£
<
33
O
%
**«£0SX
Mi.
o
z
UJ
o
'%	•	c-/
"U PRO^
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
EPA Progress on the 2007
Methamphetamine Remediation
Research Act
Report No. 11-P-0708
September 27, 2011

-------
Report Contributors:	Carolyn Copper
Steve Hanna
Roopa Batni
Tapati Bhattacharyya
Kate Kimmel
Brooke Shull
Abbreviations
DEA	Drug Enforcement Administration
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
HHW	Household Hazardous Waste
NIST	National Institute of Standards and Technology
OEM	Office of Emergency Management
OIG	Office of Inspector General
ORD	Office of Research and Development
OSWER	Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Cover photo: Members of the New Jersey Department of Emergency Management responding
to a clandestine drug lab. (Photo courtesy Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
e-mail:	OIG Hotline@epa.gov	write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone: 1-888-546-8740	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
fax:	703-347-8330	Mailcode 8431P (Room N-4330)
online:	http://www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.htm	Washington. DC 20460

-------
S7">q v
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	11-P-0708
£> mm r,
£ Offino r»f Incnortnr	September 27, 2011
Office of Inspector General
\ v^71
At a Glance
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this review to
determine the effectiveness of
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's)
methamphetamine laboratory,
or meth lab, cleanup guidelines,
and the status of EPA's
required activities under the
2007 Methamphetamine
Remediation Research Act
(Meth Act).
Background
Thousands of clandestine meth
labs are discovered in the
United States each year in
houses, hotels, apartments, and
vehicles. Chronic exposure to
residual meth lab chemicals can
cause cancer; damage to the
brain, liver, and kidneys; and
reproductive problems. The
Meth Act requires EPA to
develop cleanup guidelines for
meth labs; develop a research
plan to identify chemicals of
concern and possible exposure,
and evaluate cleanup
techniques; perform a study of
residual effects of meth lab
chemicals; and convene a
technology transfer conference
every 3 years.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2011/
20110927-11 -P-0708.pdf
EPA Progress on the 2007 Methamphetamine
Remediation Research Act
What We Found
EPA has met some, but not all, of its requirements under the Meth Act. While
EPA did publish an initial set of guidelines, Voluntary Guidelines for
Methamphetamine Laboratory> Cleanup, in August 2009, it has not yet developed
plans to periodically update the guidelines as required. EPA developed a draft
multiyear research plan, but has delayed its implementation. EPA also has no
plans to convene the technology transfer conference within the required
timeframe. Finally, although EPA satisfied the requirement to conduct a study of
residual effects by performing a literature review of the health impacts of
chemicals remaining in meth labs, it did not transmit the required report to
Congress.
According to EPA staff, EPA has not been able to fully implement the Meth Act
requirements because EPA's authorized Meth Act funding of $3.5 million was
never appropriated. As a result, EPA's work to meet the Meth Act's requirements
has been funded by resources redirected from other programs. From 2008
through January 2011, EPA's estimated total expenditures to address the Meth
Act requirements, including personnel and contract costs, were more than
$1.1 million.
EPA has no controls in place to track legislative requirements Agency-wide. EPA
relies on its program offices to do so, but these program offices also do not have
controls in place to track all legislative requirements.
What We Recommend
We recommend that EPA determine the Agency's ability to implement the Meth
Act requirements and communicate its plan to Congress. We also recommend
that EPA update several areas of the voluntary guidelines and develop internal
controls to ensure legislative requirements are identified, tracked, and met. EPA
agreed with these recommendations. The recommendations are listed as
unresolved because planned completion dates were not provided. In its final
response to this report, EPA should describe its specific corrective actions to
address the recommendations and provide estimated completion dates for these
actions.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 27, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Progress on the 2007 Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act
Report No. ll-P-0708
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe
the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report
represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position.
Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with
established resolution procedures.
The estimated direct labor and travel costs for this report are $195,943.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. The recommendations are listed as unresolved because planned
completion dates were not provided. Your response should include a corrective action plan for
agreed-upon actions, including actual or estimated milestone completion dates. Your response
will be posted on the OIG's public website, along with our comments on your response. Your
response should be provided in an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility
requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. Please e-mail your
response to Carolyn Copper at copper.carolyn@epa.gov. If your response contains data that you
do not want to be released to the public, you should identify the data for redaction. We have no
objections to the further release of this report to the public.
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins, J
Inspector General
TO
See Below

-------
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Wade Najjum at
(202) 566-0827 or naiium.wade@epa.gov, or Carolyn Copper at (202) 566-0829 or
copper.carolyn@epa.gov.
Addressees:
Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Paul T. Anastas, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
Arvin Ganesan, Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Michael L. Goo, Associate Administrator for Policy

-------
EPA Progress on the 2007 Methamphetamine Remediation
Research Act
11-P-0708
Table of C
Chapters
1	Introduction	 1
Purpose	 1
Background	 1
Noteworthy Achievements	 4
Scope and Methodology	 5
2	EPA Has Not Completed All Meth Act Requirements
Due to Lack of Funding	 7
EPA Has Completed Some Requirements of the Meth Act		7
Resource Constraints Limiting EPA's Efforts to Meet
Meth Act Requirements 	 11
EPA Has No Controls to Identify and Track Legislative Requirements		11
Conclusions	 12
Recommendations 	 12
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation	 13
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		14
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comment	 15
B Distribution	 22

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
We conducted this review to determine the effecti veness of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) methamphetamine laboratory, or
meth lab, cleanup guidelines, and the status of EPA's required activities under the
2007 Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act (Meth Act).
Background
Methamphetamine is a highly addictive, synthetic stimulant that affects the
central nervous system. It is produced most frequently for use as an illicit
recreational drug using readily available chemicals and equipment (figure 1).
Meth labs are found in houses, apartments, hotels, and vehicles. Meth production
releases numerous chemical byproducts, such as volatile organic compounds,
acids, bases, and metals, in
addition to meth itself. These
contaminants can remain in
carpet, walls, floorboards, or
other structures.
Additionally, chemicals may
be improperly disposed by
dumping or burying on the
property, or pouring down
the drain into sewers or
septic tanks. Each pound of
meth manufactured results in
5 to 6 pounds of highly toxic
waste.
EPA has identified 75 chemicals associated with former meth labs. These
chemicals may require disposal as hazardous waste, and include:
•	Cyanides—sodium cyanide and hydrogen cyanide
•	Irritants and corrosives—hydrochloric acid, phosphine gas, and sulfuric
acid
•	Metals/salts—red phosphorus and lead acetate
•	Solvents—acetone, benzene, chloroform, ethyl ether, and toluene
•	Other potentially hazardous chemicals—ammonia, iodine, hydrogen, LSD,
and phenyl-2-propane
Figure 1: Common meth lab ingredients
Department of Justice photo.
11-P-0708
1

-------
Health and Safety Risks
According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, children
who live at or visit drug-production sites or are present during drug production
face a variety of health and safety risks, including inhalation, absorption, or
ingestion of toxic chemicals, drugs, or contaminated foods that may result in
nausea, chest pain, eye and tissue irritation, chemical burns, and death. If former
meth labs have not been decontaminated properly, chronic exposure to residual,
dangerous, and hidden chemicals can cause serious health problems, such as
cancer; damage to the brain, liver, and kidneys; birth defects; and reproductive
problems such as miscarriages.
Removal and Remediation
Thousands of meth labs are discovered nationwide each year (figure 2). After a
meth lab has been seized and processed for evidence, law enforcement is
responsible for the removal and disposal of the bulk hazardous waste. In most
states, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has funded the removal of
chemicals, drugs, and the apparatus used to manufacture the daigs,1 but DEA
Figure 2: 2010 Meth lab incidents
Total of All Meth Clandestine Laboratory Incidents
Including Labs, Dumpsites, Chem/Glass/Equipment
Calendar Year 2010
Total: 10,247
Source: El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)
National Seizure System (NSS)
1 This funding came from the DEA Community Oriented Policing Services Program. DEA is no longer funding this
program as of fiscal year 2011.
11-P-0708
2

-------
does not remediate residual contamination at these sites. Remediation of residual
contamination is the responsibility of the property owner or state or local
governments. The property owner and local government agencies must comply
with state and federal safety and environmental regulations. State meth lab
cleanup requirements vary significantly—some states have no regulations for
residual contamination while others have established laws or guidelines.
Difficulties with remediation of meth labs are illustrated by examples of residual
contamination causing health problems for unsuspecting residents, especially
children, living in former meth lab homes. For example, a 2009 New York Times
article reported on a family who unknowingly resided in a former Tennessee meth
lab.2 The family's three young children developed breathing problems that
required repeated trips to the emergency room, and the parents developed kidney
ailments. The family discovered that the house had been a meth lab more than
5 years after moving in. The house was contaminated with high levels of meth.
After the family moved out of the house, their health problems largely subsided.
The Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007
The Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007 was enacted in
December 2007. The Meth Act states the following findings by Congress:
(1)	Methamphetamine use and production is growing rapidly
throughout the United States.
(2)	Materials and residues remaining from the production of
methamphetamine pose novel environmental problems in
locations where methamphetamine laboratories have been closed.
(3)	There has been little standardization of measures for determining
when the site of a closed methamphetamine laboratory has been
successfully remediated.
(4)	Initial cleanup actions are generally limited to removal of
hazardous substances and contaminated materials that pose an
immediate threat to public health or the environment. It is not
uncommon for significant levels of contamination to be found
throughout residential structures after a methamphetamine
laboratory has closed, partially because of a lack of knowledge of
how to achieve an effective cleanup.
(5)	Data on methamphetamine laboratory-related contaminants of
concern are very limited, and cleanup standards do not currently
exist. In addition, procedures for sampling and analysis of
contaminants need to be researched and developed.
(6)	Many States are struggling with establishing remediation
guidelines and programs to address the rapidly expanding
number of methamphetamine laboratories being closed each
year.
2 The New York Times, "Illnesses Afflict Homes With a Criminal Past," July 14, 2009.
11-P-0708
3

-------
The purpose of the Meth Act is "to establish a Federal research program to
support the development of voluntary guidelines to help states address the
residual consequences of former methamphetamine laboratories." The Meth Act
requires EPA to develop model, voluntary, health-based, cleanup guidelines based
on the best available scientific knowledge that may be used by states and
localities to remediate former meth lab sites. The Meth Act addresses the specific
problem of determining the level of cleanup required to ensure that a former meth
lab is safe for occupation. States do not have to follow the guidelines, however—
they are voluntary and not a federal mandate.
The scope of the problem of meth lab cleanup is illustrated by congressional
testimony during committee hearings (figure 3).
Figure 3: Excerpts from congressional testimony on the 2007 Meth Act
"Right now there are unsuspecting families living in homes that were once illegal meth
labs. Dangerous and hidden toxic substances in these sites threaten the health of these
families—with children being the most vulnerable to the devastating, long-term effects
of exposure."—Representative Bart Gordon (Tennessee)
"This is a—unfortunately, a scourge that is all over this country and affects millions of
people adversely."—Representative Ken Calvert (California)
"In my three decades of public service, I don't think I've ever seen a problem as
pervasive or as damaging as the methamphetamine epidemic that is sweeping our
country. Meth is a serious threat to public health and safety, not only because of the
highly addictive nature of the drug itself and its ease of production, but also the toxic
chemicals used in its manufacture that are contaminating our communities."—
Representative Darlene Hooley (Oregon)
Source: Report 110-8, House of Representatives, 110th Congress 1st session, Methamphetamine
Remediation Research Act of 2007.
The Meth Act also requires EPA to develop a research program, submit a report
to Congress on how the residual effects study will affect the guidelines and the
research program, convene regular conferences for sharing information and
submit a report to Congress on feedback obtained during the conferences, and
periodically update the guidelines. EPA states that the guidelines and the research
program should meet the Meth Act goal of improving "our national understanding
of identifying the point at which former methamphetamine laboratories become
clean enough to inhabit again."
Noteworthy Achievements
According to EPA, since 1999, EPA's Clandestine Methamphetamine Laboratory
First Responder Awareness and Operations training program has been offered to
more than 1,200 first responders through 30 courses in 8 EPA regions and 2
U.S. territories.
11-P-0708
4

-------
According to EPA, since 2007 the EPA Local Governments Reimbursement
Program has awarded over $700,000 for expenses related to the release of
hazardous substances and associated emergency response measures.
Approximately 25 percent of the total awarded was for the cleanup of former
meth labs.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our work from January to July 2011 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the evaluation to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We
assessed whether EPA followed the requirements set forth in the Meth Act to
determine the effectiveness of EPA's meth lab remediation guidelines and
activities. We assessed EPA's internal controls for tracking legislative
requirements, such as reports to Congress. We believe the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our
objectives.
We interviewed staff at EPA headquarters in Washington, DC, from the Office of
Emergency Management (OEM), the Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery, and the Organizational Management and Integrity Staff, all of the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). We also interviewed
headquarters staff from the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, and the Office of
Policy.
We reviewed a number of documents and considered a number of issues,
including:
•	The 2007 Meth Act and the current status of EPA requirements defined
therein
•	EPA documents prepared in response to the 2007 Meth Act
•	State meth remediation guidelines and programs, as well as the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
research paper and state survey on meth remediation activities
•	EPA's 2008 report to Congress, RCRA Hazardous Waste Identification of
Methamphetamine Production Process By-products
•	Funding mechanisms available for meth lab remediation activities
•	Waste classifications and definitions for the household hazardous waste
(HHW) exemption and disposal requirements for meth lab waste
•	Health and environmental risks caused by meth labs
•	Examples of mechanisms used to track former meth lab properties for
public access
•	Environmental justice and children's health issues associated with former
meth labs
11-P-0708
5

-------
Prior Evaluation Coverage
The following Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports addressed issues related
to the scope of our review:
•	DEA OIG, The Drug Enforcement Administration's Clandestine Drug
Laboratory Cleanup Program, Audit Report 10-29, June 2010. This report
addressed DEA's hazardous waste cleanup and disposal activities for meth
labs, including an evaluation of DEA's use of the Assets Forfeiture Fund
to pay for clandestine drug laboratory cleanups. The DEA OIG found that
the DEA had significant problems in its Clandestine Drug Laboratory
Cleanup Program.
•	U. S. Department of Justice OIG, Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services Methamphetamine Initiative, Audit Report 06-16, March 2006.
This OIG evaluated the administration and monitoring of grant programs
under the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
Methamphetamine Initiative, which was established to combat meth
production, distribution, and use, as well as pay for the proper removal
and disposal of hazardous materials at clandestine meth laboratories. This
OIG found that management and administrative controls over Meth
Initiative grants were not adequate.
11-P-0708
6

-------
Chapter 2
EPA Has Not Completed All Meth Act Requirements
Due to Lack of Funding
EPA has met some, but not all, of its requirements under the Meth Act. While
EPA did publish an initial set of guidelines, Voluntary Guidelines for
Methamphetamine Laboratory Cleanup, in August 2009, it has not yet developed
plans to periodically update the guidelines as required. EPA did develop a
multiyear research plan, but has delayed its full implementation. EPA convened
an initial technology transfer conference, but has no plans to convene the next
technology transfer conference within the required timeframe. Finally, although
EPA satisfied the study of residual effects by performing a literature review of the
health impacts of chemicals remaining in meth labs, it did not transmit the
required report to Congress. Although the 2007 Meth Act authorized a total of
$3.5 million for EPA in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, this funding was never
appropriated by Congress. EPA's efforts to fund Meth Act initiatives with monies
from other EPA programs could not match the amount authorized and needed.
Further, EPA lacks internal controls to track compliance with legislative
requirements, such as reports to Congress. Consequently, EPA's remaining Meth
Act obligations may not be met or may be delayed, and EPA may not achieve its
goal of developing health-based cleanup guidance to reduce public health risks
from meth labs that are not sufficiently cleaned up.
EPA Has Completed Some Requirements of the Meth Act
The Meth Act identified specific requirements for EPA. Table 1 lists these
requirements, with a summary of their current status. A detailed description of
each requirement and its status follows.
Table 1: EPA Meth Act requirements
Requirement
Current status
Develop voluntary meth lab remediation guidelines.
Complete.
Periodically update the guidelines.
Incomplete.
EPA staff stated they have developed plans to
update the guidelines.
Establish a meth lab research program.
Implementation delayed.
Draft research plan developed, but full
implementation delayed.
Convene a meth lab technology transfer
conference every 3 years and submit a report to
Congress summarizing these conferences.
Overdue.
First conference was held. EPA staff stated they
have developed plans for the next conference.
Complete a residual effects study to identify
research needs related to the health impacts of
chemicals remaining in meth labs, and submit a
report to Congress on the findings.
Complete.
But no report to Congress.
Source: OIG analysis of the Meth Act requirements and interviews with EPA staff.
11-P-0708

-------
Voluntary Remediation Guidelines
The Meth Act requires EPA, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment, to
develop voluntary guidelines for the remediation of former meth labs. The Meth
Act requires EPA to develop these guidelines in consultation with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), based on the best currently
available scientific knowledge. The Meth Act also requires EPA to work with
state and local governments and other relevant nonfederal agencies and
organizations to promote and encourage the appropriate adoption of the voluntary
guidelines.
EPA has satisfied this legislative requirement. The Voluntary Guidelines for
Methamphetamine Laboratory Cleanup were published in August 2009. Members
of state programs and universities contributed to the guidelines, and the guidelines
were reviewed by other federal agencies, including NIST, as well as state and
county organizations.
Periodic Update of the Guidelines
The Meth Act requires EPA to periodically update the voluntary guidelines in
consultation with states and other interested parties. Updates to the guidelines
should incorporate research findings and other new knowledge. The Meth Act
does not specify the frequency of the periodic update.
EPA has not addressed this requirement. OEM staff stated that they have
developed a plan to update the guidelines, but some delay can be expected due to
resource constraints.
During our review, we identified some issues that should be evaluated for
inclusion in updates to the voluntary guidelines:
•	Disposal of meth lab waste as HHW—The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act allows disposal of HHW in municipal landfills. Some states
explicitly prevent meth lab waste from being disposed as HHW, while
other states do not. The guidelines do not define EPA's position on the
disposal of meth lab waste as HHW. Updated guidelines should define
EPA's position on disposal of meth lab waste as HHW.
•	Funding meth lab remediation through the Local Governments
Reimbursement Program—OEM manages the Local Governments
Reimbursement Program, which can provide remediation reimbursement
up to $25,000 per incident. The updated guidelines could emphasize the
availability of these funds for meth lab remediation, which may help in the
cleanup of these sites.
11-P-0708
8

-------
• Information on former meth lab sites—Information on the location of
former meth lab sites could provide helpful risk information to prospective
occupants. DEA and some state programs identify these sites on their
websites. The updated guidelines could identify these websites.
• Environmental justice and children's health—Children may be the
population at greatest risk when improperly cleaned up meth lab sites are
reinhabited. Children's health and environmental justice have been
defined as priorities by the EPA Administrator and, accordingly, should be
explicitly addressed in the updated guidelines.
Establishment of a Research Program
The Meth Act requires EPA to establish a program of research to support the
development and revision of the voluntary guidelines. The Meth Act specifies,
Such research shall -
1.	identify methamphetamine-laboratory-related chemicals
of concern;
2.	assess the types and levels of exposure to chemicals of
concern identified, including routine and accidental
exposures, that may present a significant risk of adverse
biological effects, and the research necessary to better
address biological effects and to minimize adverse human
exposures;
3.	evaluate the performance of various meth lab cleanup and
remediation techniques; and
4.	support other research priorities identified by the
Administrator in consultation with states and other
interested parties.
ORD drafted a research plan in March 2009 to address the issues identified in the
Meth Act. However, full implementation of the draft plan has been delayed due to
resource limitations. ORD has accomplished the following:
Completed the draft Methamphetamine Remediation Research Plan in
March 2009. This plan was subjected to external peer review, resulting in
a draft Peer Review Report dated December 3, 2009.
Finalized a memorandum of understanding with NIST in October 2009.
The purpose of this memorandum of understanding is to delineate the
roles and responsibilities of the ORD and NIST meth research programs.
ORD staff stated they conducted a thorough search of scientific guidance
and literature to assist in focusing limited resources on a high priority
research project.
Initiated research investigating the effectiveness of hydrogen peroxide as a
remediation agent. To accomplish this research, ORD has completed the
11-P-0708
9

-------
necessary logistics—obtaining permission from the state of North Carolina
for a meth lab test site, and from DEA to purchase meth from commercial
vendors.
Technology Transfer Conference
The Meth Act directs EPA to convene a technology transfer conference not later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Meth Act, and at least every
3 years thereafter. This conference should include 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 labs.
The Meth Act further specifies that the conference should be a forum for EPA to
provide information on the voluntary guidelines and the research program, and for
nonfederal participants to provide information on their problems, needs, and
experiences with the guidelines. EPA is required to provide a summary report of
the proceedings to Congress not more than 3 months after each conference.
EPA has not completed this requirement. OEM staff stated they satisfied the
requirement for the initial conference by participating in the 2008 National
Alliance for Model State Drug Laws conference. EPA did not transmit a report to
Congress summarizing the proceedings. However, EPA staff stated that in 2010
they provided Congressional staff with links to the conference proceedings. OEM
staff stated that they have developed plans to convene another national
meeting/conference. EPA stated that it now has plans to convene a national
meeting in lieu of a technology transfer conference. Staff also stated that planning
for the conference was limited by resource constraints. The first of the triennial
conferences should have been scheduled for spring 2011 and is therefore overdue.
Residual Effects Study
The Meth Act requires EPA to 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 labs. This arrangement is required not more than
6 months after enactment of the Meth Act. The purpose of the study is to identify
research gaps, recommend an agenda for the research program, and focus on the
need for research on the impacts on (1) residents, with particular emphasis on
biological impacts on children, and (2) first responders. The Meth Act further
requires EPA to transmit to Congress a report on how EPA will use the results of
the study to carry out all meth-related activities. This report is required not later
than 3 months after completion of the study.
EPA has completed the intent of this requirement, but did not report to Congress.
Without a funding appropriation for an arrangement with the National Academy
of Sciences, ORD addressed the residual effects study through a literature review.
ORD completed the review in 2010, but did not transmit a report to Congress.
ORD staff stated they provided a copy of its draft research plan to Congress in
11-P-0708
10

-------
2009, and in 2010 ORD staff updated congressional staff on the status of the
residual effect study.
Resource Constraints Limiting EPA's Efforts to Meet Meth Act
Requirements
The 2007 Meth Act authorized a total of $3.5 million for EPA in fiscal years 2007
and 2008. However, this funding was never appropriated by Congress. Without
adequate funding, all Meth Act goals will not be met or will be delayed. EPA has
not informed Congress as to which requirements it will not be able to meet.
OEM and ORD managers have indicated their commitment to complete EPA's
Meth Act requirements. EPA estimates that it has directed more than $1.1 million
from other funding sources to implement the requirements. OEM spent
approximately $339,000 from the Superfund budget from 2008 through 2010 to
complete the voluntary guidelines, participate in interagency workgroups, gather
input from state and local government officials, and provide first-responder
training. ORD spent an additional $816,000 from the Science and Technology
appropriation from 2008 through January 2011 to support the development of the
guidelines and conduct research activities required by the Meth Act. However,
despite these efforts by OEM and ORD, without its authorized funding, EPA will
not complete or will delay completion of the Meth Act requirements so that it can
address funded Agency priorities.
Although EPA's guidelines describe a remediation process and best practices for
cleanup, states have identified the need for health-based cleanup guidance. ORD
expects to continue its research activities on the use of hydrogen peroxide in meth
lab remediation in the near future. However, additional research that would
support the development of voluntary health-based cleanup guidance has been
delayed.
EPA Has No Controls to Identify and Track Legislative Requirements
EPA staff were unaware that the legislative requirements of the Meth Act that we
identified as overdue were, in fact, overdue. We discussed this issue with staff
from the EPA Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations and the
Office of Policy, who confirmed that they have no internal controls to identify or
track the status of EPA's legislative requirements. Further, they stated that
tracking and completing the requirements were the responsibility of the EPA
program offices. EPA staff also stated that Congress has never asked EPA for
these reports.
We discussed the identification and tracking of EPA legislative requirements with
staff from the relevant program offices—OSWER and ORD. Neither of these
program offices have controls in place to identify and track all legislative
11-P-0708
11

-------
requirements, although an ORD division director stated that ORD tracks
requirements that have appropriated funds.
Conclusions
EPA will continue to be delayed or prevented from fulfilling all of its obligations
under the 2007 Meth Act due to a lack of congressional appropriation of
authorized funds, limited EPA funding, and a lack of internal controls for tracking
legislative requirements. EPA has not communicated with Congress to explain the
effects the lack of funding has had on its ability to complete the Meth Act's
requirements. Although EPA published voluntary remediation guidelines and
initiated a research program, it has not completed other Meth Act requirements.
Further research is needed if EPA is to update its guidelines with health-based
criteria that can help states and local governments identify the point at which
former meth labs are safe to inhabit again. To make informed decisions, Congress
needs to be aware of the challenges created by its lack of funding, and of the
impacts to other program activities caused by redirection of funds to meet Meth
Act requirements.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response and the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development:
1.	Establish a plan to implement the Meth Act requirements and inform
Congress which requirements will not be met or will be delayed.
2.	Address the following issues in the next update to the voluntary
remediation guidelines:
a.	Clarification of whether meth lab waste can legally be disposed
ofasHHW.
b.	Availability of EPA Local Governments Reimbursement
funding to pay for meth lab cleanup.
c.	Information on websites containing lists of former meth lab
sites.
d.	Consideration of children's health and environmental justice.
We recommend that the Associate Administrator for Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations and the Associate Administrator for Policy:
3.	Develop internal controls to ensure that legislative requirements are
identified and tracked, and that their status is reported to Congress as
required.
11-P-0708
12

-------
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
OSWER provided a coordinated Agency response. We reviewed the Agency's
comments and made changes to the report as appropriate. Appendix A provides
the full text of OSWER's response and the OIG's comments on that response.
The Agency agreed with all recommendations. EPA suggested a change to
recommendation 2, which was accepted. In its 90-day response to this report,
EPA should include a detailed corrective action plan with estimated milestone
dates for each recommendation. The recommendations are listed as unresolved
because planned completion dates were not provided.
11-P-0708
13

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Agreed To
Amount
12 Establish a plan to implement the Meth Act
requirements and inform Congress which
requirements will not be met or will be delayed.
12 Address the following issues in the next update to
the voluntary remediation guidelines:
a.	Clarification of whether meth lab waste can
legally be disposed of as HHW.
b.	Availability of EPA Local Governments
Reimbursement funding to pay for meth lab
cleanup.
c.	Information on websites containing lists of
former meth lab sites.
d.	Consideration of children's health and
environmental justice.
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and
Assistant Administrator
for Research and
Development
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and
Assistant Administrator
for Research and
Development
12 Develop internal controls to ensure that legislative
requirements are identified and tracked, and that
their status is reported to Congress as required.
Associate Administrator for
Congressional and
Intergovernmental Relations
and Associate Administrator
for Policy
1 0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress
11-P-0708
14

-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report and
OIG Comment
(Received September 2, 2011)
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Environmental Protection Agency' s (EPA) Response to OIG's Draft Report:
"EPA Progress on the 2007 Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act,"
Project No. OPE-FY11-0007
FROM: Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Kevin Teichman
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science
Office of Research and Development
Arvin Ganesan
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
TO:	Wade T. Najjum
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Office of Inspector General (OIG) draft
evaluation report: "EPA Progress on the 2007 Methamphetamine Remediation Research
Act," Project No. OPE-FY11-0007, dated July 25, 2011.
As you know, EPA has been involved, through many offices, in the federal response to
former meth labs, as well as implementation of the requirements of the Methamphetamine
Remediation Research Act of 2007 (Meth Act). In addition to the voluntary remediation
guidelines developed by EPA's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), the Agency's
Local Governmental Reimbursement Program has reimbursed a number of local
governments for the cleanup of former meth labs. We have also trained more than 1200 first
responders on Awareness and Operations at former meth labs. Other activities include EPA's
submission of the 2011 report to Congress entitled "RCRA Hazardous Waste Identification
of Methamphetamine Production Process By-products" which identified by-products of the
meth production process and whether they were considered hazardous waste. Additionally, in
consultation with leading researchers in the meth lab remediation arena, the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) developed a research strategy to address Meth Act
11-P-0708
15

-------
requirements. While activities required under the 2007 Meth Act remain unfunded, EPA has
been providing ongoing assistance to state and local governments in their response to the
cleanup of former meth labs.
Our response to the draft OIG recommendations is below. Our specific comments are
attached, and address concerns that require attention and consideration.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
and the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development:
1. Establish a plan to implement the Meth Act requirements and inform Congress which
requirements will not be met or will be delayed.
While the Agency did not receive Congressional appropriations to implement the Act's
requirements, we are in the process of establishing a final plan to implement the requirements
of the Meth Act. Working with the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
(OCIR), we will continue to keep interested Congressional staff informed of our progress,
including the anticipated dates that requirements will be addressed.
OIG Response: EPA agreed with this recommendation. The Agency stated that it is in the
process of establishing a final plan to implement the Meth Act requirements, and will keep
interested congressional staff informed of progress. The intent of our recommendation is to
inform the appropriate congressional staff, which could be different than those interested.
This recommendation is listed as unresolved because planned completion dates were not
provided. In its 90-day response to this report, EPA should include a detailed corrective
action plan with estimated milestone dates to implement the requirements of the Meth Act.
2. Address the following issues in the next update to the voluntary remediation guidelines:
a.	Definition of meth lab waste as Household Hazardous Waste (HHW).
b.	Availability of EPA Local Governments Reimbursement funding to pay for meth lab
cleanup.
c.	Information on websites containing lists of former meth lab sites.
d.	Consideration of children's health and environmental justice.
OEM will take into consideration a. - d. in this recommendation when undertaking an update
to the guidelines. OEM will coordinate with ORCR in the definition of HHW.
OIG Response: EPA agreed with this recommendation. This recommendation is listed as
unresolved because planned completion dates were not provided. In its 90-day response to
this report, EPA should include a detailed corrective action plan with estimated milestone
dates for the next update of the guidelines.
11-P-0708
16

-------
We recommend that the Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations and the Associate Administrator for Policy:
3. Develop internal controls to ensure that legislative requirements are identified and
tracked, and that their status is reported to Congress as required.
EPA is in the process of developing a system to track Reports to Congress to ensure that
legislative requirements are met.
OIG Response: EPA agreed with this recommendation. The Agency stated that it is in the
process of developing a system to track Reports to Congress and ensure legislative
requirements are met. This recommendation is listed as unresolved because planned
completion dates were not provided. In its 90-day response to this report, EPA should
include a detailed corrective action plan with estimated milestone dates for the
implementation of the tracking system.
If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Johnsie Webster at (202) 566-1912.
Attachment
cc: Arthur Elkins
Carolyn Copper
Steve Hanna
Lek Kadeli
Fred Hauchman
Amy Battaglia
Deborah Heckman
Norman Adkins
Larry Stanton
Dana Tulis
Gilberto Irizarry
Lisa Boynton
Jim Michaels
Carolyn Levine
11-P-0708
17

-------
Attachment
Comments
1.	On page 2, your draft report states:
"Ifformer meth labs have not been decontaminated properly, chronic exposure to residual,
dangerous, and hidden chemicals can cause serious health problems, such as cancer; damage to
the brain, liver, and kidneys; birth defects; and reproductive problems such as miscarriages. "
Please cite the supporting studies used to make these statements or revise the statement to focus on
supportable adverse health effects.
OIG Response: Health effects are described in the Washington State Department of Health Meth
Lab fact sheet, currently available at http://www.doh.wa. gov/ehp/cdl/methlab.htm.
2.	On page 2, your draft report states:
"After a meth lab has been seized and processedfor evidence, law enforcement is responsible for
the removal and disposal of the hazardous waste. "
Please add the word "bulk" before "hazardous."
OIG Response: "Bulk" added as suggested.
3. On page 2 and 3, your draft report states: "In most states, the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) has funded the removal of chemicals, drugs, and the apparatus used to
manufacture the drugs, but DEA does not remediate residual contamination at these sites. "
Please replace the word "remediate" with the word "fund." Add the word "remediation" after the
word "contamination."
OIG Response: No change - wording is consistent with DEA statements in its 2005 Guidelines for
Law Enforcement for the Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratories.
4. On page 4, your draft report states:
"The purpose of the Meth Act is 'to establish a Federal research program to support the
development of voluntary guidelines to help states address the residual consequences of former
methamphetamine laboratories'. "
The text quoted in the draft report is not taken directly from the Methamphetamine Act. Please use
language directly from the Act or remove the quotation marks.
11-P-0708
18

-------
OIG Response: The statement is a direct quote from page 2 of the Methamphetamine Research Act
of2007, Report 110-8, identified as a report to accompany HR. 365, February 7, 2007. A direct link
to this document may be found at EPA's Voluntary Guidelines for Methamphetamine Laboratory
Cleanup website, at http://www.epa.gov/oem/methlab.htm.
5. On page 4, your draft report states:
"The Meth Act also requires EPA to develop a research program and submit a report to
Congress on the research results, convene regular conferences for sharing information and
submit a report to Congress on feedback obtained during the conferences, and periodically
update the guidelines. "
The research program section (Section 4) does not direct EPA to submit any reports, so please strike
the phrase "submit a report to Congress on the research results."
OIG Response: Section 6 of the Act (public law 110-143, December 21, 2007) specifies that "the
Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report on how the Administrator will use the results of the
study to carry out the activities described in sections 3 and 4." The sentence has been modified to
clarify the report requirement.
6. General concerning Chapter 2, section entitled "EPA Has Completed Some Requirements of
the Meth Act", information regarding the "Establishment of a Research Program. "
Please add the following accomplishment: EPA conducted a thorough search of scientific guidance
and literature to assist in focusing limited resources on a high priority research project.
OIG Response: New bullet added on page 9.
7. On page 7, your draft report states:
"EPA did develop a multiyear research plan, but has delayed its implementation. "
Insert the word "full" between "its" and "implementation."
OIG Response: "Full" added as suggested, and also added to table on page 7 under Current Status
column, Establish a meth lab research program.
8. On page 7, your draft report states:
"EPA also has no plans to convene the technology transfer conference within the required
timeframe. "
EPA has convened one technology transfer conference and this is mentioned later in your report on
page 8. Revise this sentence to note that one conference has been held. Please make the statements
related to conferences should be consistent throughout the document. Also add that EPA does have
plans to convene a national meeting in lieu of a technology transfer conference.
11-P-0708
19

-------
OIG Response: Sentence revised to read "EPA convened an initial technology transfer conference,
but has no plans to convene the next technology transfer conference within the required timeframe."
Sentence added on page 10 as requested, "EPA stated that it now has plans to convene a national
meeting in lieu of a technology transfer conference."
9. On page 8, your report states:
"EPA has not yet developed plans to update the guidelines due to resource constraints. "
EPA has developed a plan to update the guidelines. However, some delay in updating the guidelines
can be expected due to resource constraints.
OIG Response: At the start of our review, EPA did not yet have any plans for update of the
guidelines, but later indicated that they had started discussions to develop the plan. We have updated
the text to reflect this most recent plan development by EPA. The sentence has been revised to
"OEM staff stated that they have developed a plan to update the guidelines, but some delay can be
expected due to resource constraints."
10. On page 8, your report states:
"First conference was held. No plans to convene the next conference due to resource
constraints. "
As EPA stated in the investigation stage of the process, while resource constraints could delay a
conference, we have plans developed to convene another national meeting/conference. Please add
language to this effect in the report. This information should be consistent throughout the report.
OIG Response: At the start of our review, EPA did not yet have any plans for convening the next
conference, but later indicated that they had started discussions for future conferences. We have
updated the text to reflect this most recent plan development by EPA. The sentence has been revised
to "OEM staff stated that they have developed plans to convene another national
meeting/conference."
11. On page 9, your draft report states:
"However, the implementation of the draft plan has been delayed due to resource limitations. "
Please replace the word "the" with the word "full."
OIG Response: Sentence modified as suggested.
12. On page 9, your draft report states:
"Completed the draft Methamphetamine Remediation Research Plan in March 2009. This plan
was subjected to external peer review. "
11-P-0708
20

-------
Please insert the words "resulting in a Peer Review Report dated December 3, 2009" at the end of
the sentence.
OIG Response: Sentence modified as suggested.
13. On page 9, your draft report states:
"Finalized a memorandum of understanding with NIST. The purpose of this memorandum of
understanding is to delineate the roles and responsibilities of the ORD and NIST meth research
programs. "
Please insert the words "in October 2009" at the end of the first sentence.
OIG Response: Sentence modified as suggested.
14. On page 10, your draft report states:
"EPA has completed the intent of this requirement, but did not report to Congress. Without a
funding appropriation for an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences, ORD
addressed the residual effects study through a literature review. ORD completed the review in
2010, but did not transmit a report to Congress. EPA staff stated that in 2010 they updated
Congressional staff on the status of the residual effect study and provided a copy of ORD's draft
research plan. "
EPA submitted a research plan to Congress in March 2009. We have attached the OCIR transmittal
and Congressional staff acknowledgement of receipt to demonstrate that this occurred. Please
change the language in your draft report to reflect this information.
OIG Response: Last sentence on page 10 modified to "ORD staff stated they provided a copy of its
draft research plan to Congress in 2009, and in 2010 ORD staff updated congressional staff on the
status of the residual effect study."
75. On page 12, recommendation 2.a. you state: "definition of meth lab waste as HHW. "
As written, the recommendation appears to instruct EPA to define meth waste as a HHW. As we
informed the IG during their investigation, EPA's household hazardous waste exemption covers
waste from "households." We do not interpret the exemption to cover waste from meth labs. We
believe the recommendation would be better expressed with the following wording: "Clarify whether
meth lab waste can legally be disposed of as household hazardous waste." This language is
consistent with the language found in the "At A Glance" portion of the draft report.
OIG Response: Sentence changed to "Clarification of whether meth lab waste can legally be
disposed of as HHW."
11-P-0708
21

-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Policy
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Director, Office of Emergency Management, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Research and Development
11-P-0708
22

-------