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.

-------