IV.  Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2005-Cure for What Ails Us or Just a Band-Aid?

The Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act (“MRRA”), was passed unanimously by the House on December 13, 2005.225  The MRRA was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon of Tennessee to address shortcomings in the current federal approach to cleanup of methamphetamine sites and was designed to help guide states in the development of response and remediation policies.226  Representative Gordon initially decided to champion this issue, in part, because Tennessee had been severely affected by the spread of methamphetamine production and use.227  In 2004, Tennessee had the third highest total number of reported meth lab incidents (busts, responses due to fire, etc.) in the nation.228

If passed into law, the MRRA would address four major problem areas limiting current response measures.  First, it would provide voluntary model cleanup guidelines for states to look to as they develop their own.229  Second, it would assess current research and develop research programs to fill in existing data gaps.230  Third, it would authorize research into more effective detection methods to protect the first responders at a meth lab site, as well as for use in subsequent cleanup.231  Fourth, it would convene a periodic technology transfer conference for states and federal agencies to discuss implementation issues and to disseminate new findings.232

A.   Voluntary Guidelines

The MRRA would create guidelines that states could use as a model in developing their own response policies.233  The Assistant Administrator of Research and Development of the EPA would be required to, in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), “establish voluntary guidelines, based on the best available scientific knowledge, for the remediation of former methamphetamine laboratories, including guidelines regarding preliminary site assessment and the remediation of residual contaminants.”234  The development of guidelines will be guided by three considerations:(1) existing standards and guidelines at the federal, state and local levels; (2) the unique challenges posed by each methfield and its location; and (3) the expected costs involved.235  The guidelines would assemble the most effective policies and guidelines currently in use by states and supplement them with additional research.236  Ideally, the result would be a uniform approach to methfield remediation that provides the best possible response, and would be of particular use to states that are just beginning to address the problem.237  Additionally, uniform standards would provide a foundation for owners to rely on when they clean their property, and would enable businesses such as insurance providers and remediation contractors to standardize their policies toward methfields.238

B.   Further Research

The second major section of the MRRA requires the EPA to establish a comprehensive research program to provide information crucial for effective guidelines.239  The EPA, in cooperation with the National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”), would evaluate the “status and quality of research on the residual effects of methamphetamine laboratories.”240  The evaluation would identify gaps in existing data in order to assist the EPA in developing a comprehensive research plan.  In particular, the MRRA is concerned with effects of meth labs on three groups:  residents at or near functional meth labs,241 residents at or near former meth labs,242 and first responders.243

The subsequent research plan would also be required to place particular emphasis on the biological effects of meth labs on children.244  Typically, children are more significantly affected by lower doses of toxins, and they often come into contact with-and attempt to eat-surface areas that the adult population does not.245  As such, using children as a target population should provide adequate protection to other populations as well.  

Currently, little research has been done into either the health effects of exposure to a meth lab environment or the best way to mitigate those harmful effects.246  Specifically, almost no research has been conducted on children regarding the health effects of exposure to children,247 although anecdotal evidence indicates the results are serious.248

The resulting federal research program would cover a broad range of topics, such as the identification of precursor and byproduct chemicals associated with methamphetamine production,249 assessing the risks involved with various forms and levels of exposure,250 evaluating the effectiveness of current cleanup and remediation techniques,251 and creating a plan for future research to better assess risks and responses associated with lab cleanup.252  Funding in this area, combined with a unified program of inquiry directed by the EPA and the National Academy of Sciences, is an effective way to ensure the most progress in the shortest amount of time.253

C.   Better Detection Methods

The third major area addressed by the MRRA involves developing methods and equipment for detecting methamphetamine residue.254  The goal is to develop more effective detection kits for first responders,255 as well as reference materials and validation procedures to use in methamphetamine detection testing.256  Companies are already developing detection kits in the private sector; however, there is no mechanism in place to evaluate their effectiveness, nor are there any standards or certification programs.257  More advanced testing procedures and equipment would facilitate the identification of hazards involved with cleanup of methfield sites.  Additionally, they would assist law enforcement and first responders facing active labs in the field, allowing them to quickly identify contamination levels and protect themselves and the public accordingly.258

D.  Technology Transfer Conference

The bill requires the EPA to convene a conference of “appropriate state agencies, as well as individuals and organizations involved in research and other activities directly related to the environmental, or biological impacts of former methamphetamine laboratories.”259  The first conference is to occur within six months after the MRRA is enacted, and at least every three years thereafter.260  After each conference, the EPA will submit a report to Congress summarizing the proceedings, the issues raised by participants, and the Agency's proposed responses to those issues.261  This report would also be made available to the general public.262

The technology transfer mandate in the MRRA provides a conduit for sharing what is already known about the problem, and gives the EPA a platform from which to disseminate any developments that occur after the Act is passed.  These conferences will be important opportunities to exchange information and develop new ideas throughout the country.  Methamphetamine use and production has become a national problem,263 and it is crucial to develop a national response.  Technology transfer conferences will give every state the same level of knowledge and sophistication to develop methods of detection and remediation.  Currently, West Coast states have a relative advantage because they have been dealing with meth labs longer than states in the Midwest or Southeast.  There are currently no procedures in place to facilitate exchanges between states so that agencies may share what has worked and what has not.

Even states with well-developed guidelines and policies, like Oregon and Washington, will benefit from collaboration.  Currently, states with established policies have little incentive to proactively study the approaches of states newer to the problem, such as Tennessee and North Carolina.  Conferences provide exposure to the approaches taken by “younger” methamphetamine states, which may be innovative and useful to more “mature” states.  Without an opportunity to share experiences, good ideas could remain underutilized.

Technology transfer conferences also benefit the federal program, creating a uniform approach to addressing the myriad issues raised by methamphetamine production.264  The conferences provide an opportunity for the EPA to seek and receive feedback from the states on federal policy guidelines.  By discussing what has worked and what has failed in the field, the EPA will be able to develop a synergy between data collected in controlled research conditions and the effectiveness of those results when they are put into practice.