EVERETT — Some local health officials say contamination from drug use won’t affect your health. But that’s a far cry from current state law — and one expert’s opinion.
When someone smokes methamphetamine indoors, toxins permeate materials and leave residue on surfaces. In Washington, once meth levels pass a certain threshold, the state considers the space contaminated and requires cleanup from a certified contractor.
“We don’t want that to be the case,” said James Lewis, the health officer for Snohomish County. “Just because we find drug presence above this cleanup standard, does not mean it will cause significant health damage long-term.”
Meth contamination has affected low-income housing across Snohomish County, including major delays at projects to convert two motels into emergency shelters. And at Clare’s Place, a low-barrier apartment complex in Everett, contamination displaced residents for months and cost millions.
Lewis and other health officials argue the state’s contamination law and cleanup process is expensive, disruptive and based on questionable science. But instead of seeking to change the law, which could take years, they are brainstorming a new interpretation of the rules.
The state’s threshold for meth is 1.5 micrograms per 100 square centimeters. But the only chance for serious health risks at that level, Lewis said, is if people lick surfaces or rub surfaces and put their hands in their mouth. When it comes to air quality, he said, drug smoke is no more dangerous than cigarette or wildfire smoke.
Right now, the contamination law only applies to meth. But the same idea goes for fentanyl and other drugs, Lewis said.
“But we do know that limiting people’s access to transportation and shelter has immediate and concerning health impacts,” he said. “People can’t get to work, get to the doctor or buy groceries if they don’t have access to public transportation. If they don’t have shelter, it puts them at risk for a lot of other health conditions.”
About 50 state, county and tribal officials began meeting in December to discuss state guidelines for meth safety and cleanup. The group, called the Methamphetamine and Fentanyl Contaminated Properties Workgroup, plans to release statewide guidance this month.
‘Canary in the coal mine’
Last year, Lewis’ department recorded at least four contaminated properties in Snohomish County.
At Clare’s Place, tests found meth levels far exceeding the state standard as early as March. In September, workers at the apartments complained of headaches and air quality concerns. Catholic Community Services, the nonprofit that runs Clare’s Place, closed the building and evacuated about 60 formerly homeless residents. When the nonprofit re-opened the apartments in February, cleanup costs had hit $1 million, and only half of the residents returned.
Meanwhile, the county’s motel-to-shelter project is at least a year behind schedule due to meth contamination. County Council members are now debating annual testing of the shelters and other county-owned housing for meth to keep residents safe.
Statewide, concerns about the law ramped up last year after health departments ordered 13 properties to close for cleaning, said Todd Phillips, who heads the work group. Phillips is the environmental health and safety director at the state Department of Health. His office oversees multiple safety compliance programs, including drug lab cleanup.
In the 1990s, the state established contamination laws in response to a meth crisis and a rapid increase in meth labs. From 1989 to 2001, meth lab cleanup in the county increased fortyfold.
“Whenever you have a meth manufacturing site, a lot of other contaminants go into the environment,” Lewis said. “The meth cleanup standard was used to say: ‘OK, if we can get the meth below this decontamination standard, then all of the other stuff we’re concerned about is also going to be gone.’ So it’s kind of used like a canary in the coal mine.”
But illicit drug manufacturing has largely shifted outside the United States, and most reported contamination is now from drug use. In 2017, the state amended the law to specify “transient accommodations,” or hotels, shelters and other temporary living spaces, as popular drug use sites that could be contaminated.
Lewis wants the freedom to decide whether or not to shut down a contaminated property and require state-certified cleanup. Drug labs and large-scale storage sites should be professionally cleaned, he said. Other than that, the health department would likely leave it to landlords.
For those concerned about contamination from drug use, regular hand-washing and house cleaning should do the trick, Lewis said.
‘Not necessarily’ a public health risk
Federal and state guidelines for drug decontamination are an inconsistent patchwork of “lessons learned and practical experience of experts in the field,” according to federal Environmental Protection Agency documents.
There are no federal regulations — only guidelines from the EPA — and each state can decide its own contamination laws.
“EPA cannot speak with authority on the topic,” Jeffrey Landis, a spokesperson for the federal agency, wrote in an email. “We recommend reaching out to local and state officials.”
Washington isn’t the only state grappling with the issue. Recently, Colorado made national news when four of its public libraries closed due to meth contamination. Health officials there also denied a public health risk, The Denver Gazette and Colorado Sun reported.
Washington’s standard was based on research that uses a low bar for potential health effects, Lewis said. And it’s not based on human experience, but a scientific model.
“Anything that could theoretically happen to your health that is any way negative — even if you have a little bit of a cough or get a skin irritation — all of these things would be considered unsafe from that perspective,” he said.
But the state doesn’t have data on what levels of contamination pose long-term health risks.
Instead, Lewis pointed to a University of Washington study that’s informing the work group’s guidance. The study, published last September, found widespread drug contamination on public transit, including in Snohomish County. The contamination was “not necessarily” a public health risk, researchers said at the time.
The study proved the state’s cleanup standard can be met just from infrequent meth use, Lewis said. If you extrapolate from there, he said, meth contamination exposure is likely too low to pose serious health risks.
Jackie Wright, an environmental risk sciences professor who earned her doctorate to study meth contamination around the world, disagrees.
“I think the guidelines are appropriate,” she said. “People are being exposed, and they do exhibit a range of health effects.”
Wright worked on a study about meth exposure published in 2020. In 25 case studies, researchers observed 63 Australians living in contaminated housing. The homes had meth levels lower than Washington’s threshold. The time of exposure ranged from one month to eight years.
The subjects experienced sleep and behavioral problems, respiratory conditions, headaches, and skin and eye irritations. Researchers confirmed meth exposure through hair samples. Results were the same whether the contamination was from a meth lab or meth use.
“You want to have a guideline that has a margin of safety,” Wright said.
Wright is one of few researchers in the world studying meth contamination. The database is lacking, the funding is poor and navigating scientific ethics is harder than ever. But she’s determined to provide data to help places like Washington make informed public health decisions.
“There’s some jurisdictions looking to make different guidelines because it’s convenient,” Wright said. “It’s cheaper for things like public housing. From a public health perspective, I disagree with that approach.”
In 1999, the average cost of meth cleanup in the United States was $25,000. Now, the average cost ranges up to $150,000, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Aside from research, part of the solution is getting control of a largely unregulated meth cleanup industry, Wright said. Another is preventative measures like air filtration and special paints or coatings that can prevent meth from penetrating walls.
“Drug users choose to use the drugs, others don’t,” Wright said. “Some people are much more vulnerable to those effects, like children, infants, people with pre-existing health conditions. We need to protect public health, and we need to do it properly.”
‘Their feelings are valid’
Lewis said the new cleaning guidance should be easy for landlords to follow. They can inspect the property at least once a year, test if they have reason to suspect contamination and, if they find it, mitigate risk through surface wipe-downs. They can also instruct workers and tenants on preventative cleaning measures.
But for some tenants, complaints about meth contamination can go unheard. One former tenant at Housing Hope in Snohomish said she experienced memory issues, skin rashes and seizures from living in a meth-contaminated apartment for seven months.
And with new guidance to reduce testing and state-certified cleanup, it could be harder to catch contamination before it causes serious health problems.
For workers at contaminated properties, the state Department of Labor and Industries can’t make health determinations on drug exposure. The department has enforceable limits for chemicals related to drug manufacturing, but none for the drugs themselves, said Karen Michael, the industrial hygiene compliance manager for the department.
Phillips, health and safety director for the state, said he “can’t speculate” about potential liability if someone becomes ill from unaddressed contamination.
“If people feel bad after they have these exposures, their feelings are valid and their symptoms are real,” Lewis said. “It’s just whether or not those symptoms are due to this very specific thing they were exposed to, or any other reasons. If we go down the road of blaming very low levels of meth and fentanyl, we’re really setting ourselves up to do a lot more damage than good.”
Still, Lewis acknowledged his immediate response to living in a contaminated space would be: “I don’t want that.”
Michael said workers should seek medical care if they think they are experiencing health effects from workplace exposure. And workers should communicate to their employers, supervisors and union representatives if they have concerns, she added.
“Employees oftentimes have some of the best solutions because they’re the experts in their jobs,” Michael said. “They understand what interactions they have on a daily basis.”
But, ultimately, drug contamination safety is not up to the public to decide.
“It’s within the the local health officers’ authority to determine,” Phillips said. “They are the experts on what is protecting the public health or not.”
Phillips said the next steps could include new laws for meth and fentanyl cleanup. But that’s a long way off.
“We’re not going to solve everything,” Lewis said. “This is going to be an open question.”
Sydney Jackson: 425-339-3430; sydney.jackson@heraldnet.com; Twitter: @_sydneyajackson.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
