3M Transcript for the following interview: Ep-22 … · 2019-01-29 · Episode 22- Methamphetamine...

Episode 22- Methamphetamine Laboratories

1

3M Transcript for the following interview: Ep-22-Methamphetamine

Laboratories

Mark Reggers (R) Brad Prezant (P)

Introduction: The 3M Science of Safety podcast is a free publication. The

information presented in this podcast is general only, and you should always seek

the advice of a licensed or certified professional in relation to your specific work or

task.

Welcome to the 3M Science of Safety podcast presented by 3M Australia and

New Zealand Personal Safety Division. This is a podcast that is curious about the

signs and systems of all things work, health and safety, that keep workers safe and

protect their health. I am Mark Reggers, an occupational hygienist, who likes to

ask the questions Why, How, and Please Explain. Whether you are a safety

professional, occupational hygienist, or someone with any level of WHS

responsibility in the workplace, maybe you are a user of safety products or maybe

you are a bit of a safety nerd who finds this stuff really interesting, then this is a

podcast for you.

(R) Today we’re talking with Brad Prezant. Welcome Brad. (P) Thank you. (R) Brad, can you please introduce yourself? Where are you from and what do you do? (P) I am an occupational hygienist. I work with VA Sciences in Melbourne and

Sydney. And we are a consulting, laboratory and training company that focuses on

occupational hazards and environmental hazards including things like clandestine

drug labs, indoor air quality, mould and other factors that could impact health in the

built environment.


2

(R) Well that works out pretty well because today’s topic is clandestine laboratories,

or meth labs, that we’re going to be focusing on. Something else I think people

should know about you, you’ve actually just recently been elected the Vice President

of the International Society of Indoor Air and Climate. Congratulations.

(P) Thank you.

(R) I don’t know how you find the time with all the stuff you’re doing. So, meth labs

– methamphetamine labs. When that is said, what should come to mind? I guess my

knowledge comes from Breaking Bad. Is that a fair representation when we’re talking

about meth labs in Australia and New Zealand?

(P) It can be. It’s not very complicated to manufacture methamphetamine. As long as

you can get a hold of the precursors, it’s relatively cookbook like. And there are

plenty of videos on YouTube and resources you can pull from the web that’ll show

you how to actually make the meth. The majority of labs are probably much smaller

than the ones you’re thinking of from Breaking Bad, but the process is relatively

simple and there’s a wide variety of ways to make it. So long as you can get a hold

of the precursors, pretty much anyone who can bake a cake can make meth.

(R) Not that we are encouraging people to go and look these things up on YouTube

and go down that path, but for some reason I’m starting to see this more on the news

and certainly on LinkedIn and social medial about meth labs in residential properties.

Is this a growing area in Australia or is it just the fact we’re hearing more about it?

(P) Well, kind of both. It’s estimated that Australia has some of the highest uses of

meth in the world It’s probably accurate to say that one out of every ten persons in

their 20s and 30s may have used meth.

(R) Wow that’s really high. Much higher than I would’ve suspected.


3

(P) And we have a number of other drugs that are similar to meth like MDA, MDMA,

all of which we think of as amphetamine-type stimulants which include meth and

many of these other synthetic drugs.

(R) In the cook process, what types of hazards may be present?

(P) The cooking process can generate lots of hazardous gases and vapours and can

result in a number of exposures that could be of health significance to the people

who occupy the residence. At the point the police are coming in because they need

to take evidence, they’re going to probably take away all of the specific chemicals

that have been used in the cooking including the glassware and any waste products.

The process of cooking generally can generate up to ten times the volume. For each

kilogram for example of methamphetamine that’s manufactured you’re generating

at least 10 kg of waste.

(R) Wow.

(P) So that’s a lot of waste products and sometimes that goes down the drain,

particularly if you’re hooked up to a sewer system in an urban environment. In a rural

environment it might be going into the septic system or dumped onto the ground

outside, but all of that waste and all of the cooking paraphernalia are probably going

to be gone at the point the police have finished their assessment.

(R) So, with that cooking process, those contaminants, is there a limit to where it’s

been cooked or how far is it spreading throughout a residency or an area?

(P) Well there’s a number of processes that involve heating during the cooking

process, and some that involving bubbling hydrochloric acid through the meth base

for example in order to produce the powder that’s methamphetamine, and then


4

afterwards what we call ice which is the crystal in methamphetamine. And those

processes create an aerosol, a warm aerosol that will move throughout the building,

typically a residence, and will settle and deposit on numerous surfaces including the

walls, furnishings like couches, carpeting. So in addition to whatever might be spilled

in the immediate vicinity where the cooking is occurring, you’ve got this non-visible

vapour that’s going to be moving throughout the house, more likely than not rising

through the house if it’s a multi-storey house, simply because air moves upward in a

residence from the subfloor to the ground floor to the first floor….

(R) It keeps going up, yes.

(P) …. roof cavity and exits. So, all of those areas are going to be dusted, you might

think of it in that term, with a residue of methamphetamine and possibly other

substances that are being generated from the cooking.

(R) So, it’s landing on all these particular surfaces, so if you’re touching those

surfaces and it’s been transferred to the residents. From a route of entry point of

view, is it more the ingestion side of things, the inhalation side of things that we’re

concerned about with those residues being settled and disturbed?

(P) Correct. So, the majority of the exposure that might occur to someone or to a

vulnerable group of individuals, particularly say young children who spend a lot of

time crawling on the floor….

(R) Touching every surface.

(P) …. touching surfaces, hand-to-mouth behaviours – these are all the ways that you

could get exposure. So, the predominant way of exposure would probably be

through ingestion and skin absorption.


5

(R) So what kind of health effects – we’re talking about risks, what kind of outcomes

are typically seen, if there is such a typical outcome from the health effects?

(P) Well there’s a bit of controversy concerning that.

(R) Right.

(P) It’s important to remember that a number of these amphetamine-type stimulants

are used pharmaceutically. So, if your children are taking Ritalin or other drugs for

ADHD, then they are getting this type of amphetamine type of stimulant as part of

their treatment. There are still people who are being treated for obesity with

amphetamine-type drugs. So, these are not foreign substances in terms of being

completely unknown. What we know about them in terms of how they behave in the

body is mostly derived from the pharmaceutical literature and all of the permitting

processes for all of these drugs. And they’ve been used for many decades, so we do

know something about how they get into the body, we know something about how

they’re dealt with in the body, and the types of effects that occur.

(R) So, I guess from that medical point of view from pharmaceutical, that’s a

controlled known dosage and hence why you have X amount of tablets and pills per

day based rather than an unknown amount, touching surfaces from a child, maybe

much more of a dose that I guess those susceptible people, groups, would be getting

exposed to.

(P) Yes, the most susceptible groups are probably going to be young children, for a

number of reasons, because of the behaviours, also because of the ratio of the

surface area of their bodies to their weight. And this is the group that we’re most

focused on in terms of any potential harmful exposures.


6

(R) Is there a difference risk wise between a house where meth has been cooked and

a house where meth has been smoked only?

(P) I think it’s important to distinguish between a cookhouse for meth and a building

where meth has been smoked. Meth isn’t actually smoked like a cigarette. If you’re

smoking the ice, the crystalline form of methamphetamine, it’s being put into a pipe,

it’s being heated up with a match or some other substance, but it’s not quite the same

as combusting a cigarette. It’s being really taken from its crystalline form into a

vapour form. Some of that vapour is being inhaled but some of it is escaping the pipe

and is now going to be settling on surfaces in the same way that during the

manufacturing process you’re going to get movement of air through the building and

settling on surfaces of the methamphetamine. So, when we go into a residence and

if we had no prior information about its history and we sampled the surfaces for

methamphetamine residue, we would not necessarily know if that residue is from

smoking or if it’s from manufacture unless we had previous information about what

went on in the residence. In other words, the police busted this residence, they found

this equipment etc, they were clear that it was being manufactured in this area. But

absent that information, we can typically identify methamphetamine residue on the

walls, whether it was just smoked or whether there was manufacturing going on. And

all of our approach to detecting and identifying methamphetamine – in some ways

we’re using the methamphetamine as a tracer for any and all other chemicals that

may be present. So, methamphetamine is extremely stable. Once it settles onto a

surface, you might be able to detect it there for a number of years.

(R) Oh wow, that long.

(P) Typically, yes. I’ve had projects for example where we knew for a fact that the

area had not been disturbed for two years and there were significant residues. So,

it’s not going to degrade very quickly. It may degrade slowly but not very quickly.


7

(R) So what are those specific chemicals that you will find in that cooking process and may also be part of that residue? (P) Well obviously there are the precursors to the methamphetamine but in order to extract the drug from the pills or whatever the precursor is, strong acids, bases, ammonia, industrial solvents like toluene are going to be used. Occasionally things like lead and mercury-based compounds may be used, although those methods seem to be out of favour at the moment. Our concern for these is that some of those substances are going to be residual after the manufacture. Some of them are extremely volatile and are just going to go away immediately, but others can be present and they can be part of the residue that attaches itself to the surfaces, either through evaporation and movement through a building or through direct spillage. So we’re going to be concerned when we look at a residence of any staining or indication that there might have been spillage where we would want to test perhaps for the pH looking at whether or not any strong acids are present. We might be looking in other areas for other indications of spillage, and then on the surfaces we’re going to be testing for the methamphetamine and the precursors.

(R) Are there levels that you’re looking for? I mean a bit like we’ve spoken in previous

podcasts about workplace exposure standards – are there levels with an acceptable

amount of residue where you’re not expecting health effects or health risks?

(P) We don’t have any legislation specifically in Australia regarding

methamphetamine residue levels, but we do have a process that was laid out in the

Australian guidelines where the police are expected to be in communication with the

local council environmental health officers. And local councils have the ability to

pretty much red tag a building - a residence or a commercial building, and in essence

take away its occupancy permit until it has been remediated to a satisfactory level.

So, the government and each state have various guidelines that in essence guide the

environmental health officers in determining whether or not a building is acceptable

for ongoing occupation.

(R) So, from that remediation cleaning point of view, is it a case of just wiping down

surfaces? I mean obviously bringing in workers to undertake those tasks, I mean is

there greater risk for them because they’re potentially stirring it up in that


8

environment? Or are you having to remove gyprock like you would maybe say in a

water event?

(P) It really depends upon the level. If there’s been significant cooking in a building,

the levels can be very high in terms of the methamphetamine residue on the walls,

on the surfaces. Things like the carpeting, soft furnishings - those type of items may

not be able to be remediated, so they’re going to have to be discarded. But surfaces

that are remaining in the building may need to be cleaned, and you can remove the

residue with multiple washing with various chemical techniques such that when you

re-test, the methamphetamine is no longer present. And presumably if the

environment has been used to cook methamphetamine, you will also take off all of

these other materials that are present.

(R) So, you get an assessment at I guess at the start of a process to go ‘Yes, we

suspect there has been meth being cooked here’ then after it’s been remediated

you’re saying that you will come in and do a clearance, a bit like asbestos clearance,

But that kind of process? So, a check before what level it is and a check after that it

is at an acceptable level to reoccupy if it’s going to be reoccupied?

(P) Exactly. So, the Australian guidance document pretty much lays out a process

whereby the police refer the clandestine drug laboratory bust to the environmental

health officers. The environmental health officers red tag the property. The property

owner then has to find a consultant or an individual to help them characterise the

degree of contamination. They have to demonstrate in essence that the property is

no longer contaminated above the relevant what we call investigation levels, or ILs,

which are published by the Australian government as guidelines for what a

reasonable level of residual methamphetamine can be. So, anything in excess of that

would be considered to be unacceptable. Anything less than that would be

considered to be acceptable from a public health perspective.


9

(R) So, all those hygienists, individuals, professionals coming in to do the assessment,

to the workers potentially doing the remediation, what kind of controls are being

used throughout that particular process? I guess it’s not a typical work environment

from a manufacturing site, but these workers are operating in that space. What are

they putting in place to protect themselves?

(P) Well it depends. It depends whether or not we’re talking about the assessment or

the actual remediation. So, what we’re going to look at, we’re going to look at the

work tasks. So, if the remediation for example requires removal of some building

materials and that activity is going to create a high degree of dust and aerosol, then

we’re going to be concerned about the inhalation exposure of the people doing that

work. If someone is coming in to do an assessment and they’re not disturbing

materials. They’re simply measuring the residual levels on the walls. They have no

information to indicate that the property was used specifically for manufacturing.

This is just kind of a pre-check, then the level of protective equipment is going to be

very different and may be limited for example to booties and gloves and not require

respiratory protective equipment. Of course, the opposite end of the spectrum – if

you’re demolishing plaster board, creating a massive amount of dust and aerosol,

then you’re going to want to make sure that there’s protection against inhalation. So

really each particular situation is going to call for a different approach based upon

the degree of hazard that it presents.

(R) Which is what a risk assessment is for and having the appropriate controls for the

appropriate risk. And it’s no different to all the different podcasts and episodes I’m

sure our listeners are very familiar with, but I guess it’s much more of an unknown

area for a lot of people, which is why we wanted to get you in to have a chat about

this. So, with those clearance tests, what is actually happening? Are you taking a

swab? What are those particular levels that you’ve referred to?


10

(P) In order to test what’s on the surface, generally we’ll put up a mask - some type

of a piece of paper that delineates a 10 cm x 10 cm area. And then a wipe that is

saturated with methanol or some other solvent that will pick up the

methamphetamine is wiped in a systematic manner across the surface, and then

that’s submitted to the laboratory. And the laboratory will use relatively

sophisticated techniques of liquid chromatography or gas chromatography and mass

spectrometry in order to identify not just the methamphetamine, but amphetamine

and sometimes the precursors as well. Many of the methods for manufacturing

methamphetamine start with pseudoephedrine, or what you might have seen in a

pharmacy as Sudafed. So, it’s a relatively common cold medication and it’s not very

difficult to change the pseudoephedrine into methamphetamine. Without getting

into too much of the chemistry, it’s not very complicated. So, what we’re going to

look for in our wipe sample is not just the methamphetamine but other amphetamine-

type stimulants and also the precursors, all of which would be indicative of

manufacturing. So, for example if we’re trying to distinguish between a residence

that was used for cooking as opposed to only being used for smoking, the absence

of precursors would perhaps suggest that it was used more for smoking.

Alternatively, the presence of the precursors strongly would provide evidence to

suggest that the building was used for manufacturing methamphetamine.

(R) Is there a number you’re looking for in those particular checks in the precursors?

(P) When we measure the residue of methamphetamine on the surfaces and other

chemicals that might be present, there are guidelines that are published by Australia.

In the case of New Zealand there are specific guidelines for New Zealand as well.

We’re looking at how many micrograms of these substances are present per 100

square centimetres, in other words our 10 x 10 square that we’ve sampled. This type

of laboratory test that we’re doing is very sensitive. It will pick up very, very low

levels of these compounds. We actually have another method of testing as well,

which is a much quicker method. It’s much less accurate. It’s a little bit less expensive


11

as well. And it can be used in a residence or in an environment and within five or ten

or 15 minutes you’re going to have a result. The test I was describing previously, if

you’re submitting the samples to a laboratory, typically it’s going to take a week

before you get any type of a result. But when you do get a result, you know it’s going

to be very accurate. It’s going to be acceptable for in essence stating that a residence

has now been properly remediated, whereas the short-term, the quick test that I was

talking about earlier, is not going to be acceptable for demonstrating appropriate

remediation.

(R) So, we’ve spoken mainly about Australia, and you’ve referred to New Zealand. Is

it the same sort of approach between the two countries?

(P) The issues in New Zealand are similar and of course Australia and New Zealand

often work back and forth together in terms of their legislation and in terms of their

guidance documents. They have recently gone through a process of revising their

documents within New Zealand, and there has been a considerable amount of

debate concerning houses that have been used for smoking only versus houses that

have been used for manufacture. And because it’s become quite common to screen

residences just routinely as part of real estate transactions, there’s a lot of concern

that very expensive remediation has been done in residences where smoking only

has occurred and the levels on the walls and surfaces are very minimal. That has

resulted in a report and the suggestions in that report are that the threshold levels,

what are termed as investigation limits here in Australia, that are being used are not

health based. And in fact, the levels can be much higher, and it could still be safe for

the occupants of the building. In particular, if the building was only used for smoking

and not for manufacture, we are not concerned about other chemicals being present.

We’re not using the methamphetamine as a tracer for other substances that might

be there. And in that case the presence of the methamphetamine residue alone is not

likely to lead to exposures of health significance.


12

(R) I can appreciate it’s an ever-evolving issue and I’m sure it’ll change going forward

as well as more people give their point of view and evidence in this interesting

discussion.

(P) Well my prediction is that we will begin to re-evaluate the guidelines here as a

result of what’s been happening in New Zealand. That’s my thought that because of

the harmonisation between the two countries it’s going to create the same debate

here, so we’ll see.

(R) And it’s similar to workplace exposure standards where there was higher

standards and as more evidence comes to hand over time and we understand an

issue, that levels do drop, and change based on that. So, it’s the right way to go –

evidence-based decisions.

(P) Well evidence-based is certainly the way to go. I think the interesting thing about

methamphetamine is that it’s moving in the opposite direction. So, the initial clean-

up standards, what we term the investigation limit, the residue on the walls, were not

driven by a health-based approach - they were driven by a technology-based

approach. In other words, what is the lower level that we can detect? And if we clean

to that level then surely, we will be able to do the best possible job. And what’s

happened as this field has evolved over several decades is that the focus has shifted

more towards a health-based standard. And what’s going on in New Zealand right

now is really a health-based discussion. Why should we be cleaning up to a level

that’s way below anything that could be of concern? We don’t want to be overly

conservative. We don’t want to force property owners to have expensive

remediation if it’s not necessary and justified by public health. So, what’s going on

now is a health-based discussion and instead of reducing the levels like happens so

often with workplace exposure standards with new scientific information, what

we’re actually talking about here is increasing the standards, in many cases in order

of magnitude or more. So, we’ll see how that plays out here.


13

(R) I was just about to say this is an ever-evolving issue and I know we’re only

skimming the surface. So, if people are interested to find out more about what we’ve

been talking about, are there any places I guess they can go to read up for

themselves where this discussion is happening?

(P) There are actually quite a number of references that they could look towards. I

would start first with the Australian Federal guidelines. Each state has their own

guidelines and in some cases the guidelines have some additional recommendations.

So, for example in New South Wales, the New South Wales guidelines on

methamphetamine laboratories suggest that for areas that are of low occupancy and

infrequent occupancy, so for example a roof cavity or something like that, that an

investigation limit five times higher than the 0.5 mcg per 100 square centimetre

standard for standard residential buildings, that it’s acceptable to have a level five

times higher. In other words, 2.5. So sometimes the states elaborate and expand the

discussion, in other cases they just simply recapitulate what’s in the federal

guidelines. But definitely the first place to start would be with the Australian

guidelines, the US EPA has a number of documents that have been produced, as well

as the individual states within the US. There are probably close to 100 different

documents that have been produced by public health agencies, government

agencies, across North America and Australasia on this issue. I would also look at the

New Zealand standard, the one that was just introduced in 2017.

(R) We’ll look to put some of those resources on our blog posts, so people have got

those resources right there for them to check. If people want to get in contact with

yourself or VA Sciences, what’s the best way to do that?

(P) We are on the web at vasciences.org - that would probably be the easiest way to

find us. Our offices are in Sydney and Melbourne. And we would be very happy to

assist you with these issues, answer your questions. One of our companies, TESA


14

Directive, also offers a training class for remediation of methamphetamine

properties.

(R) I really appreciate you coming in today and delving into this issue because it

certainly is quite interesting, and I know we’ve only just skimmed the surface. So,

appreciate your time.

(P) Thank you.

(R) Thanks for listening everyone. If you have any questions, comments, suggestions

for future topics or guests you think would be great in the studio, you can send us an

email to [email protected] You can also contact us via that email if you

need any information around PPE or would like a visit to your workplace for

assistance around the appropriate selection, use and maintenance of PPE in your

workplace - 3M are here to help. You can also visit our website:

3M.com.au/sospodcast which has a transcript of the chat I’ve just had with Brad, as

well as all the other previous transcripts and information on our previous episodes.

Be sure to subscribe to the podcast through Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever

you get this podcast from so you don’t miss any future episodes. And if you enjoyed

the podcast or found it informative, we’d really appreciate it if you could take a few

moments to leave us a review, as it really does help other people to find the podcast.

And as Wil Rose said: “Success is not counted by how high you have climbed, but by

how many people you brought with you”. Thanks for listening and have a safe day.

mailto:[email protected]

3M Transcript for the following interview: Ep-22 … · 2019-01-29 · Episode 22- Methamphetamine...

Documents

Transcript of 3M Transcript for the following interview: Ep-22 … · 2019-01-29 · Episode 22- Methamphetamine...