A Madness Called Meth: Chapter Ten

HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN?

Without Standards, It's 'Buyer Beware'

The town of Ballico is a mere smudge on the map, tucked into a corner of
northwest Merced County among almond and grape orchards. Its only grocer
stocks Wonder bread near the powdered pan dulce and the Coca-Cola next to
the horchata. At night, the store moonlights as a Mexican restaurant, where
ranchero music floats across rows of table-clothed picnic tables.

The town motto, displayed in cursive on a sun-faded sign, is "Growing for
You," a sentiment belied by the dusty and vacant buildings surrounding it.
Ballico's crumbling asphalt streets intersect with anonymous roads; its
rickety shacks and abandoned farmhouses mingle with tidy homes and
well-manicured yards.

Juan and his family live in one of those homes. It rests in the evening
shade of mature maple and almond trees that line much of Bradbury Road. As
Juan opens the front door, cradling his newborn daughter, his young son
slides past him, jumps onto the porch, then races around the side yard,
laughing.

The home, on a 20-acre parcel, is clean, and the rent is affordable. It has
new carpeting, remodeled cabinets and air conditioning to combat the
triple-digit summer heat. But this family's American Dream has a dark side.

During one eight-month period last year, 94 meth-related dump sites were
found in Merced County alone. During the past two years, state
toxic-substances control agents have cleaned up 17 meth-related lab dumps
on or near Bradbury Road.

One cleanup site was at Juan's home.

Ten months earlier, gallons of toxic hydro-gen chloride gas were being
mass-produced in the back yard where his children now play. His son races
past the swing set along-side the house, where one night sulfuric acid
spewed 30 feet into the air and rained down on the house and a nearby shed.

The house's previous tenant was a drug addict and meth dealer. He also was
a cook among the select few: He had learned how to make hydrogen chloride
gas, used in large-scale meth cooking to convert liquid meth into a solid.
He had manufactured the gas in the shed, but after it corroded the windows
and ate through most of his tools, he started making it in the back yard.

"My landlord said the shed was used for farm equipment," Juan says, patting
the back of his son's head. "Nobody told me anything about this."

No one had to. In California, as in many other states, property owners are
not obligated to divulge information about "past" problems.

"It's not black and white," says Dan Garrett, a spokesman for the state
Department of Real Estate. "If I had positive knowledge that there were 20
gallons of acid in my back yard, it would be prudent to disclose that . . .
but if I'm convinced the problems are gone, why disclose what happened in
the past? What might be clean for one person may not be clean for another."

Therein lies the rub. There are no federal or California state standards
for cleaning up meth-contaminated sites. A few counties have created their
own standards, but in most cases, state and county officials simply trust
the property owner to clean up former lab sites.

A bill by state Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina Del Rey, would require the state
Department of Toxic Substances Control to devise regulations for meth lab
cleanups that "will result in a level of cleanup that will protect the
health and safety of future occupants of the site." The department would
have until January 2002. Bowen's bill, approved by the Legislature and sent
to Gov. Davis, was opposed by the department, which said it would cost $3
million a year to enforce, and would be too inflexible, and that a year
wasn't enough time.

Authorized by the Legislature in 1995, the state Department of Toxic
Substances Control handles the immediate removal of chemicals when a meth
lab is discovered. Department spokesman Ron Baker says the state is "just
in the beginning stage" of establishing guidelines for more thorough
cleanups and that it has to conduct research on potential dangers.

Yet one of the most comprehensive studies to date of such labs already has
been done by the California Environmental Protection Agency. The report,
released in 1993, found that residual contamination was higher than
expected after state cleanups, and it urged that statewide standards be
set. So far, that recommendation has been ignored, leaving it to individual
counties to set the rules.

A Bee survey of Valley counties found a wide range of lab cleanup procedures:

"We're not really even notified," says Larry Bagley, assistant director for
community services in Sutter County. "We just have never had a program for it."

- - Fresno County requires property owners to submit a cleanup work plan but
tries to be flexible on its details: "I'm not going to dog the owner," says
Vincent Mendes, supervising environmental health analyst. "I want them to
know what has happened to them and help them get through it."

- - In Tulare County, public health officials go to the lab sites with drug
agents and then write a letter to property owners requiring them to clean
it up. "I don't think there is a set standard. That's the problem," says
John Macedo, an environmental health specialist. "We just kind of make a
judgment call."

- - In Kern County, officials rely on "normal cleaning" at small lab or dump
sites. "On smaller quantities, normal cleaning will minimize any exposure,"
says Mike Chapman, the county's chief environmental health specialist.
"They're similar to chemicals used around your house all the time. The
normal cleaning procedures you would use for those are the method of choice."

- - In Tehama County, property owners are encouraged to work with an
environmental consultant. But it's not required. The county Environmental
Department also declines to pass judgment on whether the property is safe
because of fear the county could be held liable and sued over unsafe lab sites.

- - Sacramento County requires property owners to hire an industrial
hygienist to test for meth and other chemicals, clean up the property and
take samples again before issuing a letter that the property is safe.
That's all done at the property owner's expense. If the owner balks, the
case is referred to code enforcement.

Some counties assert that the residual danger from meth labs is overstated.
"Most of the chemicals are readily identifiable," says Tehama County
Environmental Department director Lee Mercer. "A lot of them are so
volatile, once the materials are removed, they don't really have any
toxicity or residual effect."

At Juan's home in Ballico, agents removed the chemicals from the lab used
to produce hydrogen chloride gas, and Merced County Environmental Health
officials sent a letter to the property owner, Hartle Spycher, informing
him of his legal responsibility to clean up the property.

The county didn't specify how many tests or what kind of tests were to be
performed, but advised Spycher to hire an environmental toxicologist or
certified industrial hygienist. Once the cleanup was finished, the firm was
to submit a document stating: "There is no significant risk to . . . the
public health and welfare."

Spycher hired an environmental toxicologist from Environmental Assessment
Services in Merced. Owner Terry Priest says he didn't test the soil or the
water, and he refused further comment. Spycher says the soil and water were
tested for acid and other foreign chemicals. Soil around the house and shed
was removed and replaced. He put in new wallboard.

On Sept. 20, Merced County Environmental Health Department received a
letter from the cleanup company stating that the property is free of
hazardous chemicals.

And $28,000 in repairs later, Spycher assures Juan's family the home is safe.

"There is no contamination," he says. "All of the tests and everything came
out clear, so what information is there for me to tell ? I redid it all. I
gutted the house, put in a new roof, new floors, new windows, stove, hot
water heaters. I wouldn't mind living in it. It's a nice, air-conditioned
little house."

Chapter 11, http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1506/a04.html