[Return Home]Forensic Applications Consulting Technologies, Inc.

Click here for our Home Pages



Colorado Meth-lab Regulations





Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist


FORENSIC INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE


Introduction
Forensic Applications Consulting Technologies, Inc. is a private consulting Industrial Hygiene firm providing environmental testing and assessments for a variety of contaminants, including methamphetamine. Our personnel were instrumental in the development and promulgation of Colorado’s methamphetamine regulations, as well as revision to the new statutes.

The following is an overview of Colorado's State Board of Health methlab clean-up regulations titled Regulations Pertaining to the Cleanup of Methamphetamine Laboratories, (6 CCR 1014-3). A copy of the current regulations can be obtained by clicking here. These are the currently enforceable regulations, however, a significant new revision is anticipated by the end of March, 2014.

At one time, Colorado's clean-up regulations were considered to be some of the most comprehensive and scientifically based in the nation, and this page merely addresses the regulations in general terms. The toxicological exposure model used to support the cleanup thresholds can be found by clicking here.

This web discussion was prepared by Caoimhín P. Connell, Forensic Industrial Hygienist for Forensic Applications, Inc. (a copy of Mr. Connell’s Illegal Drug Laboratory statement of qualifications can be found by clicking (here .) Mr. Connell was a member of two of the four Stakeholder Teams that wrote the original regulations, and was the primary author of the seminal language of the actual assessment protocols.

FACTs personnel were also active members on the Stakeholder’s committees that wrote the revised regulations, scheduled for release in the Spring of 2014.

In Colorado, several groups have been on the leading edge combating the methlab problem in the US. Groups as diverse as the State Legislature, and the Colorado Alliance for Drug Endangered Children, (DEC) spearheaded operations in the protection of Colorado’s citizens.

As a result of these efforts, several new bills have recently been passed. A discussion of the newest Colorado Bill pertaining to Meth-labs (The Colorado Methlab Omnibus Bill), can be found by clicking here and copy of the bill can be obtained from here. A discussion of the Real Estate Disclosure and Discovery Bill, SB 06-002, is available by clicking here.

Over the last several years, a serious problem has developed in Colorado wherein untrained consultants, ignoring the regulations, have been performing unlawful property assessments. Although counties, and municipalities had authority to enforce the regulations and statutes, much of the problem was occurring due to an office in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment who was encouraging unlawful assessments and even participating in such assessments. In response to this situation, in March of 2013, Sen. Tochtrop introduced Senate Bill SB13-219 that was designed to counter the serious problem associated with untrained and unauthorized personnel performing unlawful consultations.

SB13-219 passed, and was signed into law by the Governor on May 28, 2013. The Bill significantly amended Colorado Revised Statutes §28-18.5-101 et seq. The intent was to require enforcement of the State regulations – however, the practical upshot has been an attempt to “dumb-down” the regulations to make it easier for the same untrained consultants to perform the work. The new revised regulations will be available on this site once they are written and finalized and approved.

The original impetus behind the Colorado regulations was essentially a liability immunity law that would protect homeowners, and commercial property owners from future law suits in the event that a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory was discovered on their property. The original Act (available by clicking here) was HB 04-1182. This act, which was signed by Governor Owens on April 21, 2004, laid the foundation for the regulations and required the Colorado Board of Health to establish methlab clean-up standards to even the playing field, and standardize how contaminated properties (and therefore, toxicological risk) could be controlled. The act provided immunity to property owners from civil lawsuits from future tenants, residents, owners, etc. provided the property owner followed the regulations promulgated by the Board of Health.

The regulations required assessments by a person defined as an Industrial Hygienist in Colorado Revised Statute, CRS §24-30-1402. Since the promulgation of the regulations, many unauthorized “testing” companies have attempted to perform the required assessments. These work products are fatally flawed, and frequently end in costly litigation for the property owner who hired the fraudulent consultant.

Fraudulent consultants claiming to be Industrial Hygienists usually have nonsensical self-awarded titles such as “Environmental Specialist,” or “Senior Scientist,” or “Certified Mould Inspector,” and so forth.

In some cases, work performed by such individuals has been rejected by Governing Bodies, but in the majority of cases, the Governing Bodies are not sufficiently aware of the regulations and are not aware that the work is not only deficient, but is now even lawful.

Such "Environmental consultants" are usually self-appointed “experts” who attempt to cash in on the latest environmental fear du jour, but who otherwise lack any legitimate scientific professional backgrounds, have not received legitimate training in human exposure assessments and are not technically competent and are not permitted by regulation to perform assessments. Most often, these "environmental consultants" provide inaccurate, or even fraudulent information that can result in complex, costly, litigious real estate transactions.

Some individuals individuals have attempted to claim that they are “Industrial Hygienists” by virtue of an educational exemption clause in the Colorado regulation which otherwise requires an individual to have obtained a minimum of a baccalaureate or graduate degree in industrial hygiene, biology, chemistry, engineering, physics, or a closely related physical or biological science.

These individuals have tried to claim that since they have a two year degree, they are Industrial Hygienists. However, for a consultant to qualify for the statutory exemption, they must have already been a practicing Industrial Hygienist since 1993. Home Inspectors, geologists, “environmental consultants,” asbestos inspectors, mould inspectors, etc. are not practicing industrial hygiene, and do not by virtue of that experience qualify for the exemption. A property owner who hires such an individual may be forced to discard all of the work of that consultant and hire a bona fide Industrial Hygienist to perform the work from the beginning.

The regulation does not require the industrial hygienist to be a Certified Industrial Hygienist, and the Colorado Board of Health acknowledged that ABIH Certification was not a de facto stamp of competency in industrial hygiene or methlabs (or anything else for that matter). Also , just because a consultant is an bona fide Industrial Hygienist, does not mean they are authorized to perform the work; and when an unethical Industrial Hygienist engages in such work, that work may be found to be incompetently performed, or fraudulent, or even both fraudulent and incompetent (as seen in the ABC News video below, featuring FACTs Industrial Hygienist).


FACTs has been used by regulatory agencies to provide testimony used to refute and reject methlab assessments performed by unauthorized certified industrial hygienists and other consultants who are not authorized to perform such assessments. In the following video our Industrial Hygienist was the technical expert used by ABC News to develop the investigative report.


A copy of the Critical Review used in the ABC investigation can be downloaded here: Hooker Street Review


Fortunately, state regulation protects consumers from these problems by requiring the industrial hygienist to provide the property owner with a "statement of qualifications" which is a legal statement attesting to the industrial hygienist's ability to perform the work. To view an example of a legitimate statement of qualifications, click here.

We have addressed these and other myths later in this discussion.

Codification History

House Bill 04-1182 became codified in the Colorado revised statutes Title 25, Article 18.5 Parts 101-103, (CRS §25-18.5-101).Title 25, Article 18.5 contains:

25-18.5-101. Definitions

25-18.5-102. Illegal drug laboratories - rules. (Requires the Board of Health to promulgate standards for cleanup.)

25-18.5-103. Discovery of illegal drug laboratory - property owner - cleanup - liability

Section 103 Addresses discovery thusly:

Following notification from a peace officer that property contains evidence of a clan-lab or when a clan-lab is otherwise discovered and the property owner has received notice, the owner of such property shall meet the cleanup standards established by the board.

An ancillary bill, Senate Bill 05-217 (SB05-217), provided some clarification for some deficiencies in HB 04-1182. Governor Owens objected to some of the language, but not the overall intention of SB05-217, and so although he did not sign the Bill, he did not veto the Bill and so the Bill came to be Law in mid June, 2005.

SB 05-217 added the definition of a “Governing Body.”

CRS 25-18.5-103 was modified to cover tenant possessions in a meth lab and stipulated that a tenant or occupant had ten days address their personal belongings otherwise, the structure owner (car or building) could dispose of the personal belongings without liability.

CRS 25-18.5-103 was also modified in that it allowed an owner of property found in a methlab to remove that item or debris from the structure prior to an assessment provided that the item is removed by an authorized individual duly trained in such activities, and is moved to a secure location that will prevent theft or exposing another to any toxic or hazardous chemicals until the property or debris is appropriately destroyed or cleaned according to board rules. Nothing in the statute prevents the "Governing Body" from impounding or otherwise securing the temporary storage location or restricting access to the location. For the purposes of the regulation, the temporary holding location effectively becomes a new "illegal drug lab" by definition, and requires a preliminary assessment of the location and the contents.

SB05-217 also added new sections, such as Section 104 which states if a structure or vehicle has been determined to be contaminated or if a governing body or law enforcement agency issues a notice of probable contamination, the owner of the structure or vehicle shall not permit any person to have access to the structure or vehicle unless the person is trained or certified to handle contaminated property pursuant to board rules or federal law. This also includes the owner themselves.

SB05-217 also added CRS 25-18.5-105 which states that an illegal drug laboratory that has not met the cleanup standards shall be deemed a public health nuisance. And that the governing body may enact ordinances or resolutions to enforce the new rules including, but not limited to, preventing unauthorized entry; requiring contaminated property to meet cleanup standards before it is occupied; notifying the public of contaminated property; coordinating services and sharing information between law enforcement, building, public health, and social services agencies and officials; and charging reasonable inspection and testing fees.

The Regulations

So, as required by the Act, the Colorado Board of Health promulgated a set of rules titled (appropriately enough): Regulations Pertaining to the Cleanup of Methamphetamine Laboratories and these became codified as Board of Health 6 CCR 1014-3. The regulations were approved January 19, 2005 and became effective March 30th, 2005.

These ARE the Methlab Regulations. The regulations contain nine Sections and five Appendices.
Section 1 - Purpose
Section 2 - Applicability
Section 3 - Definitions
Section 4 - Preliminary Assessment
Section 5 - Decontamination Procedures
Section 6 - Sampling and Analysis
Section 7 - Cleanup Levels
Section 8 - Documentation
Section 9 - References

Appendix A - Sampling Methods and Procedures
Attachment to Appendix A - Sampling Theory
Appendix B – Analytical Methods
Appendix C – Ventilation System Decontamination
Appendix D – Individual Sewerage Disposal Systems (ISDSs)


Section 1 – Purpose
To establish cleanup standards and procedures that a property owner is required to meet in order to obtain immunity from civil liabilities.

Section 2 – Applicability
The requirements of this section apply when 1) an owner of property has received notification from a peace officer that chemicals, equipment, or supplies indicative of a clan-lab are located at the property, or 2) when a drug laboratory is otherwise discovered, and 3) the owner of the property where the clan-lab is located has received notice.

Section 3 – Definitions
This section contains vital terms that have been carefully constructed to ensure clarity.

Section 4 – Preliminary Assessment
A comprehensive preliminary assessment be conducted by the IH in accordance with Section 6.7 of the regulations prior to decontamination. Furthermore, the decontamination plan MUST be based on the Industrial Hygienist's Preliminary Assessment. Access to the property is limited to those with appropriate training and personal protective equipment. Information collected during the preliminary assessment must include an array of topics, including (but not limited to ): physical address, legal description, number and type of structures present, descriptions of adjacent and/or surrounding properties, description of available law enforcement reports, identification of structural features that may indicate separate functional spaces, identification of manufacturing methods, identification of chemicals used, identification and documentation of areas of a) contamination b) chemical storage areas, c) waste disposal areas, d) cooking areas; signs of contamination such as staining, etching, fire damage, or outdoor areas of dead vegetation, potential disposal into the sanitary sewer or ISDS, ventilation systems with adjacent units or common areas... and an whole laundry list of other items that include sewerage septic tanks, soils, ventilation systems, and more.

Section 5 – Decontamination procedures
This section provides the decon procedures that MUST be followed. The procedures require a significant degree of expertise and, as such, specialized training. At the moment, OSHA is considering such work to be under the scope and applicability of 29 CFR 1910.120, HazWOper. Therefore, remediation contractors must be 40 Hour Hazardous Waste Site trained.

Section 6.0 - Sampling and Analytical Procedures
This section contains the crux of the verification process. It requires a very high degree of technical expertise and thorough knowledge of sampling theory. The immunity of the property owner hinges on the competency of the Industrial Hygienist performing this work. Not all Industrial hygienists, or Certified Industrial Hygienists have the training and experience necessary to properly perform this work. Furthermore, due to the unusual hazards that may be encountered during the assessment, (we have encountered booby traps, explosives, and even armed criminals, during our assessments), not all consulting Industrial Hygienists feel comfortable offering the preliminary services.

Our Industrial Hygienist, with 17 years experience, is Colorado’s only practicing Industrial Hygienist certified by both HIDTA, (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area; Office of National Drug Control Policy, Clandestine Drug Lab Safety Program) and Colorado Department of Law, P.O.S.T. He has received extensive specialized meth-lab training such as the identification of “anti personnel devices” (booby-traps commonly found at meth-labs) through both the Iowa National Guard, Midwest Counterdrug Training Center and the Multijurisdictional Counter Drug Task Force, St. Petersburg College. Mr. Connell has processed clandestine laboratories from both the criminal and civil perspectives.

Section 7.0 - Cleanup Levels
The following cleanup levels have been established to determine if a property has been adequately decontaminated. All discovered and duly noticed clan-labs must meet the cleanup level for methamphetamine. Additional cleanup levels that may be applied to a property must be based on information gained during the preliminary assessment.

7.1. Surface wipe samples and vacuum samples for methamphetamine shall not exceed a concentration of 0.5 µg /100 cm2. (With special caveats for composite samples)

7.2. If there is evidence of iodine contamination on materials or surfaces that will not be removed, surface wipe samples for iodine shall not exceed a concentration of 22 µg/100 cm2.

7.3. If the preliminary assessment indicates the phenyl-2-propanone (P2P) method of methamphetamine manufacturing was used, surface wipe samples for lead shall not exceed a concentration of 40 µg /ft2, and vapor samples for mercury shall not exceed a concentration of 1.0 µg /m3.

7.4. The investigation and cleanup of outdoor contamination, including soil, surface water and groundwater, shall be conducted in accordance with the Colorado Hazardous Waste Regulations, the Colorado Solid Waste Regulations, and Water Quality Control Commission Regulations 31 and 41.

Section 8.0 - Reporting
A final report describing various aspects of the property must be prepared by the IH to document the decontamination process and demonstrate that the property has been decontaminated to the cleanup levels listed in Section 7.0. The final report must include a comprehensive compendium of documents and checks.

Appendices

The appendices contain the details, the flesh about the bones, as it were. In the appendices, the Industrial Hygienist and the remediation contractor can find the "nuts and bolts" of how the work is to be performed, and the rationale of why.

MYTHS!
Since the promulgation of the standards, many myths have emerged surrounding the new regulations.

Myth 1
The new regulations have no teeth.

The facts:
The regulation as codified in CRS 25-18.5-103 REQUIRES a property owner to meet the clean-up standard or demolish the property. Many counties are placing a definitive time-frame on how quickly this process must take place.

The regulation has teeth, to be sure, and gives the authority to enforce the regulations directly to the county, city, town or even law enforcement agency with claimed jurisdiction over that venue.

Myth 2
Tenant / property owner has the right to remove their personal items from the property after the bust or notification.

The facts:
Pursuant to CRS 25-18.5-103 (3), NO PERSONNEL PROPERTY WHATSOEVER, including cars, clothing, personal items, or any other thing "subject to ownership" may be removed from the property until it complies with the regulations. Meaning that either it must be properly destroyed, or it has been cleared for removal by an industrial hygienist, or it is being removed, by a duly trained and authorized party (usually a contractor) to a secure location where it will then be properly destroyed or cleared for removal by an industrial hygienist, or decontaminated in a fashion that has been based on an Industrial Hygienist’s preliminary assessment.

Unless these conditions are met, NO PERSONNEL PROPERTY WHATSOEVER may be removed by any person.

Myth 3
Following the bust or notification, the tenant or property owner may reenter the house.

The facts:
Pursuant to CRS 25-18.5-104, if a structure OR vehicle has been determined to be contaminated or if a Governing Body or Law Enforcement Agency issues a notice of "probable contamination," no person may enter the property or vehicle unless the person is trained or certified to handle contaminated property pursuant to board rules or federal law. Otherwise, NO entry may take place by the owner, or the tenants. The "Governing Body" may secure the structure themselves by placing their own locks on the entrance to control access.

Myth 4
The tenant has the unchallenged right to their personal property, after the bust, and the landlord is responsible for that property.

The facts:
Pursuant to CRS 25-18.5-103(1)(b) the owner of any personal property within a structure OR vehicle contaminated by illegal drug laboratory activity has ten days after the date of discovery of the laboratory or contamination to make appropriate arrangements to assess the property by an industrial hygienist or secure for assessment, or destruction. If, within those ten days, the owner of the personal property fails to comply with the regulations, the owner of the structure may take possession of the items or vehicles and may dispose of that personal property in any manner consistent with the regulations (including cleaning the items and selling them).

Myth 5
Tenants may clean their own items and then remove them.

The facts:
Cleaning of personal belongings is not permitted until those items have been assessed by an industrial hygienist (See Myth 7).

Following the assessment, only those parties who have been properly trained may perform the decontamination.

Myth 6
Unless methamphetamine was actually being manufactured, the property isn't a "meth lab."

The facts:
Virtually ANY methamphetamine related activities, including smoking meth or otherwise using methamphetamines within a residence is sufficient to categorize the property as an "illegal drug laboratory" pursuant to the regulations. Pursuant to CRS 25-18.5-101(2.7), Definitions, an illegal drug laboratory is defined as "...the areas where controlled substances, as defined by section 18-18-102, C.R.S., have been manufactured, processed, cooked, disposed of, used, or stored and all proximate areas that are likely to be contaminated as a result of such manufacturing, processing, cooking, disposal, use, or storing.

Smoking methamphetamine in a property therefore meets one of the criteria of the definition of a drug laboratory. This broad scope is necessary since studies have shown that smoking meth in a residence can result in as much contamination or even more contamination than production and synthesis.

Myth 7
Only a Certified Industrial Hygienist can perform the assessment and verification sampling.

The facts:
The regulations do not require the services of a certified industrial hygienist. Any industrial hygienist meeting the requirements of Colorado Revised Statute CRS 24-30-1402 and the requirements of 6 CCR 1014-3 is permitted to perform the work. However, not every industrial hygienist or certified industrial hygienist necessarily meets the training requirements of 6 CCR 1014-3; which explicitly require an industrial hygienist to be proficient in, and have experience with, meth-labs. Therefore, just because a consultant is an actual industrial hygienist does not mean they may perform the role of the consultant.

Any organization who represents itself as being authorized to perform the work, but who do not actually meet the necessary requirements, not only face the very real threat of future litigation losses being subrogated to them (when their clients find out they have not gained the liability immunity as described by HB1182), but those consultants could also face criminal charges of fraud pursuant to Title 18 of the Colorado Revised Statutes Article 5, Part 301 Section 1(e), punishable by a minimum of 3 months in prison (maximum 12 months in prison).

Myth 8
Cars are exempt.

The facts:
According to the new regulations, all vehicles including private passenger cars, vans, trucks trailers, RVs, and campers are covered by the regulations.

If a police officer or a Sheriff’s Deputy stops a car during a "routine traffic stop," and identifies methamphetamine in the vehicle, that vehicle would be considered an illegal drug lab as defined by the new regulations.

Myth 9
The State Board of Health enforces the regulations.

The facts:
The statutes explicitly placed the onus of responsibility of enforcement on the local level. According to SB 05-217, if the city council or board of county commissioners where the property in question is located has NOT designated who the governing body will be, then the governing body automatically becomes the local health department, building department, and law enforcement agency. And these are the agencies that can enact their own fines, fees, and charges in order to finance the enforcement efforts.

Myth 10
The regulations require testing to determine if a meth-lab is present.

The facts:
Nowhere in the regulation is the collection of samples or testing required to determine if a property is a meth-lab. Consultants who do not understand this, are, by that very fact, not authorized to do the work, since they lack sufficient understanding of the regulation to comply with it.

Myth 11
If a consultant does go into a property and finds meth contamination, but that contamination is less than 0.5 µg/100cm2, then the property is OK, and not covered by the regulations.

The facts:
False! If a consultant arbitrarily chooses non-mandatory sampling at the beginning of the assessment process, and those samples result in any contamination, even below the State’s value of 0.5 µg/100cm2, then the property MUST be declared a meth-lab. The initial declaration is NOT necessarily based on testing – the initial declaration is found within the language of the mandatory Attachment to Appendix A of the regulation (Hypothesis Testing). Therefore, any consultant who has declared a property to not be a meth-lab based on such initial testing, faces not only civil liability, but may also face criminal liability by accepting work they were not qualified to perform. There is no de minimis concentration of methamphetamine at the beginning of the assessment process below which, a property could be declared “not a meth lab” or “not of regulatory concern.”

The single exception to this, would be if the consultant, while attempting to test the initial assessment hypothesis failed to so do, and by virtue of that work simultaneously performed the work as required by the regulation for a post decontamination assessment, and similarly failed to support the post decontamination hypothesis – only then could the preliminary assessment results be used to derive a “decision statement” and declare the property compliant with State regulation.

Liability immunity is gained exclusively by following the process described in the State regulation and concluding that process with a “Decision Statement” as found in Appendix A of the Regulation. If any deviation to that process occurs, the property cannot be declared compliant and the consultant is not at liberty to arbitrarily declare that the property is not a concern, or that there was no meth-lab present.

Myth 12
Colorado’s “clearance level” is 0.5 µg of methamphetamine per 100cm2

The facts:
This is a myth, usually promoted by unauthorized industrial hygienists and unauthorized consultants. There are many situations wherein the residual meth concentrations are inconsequential and may be far below the numerical value of 0.5 µg/100cm2, but the lab has not met the statutory requirements for clearance. The “clearance level” in Colorado is referred to as a “decision level” for a very good reason, and a "decision statement" can only be made under well defined parameters. We anticipate many future law suits arising out of the fact that some meth-labs are being declared "clean," by ill-informed consultants based on sampling, when in fact, those labs are not clean, have not met State regulations, and the property owner has not achieved liability immunity.

Since it is not the role of the governing body to approve or prohibit any particular data package, the unsuspecting property owner may presume that because the data package has been accepted by the governing body, it is acceptable and the property owner has obtained liability immunity. The property owner may not find out that their data package is not acceptable until they are facing a toxic tort law suit from a subsequent property occupant.

Myth 13
A methlab clean-up company can test my home and clean the contamination if they find it.

The facts:
Several remediation companies, especially commercial clean-up companies are selling “comprehensive” meth tests claiming to test a home for meth, and then offering to clean the property. Although this is prohibited by State Statute and by State Regulation, many home owners have been duped into the service.

According to State regulations, following the discovery of evidence of methamphetamine contamination or any other indicator of an illegal drug lab, no cleaning may occur until a Preliminary Assessment has been issued by a legitimate Industrial Hygienist specifically trained in clandestine drug lab issues.

If cleaning occurs, the property owner will not receive the statutory liability shield, and will still be required to perform the Preliminary Assessment, and may end up having to pay for two separate clean-up actions.

Any testing done by remediation companies is unofficial and cannot be used for regulatory purposes or to comply with any Colorado State statutes or regulations.


Myth 14
Decontamination Products can be simply sprayed on the surfaces, to achieve decontamination.

The facts:
Several manufacturers have been marketing “wonder” products they claim will magically decontaminate methlabs. However, some of the manufactures such as “Green Decon” and “Decon ProGreen” make claims that are not only unsupportable, but are physically and chemically impossible. For example, Decon ProGreen has claimed “Tests have shown that the process obliterates the chemical components used to manufacture Meth, leaving a safe environment for human habitation.” However, many of the materials used to manufacture methamphetamine are toxic regardless of the molecular structure and cannot be “obliterated” and must be removed. Miracle products are seldom what they seem, and in general, good cleaning cannot be substituted with cleaning products.

In some states, cleaning products that contain hydrogen peroxide or other kinds of oxidizers are prohibited since these products can alter the surrogate compounds used to determine compliance without removing the otherwise unidentified decontaminants that may remain.

According to Colorado regulations, surfaces must be washed with a water based material. Remediation companies that merely spray chemicals on surfaces and allow those to react as a sole remediation process not only violate State regulations by using this technique, but also, testing has demonstrated that the properties are still contaminated following the process. (See for example the Hooker Street critical review for details.)


Conclusion

The Colorado regulations were developed by a concert of concerned citizens: attorneys, first responders, Industrial Hygienists/toxicologists, property managers, remediation contractors, government officials, and law enforcement personnel, just to name a few. The hard work of these teams, ensured that no one faction, and no one agenda oriented philosophy emerged. Rather, the resulting regulations reflect a dynamic balance of concerns, liabilities, and assets from a representative cross section of commerce and citizenry.

Although all participants worked equally hard in developing the regulations, particular recognition must be given to the driving force and organization behind the regulations provided by the efforts of the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. Further, the validity of the whole exposure effort hinged on the foundational work by Tracy Hammon, Toxicologist/Risk Assessor with the Disease Control and Environmental Epidemiology Division, State of Colorado. Although everyone worked very hard to construct the regulations, Ms. Hammon and the State of Colorado were responsible for ensuring the final "product" was tenable, fair, and acceptable to all concerned.

Throughout the State of Colorado, highly professional law enforcement agencies are on-board and actively participating in addressing the scourge of meth-labs.

Currently, there are no scheduled meth-lab training courses open to the general public



To return to our main methamphetamine discussion, click here.


To learn how to recognize the signs of a methlab, click here.



For a discussion of errors on the El Paso County Department of Health and Environment January 8th, 2009 flier, click here.




Visit our main page!
[logojpg]Forensic Applications Consulting Technologies, Inc.




Feel free to send Forensic Applications, Inc. an email directly by clicking here

[185 Bounty Hunter's Lane, Bailey, Colorado]