|
The town of Ballico is a mere smudge on the map, tucked into a
corner of northwest Merced County among almond and grape orchards.
Its only grocer stocks Wonder bread near the powdered pan dulce
and the Coca-Cola next to the horchata. At night, the store moonlights
as a Mexican restaurant, where ranchero music floats across rows
of table-clothed picnic tables.
The town motto, displayed in cursive on a sun-faded sign, is "Growing
for You," a sentiment belied by the dusty and vacant buildings
surrounding it. Ballico's crumbling asphalt streets intersect with
anonymous roads; its rickety shacks and abandoned farmhouses mingle
with tidy homes and well-manicured yards.
Juan and his family live in one of those homes. It rests in the
evening shade of mature maple and almond trees that line much of
Bradbury Road. As Juan opens the front door, cradling his newborn
daughter, his young son slides past him, jumps onto the porch, then
races around the side yard, laughing.
The home, on a 20-acre parcel, is clean, and the rent is affordable.
It has new carpeting, remodeled cabinets and air conditioning to
combat the triple-digit summer heat. But this family's American
Dream has a dark side.
During one eight-month period last year, 94 meth-related dump sites
were found in Merced County alone. During the past two years, state
toxic-substances control agents have cleaned up 17 meth-related
lab dumps on or near Bradbury Road.
One cleanup site was at Juan's home.
Ten months earlier, gallons of toxic hydro- gen chloride gas were
being mass-produced in the back yard where his children now play.
His son races past the swing set along- side the house, where one
night sulfuric acid spewed 30 feet into the air and rained down
on the house and a nearby shed.
The house's previous tenant was a drug addict and meth dealer.
He also was a cook among the select few: He had learned how to make
hydrogen chloride gas, used in large-scale meth cooking to convert
liquid meth into a solid. He had manufactured the gas in the shed,
but after it corroded the windows and ate through most of his tools,
he started making it in the back yard.
"My landlord said the shed was used for farm equipment,"
Juan says, patting the back of his son's head. "Nobody told
me anything about this."
No one had to. In California, as in many other states, property
owners are not obligated to divulge information about "past"
problems.
"It's not black and white," says Dan Garrett, a spokesman
for the state Department of Real Estate. "If I had positive
knowledge that there were 20 gallons of acid in my back yard, it
would be prudent to disclose that . . . but if I'm convinced the
problems are gone, why disclose what happened in the past? What
might be clean for one person may not be clean for another."
Therein lies the rub. There are no federal or California state
standards for cleaning up meth-contaminated sites. A few counties
have created their own standards, but in most cases, state and county
officials simply trust the property owner to clean up former lab
sites.
 A bill by state Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina Del Rey, would require
the state Department of Toxic Substances Control to devise regulations
for meth lab cleanups that "will result in a level of cleanup
that will protect the health and safety of future occupants of the
site." The department would have until January 2002. Bowen's
bill, approved by the Legislature and sent to Gov. Davis, was opposed
by the department, which said it would cost $3 million a year to
enforce, and would be too inflexible, and that a year wasn't enough
time.
Authorized by the Legislature in 1995, the state Department of
Toxic Substances Control handles the immediate removal of chemicals
when a meth lab is discovered. Department spokesman Ron Baker says
the state is "just in the beginning stage" of establishing
guidelines for more thorough cleanups and that it has to conduct
research on potential dangers.
Yet one of the most comprehensive studies to date of such labs
already has been done by the California Environmental Protection
Agency. The report, released in 1993, found that residual contamination
was higher than expected after state cleanups, and it urged that
statewide standards be set. So far, that recommendation has been
ignored, leaving it to individual counties to set the rules.
A Bee survey of Valley counties found a wide range of lab cleanup
procedures:
"We're not really even notified," says Larry Bagley,
assistant director for community services in Sutter County. "We
just have never had a program for it."
Fresno County requires property owners to submit a cleanup work
plan but tries to be flexible on its details: "I'm not going
to dog the owner," says Vincent Mendes, supervising environmental
health analyst. "I want them to know what has happened to them
and help them get through it."
In Tulare County, public health officials go to the lab sites with
drug agents and then write a letter to property owners requiring
them to clean it up. "I don't think there is a set standard.
That's the problem," says John Macedo, an environmental health
specialist. "We just kind of make a judgment call."
In Kern County, officials rely on "normal cleaning" at
small lab or dump sites. "On smaller quantities, normal cleaning
will minimize any exposure," says Mike Chapman, the county's
chief environmental health specialist. "They're similar to
chemicals used around your house all the time. The normal cleaning
procedures you would use for those are the method of choice."
In Tehama County, property owners are encouraged to work with an
environmental consultant. But it's not required. The county Environmental
Department also declines to pass judgment on whether the property
is safe because of fear the county could be held liable and sued
over unsafe lab sites.
Sacramento County requires property owners to hire an industrial
hygienist to test for meth and other chemicals, clean up the property
and take samples again before issuing a letter that the property
is safe. That's all done at the property owner's expense. If the
owner balks, the case is referred to code enforcement.
Some counties assert that the residual danger from meth labs is
overstated. "Most of the chemicals are readily identifiable,"
says Tehama County Environmental Department director Lee Mercer.
"A lot of them are so volatile, once the materials are removed,
they don't really have any toxicity or residual effect."
At Juan's home in Ballico, agents removed the chemicals from the
lab used to produce hydrogen chloride gas, and Merced County Environmental
Health officials sent a letter to the property owner, Hartle Spycher,
informing him of his legal responsibility to clean up the property.
The county didn't specify how many tests or what kind of tests
were to be performed, but advised Spycher to hire an environmental
toxicologist or certified industrial hygienist. Once the cleanup
was finished, the firm was to submit a document stating: "There
is no significant risk to . . . the public health and welfare."
Spycher hired an environmental toxicologist from Environmental
Assessment Services in Merced. Owner Terry Priest says he didn't
test the soil or the water, and he refused further comment. Spycher
says the soil and water were tested for acid and other foreign chemicals.
Soil around the house and shed was removed and replaced. He put
in new wallboard.
On Sept. 20, Merced County Environmental Health Department received
a letter from the cleanup company stating that the property is free
of hazardous chemicals.
And $28,000 in repairs later, Spycher assures Juan's family the
home is safe.
"There is no contamination," he says. "All of the
tests and everything came out clear, so what information is there
for me to tell ? I redid it all. I gutted the house, put in a new
roof, new floors, new windows, stove, hot water heaters. I wouldn't
mind living in it. It's a nice, air-conditioned little house."
|
Chapter
6
