Overview of Methamphetamine progress 2010 – 2018

Overview of Methamphetamine progress 2010 – 2018

With many stakeholders in the methamphetamine industry here is a timeline,
outlining 8 years of development:

  • 2010 – Clean up guidelines were developed by the Ministry of Health for meth labs
  • 2015 – State homes testing positive for “meth contamination
  • 2017 – Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment developed the NZ standards guideline NZS 8510:2017 were set at 1.5 micrograms per 100 cm2
  • 2018 – PMCSA  (Prime Ministers Chief Science Advisor) Published the report Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties
  • 2018 –  Petition launched by Methamphetamine Testing Industry Association of New Zealand (MTIANZ) asking for an independent review

Key views we need to understand

‘The PMCSA’s report findings have been immediately adopted by State entities and do not acknowledge the scrutiny involved in the development of a published New Zealand Standard for methamphetamine contamination. MBIE engaged a review into the NZS 8510:2017 process, which upheld the process and found it complied with the Standards and Accreditation Act 2015; however the PMCSA report has not been subject to the same scrutiny.’ –

‘The oversight in the PMCSA report has led to the incorrect conclusions that the likelihood of encountering a property with significant meth contamination issues is extremely low, when in actually it appears to be much higher.  The PMCSA report goes on to provide advice around management of risk, which have been supported by the Government.  This advice increases risk.’ MTIANZ NEWS RELEASE, JULY 25TH 2018

Our view of methamphetamine testing and decontamination comes from years of practical experience.  We understand  that all stakeholders need to work together in reaching a resolution to the standards.  This needs to come with extensive consultation.  Each site we review and work on requires careful assessment of composite / detailed  testing for each site along with the work program.

If you are in the industry take part in the MTIANZ petition for independent review of PMCA Report

If you have any questions relating to methamphetamine removal and would like to talk to one of our experts, you can reach us
on 0800 744 272

Understanding water damage restoration and secondary damage

Understanding water damage restoration and secondary damage

Water loss events can be from many sources and the goal of this informative blog is to help you the reader understand why the source and category of water is important and understanding the potential damage and corrective actions required.

Firstly “Restoration” at its root meaning it is described as: “To return something to its nearly original state or form” or often “return to a pre-loss condition”. To provide some clarity behind the meaning of industry jargon this is simply to return the property or possession back to the owner in the same condition or better than prior to any damage occurring.

The industry classifies restoration into 3 phases, mitigation, restoration and reconstruction. Here we will look at mitigation as this is where the focus should primarily be.


• the action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something.

This is simple, the quicker action is taken the better chance the restorer has of reducing the severity or seriousness and preventing secondary damage, it is worth noting with water loss this is to be decided in minutes and hours not days and the category of water needs to be taken into account and the materials affected.


Category 1 Water – Refers to a source of water that does not pose substantial threat to humans and classified as “clean water”. Examples are broken water supply lines, tub or sink overflows or appliance malfunctions that involves water supply lines.

Category 2 Water – Refers to a source of water that contains a significant degree of chemical, biological or physical contaminants and causes discomfort or sickness when consumed or even exposed to. Known as “grey water”. This type carries micro organisms and nutrients of micro organisms. Examples are toilet bowls with urine (no feces), and water discharge from dishwashers or washing machines.

Category 3 Water – Known as “black water” and is grossly unsanitary. This water contains unsanitary agents, harmful bacteria and fungi, causing severe discomfort or sickness. Type 3 category are contaminated water sources that affects the indoor environment. This category includes water sources from sewage, seawater, rising water from rivers or streams, ground surface water or standing water. Category 2 Water or Grey Water that is not promptly removed from the structure and or have remained stagnant may be re classified as Category 3 Water. Toilet back flows that originates from beyond the toilet trap is considered black water contamination regardless of visible content or colour.

The category water can increase every 24 hours if left and no control measures put in place like air movement, heat and dehumidification. Dehumidification by itself does not dry properties but is very useful in slowing down damage and preventing secondary damage from high humidity. Air movement is key across a surface to cause evaporation and speed drying.
You will see the longer water is left in or on a material the higher the Category it becomes, this time is subject to varying conditions in the environment such as temperature but more often ignored is the age and condition of the property. Future blogs will go deeper into drying goals and standards but to summarise quickly a moisture content of 16 % is desired in water loss events. If you have built your own home or have building experience you may know that 18% is the maximum and in some cases 20% is permitted in durable materials such as H1.2 treated timber, so why the difference. The IICRC standard S500 for water damage restoration states 16% as the focus is on preventing secondary damage such as mould growth, NZS3602:2003 for pre line inspections by the local council requires 18% – 20% as this mainly refers to new builds or new building materials being installed with limited microbial of fungal conditions when compared to a property that has been standing for several years.

With all this in mind a simple leak from plumbing or a broken washing machine or dishwasher can escalate easily into a category equivalent to a sewerage leak. Mitigation is key, a certified restorer such as NZRS can apply mitigation procedures within hours of the water loss event preventing secondary damage and mitigating the loss.

Building Code of practice
How often do we hear the building has been built to code, in short this is built to the minimum standard, wouldn’t it be nice to hear only part of the property was built to code the remainder was built to exceed code and all the warranties of the installed materials are complete. How many building materials retain there warrantee if affected by water for prolonged periods? Gib recommends 18% moisture content but Winstone Wallboards recommends a lower moisture content of 12% or less at installation so these materials cant stand extended periods of moisture damage, 5% raise in moisture change can result in a 1mm dimensional movement in timber, this can damage materials past the point of warrantee cover.

The time between the water loss event and mitigation is crucial to returning the property or possession to a pre loss condition without the replacement of materials. Secondary damage due moisture and mould can be reduced or even eliminated if the environment is controlled and the materials dried in the shortest time practicable. Some materials cannot be restored.
NZRS can evaluate the costs of restoration compared to replacement of the material or possession if mitigation procedures are swift.

References: –
ANSI/IICRC S520 – Mould Remediation
ANSI/IICRC S500 Water Damage Restoration
GIB – Best Practice Guidelines
NZS 3602:2003 – Timber and wood-based products for use in building

Excellent Carpet Cleaning from NZRS

“Darrell and the team cleaned the carpets at the school this year, 2018, and we have never seen the carpets look this good. The feedback from the teachers has been great so we’re over the moon and consequently have booked NZRS to come back at the end of the year to clean them again.  From a property managers point of view things went smoothly, they arrived on time, finished the job to schedule and were good to deal with.”

Mike Prictor

Property Manager

Freyberg School

NZRS Asbestos Removal 2018

NZRS Holds Class A removal licence RA18010004