I recently took a Legislative Update class for my continuing education credits.  One of the topics we talked about in class was meth labs.  It seems that an agent was looking at a house to list and the landlord gave her the key and told her to go and look at the house.  She went and opened the fridge and the light didn't come on, she noticed that it was unplugged so she plugged it in and opened the door and it blew up in her face when she opened the door.  The tenants were storing meth componants in the fridge and had broken the light bulb and left it unplugged but if it were plugged in the spark from he light filament created enough of a spark to blow up the fridge.  The agent died.  Meth labs are a scary prospect for agents, sellers and new owners. 

I'm interested to see where this progresses to.

NO! I think it should be disclosed...the new owners have a right to know that they may have some problems down the road if they are going to have babies.

I'm just glad I haven't had to deal with this issue.  Honestly, I think I'd have to pass on the opportunity to list a property that was formerly a meth lab...if I ever come across one.  Sometimes we have to know when we are not the right agent for the job at hand. This would be one of those times for me.

June, I've been blown away by the limited research I've done on METH labs in the last week. The potential danger to anyone exposed to the chemicals in these labs in far beyond anyting I imagined.

 Thanks for sharing what you learned. It will certainly be used in my presentation to my city council. Where and how long ago was the incident? I'd like to find some news reports on it.

Chuck, thanks for the comment. I agree it should be disclosed regardless of any decontamination efforts.

Doesn't surprise me,,,,,,nothing much does anymore but I would tell authorities and get it off my conscience.

Patricia Aulson/Lic NH/ME/MA 

Cheryl, thanks for stopping by. Is Montana a "disclosure" state? I've not done the research I need to yet on the difference between a disclosure and non-disclosure state. I just know Utah uses their justification for not letting buyers know on being a non-disclosure state. And yet our sellers property disclosure checklist discloses other hazardous chemicals and not METH. I'm on the govt affairs committee for our local board and can't wait to discuss it in our next meeting. The public has a right to know. 

Ardell, thanks for commenting and adding me as an assoc. I read you alot on raincityguide and enjoy your posts.

I appreciate your concern over listing a meth house. I listed and sold a condo several years ago that had been a meth house and after $40k in clean up was declared clean by the board of health. I checked with the division of real estate and learned that under the stigmatized property regulations we did not have to disclose the meth lab if we had a certificate of occupancy which we did. If a buyer asked we had to disclose, but only if they asked.

We did disclose it to the buyers because there was evidence (a hole from the garage ceiling to an upstairs room to load and unload the materials) in the condo.

Even though we disclosed it I still feel uncomfortable about the sale. From this point, I'll always have my buyers ask about any possible meth activity and will not particpate in the selling side of any known meth house.

Keith ~ this is a problem not unique to Utah!  I find it hard to believe people find it necessary to do drugs, much less make them.  The risks associated with these properties is truly beyond belief.  Perhaps the list of homes should be open access to the public.  How are we to know?

How could we trust a seller (maybe some but certainly not all) to tell us the truth?

kk 

KK, you're certainly right, this is a national problem. However, some of my research puts Utah a little higher on the scale because the state was slow to regulate the purchase quantities of ephedrine and other oc materials necessary to cook meth. Because it was so easy to get supplies we basically became a kitchen for surrounding states.

My push to our city councils and legislatures will be for a "free" wbe based list of all homes ever know to be contaminated. They provide a list now but it is a pay per view search and is not complete. And to require disclosure by sellers if a home was known to be contaminated.

You're right, sellers may lie. But the recourse for the buyers will be greater if it can be proved they should have known.

A greater concern I've found is the fear that short of bulldozing a home you can't remediate the danger of exposure. Even a home that has been "cleaned" can leach contaminants years later.

What level of risk is acceptable?

I always enjoy your visits. You're always brief but pack a thoughtful comment.

I live in California where I purchased a home at the end of last year and just recently the neighbors told me there had been a meth lab on the property (luckily not in the house-but still a nightmare).  AB 1078-effective 2006 requires that sellers disclose to buyers if there was a meth lab on the property. The measly $5,000 fine is nothing compared to what clean-up costs might be ($5,000-150,000) nor the stress and strain I will have to go through to get the seller to pay for testing and clean-up. Nor does this include the loss of property value  for owning what will now forever be known as a "former meth house", cleaned up or not. Nor does this include over payment of property taxes because property would have sold for much less if the meth lab had been disclosed.The new law also states that any meth lab houses discovered from 2006 forward will have a lien put on them and that info will go to the title company so a new buyer can make an informed choice when purchasing a home or property. Unfortunately if the bust/discovery was prior to 2006 the county/state have provided no easy means for a buyer to discover if a meth lab was previously on the property, IF a buyer/renter even knows to look. For some unkown reason my new address did NOT bring up the two meth lab databases it is on using a google search, even though almost every other address on the list does... I had googled my address BEFORE I signed my purchase agreement and nothing came up...I wasn't looking for a meth lab as I didn't even think of that possibility, I was buying my house from a grandma....This law also does nothing to protect renters that may move into a house that was a former meth lab. I live in a college town and students are frequently moving in and out. If a student develops health issues down the road how will they ever know what may have been a trigger. It also does nothing to protect visitors to the home. Just because a person buys a former meth lab does he/she have a right to subject friends/family/visitors to the chemical residue that is/was left behind? What if the new owner wants to run a day care or elder care business? What they don't know CAN hurt them.Most of the legislation that I have been reading from my state and from other states includes little to NOTHING about possible soil contamination. Where did the "cook" dump the waste products? Will new owners/renters want to plant a garden, will their children play in the dirt, will new construction take place that stirs up the soil, will the contaminates move around and poison other areas of their yard, will they contaminate the water table or a well, will their animals eat grass or other things that may have taken up the toxins? Did I mention that my dog has had diarrhea twice in the last month? I have also read police reports where dogs have had seizures at the same location of meth lab busts. Did they pour the waste into a septic or city sewer? Will those pipes fail in short order?Another issue is people/realtors that buy houses that are in foreclosure. I am learning that if a person buys a foreclosed house they are buying "as is" and so they can claim they didn't know there was a meth lab, and of course they cannot possibly tell a buyer. There needs to be something that forces EVERY buyer/seller of a house to have a method of checking so they cannot claim lack of knowledge down the road. I also have learned that clean-up companies are quick to take someone's money, but that testing one square foot on each wall is not an adequate method of finding any "hot spots" from residue.  Thousands of dollars can be spent for testing, but their method is sort of like looking for a needle in a haystack. So getting a "certificate" from one of these companies can have little to no value. I have learned that a can of spray starch sprayed on a wall will turn violet when it reacts with iodine IF the "red phosphorus" method was used. So this may be a cheaper method of determining where the "hot spots" are.Having a copy of the arrest report which has location/amount/types of chemicals found is a great start, but here in California they are claiming that is "confidential information". I am still waiting, one month later for the info so I can give it to a cleaning company so we know what/where to look for residual contamination.If the meth lab was in an apartment that shares heating/cooling ducting with other units what was/will be done to make sure other units are not affected?I think that any building/area that has had a known meth lab needs to be branded with a large letter "M" with a sheet of info posted on the hazards of residual contamination. If Public Health Departments really cared about people's health and not about financial costs they would do everything in their power to make sure people made INFORMED decisions and since the Public Health departments usually are informed about meth labs it is THEIR DUTY to provide this information to the public. Buyers/renters deserve the right to CHOOSE as they are the ones that will ultimately pay the price with their health and we all know that medical bills for future respitory ailments or cancers can far exceed most costs of clean-up.

Sorry for the lack of paragraph breaks, I am new to posting on a blog. I did hit return for paragraphs when I wrote the above in the comments box. Somehow they disappeared...

Distraught in CA,

Thanks for your comments. You've had a painful experience. I hope you don't mind, I've copied your comment to my local blog SaltLakeSpeaks where I've posted the same post.

I'll certainly use some of your comments in my presentation to our local Governmental Affairs Board and to the Salt Lake City council as we try and make disclosure required.

I'd not thought about the contamination of the outside soil, possibly from the "cook" dumping the waste, and to the potential contamination of the ground water.

You mentioned early in your comment the "$5,000"? What was that?

Do you know of a link to online Calif. regulations for disclosure?

Again, thanks for sharing your experience.

I hope my paragraph breakes work! I want to thank you for taking the initiative in dealing with this very complex issue. It is good to see someone looking out for their clients and not just trying to sell any house that comes along as long as there is a commission made on the sale.[p]The $5,000 is the fine to the sellers for not disclosing that a meth lab was on the property which is part of the new law AB 1078. I am just beginning my nightmare and am doing a lot of research to make that any testing and/or cleaning is done in the most accurate and thorough way.[p]Here is a link to California legislation, but as I commented in my earlier post I found out the hard way that the law still has way too many loopholes and relying on the honesty of a seller who may have meth a meth cook is questionable at best.[p]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_1051-1100/ab_1078_bill_20051006_chaptered.html[p]On the site above select Session 2005/2006 and Assembly and 1078 for the bill number[p]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html[p]http://www.dre.ca.gov/disclosures.htm#_Toc122939757[p]State of California[p]Department of Real Estate[p]  Disclosures inReal PropertyTransactions[p]Sixth Edition[br]2005[p]New legislation effective January 1, 2006, requires local health officers to make an assessment of a property after receiving notification from a law enforcement agency of potential contamination or of known or suspected contamination by a methamphetamine laboratory activity. If the property is determined to be contaminated, an order prohibiting its use or habitation shall be issued. Until the property owner receives a notice from a local health officer that the property identified in an order requires no further action, the property owner shall notify the prospective buyer in writing of the order, and provide the prospective buyer with a copy of the order. The prospective buyer shall acknowledge, in writing, the receipt of a copy of the order.[p](Cal. Health & Safety § 25400.10 et. seq.)[p]Here are some other good sites:[p]http://www.valleymeth.com/[br]A Madness Called Meth- CALIFORNIA'S SOCIAL, MEDICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL NIGHTMARE[p]http://www.pca.state.mn.us/cleanup/meth.html[p]Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs and Wastes in Minnesota[p]snip[p]10. Methamphetamine Contamination[p]MPCA sampled former clandestine meth labs to characterize meth deposition and penetration of meth into building materials and to provide baseline data for cleaning and sealing studies.  MPCA found wipe sampling of meth contaminated materials to be problematic because sampling results from different building materials are difficult to compare.  For example, different adjacent building materials (e.g., raw wood studs, cement block, metal, and latex painted sheetrock) sample differently and yield different concentrations of meth when wipe sampled.  This creates difficulties in interpreting wipe sample data to determine pre- and post-cleaning effectiveness.  Despite these negative aspects, wipe sampling is still often used to determine remediation adequacy.[p]The adopted “cleanup standard” of 1 microgram per square foot (µg/ft2 ) is not a health-based or risk-based value; that is, levels of meth above or below 1 µg/ft2  cannot be said to be either a “dangerous” or “safe” level of human exposure to meth.  Much work remains in the area of health risk assessment regarding “safe” exposure levels to residual meth and other possible contaminants in former meth labs.  Because of this and the difficulties of interpreting sampling results, the MDH Guidance  “relies on a remediation process rather than achievement of a number …” (from MDH Guidance Section D, “Meth Risk Decisions,” p. 11). [p]The MDH Guidance provides bulleted actions to perform the remediation process, including removing and disposing of materials that cannot be cleaned (e.g., carpeting, ceiling tile and wallpaper), then double washing plus rinsing all surfaces and then sealing with two coats of paint or polyurethane.  Minnesota case studies of former meth labs have shown that cleaning and sealing will greatly reduce human exposure to meth; yet, after the remediation process, a sampler using the Guidance’s sampling procedure for methanol-dampened wipes (see MDH Guidance, Appendix C1) sent to a certified analytical lab will almost always find low level meth residue.  Because remediation effectiveness cannot be demonstrated reliably by wipe sampling, pre- and post-remediation sampling for meth is not required by MDH’s Guidance if the remediation process is followed (see MDH Guidance, p.12). [p]To emphasize, the structure that is thoroughly cleaned and sealed according to the MDH Guidance will have a low level of meth residual available for wipe sampling on some surfaces.  Studies have shown that meth will remain, sealed into the building material beneath the paint or polyurethane; this sealed meth is not likely available to subsequent residents.  Studies of the long-term stability of meth sealed into structural materials are still necessary.[p]Despite the problems inherent in wipe sampling for meth, sampling may be required in some cases.  Careful planning of sampling locations, choice of building materials to be sampled, and interpretation of results is necessary (see, MDH Guidance, Appendix C4).  For further understanding, see the links below for the studies that are the bases of these recommendations. [p]snip[p][p]http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070515/NEWS01/705150407/-1/CINCI[p] Local news[br]Cincinnati.Com   »   The Enquirer   »   Local news   »   Former meth lab unfit home[br]Last Updated: 1:59 pm | Tuesday, May 15, 2007[br]Former meth lab unfit home[br]BY PEGGY O'FARRELL | POFARRELL@ENQUIRER.COM[p]The little house they rented on Lawrenceburg Road in January seemed perfect, with a big back yard for the kids and their toys, and a garden.[p]"I had always heard my grandma telling stories about the farm she grew up on," Wilson said. "It sounded perfect." She even thought about getting a chicken or two so the family could have fresh eggs.[p]That ended when neighbors told them a former tenant cooked methamphetamine in the house. The illegal drug is made from a toxic stew of chemicals.[p]Now all three of Wilson's children are sick after just a few months in the house. Wilson is seven months pregnant and worried about what problems her unborn baby might face.[p]rest of story at link[p]http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660198239,00.html[p]Deseret News[br]Sunday, February 25, 2007[p]How toxic is 'toxic'? Cleaning up residences contaminated by meth is fraught with flaws[p]Firms that do the cleanup under scrutinyBy Dennis Romboy and Lucinda Dillon Kinkead[br]Deseret Morning News[p]The issue seems simple: Methamphetamine residue is bad, although health consequences are ambiguous, and people shouldn't live where remnants of the drug are present.[p]       But a variety of parties have an interest in this issue — and millions of dollars are at stake.[p]       Homeowners and renters obviously care about their safety. Local health departments must close down housing that is contaminated. Landlords have to pay thousands of dollars to clean it all up.[p]       And importantly, someone must test the carpet, the walls and the air ducts for meth residue.[p]snip[p]Research by the Deseret Morning News shows the system for detecting houses "contaminated" by meth is flawed at best and, in the worst cases, fraudulent.[p]snip[p]Reid and his colleagues acknowledge troubling factors in the meth testing process.[p]       "If one decontamination specialist tests in one area, and another takes the same test six inches away, results might be totally different," Reid said.[p]snip[p]Samples are typically taken by swiping a cloth saturated in isopropyl alcohol or methanol on a wall, counter or air duct. The outcome could change depending on how hard the tester presses, whether the surface was recently cleaned, what type of alcohol is used or the location of the swipe.[p]       "The sampling process is such that if you sample at one place, move over a foot and sample again, you could have a different result," Weinheimer said. "There are a lot of variables that influence that."[p]       Meth tests are becoming common practice for people in the market for a new place to live.

I hope someone will fix my post and insert the paragraph breaks as needed. I also apologize for any spelling/grammar errors...and yes, you can repost my posts anywhere they will be helpful. I have been a total basket case since I first learned about the former meth lab on my property and if I can help just one other person from going through what I am just starting to go through I will be happy. A person's home is supposed to be a place of peace and harmony, not lawsuits and/or hazmat suits. Thanks again for looking into this highly toxic issue.

Thanks again for your comments and the links to the CA legislation.

ActiveRain does not provide any way for us to edit comments on our posts. All we can do is delete them. I certainly don't want to delete yours.

I do have the ability to edit comments on my other blog at SaltLakeSpeaks. Since you're having problems with paragraphs, please make any further comments on SaltLakeSpeaks. I'll edit the format for you and then add your comments to this post aon AR. It's kind of a screwy way to do it but the only option I see considering the limitations and lack of help from AR.

I meet with the Salt Lake Board of Realtors Governmental affairs Committee this wednesday and this will be the primary topic of discussion.

I noticed much of your research came from Salt Lakes "Deseret News". Have you found most of your research from the Salt Lake market? Have you found other markets with as much publicity as Salt Lake?

Again, thanks for your comments.

Still distraught as I can't find a lawyer that will work on contingency. I have learned that one can rescind a contract which is what I will be looking at doing. I never, ever, ever, ever, ever would have bought a possible or actual hazmat site..I have also learned that the problem is nationwide, with a variety of disclosure/clean-up laws.http://www.thestate.com/news/story/182719.htmland here is a great article from South Carolina:SAVAGE METH | Day 3: Hidden time bombsPoisons lurk as state does little to notify public, make toxic sites clean