69–010 

Calendar No. 451 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–207 

METHAMPHETAMINE REMEDIATION RESEARCH ACT OF 

2007 

OCTOBER 26, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 635] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 635) to provide for a research program for remediation of closed methamphetamine production laboratories, and 

for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon without amendment and recommends the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

The purpose of the bill is to establish a Federal research program 

to support the development of voluntary guidelines to help states 

address some toxic waste from former methamphetamine laboratories. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Methamphetamine, or ‘‘meth’’, is a powerful drug that can cause 

serious problems with addiction. Symptoms of meth use range from 

nervousness to convulsions and brain damage. Chronic meth use 

can increase tolerance and dependence, resulting in users taking 

more frequent and higher doses, which can lead to violent and 

paranoid behavior. Federal law makes the use or manufacture of 

meth illegal without the appropriate authorization. 

A variety of outdoor and indoor areas can serve as meth labs. A 

lab can use relatively simple materials, such as mason jars, hot 

plates, pressure cookers, and plastic tubing, and the ingredients 

used to manufacture meth are commercially available anywhere in 


ycherry on PRODPC75 with REPORTS
2 

the U.S. The main ingredient can be either pseudoephedrine or 

ephedrine, two chemicals that are present in many over-thecounter cold and asthma medications, and the other chemicals are 

available in gasoline, drain cleaners, fertilizer and matches. The 

manufacture process requires almost no technical knowledge, and 

the recipe—as well as step-by-step instructions—is freely and easily available on the Internet. 

Many laboratories produce meth in states across the nation. In 

1993, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) estimated a 

total seizure of 218 meth labs. In 2005 federal, state and local law 

enforcement officers netted more than 12,500 labs, dumpsites and 

other meth-related activities. Between 2003 and 2005 the DEA has 

reported more than 54,000 meth-related incidents in every state in 

the U.S. 

Many of the chemicals used to make meth can be toxic, reactive, 

flammable, or corrosive. Every pound of meth produced can result 

in up to five pounds of toxic byproducts. This waste can easily be 

poured down drains or spilled onto the ground, where chemicals 

can migrate into drinking wells and leach into the soil. 

Many labs are found when they catch fire or explode, causing injures or death to those manufacturing the drug as well as law enforcement officers, fire fighters and others who respond. During use 

and production, meth and other harmful chemicals are released 

into the air and distributed throughout the area. These chemicals 

can contaminate the interior of residences, including walls, 

countertops, furnishing, carpets, and floors. 

State and local governments or property owners are usually responsible for cleaning up contamination from a lab. Although various statutes and regulations address cleanup issues, such activities generally occur in two parts. First, contaminants, including 

chemicals, equipment, and other material, are removed from the 

area. Generally, law enforcement secures the site down and protects evidence. Second, less obvious contamination is identified, 

property owners are notified, and responsibility for the cleanup 

may pass to them, though the law may recommend or require 

homeowners to hire a cleanup contractor. 

There are no national rules or guidance directing the cleanup of 

a residential meth lab, and states and localities vary in their approach to ensuring public health is protected at such sites. Cleanup 

actions can involve one or more of the following measures: ventilation, encapsulation or sealing of interior surfaces, removal of 

drywall, decontamination of ventilation or wastewater systems, and 

removal of soil or treatment of contaminated groundwater. Costs 

can vary greatly depending on the type of remediation. When state 

and local governments pay to cleanup contamination from a lab 

they can apply to receive up to $25,000 in reimbursement from the 

federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Many state and local entities have created rules and guidelines 

for the cleanup of meth labs. Some states with significant experience addressing meth lab cleanup issues have existing law and regulations. Others have little or no guidance. However, public officials across the country are concerned about the cleanup of meth 

labs and many have asked for assistance in addressing this issue. 


ycherry on PRODPC75 with REPORTS
3 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

The bill requires the Administrator at the EPA to create a program to research residues from methamphetamine production. 

The bill directs the Administrator, in consultation with National 

Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), to create voluntary 

guidelines for preliminary site assessment and remediation of 

methamphetamine laboratories. 

The bill requires the Administrator to head a meeting of state 

agencies, individuals and organizations to share best practices and 

identify research needs. 

The bill also directs NIST, in consultation with the Administrator, to support a research program to facilitate the development 

of methamphetamine laboratory detection technologies, emphasizing field test kits and site detection. 

The bill mandates that the EPA enter into an arrangement with 

the National Academy of Sciences to study the status and quality 

of research on the residual effects of meth labs, identify research 

gaps, and recommend an EPA research agenda. 

The bill authorizes $1.75 million for each of the Fiscal Years 

2007 and 2008 for EPA and authorizes $0.75 million for each of the 

Fiscal Years 2007 through 2008 for NIST. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

The Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007 

Section 2. Findings 

Finds that meth use is a serious and growing problem and that 

state and local entities need assistance in addressing contamination from laboratories that create meth. 

Section 3. Voluntary guidelines 

Directs the Administrator of the EPA, in consultation with NIST, 

to create within one year voluntary guidelines for the remediation 

of former methamphetamine labs. These guidelines shall apply to 

preliminary site assessments and the remediation of residual contaminants. 

In developing guidelines, the Administrator must consider relevant standards, guidelines and requirements in Federal, State 

and local laws and regulations; the varying types and locations of 

former methamphetamine labs; and expected costs. 

These guidelines should assist state and local governments. To 

help accomplish this goal, the Administrator shall work with state 

and local governments and other relevant nonfederal agencies and 

organizations, including through the conference required by section 

5, to promote and encourage the appropriate adoption of these 

guidelines. 

Directs the Administrator to update the voluntary guidelines in 

consultation with states and other interested parties, and to incorporate new research findings and other new knowledge in these 

guidelines. 


ycherry on PRODPC75 with REPORTS
4 

Section 4. Research program 

Mandates that the Administrator establish a research program 

to support the development and updating of the voluntary guidelines discussed in section 3. This research program must examine 

a variety of issues, including identifying chemicals of concern, assessing the health effects of exposure to chemicals of concern, addressing such adverse effects and to minimize exposures, evaluating cleanup techniques, and supporting other priorities identified 

by the Administrator in consultation with states and other entities. 

Section 5. Technology transfer conference 

Requires the Administrator, within 90 days of the date of enactment and every three years thereafter, to convene a conference of 

state officials and entities and organizations involved with the impacts of former methamphetamine laboratories. The Administrator 

shall provide conference participants with information on the voluntary guidelines and the research program’s findings. The conference shall also provide nonfederal entities with a forum to discuss their views on the voluntary guidelines. 

Requires the Administrator, within three months of each conference, to submit to Congress and make available to the public, a 

report summarizing the conference proceedings. This report shall 

also include recommendations or concerns and a description of how 

the Administrator plans to respond to such issues. 

Section 6. Residual effects study 

Requires the Administrator, within six months after the date of 

enactment, to enter into an agreement with the National Academy 

of Sciences to study the status and quality of research on the residual effects of methamphetamine laboratories. The study shall identify gaps in research and recommend a research agenda for the program described in section 4. The study shall focus on the potential 

impacts of methamphetamine laboratories on residents of buildings 

where labs are or were located. 

Section 7. Methamphetamine detection research and development 

program 

Requires the Director of NIST, in consultation with the Administrator, to support a research program to develop new detection 

technologies for methamphetamine, with emphasis on field test kits 

and site detection. The program shall also focus on standard reference materials and validation procedures for methamphetamine 

detection testing. 

Section 8. Savings clause 

Clarifies that nothing in the Act changes or shall be construed 

to change any authority of EPA or of any other entities under any 

State or Federal environmental law or regulation. 

Section 9. Authorization of appropriations 

Authorizes $1.75 million for each of Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008 

for EPA. Authorizes $0.75 million for each of Fiscal Years 2007 and 

2008 for NIST. 


ycherry on PRODPC75 with REPORTS
5 

Legislative History, Committee Views and Votes 

COMMITTEE VIEWS

This Act authorizes a program that requires the Administrator 

of the EPA, within one year, to develop voluntary guidelines on 

preliminary site assessments and the remediation of residual contaminants from methamphetamine laboratories. The Committee expects the voluntary guidelines to be largely based on a review of 

existing science and guidance. For these initial guidelines, the 

Committee believes the Administrator should evaluate the existing 

science and state guidelines, using resources such as the National 

Alliance for Model State Drug Laws. 

The Committee expects the EPA to take into consideration a variety of factors, including the need to protect public health and the 

estimated cost of carrying out any proposed guidelines. The Committee believes the Administrator should remain cognizant of those 

who bear these costs, including in particular property owners, and 

the potential health threats to children, families, and individuals 

who may inhabit the residence after cleanup. 

The Committee expects the voluntary guidelines to evolve over 

time by using new research. To accomplish this goal, the Committee expects the Administrator to use the research program to 

update and revise the voluntary guidelines as new findings become 

available. 

The Committee realizes that very little funding—federal, state, 

local or private—is directed at this problem. The Administration 

has recognized this problem in the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy’s Synthetic Drug Control Strategy: A Focus on Methamphetamine and Prescription Drug Abuse. This Strategy put EPA in 

charge of developing and establishing methamphetamine laboratory remediation guidelines. The Committee notes that the Drug 

Enforcement Agency has reported more than 54,000 methamphetamine-related incidents between 2003–2005. Therefore, the Committee believes that the federal government should expand the 

range and commitment of activities consistent with the magnitude 

and seriousness of this problem. The Committee expects EPA to 

quickly implement the research program. 

The Committee also would like to note that the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA), ‘‘National Clandestine Laboratory Register,’’

is a useful tool in providing an estimate of the general scope of the 

meth lab problem. The Committee believes that the DEA information should include the cleaning of residences in accordance with 

local regulations. The Committee urges the DEA to develop transparent procedures for listing and de-listing a residence on the Register. 

The Act requires the Administrator to hold a Technology Transfer Conference. The Committee believes the Conference will provide 

an important information sharing forum for stakeholders across the 

country. The first Conference should help the Administrator and 

stakeholders to draft voluntary guidelines. Future Conferences 

should provide the Administrator and stakeholders with, among 

other things, an opportunity to discuss implementation of the 

guidelines, transfer expertise, disseminate new research findings, 

and to update the research agenda. The Committee expects the Administrator to include a broad array of stakeholders at Conference, 


ycherry on PRODPC75 with REPORTS
6 

including those involved in activities related to the impacts of 

former meth labs, such as local law enforcement and nonprofit organizations like the National Jewish Medical and Research Center 

and the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws. 

VOTES

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged H.R. 798, a companion measure to a version of S. 635 introduced in the 109th Congress, and the Senate passed H.R. 798 

on December 9, 2006. On June 6, 2007 the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works favorably reported the Methamphetamine Remediation and Research Act of 2007 (S. 635) on a 

voice vote without amendment. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

The committee finds that the bill contains no administrative burden on private entities and would benefit such entities by helping 

to clarify applicable methods for cleaning up areas affected by 

methamphetamine laboratories. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4), the committee finds that S. 635 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Act 

and would benefit state and local governments. 

COST OF LEGISLATION

Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control act requires a statement of the cost of the reported bill, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in the report. S. 635 would cost about $3 million over the 2008–2009 period, 

assuming appropriation of the authorized amount in 2008. S. 635 

would not affect direct spending or receipts. 

S. 635—Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007 

Summary: S. 635 would establish a new research program for the 

cleanup of clandestine laboratories shut down by law enforcement 

that have been used to produce methamphetamine. This legislation 

would authorize the appropriation of $2.5 million for each of fiscal 

years 2007 and 2008 for the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) to support such a program. Such efforts by EPA and NIST 

would include establishing guidelines on assessing sites and cleaning up contaminants, holding a conference to discuss research and 

guidelines with interested parties, and supporting research for the 

development of the guidelines and new detection technologies. Finally, the bill would authorize a study by the National Academy of 

Sciences on the residual effects of methamphetamine. 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 635 would cost about $3 

million over the 2008–2009 period, assuming appropriation of the 

authorized amount in 2008. Enacting S. 635 would not affect direct 

spending or receipts. 


ycherry on PRODPC75 with REPORTS
7 

S. 635 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and 

would benefit state and local governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 635 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 635 will 

be enacted by the start of fiscal year 2008 and that the amount authorized by the bill for that year will be appropriated. (We assume 

no further appropriations for fiscal year 2007.) Estimated outlays 

are based on historical spending patterns for similar programs. 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

EPA Research Program: 

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 2 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 1 1 0 0 0 

NIST Research Program: 

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 1 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 1 0 0 0 0 

Total Changes: 

Authorization Level ............................................................ 3 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................. 2 1 0 0 0 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 635 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would benefit state and local governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susanne S. Mehlman; Impact on State, local, and tribal governments: Neil Hood; Impact on 

the private sector: Craig Cammarata. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires the committee to publish changes in existing law made by 

the bill as reported. Passage of this bill will make no changes to 

existing law. 

Æ 


ycherry on PRODPC75 with REPORTS