Health and safety concerns forlaw enforcement personnelinvestigating clandestine druglabs

By Mark Cameron

The term “clandestine drug lab”refers to a location where con-trolled substances are being

manufactured illegally. While the listof controlled substances may includeLSD, G 72B, and ecstasy, the majordrug being produced in clandestinedrug labs today is methamphetamine.

Methamphetamine (d-phenyliso-propylmethylamine) is a stimulantfirst synthesized in 1919 by Japaneseresearcher Ogata.1 It was licensed inthe United States and sold asMethadrine until removed from themarket in 1968. As legitimate manu-facturers of methamphetamine left themarket, outlaw motorcycle gangs be-gan manufacturing it to supply the de-mand and distribution of the drug.2

Around 1990, simpler methods to syn-thesize methamphetamine becamecommon, allowing manufacturing tospread throught the United Statesfrom California, the primary source inthe past. In 2000, methamphetaminelabs were found in 44 of the 50 states.3

California produces about 90 per-cent of the nation’s methamphet-amine. In 1999, California accountedfor 2,053 of the 6,732 illegal meth labsseized nationwide by all law enforce-ment.4 Unfortunately, “super labs,”that produce more than ten pounds of

methamphetamine at a time, seem tobe concentrated in California so fewerlabs can produce more methamphet-amine. However, even rural stateshave a growing problem. Iowa, for in-stance, seized 352 illegal meth labs in1999, more than about 45 otherstates.5

In reality, these “labs” are not labo-ratories at all. People manufacturingillegal drugs are called “cooks,” andwhile some are sophisticated chem-ists, many learn to “cook” by follow-ing recipes obtained from other crim-inals or found on the Internet.

CLAN LAB RESPONSE

Health and safety at clandestine druglabs is based around the HazardousWaste Operations and Emergency Re-sponse found in Title 29 of the Codeof Federal Regulations (CFR), Section1910.120. This section requires sitesafety plans, air monitoring, use ofpersonal protective equipment, sitecontrols, medical monitoring, train-ing, confined space entry, spill con-trol, and various on-site procedures.

The California Department of Jus-tice (CADOJ) has developed an over-all health and safety plan for respond-ing to clan labs called the ClandestineLaboratory Manual of Instruction andProcedure (CLMIP) for its respondingnarcotic officers and chemists. Site-specific health and safety plans arefilled out at the scene using a pre-printed Hazard Assessment and Rec-ognition Plan form personnel use to

determine appropriate equipment andair monitoring for entering the scene.

To qualify for response to drug labs,CADOJ personnel must first receivemedical evaluation. Medical monitor-ing is required initially and on an an-nual basis to evaluate respiratoryfunction and overall physical condi-tion. Spirometry, blood work, andphysical examination are conductedand an occupational physician’s ap-proval is required. The University ofCalifornia Davis Medical Center (UC-DMC) has provided this service toCADOJ since the mid-1980s and hascollected a significant body of data re-garding clan lab responders. UCDMCmaintains the medical records forCADOJ employees and task forcemembers.

Next, training is required. CFR Sec-tion 1910.120 requirements dictatethat clan lab responders have between24 and 40 hours of training, depend-ing on their involvement. In Califor-nia, responders must have 40 hours oftraining specifically focused on clan-destine drug lab hazards. This trainingis provided to law enforcement per-sonnel through the U.S. Drug En-forcement Agency or CADOJ. Non-law enforcement personnel can obtaintraining through the California Spe-cialized Training Institute in the StateOffice of Emergency Services. Regard-less of the source, a 24-hour follow-upof documented on-the-job trainingand an annual eight-hour refresher arenecessary for each responder. Thistraining includes all the 29 CFR Sec-tion 1910.120 requirements, including

Mark Cameron, CIH is at theBureau of Forensic Services,California Department of Justice,Sacramento, CA.

FEATURE

6 © Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American Chemical Society 1074-9098/02/$22.00Published by Elsevier Science Inc. PII S1074-9098(01)00288-X

CADOJ policies and procedures (theCLMIP manual) and the respiratoryprotection program.

Each employee responding to druglabs is fit-tested and issued a personalair-purifying respirator, nitrile gloves,and a Saranex suit. Nomex suits arealso provided for initial entry. To sup-port clan lab response, CADOJ hasprocured heavy-duty response vehi-cles with emergency eyewash andshower, generator, lighting, decon-tamination equipment, extra personalprotective equipment, self-containedbreathing apparatus, and air monitor-ing instrumentation (combustible gas/

oxygen meter, phosphine meter, andcolorimetric tubes).

Typically, narcotic officers discoverthe lab and arrest the operators iffound. Forensic chemists assist insample collection and determining themanufacturing process. Both person-nel are needed to make the case incourt, especially if the district attorneywants to obtain a higher charge ofmanufacturing a controlled substanceagainst a plaintiff instead of mere pos-session of a controlled substance.

Clan labs are usually found in sev-eral different forms: boxed or inactive,extraction, cooking, or as a waste

dump. The hazards associated withthe various forms are described asfollows.

Boxed/InactiveThis presents the lowest hazard situa-tion. An inactive or lab that has beenpacked up for shipping (“boxed”) hasthe chemicals containerized in somefashion and stored for transport.These labs may be discovered in vehi-cles through traffic stops, by neighborscomplaining of odors, or by accident.The major hazards include unlabeledor mislabeled containers, incompati-ble chemicals stored next to one an-other, breakage of containers or open-topped containers spilling andexterior contamination. A law en-forcement chemist has to sample thecontainers and do elementary on-siteanalysis to determine the appropriatehazard categories. Hazardous expo-sures usually occur during the discov-ery phase; when opening a trunk lid, alaw enforcement officer may be ex-posed to strong vapors because hedoes not know the lab materials arethere and cannot take any protectiveaction.

ExtractionAll the current methods of metham-phetamine manufacture require eph-edrine or pseudoephedrine as the pre-cursor. This can rarely be obtained inpure form and is normally extractedfrom tablets used in cold or allergyremedies. Extraction can be done withwater, but it takes too long to removethe water from the precursor. There-fore, solvents such as methanol or de-natured alcohol are commonly used.To further speed up the extraction,heat is often supplied from a stoveburner. As the alcohol evaporates, ittypically sinks to the base of the con-tainer’s exterior where the flame is be-ing applied. The resulting fire is oftenunnoticed because of the colorlessflame. Even if a flame is not beingapplied, a number of situations haveoccurred where narcotic officers haveencountered extraction labs where theatmospheric concentration of metha-nol has been at explosive levels. Need-less to say, many clan labs have beendiscovered because of fire and ex-plosion.

Figure 1. Six 22 Liter Round Bottom Flasks Found at a “Mexican National” Lab.Note that the Hoses Are Used Instead of Condenser Columns For Vapor Removal.

7Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2002

Cooking LabsLabs found in the processing state arethe most dangerous. There are cur-rently two popular methods for pro-ducing methamphetamine with uniquehazards.

Red Phosphorus/Hydriodic AcidMethod (Red P/HI)The Red P/HI method involves thesechemicals and the precursor beingboiled for hours. Larger batches willuse 22-liter round-bottom flasks inheating mantles. Small batches mayuse a crockpot with oil in it and aMason jar for the processing. Eitherway, the emissions from the contain-ers are corrosive and poisonous. Tocontrol them, hoses are typically tapedto the containers and placed in kittylitter or ice buckets, neither of whichwill significantly absorb or treat themost poisonous by-product: phosphine.

Phosphine is by far the most deadlyhazard at clan labs. Two separate in-stances have been documented whereclan lab “cookers” were found dead atthe scene and attributed to phosphineover-exposure.6,7 Phosphine gas is aby-product of the reaction, and is evengiven off by red phosphorus itself insmall quantities. Phosphine has a Per-missible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.3ppm and an Immediately Dangerousto Life and Health (IDLH) level of 50ppm.8 To protect law enforcement

personnel, CADOJ has purchasedover 130 phosphine meters with real-time read-out. This has been a supe-rior tool to the colorimetric tube, andhas provided immediate warningwhen opening containers, rummagingin trash cans for documents, andworking around waste pits.

Red phosphorus is categorized as aflammable solid that requires a flamesource to ignite. However, the red phos-

phorus used in the reaction may turninto air-reactive white phosphorus if thereaction is over-heated, which fre-quently occurs. White phosphorus mayaccumulate in the flask, at ground glassjoints (in the rare case where a con-denser column is used), or during a fireat the clan lab. The white phosphorusreveals itself when mixtures are pouredoff, glassware is broken during the dis-posal phase, or by spontaneous fires af-ter a lab has blown up.

Highly corrosive iodine and hydro-iodic vapors are also given off in theprocess. Iodine has a Ceiling value of0.1 ppm and an IDLH value of 2 ppm8

because of its irritating effect on mu-cous membranes.

After boiling, the red phosphorus isstrained out using bed sheets, coffeefilters, or any other type of strainingdevice. If left in, the red phosphorusmay become part of the final product,making it toxic.9

After straining has occurred, thematerial needs to be turned basic. Thisis done by mixing in large quantities ofsodium hydroxide and ice (the ice isneeded to keep the reaction from boil-ing over). Draino, Red Devil Lye, andcommercial sodium hydroxide arecommonly used. “Meth oil” separatesat this point when the reaction is com-plete, containing the free metham-phetamine base.

After this, the meth is extracted into asolvent such as Coleman fuel or ethylether to be converted into the salt. Hy-drogen chloride (HCl) gas is bubbledthrough the mixture until solid meth-amphetamine chloride precipitates out.The solid is filtered out and is ready foruse at this point. HCl gas may comefrom pressure cylinders ranging fromlecture size to 300 cubic feet. Cylindersoften have the handles removed and arecommonly leaking. Enterprising cook-ers may create their own generatorswhere rock salt and sulfuric acid aremixed and HCl off-gasses through atube into the meth oil. HCl is very cor-rosive (Ceiling value � 5 ppm) and re-quires supplied breathing air until thesource can be stopped and the area canbe ventilated.

“Nazi” MethodThe “Nazi” process begins by mixingephedrine, lithium, or sodium, and

Figure 2. Fire in a Bathroom Clan Lab. With the Severe Reduction in Freon Avail-ability, Flammable Solvents Are Used in the Extraction of Methamphetamine, OftenWith Unplanned Results.

Figure 3. Clan Lab Found in a BuriedPipe. To Prevent Discovery, CookersTake Extreme Measures to Hide TheirOperations.

8 Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2002

anhydrous ammonia. After the reac-tion is complete, the meth oil is ex-tracted from the basic mixture withsolvent and salted out as in the RedP/HI method. It has been called theNazi method because of the appear-ance of the “imperial eagle” on theGerman patent for this method with aswastika underneath it.10

The Nazi process has allowed clanlab methamphetamine manufacturingto move into the agricultural areas ofthe United States where ammonia isused as a fertilizer. Tanks supplyingammonia to irrigation water on farmsare frequently vandalized to steal an-hydrous ammonia for the process. An-hydrous ammonia in this form is notonly toxic, but can cause frostbite andexplosion of improperly vented con-tainers. Unknowing investigators havehad sample containers explode11 be-cause of the rapid expansion of theliquefied gas. Ammonia gas has aLower Explosive Limit of 15 percent8

and may ignite in the presence of anignition source.

Lithium is obtained from batteriesand is water-reactive.12 It is corrosiveand may cause chemical and thermalburns to skin, eyes, and mucous mem-branes. When the precursor, anhydrousammonia, and lithium are mixed, am-monia gas is released. If any water ispresent, the lithium will react violently.Once the mixture is completely reacted,it is quenched with water to producethe basic solution of meth oil. At thispoint, the aqueous solution is extractedwith a solvent and finished similarly tothe Red P/HI method.

The major difference between thetwo methods is time and yield. TheNazi method is faster, but cannot pro-duce the quantity that the Red P/HImethod can accomplish. However,the Nazi method produces a very pureproduct, whereas the purity of the RedP/HI method depends upon on theoperator and recipe used.

DismantlingOnce the lab has been stabilized andpreferably vented so no air contami-nants are present, the lab is dismantledfor evidence processing. This requirestransferring all containers and chemi-cals outside to be placed on a plastictarp for photographing, sampling, and

fingerprinting. Physical contact is madewith each container that may transfercontaminants to the law enforcementofficial. Even if the materials are out-side, the area is still considered a con-trolled zone and personnel entering itmust meet CFR Section 1910.120 re-quirements. Samples may off-gas whenopened; external contamination mayharm. In California recently, two finger-print technicians were exposed to phos-phine gas during processing and wentto the hospital, even after the area hadbeen well ventilated. The author waspresent during sampling when a con-tainer of muriatic acid split open as theforensic chemist was picking it up tosample. These examples indicate thateven when the lab scene is supposedly“under control,” exposures can occur.

WASTEThe Red P/HI method produces themost waste. It has been estimated thatfor every pound of methamphetamineproduced, five to six pounds of wasteare produced.9 The wastes are verycorrosive with liquids at both ends ofthe pH spectrum. The flammable liq-uids and solids also may emit phos-phine gas. Clan lab “cookers” fre-quently dig pits on the property beingused to dispose of the liquid wastes.These pits have spontaneously ignited.

Many times the cooking lab is notfound, but waste chemicals and trashare found dumped on the roadside.Again, corrosive, toxic, and flammablehazards are present and may exposean unknowing member of the public.Solvent cans, used coffee filters, emptypill bottles, pillow cases, and bedsheets are a tip-off to the presence ofclan lab waste.

All chemicals (unused and used)and contaminated surfaces are treatedas hazardous waste. CADOJ uses var-ious hazardous waste contractors un-der the control of the California Envi-ronmental Protection Agency. Pitsand contaminated soil will be exca-vated until obvious contamination isgone. This does not mean the soil orthe home where the lab was operatingis clean. No current environmentalstandards exist for determiningcleanup of drug lab contaminated liv-ing facilities.

CONCLUSIONConsiderable chemical and physicalhazards are present when responding tomethamphetamine laboratories and as-sociated dump sites. Specific training inrecognition of those hazards and theuse of appropriate exposure controls isessential. Laboratory personnel and en-vironmental health specialists who maybe called upon to provide assistance tolaw enforcement personnel at thesescenes must make proper preparationsto protect themselves against very realhazards to their health.

References1. Karch, S. The Pathology of Drug

Abuse, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Ra-ton, FL, 1996.

2. Pennell, S.; Ellett, J.; Rienick, C. andGrimes, J. Meth Matters: Report onMethamphetamine Users in Five West-ern Cities, U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, May 1999,Publication No. NCJ 176331.

3. National Methamphetamine ChemicalInitiative Meeting, August 1–2, 2001.

4. California Department of Justice, Bu-reau of Narcotics Enforcement, 1999Annual Activity Summary.

5. Doyle, M. Meth Fighers gaining allies.Sacramento Bee, April 5, 2001.

6. Willers-Russo, L. Three fatalities involv-ing phosphine gas, produced as a resultof methamphetamine manufacturing. J.Forensic Sci. 1999, 44(3), 647.

7. Wheeler, T. and Griffin, L.Phosphinelinked to two deaths at clandestinemethamphetamine lab. J. ClandesineLaboratory Investigating ChemistsAssoc. 1997, 7(4), 8.

8. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Haz-ards, HTML Version, U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, PublicHealth Service, Centers for DiseaseControl, National Institute for Occupa-tional Health and Safety, January, 1999.

9. McCrea, B. A. Hazards of d-metham-phetamine production. National DrugIntelligence Center, U.S. Departmentof Justice, 1995, Publication No. 95-C0109-002.

10. Cason, T. A. D. Perspectives on “NAZIDope” and the mythical “NAZIPatent.” Microgram 1997, 30(1), 22.

11. Currie, T. J. Case study: clandestinelaboratory explosion resulting from theuse of anhydrous ammonia. J. Clan-destine Laboratory InvestigatingChemists Assoc. 2001, 11(1), 12–13.

12. Lithium, Material Safety Data Sheet#824, Genium Publishing Corp.,7/2000.

9Chemical Health & Safety, January/February 2002