Aaron R. Harmon 1

Methamphetamine labs can be set up anywhere.  One batch of methamphetamine produces five to seven pounds of toxic byproduct.  These contaminants are often dumped at the production site and, along with airborne contaminants from the cooking process, leave behind a “methfield.”  States have developed widely divergent standards for methfield remediation.  This Comment examines the solution proposed under the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2005 (“MRRA”).  Part II provides some background on methamphetamine use, production, and cleanup.  Part III reviews how methfields have been addressed by state and federal agencies.  Part IV evaluates the MRRA and assesses its potential contributions to the methfield remediation movement.  Parts V and VI critique the MRRA, identifying potential weaknesses and outlining opportunities for improvement.

I. Introduction

A young couple recently moved to the city.  She was fresh out of law school; he was a freelance photographer.  They made the move for her new job because it was a good opportunity, and his job gave him the flexibility to work most anywhere.  They were both excited about the move.  They loved the outdoors, and neither of them had ever spent any time in this part of the country.  The air smelled much cleaner here than it did back home.  They rented an apartment in a nice suburban neighborhood while they looked for a house closer to her work.  She studied for the bar exam at night while he unpacked.

After a couple of days, they both started feeling sick.  Not sick like the stomach flu, but more like a sore throat or a really bad case of allergies.  They were wheezy, congested, and itchy all over.  Their eyes were red and raw.  She was worse off than he was because she had suffered from asthma as a child.  Neither was sleeping very well; they both tossed and turned each night, and woke up feeling jittery and grouchy.  She was having trouble concentrating on her studies.  They bought cold medicine and chicken soup, but a few days later the symptoms had worsened.  The itching had developed into what looked like a rash, and they became nauseated.  Keeping food down had become a challenge.

They went to a doctor, but he could not find anything wrong.  He asked if they had changed any of their habits since their move, or if there was anything at their new home to which they might be allergic.  They could not think of anything, but mentioned a strange smell coming from the kitchen and bathtub drains.  It smelled like a swimming pool with too much chlorine.  They had noticed a similar smell coming from the drainage grate outside of the apartment.  They thought it was because of the local water treatment plant, so they had started buying bottled water.  The doctor gave them some antibiotics, and sent them home to rest.  

The next day, when they went to pick up a package at the leasing office, the manager asked them how they were adjusting to the move.  “Not very well,” they told her.  They felt sick and they didn't know why.  “What kind of sick?” she asked.  After they told her their symptoms, her face went pale.  “You aren't in apartment 4870-C, are you?”  When they confirmed that was their apartment, the manager excused herself and made a call.  She returned and told them the maintenance people would move their belongings to an apartment on the other side of the complex, and she would personally go with them to the emergency room.  

On the way to the hospital, the manager told them that four months ago they had discovered the previous tenants had been operating a methamphetamine lab in that apartment.  It had been abandoned, and there had been lab equipment and empty containers everywhere.  Apartment staff had aired out the apartment, cleaned up the mess, put in a new carpet, repainted, and replaced the drapes before renting it out again.  Unfortunately, the plumbing nor ventilation systems had been checked.  After they moved to their new apartment, the symptoms gradually went away.  Only time will tell if they suffered any permanent damage.2

Many people associate methamphetamine (commonly referred to as “meth”) with the fringe elements of society.  Some people link it to the gay club scene,3 while others equate it with truck drivers and “rednecks.”4 The truth is, while the methamphetamine problem has smoldered for years in both the homosexual and blue-collar communities, in the last ten years the problem has spread throughout the country.5  During the process, it has moved out of the clubs and poor rural areas and into the cities and suburbs.6  The meth phenomenon involves not only drug users, but also drug producers, and it is as likely to rear its ugly head in the suburbs as it is in trailer parks.7

The significance is that, unlike most drugs, methamphetamine can be easily produced at home using materials that can be purchased at a local hardware store or Wal-Mart.8  Manufacturing meth is a dangerous process, but not a complicated one.9  Meth labs can be set up anywhere, and the finished product can be generated in about eight hours.10  If things go well, the producers can close up shop and move on without anyone ever knowing the lab was there.11  If things go badly, innocent people can be hurt or killed in explosions and fires.12  Even when no explosion occurs, the toxic dump left by a methamphetamine lab can have devastating effects on the environment and on the health of those who later come in contact with it.13  Cleaning up a former meth lab (also known as a “methfield”14 ) requires more than just a broom and washcloths.  It is a serious endeavor, and should be treated with the degree of caution given to any other chemical leak or spill.15

Although it would seem that such a serious problem would warrant an organized response, methfield cleanup is one of the most disorganized fronts in the “War on Drugs.”  States vary widely when it comes to cleanup standards, in part because of the lack of data to help state legislatures and agencies create health-based cleanup levels for contractors and property owners to properly remediate affected areas.16  Even the most sophisticated state program only covers a fraction of the potentially hazardous chemicals commonly found at methfield sites.17  Some states, like North Carolina, have yet to establish binding standards for acceptable levels of contamination.18  The federal government has not been very helpful in this regard either.  For example, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) does some cleanup, but its focus is primarily on securing the crime scene, not intensive environmental cleanup.19  The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) also has the ability to provide assistance, but many methfields are too small to warrant federal intervention.20  State legislatures and administrative agencies have, for the most part, been required to develop solutions to the problem on their own.

Hopefully, the fragmented response to methfield remediation will itself be remedied in the near future.  On December 13, 2005, the United States House of Representatives unanimously passed the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2005 (“MRRA”)21 to consolidate existing information and guidelines, and to direct further research on this issue.  If passed by the Senate, the MRRA would address four major problem areas that limit current response measures.  First, it would require the EPA to develop voluntary cleanup guidelines for states to use as a model in developing their own programs.22  Second, it would assess current research findings and programs, and develop additional programs to fill in data gaps.23  Third, it would authorize research into more effective detection methods to protect the “first responders”-such as police, firefighters, and paramedics-on a meth site, as well as for later use in site cleanup.24  Finally, the MRRA would institute a periodic conference for states and federal agencies to disseminate new findings and to evaluate the effectiveness of current programs.25

This Comment examines the solution proposed under the MRRA, as compared to the status quo.  Part II provides background on the methamphetamine epidemic from three perspectives:  use, production, and cleanup.  Part III discusses how methamphetamine production and cleanup problems have been addressed up to this point by both state and federal agencies.  Part IV examines and evaluates the MRRA, discussing its potential contributions to the methfield remediation movement.  Parts V and VI provide a critique of the MRRA, identifying potential weaknesses in the version recently passed by the House and outlining opportunities for lawmakers to improve upon the legislation prior to or subsequent to its passage.