: OMB’s Proposed and Revised Bulletins, by (name redacted) and (name r

edacted).

36

NAMSDL is the successor to the President’s Commission on Model State Drug Laws,

appointed by President George H.W. Bush. The Commissioners created a nonprofit

organization for ongoing and bipartisan work on model state drug laws. Congress began

funding NAMSDL in FY1995. For further details, see [http://www.natlalliance.org].

CRS-12

!

State Agency Authority: oversight of clean-up program (probably

with designated responsibilities to local health departments in

regulation); set requirement for owner to clean property; promulgate

related regulation; keep database of properties deemed to be

contaminated; keep list of certified contractors and approved

laboratories.

!

Notification Responsibilities: making uniform requirements

regarding who must be notified, when, how, and for how long, about

the existence and status of a meth lab (likely parties include first

responders, law enforcement, local health officers and departments,

building code and local or other property records officials; owners;

and the public via signage on the property itself).

!

Contractor/Industrial Hygienists: certification; training; site safety

responsibilities; monitoring of contractors’ work.

!

Preliminary Assessment and Work Plan.

!

Decontamination Procedures: for walls, furniture, ventilation

systems, variety of surfaces; waste characterization and disposal.

!

Confirmation of Decontamination: decontamination standards;

sampling methods; laboratory analytical testing.37

After various reviews and approval by NAMSDL’s Board of Directors, the model

would be distributed to Alliance contacts in the states, including governors and

attorneys general. The model also would be posted on NAMSDL’s website

([http://www.natlalliance.org]).38

Congressional Actions

In the 109th Congress, 11 bills authorize funds to help local and state

governments pay for cleaning former meth production sites. One bill provides for

research and development of remediation standards and other related activities.

Grants and Authorities for Clean-Up

H.R. 4763, the Methamphetamine Eradication Act, authorizes funds for the

COPS Program, the Byrne Formula Grant Program, DEA, EPA Local Governments

Reimbursement Program, and Department of Transportation, for remediation actions,

equipment, and training.

37

Green (Esq.), Sherry. Op. cit.

38

Ibid.

CRS-13

H.R. 3324 and S. 430, the Arrest Methamphetamine Act of 2005, authorizes

funds for the COPS Program and provides authority to the Attorney General, through

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, to make grants to States to undertake meth

clandestine lab environmental clean-ups.

H.R. 3889, the Metheamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act, authorizes

funds to reimburse DEA for remediation activities.

H.R. 3199, the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005,

became P.L. 109-177 on March 9, 2006. Authorized to be appropriated each fiscal

year 2006 through 2010 are $99 million to reimburse DEA for remediation work and

to support state and local environmental meth-related activities, among other things.

H.R. 1446, the Methamphetamine Abuse Prevention Act of 2005, expands

authority to include the hiring of personnel and the purchasing of equipment for

cleaning STLs.

H.R. 314 and S. 103, the Combat Meth Act of 2005, would amend the

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the use of grant

funds to hire personnel and purchase equipment to assist in cleaning

methamphetamine-affected areas.

H.R. 13, the Clean, Learn, Educate, Abolish, Neutralize, and Undermine

Production (CLEAN-UP) of Methamphetamines Act, authorizes funds for grants,

through the Secretary of Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Administration,

to state and local law enforcement for training and equipment acquisition for cleaning

former meth lab sites; funds for the United States Department of Agriculture to clean

former STLs; and funds, through DEA, for meth-related training activities.

S. 2118, To Amend the USA Patriot Act, extends certain provisions of the Act

to March 31, 2006, and authorizes funds to reimburse DEA for clean-up expenses.

S. 259, the Federal Emergency Meth Lab Cleanup Funding Act of 2005,

would make funding available from the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund

for payment to designated state, local, or tribal law enforcement, environmental, or

health entities for experts and consultants needed to clean areas formerly used as

meth labs. It would also provide that if a meth laboratory is located on private

property not more than 90% of the costs may be paid only if the property owner (1)

did not have knowledge of the existence or operation of such laboratory before the

law enforcement action to close it or (2) notifies law enforcement not later than 24

hours after discovering the existence of such laboratory.

CRS-14

To Establish Remediation Guidelines

H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2005, passed

by the House on December 13, 2005, would require the Assistant Administrator for

Research and Development of EPA to establish (1) voluntary guidelines, based on

the best currently available scientific knowledge, for the remediation of former meth

laboratories, including guidelines regarding preliminary site assessment and the

remediation of residual contaminants, and (2) a program of research to support the

development and revision of such guidelines. It also would direct the Assistant

Administrator to (1) periodically convene a conference of appropriate state agencies,

as well as individuals or organizations involved in research and other activities

directly related to the environmental or biological impacts of former meth

laboratories, and (2) enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of

Sciences for a study of the status and quality of research on the residual effects of

meth laboratories. H.R. 798 also would require the Director of the National Institute

of Standards and Technology to support a research program to develop (1) new meth

detection technologies, with an emphasis on field test kits and site detection, and (2)

appropriate standard reference materials and validation procedures for meth detection

testing.

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

copyright on any CRS report we have republished.