Michigan Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratory Guidance
Michigan Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratory Guidance
Michigan Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratory Guidance
June 5, 2007
Appendix F Updated April 30, 2008
Preface
Michigan Public Act 260 (MCL 33312103) and 258 (MCL 125.485a) of 2006 authorized the
Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) to develop guidance for the assessment
and cleanup of indoor environments that have been used as clandestine drug laboratories (CDLs).
The CDL Stakeholder Group was convened to assist MDCH in these efforts. MDCH gratefully
acknowledges the assistance of the following:
MDCH wishes to also acknowledge the technical assistance and support of Erik Janus in the
development of this guidance.
Questions regarding cleanup of CDLs may be directed to the MI TOXIC Hotline at (800) 648-
6942.
Resources and information about methamphetamine and other illicit drugs may be found at
http://www.michigan.gov/meth.
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Notification of Clandestine Drug Laboratory Form.................................................24
Appendix B. Sampling Methods for Methamphetamine Laboratories..........................................32
Appendix C. Analytical Methods for Methamphetamine Laboratory Samples ............................37
Appendix D. Ventilation System Decontamination at Methamphetamine Laboratories ..............38
Appendix E. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems at Methamphetamine Laboratories ...............39
Appendix F. Methamphetamine Decontamination Consultants & Contractors ............................42
Remarks: ___________________________________________________________________
Rev. (4/27/2017)
APPENDIX B
SAMPLING METHODS FOR METHAMPHETAMINE LABORATORIES
PURPOSE
The purpose of this appendix is to provide a procedure for reducing variability in the collection
of samples in the characterization of contaminants at illegal drug laboratories. Additional
discussion of the sampling theory for sampling techniques described in this appendix are
provided in the attachment at the end of this appendix.
Pre-Decontamination sampling
In pre-decontamination sampling, the assumption (hypothesis) is made that the area is clean (i.e.
“compliant”) and data will be collected to find support for the hypothesis. Data (such as samples)
are collected to “prove” the area is compliant. Sampling, if it is performed, is conducted in the
areas with the highest probability of containing the highest possible concentrations of
contaminants. Any data that disproves the hypothesis, including police records, visual clues of
production, storage, or use or documentation of drug paraphernalia being present, is considered
conclusive, and leads the consultant to accept the null hypothesis and declare the area non-
compliant.
Post-Decontamination sampling
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
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.
Decision Statement
If, based on the totality of the circumstances, the consultant finds that insufficient evidence exists
to support the hypothesis that any given area is non-compliant, that area shall be deemed to be
compliant with the cleanup criteria provided at Section 5.3 of the State Of Michigan Cleanup of
Clandestine Drug Laboratory Guidance and shall be released. If objective sampling data indicate
contamination is less than the cleanup level, that data may be used as prima facie evidence that
insufficient evidence exists to support the hypothesis that any given area is non-compliant.
Area Samples
Buildings and Structures
For CDLs whose structural floor plan is not greater than 1,500 square feet, surface sampling
shall be collected according to the following protocol.
Exception: for pre-decontamination scenarios, any and all other data may be used in lieu of
sampling to reject the hypothesis and deem the area to be contaminated.
• For any given functional space, at least 400 cm2 of surface shall be sampled, unless the
area is assumed to be non-compliant.
• At least 1,000 cm2 of total surface area must be sampled within any CDL.
• An additional 100 cm2 must be sampled for every additional 400 square feet of structural
floor space.
• No fewer than four samples shall be collected from any CDL identified.
25
The required sample area shall be composed of no fewer than three discrete samples. Should
composite samples be collected, each composite shall consist of no greater than five discrete
samples collected in accordance with the procedures outlined in the section in this appendix on
Composite Sampling.
Where the CDL is located in a structure other than a single-family dwelling, the potential of
fugitive emissions must be considered. For example, if the functional space was located in a
hotel room, and evidence of contamination extended into the corridor, the elevator, the lobby,
and one adjacent room, there would be four separate functional spaces to evaluate: 1) the primary
hotel room, 2) the corridor/elevator complex 3) the lobby, 4) the adjacent hotel room.
Each functional space shall be sampled, unless it is assumed to be contaminated based on other
evidence. For example, where a single family dwelling meets the definition of a CDL, and an
associated detached garage contains indications of contamination, the dwelling and the garage
shall be evaluated separately.
Vehicles
The following guidance is to be used for vehicles that fall under the definition of a dwelling
provided at MCL 333.12103(3) and may be used voluntarily or at the direction of a local health
department for all other vehicles.
For CDLs in vehicles, surface sampling shall be collected according to the following protocol.
Exception: for pre-decontamination scenarios, any and all other data may be used in lieu of
sampling to reject the hypothesis and deem the area to be contaminated.
• A minimum of 500 cm2 of surface shall be sampled, unless the area is assumed to be
noncompliant.
• An additional 100 cm2 must be sampled for every 50 square feet of structural floor space
for any large vehicle, such as a recreational vehicle, motor home, trailer, or camper.
• No fewer than three samples shall be collected from any laboratory identified in a
vehicle.
The required sample area shall be composed of no fewer than three discrete samples. Should
composite samples be collected, each composite shall consist of no greater than five discrete
samples collected in accordance with the procedures outlined in the section in this appendix on
Composite Sampling.
Sampling Procedures
Non-Porous Surfaces - Wipe Samples
Wipe sampling shall be used to determine the extent of contamination on non-porous surfaces.
Wipe samples shall be collected in accordance with the procedures set forth below for either
discrete or composite samples. Rapid-detection immune assays (e.g., MethCheck 500) are
acceptable for use in a preliminary assessment and may be used on horizontal and vertical non-
porous surfaces.
Sample media may consist of one of the following:
• Gauze material, including Johnson & Johnson cotton squares or equivalent.
• Filter paper, including Whatman 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 540, 541, Ahlstrom 54, VWR 454,
S&S WH Medium, or other filter paper with equivalent performance.
26
The following procedure is for collecting discrete wipe samples from non-porous surfaces.
1. Attach disposable templates or masking tape to the area(s) to be sampled, being careful
not the touch the area within the template. The sample area shall be 100 cm2 (10cm by
10cm) or a multiple of 100 cm2.
2. Prepare a rough sketch of the area(s) to be sampled.
3. The sample media should be wetted with distilled water or solvent (isopropyl alcohol or
methanol) to enhance collection efficiency.
4. Use a new set of clean, non-powdered impervious gloves for each sample to avoid
contamination of the sample media by previous samples and to prevent contact with the
substance.
5. Press the sample media down firmly, but not excessively, with the fingers, being careful
not to touch the sample surface with the thumb. Blot rough surfaces uniformly instead of
wiping. Wipe smooth surfaces as described below.
6. Wiping may be done by one of the following methods:
a. Square method: Start at the outside edge and progress toward the center of the
surface area by wiping in concentric squares of decreasing size.
b. “S” method: Wipe horizontally from side-to-side in an overlapping “S”-like
pattern as necessary to completely cover the entire wipe area.
7. Without allowing the sample media to come into contact with any other surface, fold the
sample media with the sampled side in.
8. Use the same sample media to repeat the sampling of the same area. If using the “S”
method, the second pass shall be sampled by wiping with overlapping “S”-like motions
in a top-to-bottom direction.
9. Fold the sample media over again so that the sampled side is folded in. Place the sample
media in a sample container, cap and number it, and note the number at the sample
location on the sketch. Include notes with the sketch giving any further description of
the sample.
10. At least one sample media blank, treated in the same fashion but without wiping, should
be submitted for every 10 samples collected.
When collecting composite samples, the procedure outlined above shall be used with the
following exceptions:
1. A single pair of gloves may be used to collect each single sample that will be part of a
composite sample. However, a new pair of gloves must be used for each set of composite
samples.
2. All individual samples that make up a composite sample must be placed in one sample
container.
27
Porous Surfaces - Vacuum Sampling
Vacuum sampling shall be used to determine the extent of contamination on porous surfaces,
including carpeting, drapery, upholstery, clothing, and other soft goods. Vacuum samples shall
be collected in accordance with procedures for sample collection described in section 9 of the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D5756-02, Standard Test Method
for Microvacuum Sampling and Indirect Analysis of Dust by Transmission Electron Microscopy
for Asbestos Mass Concentration. Vacuum samples will be analyzed for methamphetamine
and/or derivatives in accordance with analytical methods described in Appendix B of this
regulation.
Wipe sampling of porous surfaces may be conducted during the preliminary assessment, in lieu
of vacuum sampling, in order to obtain a qualitative (absence or presence) identification of a
chemical. Wipe sampling shall not be used to demonstrate that cleanup levels have been met on
porous surfaces.
Outdoors
For CDLs where the laboratories were operated in the outdoor environment or where waste was
disposed of outdoors the potential for soil and groundwater contamination must be evaluated.
After gross contamination has been removed (e.g., solid wastes, obviously stained soils, ash and
debris from burn piles or burial pits) soil sampling is necessary to determine if residual
contamination remains. Generally for dumps, burn piles and lab locations a biased sampling
strategy may be sufficient however for unknown or potentially large contamination areas other
sampling strategies may need to be employed.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has established soil and ground
water cleanup levels for contamination and provides guidance documents for sampling and
analysis of sites of environmental contamination. These documents can be found on the
MDEQ’s web site at www.michigan.gov/deqrrd, under the heading Operational Memoranda,
Cleanup Requirements, Forms, and Guidance.
For assistance with sampling strategies see S3TM - Sampling Strategies and Statistics
Training Materials for Part 201 Cleanup Criteria under Guidance Documents for Part 201 or
Part 213 programs.
For assistance with cleanup criteria and sampling and analysis guidance see MDEQ
Operational Memoranda for Part 201 and Part 213 Programs.
Composite Sampling
Composite sampling is permitted, as described herein. The consultant may not use composite
sampling unless in their professional judgment, contamination is expected to be relatively evenly
dispersed throughout a given area, such that the sampling will accurately represent the conditions
of the drug laboratory. If compositing is used, then the composite shall consist of no greater than
five discrete samples. Any composite sampling must consist of like media, matrices or
substrates. The mixing of media, matrices or substrates is not permitted. All individual samples
(designated as g), from which any single composite is formed must be of equal volume (for
liquids), equal surface area (for surface wipe sampling or vacuum sampling) or equal weight (for
solids).
Composite sampling may be implemented using one of the following sampling designs. The
consultant shall chose the sampling design based upon the specific conditions of the drug
laboratory being assessed.
28
Simple Random Composite Sampling
Figure 1A below illustrates a simple random composite sampling design. In this figure, the
sampled area could represent any surface or media about which a decision must be made (such as
a series of walls, or carpeting or even contaminated soils).
Figure 1A
Example of Random Sample Composites
In the above example, nine individual samples (n*g=9) are composited into three samples for
submission to a laboratory (XA, XB, XC).
The individual sample locations can be selected by any number of methods such as those as
described in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D6051-96 (2001),
Standard Guide for Composite Sampling and Field Subsampling for Environmental Waste
Management Activities. The “system of halves” as described in 40 CFR § 761.306 may also be
used. An example of the “system of halves” is provided below and illustrated in Figures 1B and
1C.
1. Select the surface which represents the area of highest possible contamination
2. Delineate one square meter within the area
3. Divide the one square meter area in half with an imaginary line in any direction
4. Assign each half “heads” or “tails”
5. Flip a coin
6. Divide the “winning side” in half with an imaginary line in any direction
7. Flip a coin
8. Continue dividing the “winning” side until the winning side is between 100 cm2 and
200 cm2 and collect the wipe sample from that area
9. The method is repeated for each individual (g) of the composite
29
Figure 1B
Example of Random Sample Composites
Figure 1C
Example of Random Sample Composites
30
Systematic Composite Sampling
A systematic composite sampling design is illustrated in Figure 2. Each field sample collected at
the “A” locations is pooled and mixed into one composite sample. The process is then repeated
for “B,” “C,” “D” locations and so on. The relative location and size of each individual field
sample (such as “A”) should be the same within each block.
Figure 2
Example “A” of Systematic Sample Composites
A second systematic composite design is illustrated in Figure 3. This sample design involves
collecting and pooling samples from within a grid (See Figure 3). Each field sample collected at
the “A” locations is pooled and mixed into one composite sample. The process is then repeated
for “B,” “C,” “D” locations and so on. The relative location and size of each individual field
sample (such as “A”) should be the same within each block.
Figure 3
Example “B” of Systematic Sample Composites
31
For both assessment and post-decontamination sampling, either simple random composite
sampling or systematic composite sampling may be used where contamination is expected to be
relatively evenly dispersed throughout a given area, as described above, except the consultant
shall selectively choose sample locations that represent the highest potential contamination, in
accordance with the hypothesis being tested.
Composite Decision Level
If composite sampling is used, the following procedure shall be used for detecting hot spots to
determine if one or more of the individual samples making up the composite could exceed the
cleanup criterion, but remain undetected due to “dilution” that results from the compositing
process.
The approach assumes the underlying distribution is normal and the composite samples were
formed from equal-sized individual samples. In the following equations, CL represents the
cleanup criterion that cannot be exceeded in any individual sample. It is assumed that the
analytical limit of quantification, or quantitation limit (QL), is less than the cleanup criterion. For
any laboratory result (Xi) from a composite sample formed from individual samples (g), the
following rules shall be assumed:
CL
1. If Xi < then no individual sample (g) shall be deemed greater than the CL
g
2. If Xi > CL then at least one sample must be, and as many as all individual samples may
be greater than the CL
If it is determined that one or more individual samples making up the composite exceeds the
cleanup criterion, all areas represented by the composite sample shall be considered to exceed
the cleanup level unless a discrete sample of any individual area demonstrates that the cleanup
criterion has been met in that area.
32
ATTACHMENT TO APPENDIX B
SAMPLING METHODS FOR METHAMPHETAMINE LABORATORIES
SAMPLING THEORY
SAMPLING THEORY
The type of sampling used for stationary structures and vehicles described in this protocol is a
type of sampling recognized as “authoritative” sampling. Authoritative sampling is a
nonstatistical sampling design that does not assign an equal probability of being sampled to all
portions of the population. Consultants using this protocol will have a priori knowledge of the
property to be sampled. The a priori knowledge, in the hands of a competent consultant, permits
immediate inclusion/exclusion of sampling areas, based on professional judgment. As such, the
weight of validity of the data gathered with authoritative sampling is largely dependent on the
knowledge and competency of the sampler.
With authoritative sampling, it is not possible to accurately estimate the concentration variance
within a property as a whole. Also, due to its subjective nature, the use of authoritative sampling
to demonstrate compliance with a cleanup criterion is generally not advisable except in those
cases that are anticipated to be well defined (small volumes of waste and where contaminants in
the property under study is either well above or well below the cleanup level). The American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D6311-98 (2003), Standard Guide for
Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities: Selection and
Optimization of Sampling Design, recognizes two types of authoritative sampling: judgmental
sampling and biased sampling; both of these sampling theories are used in this protocol.
Judgmental Sampling
The goal of judgmental sampling is to use process or site knowledge to choose one or more
sampling locations to represent the “average” concentration within the context of the sampling
area. Judgmental sampling designs can be extremely useful and cost-effective if the consultant
choosing the sampling locations has sufficient knowledge of the history of the drug laboratory
under study. It is recognized that the sampling method is not entirely objective since the
consultant choosing the sampling locations could possibly intentionally distort the sampling by a
prejudiced selection, or if their knowledge in the drug laboratory in question is wanting. In those
cases, judgmental sampling can lead to incorrect results being presented to the consultant.
Biased Sampling
Biased sampling is the type of authoritative sampling that intends not to estimate average
concentrations or typical properties, but to estimate “worst” or “best” cases (as described in
ASTM Method D6051-96 (2001), Standard Guide for Composite Sampling and Field
Subsampling for Environmental Waste Management Activities. As described later in this
protocol, the aim of the consultant performing post-decontamination sampling is to demonstrate
the worst-case scenario in the drug laboratory. The term “biased,” as used here, refers to the
collection of samples with expected high concentrations. For example, a sample taken at the
source of the actual “cook,” known release, spill or storage area could serve as an estimate of the
“worst-case” concentration found in the functional space. This information could be useful in
identifying the contaminant and estimating the maximum level of contamination likely to be
33
encountered during a cleanup. Biased sampling, while having the ability to cost-effectively
generate information, has similar philosophical disadvantages to that of judgmental sampling.
Establishing Hypothesis Testing
The foundation for the usefulness of any sampling protocol rests upon the establishment of
appropriate data quality objectives (DQOs). Without such DQOs, sampling occurs in a vacuum
and the strength of the results of the sampling may be extremely limited. The DQOs are, in turn,
driven by a thought process that proceeds from defining the problem, then quantifying the degree
of the problem, defining what decisions are to be made based on the resulting data, and the
degree of quality needed to ensure that the decision goals can be met. All sampling has error; all
analysis has error. No realistic sampling and analysis protocol has a 100% guarantee of
definitively characterizing any area or condition. Therefore, a realistic sampling and analysis
protocol is one that minimizes error, and optimizes cost effectiveness, while increasing the
probability that the DQOs will be met.
This sampling protocol begins with the end in mind; it is based on asking specific questions, and
conducting sampling and analysis to answer those questions. In general, this protocol will rely
heavily on maximizing the use of existing law enforcement, investigation, analytical and
historical information (including process knowledge), thus reducing unnecessary, costly data-
gathering activities, while at the same time ensuring that building occupants and the public are
not placed at unnecessary risk. The protocol is not a substitute for professional judgment, but
must be utilized by cognizant professionals in the application of their professional skills. Neither
is the method a “cook-book” recipe that if followed, decontamination is guaranteed, and risks are
assumed to be zero. The evaluation of any specific area must necessarily be based on the totality
of the circumstances.
This protocol has been divided into two distinct sets of DQOs; one for the preliminary pre-
decontamination sampling) and one for the post-decontamination sampling. The essential
difference between the two lies in the hypotheses that are being tested.
Pre-Decontamination sampling
In pre-decontamination sampling, the question that is being asked is “Is there evidence of the
presence of methamphetamine production in this area?” The assumption (hypothesis) is that the
area is clean i.e. “compliant,” and data will be collected to find support for the hypothesis. Data
(such as samples) are collected to “prove” the area is compliant. Sampling, if it is performed, is
conducted in the areas potentially containing the highest possible concentrations of
contaminants. Any data that disproves the hypothesis, including police records, visual clues of
production, storage, or use or documentation of drug paraphernalia being present, is considered
conclusive, and leads the consultant to accept the null hypothesis and declare the area non-
compliant. The strength of evidence needed to reject the hypothesis is low, and is only that which
would lead a reasonable person, trained in aspects of methamphetamine laboratories, to conclude
the presence of methamphetamine, its precursors as related to processing, or waste products.
Post Decontamination sampling
In post decontamination sampling, the question that is being asked is “Does this area contain
contaminants in excess of the regulatory standard?” The hypothesis is the area is non-compliant,
and data is collected to test the hypothesis. In theory, the ability to prove the hypothesis
necessarily becomes more difficult as the area becomes cleaner; and virtually impossible to
prove in an area that is completely devoid of contamination. The lack of data supporting the
hypothesis leads the consultant to accept the null hypothesis and conclude that the area is
34
compliant. Therefore, the role of the consultant in post decontamination sampling, is not to
demonstrate that the area is “clean,” but rather, using bias sampling, to diligently attempt to
prove, that the area is not clean. The strength of evidence needed to accept the null hypothesis is
great; and failure to support the hypothesis results in confidence that risks have been greatly
reduced.
Decision Statement
If, based on the totality of the circumstances, the consultant finds that insufficient evidence exists
to support the hypothesis that any given area is non-compliant, that area shall be deemed to be
compliant with the cleanup criteria provided at Section 5.3 of the State Of Michigan Cleanup of
Clandestine Drug Laboratory Guidance and shall be released. If objective sampling data indicate
contamination is less than the cleanup level, that data may be used as prima facie evidence that
insufficient evidence exists to support the hypothesis that any given area is non-compliant.
Composite Sampling
Composite sampling can be implemented as part of a statistical sampling design, such as simple
random sampling and/or systematic sampling. The choice of a sampling design will depend upon
the specific conditions of the drug laboratory being assessed.
Simple Random Composite Sampling
Figure 1 in Appendix A shows how composite sampling can be integrated into a simple random
sampling design. In this figure, the sampled area could represent any surface or media about
which a decision must be made (such as a series of walls, or carpeting or even contaminated
soils). Randomly positioned field sample composites can themselves be randomly grouped
together into composite samples. The set of composite samples can then be used to estimate the
mean and the variance of the results. Because the compositing process is a mechanical way of
averaging out spatial variabilities, we assume1 the resulting concentration data to be more
normally distributed than individual samples2. This is especially advantageous because the
assumption of the statistical tests in this protocol is that the underlying data approximate a
Gaussian distribution.
The sample locations can be selected by any number of methods. The “system of halves” as
described is one example discussed in Appendix A and illustrated in Figures 1B and 1C in that
appendix.
Systematic Composite Sampling
An example of one kind of systematic composite sampling design is shown in Appendix A,
Figure 2. The design can be used to estimate the mean concentration because each composite
sample is formed from field samples obtained across the entire sampled unit (a wall, or a carpet,
for example). Each field sample collected at the “A” locations is pooled and mixed into one
composite sample. The process is then repeated for “B,” “C,” “D” locations and so on. The
relative location and size of each individual field sample (such as “A”) should be the same within
each block.
A second type of systematic composite involves collecting and pooling samples from within a
grid (See Appendix A, Figure 3). If there is spatial correlation between the grid blocks,
compositing within grids can be used to estimate block-to-block variability or improve the
estimate of the mean within a block if multiple composite samples are collected within each
block. In fact, compositing samples collected from localized areas is an effective means to
control “short-range” (small-scale) heterogeneity. When this type of compositing is used on
35
localized areas in lieu of “grab” sampling, it is an attractive option to improve representativeness
of individual samples.
For post decontamination, any of the above may be used, except, the consultant will purposely
attempt to “high-grade” the samples (selectively choosing sample locations that represent the
highest potential contamination, in accordance with the hypothesis being tested).
Composite Decision Level
One disadvantage of composite sampling is the possibility that one or more of the individual
samples making up the composite could be “hot” (exceed the “cleanup level” (CL)), but remain
undetected due to “dilution” that results from the pooling process. If the sampling objective is to
determine if any one or more individual samples is “hot,” composite sampling can still be used.
The procedure for detecting hot spots using composite sampling is provided in Appendix A. The
approach assumes the underlying distribution is normal and the composite samples were formed
from equal-sized individual samples. Let CL be the “cleanup level” that cannot be exceeded in
any individual sample.
If compositing is used then the number of samples that make up the composite should be limited
to avoid overall dilution below the analytical limit. It is possible for a composite sample to be
diluted to a concentration below the quantitation limit if many of the individual samples have
concentrations near zero and a single individual sample has a concentration just above the
cleanup level. The maximum number of identically sized individual samples (g) that can be used
to form a composite shall not exceed the cleanup (CL) divided by the quantitation limit (QL). As
a practical matter, the number of individual samples used to form a composite should not exceed
five discrete samples of equal area.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Biased: the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process which causes errors in
one direction (i.e., the expected sample measurement is different than the sample's true
value).
Data Quality Objectives (DQOs): qualitative and quantitative statements derived from the DQO
Process that clarify assessment objectives, define the appropriate type of data, and specify the
tolerable levels of potential decision errors that will be used as the basis for establishing the
quality and quantity of data needed to support decisions.
Data Quality Objectives Process: a Quality Management tool based on the Scientific Method to
facilitate the planning of environmental data collection activities. The DQO Process enables
planners to focus their planning efforts by specifying the intended use of the data (the
decision), the decision criteria (cleanup level) and the consultant's tolerable decision error
rates. The products of the DQO Process are the DQOs.
Decision error: an error made when drawing an inference from data in the context of hypothesis
testing, such that variability or bias in the data mislead the consultant to draw a conclusion
that is inconsistent with the true or actual state of the population under study.
g: any individual sample collected for submission for analysis, either as a discrete sample or as
part of a composite sample.
Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made to draw out and test its logical or empirical
consequences.
36
Mean: (i) a measure of central tendency of the population (population mean), or (ii) the
arithmetic average of a set of values (sample mean).
Measurement error: the difference between the true or actual state and that which is reported
from measurements.
Null hypothesis: the default alternative conclusion that must be adopted if insufficient data
exists to support the hypothesis.
Population: the total collection of objects, or media to be studied and from which a sample is to
be drawn.
Sampling: the process of obtaining representative samples and/or measurements of a subset of a
population. Sampling is a model; inherent in sampling is error, known or unknown.
Sampling design error: the error due to observing only a limited number of the total possible
values that make up the population being studied. It should be distinguished from errors due
to imperfect selection; bias in response; and errors of observation, measurement, or
recording, etc.
Variance: a measure of (i) the variability or dispersion in a population (population variance), or
(ii) the sum of the squared deviations of the measurements about their mean divided by the
degrees of freedom (sample variance).
Xi: the laboratory analysis result for any discrete or composite sample submitted for analysis.
REFERENCES
The following documents were consulted and used in the preparation of this protocol.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D5756-02 (November 2002),
Standard Test Method for Microvacuum Sampling and Indirect Analysis of Dust by
Transmission Electron Microscopy for Asbestos Mass Concentration.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D6044-96 (2003), Standard Guide
for Representative Sampling for Management of Waste and Contaminated Media.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D6051-96 (2001), Standard Guide
for Composite Sampling and Field Subsampling for Environmental Waste Management
Activities.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D6311-98 (2003), Standard Guide
for Generation of Environmental Data Related to Waste Management Activities: Selection
and Optimization of Sampling Design.
Field Manual for Grid Sampling of PCB Spill Sites to Verify Cleanup, EPA-560/5-86-017 (May
1986).
Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4 EPA/600/R-96/055 (September
1994).
RCRA Waste Sampling Draft Technical Guidance Planning, Implementation, and Assessment,
EPA530-D-02-002 (August 2002).
37
APPENDIX C
ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR METHAMPHETAMINE LABORATORIES
PURPOSE
The purpose of this appendix is to establish standard analytical methods and procedures for use
in identifying and quantifying contaminants resulting from the manufacture, storage or disposal
of methamphetamine related chemicals and wastes.
ANALYTICAL METHODS
The following analytical methods shall be used to determine the concentrations of chemicals in
samples collected at properties used as drug labs:
1. Analysis of wipe samples and microvacuum samples for methamphetamine shall be
conducted using a laboratory that uses Forensic applications employing an Isotopic
Dilution approach with the d-5, d-8, or d-14 deuterated methamphetamine as an internal
standard, and external calibration with authentic methamphetamine.
2. Analysis of wipe samples and microvacuum samples for iodine shall be conducted using
Method 9021 or Method 6020 in “Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods,” EPA Publication SW-846.
3. Analysis of wipe samples for lead shall be conducted using NIOSH Method 9100
4. Clearance testing for mercury vapor air concentrations shall be conducted using a NIOSH
6009 method as modified by the U.S. EPA Environmental Response Team. Real time
testing using a mercury vapor analyzer that employs atomic absorption spectrometry
technology, such as the Lumex 915 or equivalent, may also be used.
The following analytical methods shall be used to characterize liquid wastes associated with
methamphetamine labs:
1. VOCs using Method 8260B in “Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods,” EPA Publication SW-846.
2. Ignitability/flash point by a Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester, using the test method
specified in ASTM Standard D-93-79 or D-93-80 (or Method 1010 in EPA SW-846), or
Setaflash Closed Cup Tester, using the test method specified in ASTM standard D-3278-
78 (or Method 1020A in EPA SW-846).
3. Corrosivity as determined by the pH electrometeric measurement Method 9040B in EPA
Publication SW-846, by corrosivity by steel using Method 1110 in EPA Publication SW-
846.
4. Reactivity using Method 9014/9034 in EPA Publication SW-846.
38
APPENDIX D
VENTILATION SYSTEM DECONTAMINATION ATMETHAMPHETAMINE
LABORATORIES
PURPOSE
The purpose of this appendix is to establish minimum requirements for the decontamination of
ventilation systems at buildings and structures that have been used as drug laboratories.
DECONTAMINATION PROTOCOL
Decontamination of ventilation systems shall be conducted by a ventilation contractor
experienced in the decontamination of ventilation systems in structures used as drug laboratories.
At a minimum, the ventilation contractor shall:
1. Perform a walk-through of the structure prior to initiation of the project to establish a
specific plan for decontamination of the ventilation system.
2. Follow health and safety procedures, in accordance with OSHA requirements, to protect
workers and others in the vicinity of the structure during the decontamination process.
3. Place protective coverings in areas where work is being performed, including plastic or
drop cloths around each area where the duct is penetrated.
4. Shut off and lock out all air handler units before working on each air conveyance system.
5. Perform a visual inspection of the interior duct work surfaces and internal components.
6. Draw a negative pressure on the entire duct work, using HEPA exhausted vacuum filters,
throughout the cleaning process.
7. Remove and clean all return air grills.
8. Beginning with the outside air intake and return air ducts, clean the ventilation system
using pneumatic or electrical agitators to agitate debris into an airborne state. Additional
equipment may be also be used in the cleaning process, such as brushes, air lances, air
nozzles, and power washers. Controlled containment practices shall be used to ensure that
debris is not dispersed outside the air conveyance system during cleaning.
9. Open and inspect air handling units, and clean all components.
10. Remove and clean all supply diffusers.
11. Clean the supply ductwork using the techniques described in item 8 above.
12. Reinstall diffusers and grilles after cleaning is complete.
13. Seal shut access points used for agitation purposes.
14. Bag and label all debris, including any filters, and properly dispose of at a landfill.
39
APPENDIX E
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AT METHAMPHETAMINE
LABORATORIES
PURPOSE
The purpose of this appendix is to establish a protocol for field screening, sampling, and analysis
of individual sewage disposal systems (ISDSs) to determine if wastes associated with clandestine
drug laboratories (CDL) has been disposed of in the ISDS. The appendix provides further
guidance regarding the proper characterization and disposal of the contents of septic tanks that
contain wastes from CDLs.
BACKGROUND
The most common types of CDL wastes that might be expected in an ISDS include:
1. Solvents (e.g., toluene, xylene, alcohol, acetone);
2. Petroleum distillates (e.g., paint thinner, white gas);
3. Corrosives (e.g., sulphuric acid, muriatic acid, sodium hydroxide solutions); and,
4. Mixtures with residual ephedrine, methamphetamine, iodine or red phosphorus.
Field screening and sample collection shall be conducted to confirm or deny the presence of
CDL waste, and to ensure proper disposal of any waste identified.
FIELD SCREENING
Field screening of septic tanks shall be conducted if there is evidence CDL wastes may have
been disposed of into an ISDS. Evidence of disposal of CDL wastes into an ISDS includes, but is
not limited to, the following:
1. Witness statements;
2. Stained or etched sinks, bathtubs, toilets;
3. Chemical odors coming from the ISDS plumbing or tank; or
4. Visual observations of unusual conditions within the septic tank (“dead tank”); or,
stressed or dead vegetation in a drain field.
Initial field screening shall consist of the following:
1. Monitoring the septic tank for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a photo
ionization detector (PID), a flame ionization detector (FID), colorimetric tubes or other
appropriate meter or testing device.
2. Testing the pH of liquid in the septic tank using pH paper or a pH meter.
Additional field screening may be conducted, at the discretion of the contractor, to further
investigate the possible presence of drug lab waste.
SAMPLE COLLECTION
If field screening indicates that the ISDS has been impacted by CDL wastes, samples shall be
collected from the septic tank to determine if the liquids in the tank contain a hazardous waste.
Samples shall be collected according to the requirements of the analytical method being used and
the following protocol:
40
1. Prior to sampling, the septic tank must have been sufficiently excavated to indicate
whether the tank consists of one or two chambers.
2. Samples from single chamber tanks shall be collected from the baffle on the outlet end of
the tank.
3. Samples from dual chamber tanks shall be collected from the baffle on the outlet end of
chamber one.
4. Samples must be representative of the wastes found in the septic tank. Sampling
procedures may include the use of drum thieves, sludge judges or equivalent equipment.
The instructions for the correct usage of the sampling device shall be followed.
5. Remove access cover from the first (or only) chamber and locate outlet baffle.
6. Move any floating surface matter away from the insertion point of the sampling device.
Do not collect any matter in the sampling device.
7. Insert the sampling device into the tank, lowering it until it hits the bottom.
8. Trap the sample inside the sampling device.Remove the sampling device and fill the
laboratory supplied sample containers. The specific volume and type of sample container
will be determined based on the type of analysis desired. For VOC analysis, two 40ml
vials shall be filled, leaving no headspace.
9. Replace access cover at the completion of sample collection.
10. Samples may be collected in laboratory preserved bottles, or in unpreserved bottles. If the
samples are collected in unpreserved bottles, the laboratory must be notified that the
samples are unpreserved.
11. Sample containers shall be placed in a cooler with enough ice or ice packs to maintain a
temperature of 4° C.
12. A Chain of Custody Record shall be maintained from the time of sample collection until
final disposition. Every transfer of custody shall be noted and signed for and a copy of
the record shall be kept by each individual who has signed it. Samples shall be sealed,
labeled, and secured. All samples collected shall be transported directly to the laboratory.
All sample documents shall be retained for the project record.
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
The contents of septic tanks that contain waste from drug labs are solid wastes. Prior to disposal,
a hazardous waste determination must be made in accordance with these regulations.
Methamphetamine wastes in septic tanks will typically not be considered to be listed hazardous
wastes (P, U, or F-listed) because the solvents have been used and there is too much uncertainty
about the types, sources and original concentrations of solvents discovered in septic tanks.
The following analysis shall be conducted to determine if an ISDS has been impacted by
methamphetamine labs wastes, and if the septic tank contains a characteristic hazardous waste:
1. VOCs using Method 8260B in “Test Methods for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods,” EPA Publication SW-846.
2. Ignitability/flash point by a Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester, using the test method
specified in ASTM Standard D-93-79 or D-93-80 (or Method 1010 in EPA SW-846), or
41
3. Corrosivity as determined by the pH electrometeric measurement Method 9040 in EPA
Publication SW-846, by corrosivity by steel using Method 1110 in EPA Publication SW-
846.
4. Reactivity using Method 9014/9034 in EPA Publication SW-846.
WASTE DISPOSAL
Septic tank contents containing drug lab waste that have been determined to be a hazardous
waste shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable state and local requirements. Septic
tank contents containing drug lab waste that have been determined not to be hazardous waste
shall be disposed in accordance with all state and local requirements.
RELEASE INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION
If sampling provides evidence that hazardous waste has been disposed of in the ISDS, an
investigation of potential environmental contamination shall be conducted.
42
APPENDIX F
METHAMPHETAMINE DECONTAMINATION CONSULTANTS & CONTRACTORS
Updated April 30, 2008
This list was compiled by the MDCH to assist property owners in identifying companies that conduct
CDL cleanups. MDCH does not recommend or endorse the services or products of any listed company,
nor does MDCH certify that these companies are qualified to conduct CDL cleanups.
Consultants Contractors
DeLisle & Associates Aftermath, Inc
5050 South Sprinkle Road Plainfield, IL 60544
Kalamazoo, MI 630-922-3880
269-373-4500
Fibertech Industrial Hygiene Services Assured Decontamination Services
1914 Holloway Drive P.O. Box 18622
Holt, MI 48842 Minneapolis, MN 55418
517-699-0345 800-924-6384
Meth Lab Cleanup LLC Extreme Clean Scene, Inc.
800-959-6384 25851 Trowbridge Street
www.methlabcleanup.com Inkster, MI 48141
[email protected] 866-266-4590
NOVA Consultants, Inc. VanDam & Krusinga
21580 Novi Road, Suite 300 7588 Ravine Road
Novi, MI 48375 Kalamazoo, MI 49009
248-347-3512 269-276-9922
PM Environmental, Inc. Alladin’s Bio-Scene Recovery
3340 Ranger Road Lapeer, Michigan
Lansing, MI 48906 810-664-1705
517-485-3333
Stolz Environmental Solutions, LLC The Clean Source
7175 Creekside Drive Jennison, MI
Portage, MI 49024 866-219-4500
269-321-5020
Villa Environmental Consultants Youngs Environmental
408 West Main Street 4990 West River Drive NE
Benton Harbor, MI 49023 Comstock Park, MI 49321
269-927-2434 616-785-3374
Wonder Makers Environmental, Inc. ALAM, Inc.
P.O. Box 50209 2505 Precision Street
Kalamazoo, MI 49005 Jackson, MI 49202
269-382-4154 517-788-8348
Environmental Health Resources, Inc. Meth Lab Cleanup LLC
Grand Rapids, Michigan 800-959-6384
616-735-1515 www.methlabcleanup.com,
[email protected]
healthAIR Inc.
23937 Research Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48335
248-426-0165
43
APPENDIX G
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
The draft MDCH Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratory Guidance was made available for
review on March 15, 2007, and public comment was accepted through May 15, 2007. The
comments received are provided below followed by MDCH’s response. Similar comments have
been compiled to reduce redundancy.
Several companies contacted the MDCH to request that they be listed as either consultants or
contractors. Appendix F has been revised as appropriate.
Comment #1: Administrative rules need to be developed to make compliance with the Clean-up
Guidance document mandatory rather than voluntary.
Response: MDCH submitted draft rules to the State Office of Administrative Hearings
and Rules (SOAHR) in September of 2006. SOAHR identified significant impediments
to promulgation of effective administrative rules to implement PA 260 of 2006. Section
2 of PA 260 provides the authority for MDCH to develop cleanup criteria and guidance
for clandestine drug labs, and to write rules to implement Section 3. Section 2 does not
provide rulemaking authority for the guidance or the criteria. SOAHR indicated that the
Michigan Administrative Procedures Act provides MDCH with only two options; either
(1) write a rule that requires compliance with criteria and guidance, or (2) adopt a nation-
wide standard by reference. MDCH was not given the authority to write rules that
require compliance with either cleanup criteria or guidance, and no nation-wide standards
for illicit drugs such as methamphetamine are currently available. In the absence of
nation-wide standards, MDCH cannot promulgate effective rules without a legislative
change.
Comment #2: The use of "Hand Held Field" testing kits need to be given an acceptable status
when used in a dwelling that only has minor contaminations. The degree of contamination could
be based on the police report and an initial evaluation conducted by the local Health Department.
The field testing kits would need to be used by a Health Department, Governmental Housing
Inspection Department or a Licensed Testing Company. This will reduce the cost for getting the
dwelling back into a usable state.
Response: Rapid detection immune assays such as the MethCheck kits or other hand
held field kits are addressed in Section 3.7 Pre-Decontamination Sampling on page 15 of
the guidance under Methamphetamine. Pre-decontamination sampling is recommended
only in areas that are thought to be unaffected by CDL activities as determined by police
reports and visual observations. Field test kits are allowed for pre-decontamination
sampling to identify areas that do not require a cleanup. The Guidance does not permit
the use of field tests for post-decontamination verification sampling because MDCH is
aware of no studies comparing the accuracy of field tests to more rigorous laboratory
analysis. MDCH will continue to monitor the scientific literature on this issue and will
amend the guidance if it can be determined that the field tests are as reliable as laboratory
analysis.
Comment #3: When a dwelling has met the clean-up requirements and approved to be
reoccupied, the approval should qualify the dwelling to be completely removed from the State
List of Meth Labs, not just indicated on the list that clean-up has occurred. If the home does not
pose a public health concern and can be reoccupied, it should not appear on a list with dwellings
44
that still pose a threat. This is not only confusing to the public, but it gives less incentive to the
property owner to cleanup the home.
Response: PA 255 of 2006 requires that MDCH post the location of methamphetamine
laboratories on the department internet website (section 2). MDCH is also required to
keep that posting current and to “include in that information a statement as to whether or
not the remediation of each laboratory site has been completed” (section 3). PA 255 does
not provide the authority to remove a laboratory location from the posting and, in fact the
language quoted from Section 3 indicates the legislative intent that remediated
laboratories be retained on the internet list with the information that cleanup has been
completed at this location. MDCH cannot remove locations from the posting unless PA
255 is amended.
Comment #4: Section 4.2 Ventilation and Containment appears to require the exclusive use of a
PID, to the exclusion of other devices or instruments, for the measurement of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). I would suggest that the language be softened to allow the use of other
acceptable technology that might also allow the prompt, accurate detection of VOCs in air.
Response: MDCH has changed the language in this section to read, “Indoor air should be
monitored with a photoionization detector (PID) or another equivalent direct reading
instrument for organic vapors after ventilation, frequently throughout the
decontamination process to ensure worker safety, and after decontamination is complete.
Accurate records of sampling locations and instrument readings must be maintained.”
Comment #5: Section 2.1 – Notification (page 9) Local health departments are still not
receiving notification of a clandestine laboratory within the 48-hour time frame as specified in
PA 260. On occasion, we will receive a faxed notification from the State Police but this does not
occur consistently in all cases. In addition, local law enforcement agencies have never contacted
us. Unfortunately, the local news media is still our primary way of being notified of an illegal
laboratory.
Response: The comment is noted and will be conveyed to the Michigan State Police.
Comment #6: - Section 2.2 – CDL Determination (page 10) states that if a laboratory is found in
a vehicle, camper or mobile dwelling that it needs to be impounded. Nevertheless, the section
does not outline who is to do the impounding.
Response: Section 2.2 is entitled Law Enforcement On-Site Actions. It is expected
that the law enforcement agency that discovers a CDL will take action to impound a
contaminated vehicle or mobile dwelling.
Comment #7: - Section 2.3 – CDL Determination (page 10). The 14-day time frame for a CDL
determination is unacceptable. By 14 days the property could already be re-occupied.
Response: While PA 260 of 2006 allows 14 days for MDCH to make a determination of
a public health or safety hazard, MDCH makes every effort to make these determinations
as quickly as feasible. However, to make an accurate determination, MDCH must
sometimes contact the law enforcement agency making the report for additional
information. Law enforcement officers spend much of their time in the field and are not
often at their desks, making it sometimes difficult to rapidly obtain accurate information.
Comment #8: In order to make the response more timely, the CDL determination should be
faxed to the local health department and not mailed. This will save at least two days.
45
Response: The suggestion to fax determinations to local health departments will be
implemented. Section 2.3 has been changed to read, “MDCH will provide the CDL
Determination to the local health department by electronic facsimile and by first class
mail.”
Comment #9: It is important that the CDL determination matches the police report. In a recent
case in Mason County, the CDL determination and the police report covered different areas of
the property.
Response: MDCH makes every effort to obtain a copy of the police report for each CDL.
However, police reports are not always filed in time to allow MDCH to make a
determination within the 14-day time frame and personal communication must be relied
on for additional information. Only one CDL has been reported in Mason County since
July of 2006. The CDL determination for this property was based on information
provided by the Mason County Sheriff Department in a phone conversation with an
officer who was at the scene during the seizure.
Comment #10: - Section 2.5 – Order to Vacate. It is critical that the local building authority
(building inspectors) be part of the guidelines. The authority of local health departments to
control the occupancy of buildings varies widely throughout the state based on local sanitary
codes. Some local health departments do not have the authority to condemn property. Some
have no authority over garages or outbuildings that are not inhabited. Condemning a home for
contamination of soils surrounding the home would not be permitted under local sanitary codes.
Response: Section 2.4 indicates that “MDCH, the local department, or another local
government agency may serve as the Enforcing Agency (EA)” [italics added]. Section 2.5
indicates that “the EA will issue an order to vacate...” Nothing in the guidance document
precludes a local building authority or inspector from serving as an EA. It should also be
noted that PA 260 does not provide authority for an order to vacate if a CDL is located in
an outbuilding. As indicated in Section 3.4 of the guidance, outdoor contamination (e.g.,
soils) are addressed by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
Comment #11: - Section 3.1 – Qualified Personnel (page 12). The State of Michigan needs to
develop a licensing, certification or registration program for clean-up consultants and
contractors. Without such a program, the responsibility will fall to the local health departments,
most of whom do not have the expertise to make such a determination.
Response: The comment is noted. However, MDCH has not been provided with the
authority or resources to develop such a program.
46