Methamphetamine Lab Cleanup Across the Nation <continued> The reality is, without adequate oversight and enforcement, there is little to no incentive to comply with the cleanup requirements. In an attempt to “cleanup” the implementation of our cleanup regulation, this article focuses on common problems I see repeated throughout the State in the hope that they can be avoided.
Too often I get a call from someone who has bought a house that they later found out was a meth lab. Beyond the obvious failure on the part of the seller to disclose the contamination, these situations often involve a person who attempted to conduct the cleanup themselves or who tried to hide the existence of the meth lab by doing nothing more than replacing carpet and repainting. Unfortunately, fixing an inadequate or improper cleanup can be more expensive than if the cleanup had been done properly in the first place. One of the biggest reasons for this is contaminated surfaces that have been painted over must either be stripped and cleaned or removed completely in order to comply with the Regulation. Beware of cosmetic cover-ups.
Personal property owned by people who have unknowingly moved into a meth contaminated property must be tested to determine if it has been contaminated, and if so, it must be cleaned and retested or disposed of. Colorado State statutes put the burden of dealing with personal property on the shoulders of the person who owns it. §25-18.5-103, C.R.S. In many cases a truly innocent tenant or property owner is forced to move out of their home, wade through the cleanup requirements, pay for testing and cleanup of the property or take legal action to force another party to take responsibility. This can be financially and emotionally overwhelming.
Another issue stemming from inadequate oversight and lack of specific training requirements is the inconsistent interpretation and application of both the cleanup statute and the Regulation. For instance, some individuals believe that a property is only considered a “meth lab” if it was identified as part of a law enforcement action. This interpretation is both wrong and inconsistent with §25-18.5-103(1)(a), C.R.S., which states that “[u]pon notification by a peace officer that chemicals, equipment, or supplies indicative of an illegal drug laboratory are located on a property, or when an illegal drug laboratory used to manufacture methamphetamine is otherwise discovered and the property owner has received notice, the owner of any contaminated property shall meet the cleanup standards for property established by the board….” (Emphasis added.) Ultimately, the burden of cleanup falls on the property owner but the reality is, without oversight and enforcement the cleanup will likely not happen.
Then there are the inconsistencies between industrial hygienists regarding how they conduct preliminary assessments, designate functional spaces, recommend cleanup measures, and collect post-decontamination clearance sampling. Stemming from the absence of formal training requirements, these inconsistencies are numerous and varied. Some have little influence on the big picture while others are cause for serious concern. While a certain amount of professional judgment on the part of the industrial hygienist, cleanup contractor and oversight agency is to be expected, interpretations that are contrary to the requirements of the Regulation seem to be on the rise. One of the most troubling interpretations is the determination by an industrial hygienist that a portion of a structure is “clean” based on his or her “professional judgment” or on their minimal sampling conducted during the preliminary assessment. This is not allowed by the Regulation. In accordance with section 6.0 of the Regulation, only sampling conducted in strict compliance with the Regulation can be used to demonstrate that the property, or any portion of the property, meets the cleanup standard. Professional judgment can be used to determine that an area is contaminated, but not to deem it clean.
Also of concern are the varied interpretations of clearance sampling requirements. The Regulation sets minimum sampling requirements to demonstrate that a property has been adequately cleaned. Unfortunately, some industrial hygienists conduct sampling strictly to meet the minimum sampling requirements without conducting adequate representative sampling. For example, the Regulation provides that a discrete sample can be collected from an area of 100 cm2 or a multiple of 100 cm2. While the Regulation does not specifically set a limit on the size of the area that can make up a discrete sample, there is a certain standard of reasonableness that must be met. While a single discrete sample of 500 cm2 technically satisfies the surface area sampling requirement for a functional space, it does not satisfy the intent of clearance sampling as stated in Appendix A of the Regulation: “In post-decontamination sampling, the hypothesis is made that the area is non-compliant, and data is collected to test the hypothesis. The role of the consultant in post decontamination sampling is not to demonstrate that the area is ‘clean,’ but rather, using biased sampling, to diligently attempt to prove that the area is not clean. The lack of data supporting the hypothesis leads the consultant to accept the null hypothesis and conclude that the area is compliant.” This example demonstrates the importance of understanding and complying with the requirements of the Regulation as a whole, rather than following a portion of the Regulation out of context.
These are just a few examples of the type of issues that come to my attention on a regular basis. By highlighting these issues, I hope to provide guidance and reduce their prevalence.
|