The Pest Control Community Discusses The SEPA Amendment
It’s been pending in Congress for six years. When it did happen, it was done in a way that is in the best interest of the pest management community.
Subject: The Pest Control Community Discusses The SEPA Amendment
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:57:09 -0400
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)L E G 1 S L A T I V E C0 M M E N T A R Y
PEST CONTROL AUGUST 2001
SEPA Amendment Positive for Pest Management
Bob Rosenberg is director of government affairs and Gene Harrington is government affairs manager for the National Pest Management Association (NPMA),Dunn Loring, Va.
Pest Control: The United States Senate recently approved the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), an amendment to the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. What are the main components of this legislation?
Bob Rosenberg: It requires each state to develop a school integrated pest management (IPM) plan to be implemented by school districts. It must be overseen by a certified applicator or other person authorized by the state lead pesticide agency. The amendment prohibits application of pesticides to any area or room in a school that is occupied, and also prohibits certain high-volume pesticide applications within 24 hours of the treated area being used by students and staff. Schools will have to post signs prior to application, and inform parents of their right to be notified.
Pest Control: At press time, this amendment still had to be approved by a joint House and Senate conference committee. If it does, when will it be effective?
Rosenberg: IPM plans must be developed within 12 months after enactment- essentially by October 1, 2002.
Pest Control: The amendment requires posting and notification, but hasn't that been implemented in a lot of states already?
Rosenberg: Notification is required with this amendment, but it's only for materials that are not exempted. Examples include gels, baits and pastes, because there is little or no exposure with these products.
Pest Control: Many states have implemented IPM in schools. Is this different because now it's a federal mandate?
Rosenberg: It's a federal mandate to the extent that there is a requirement that every state have a plan, but not every plan needs to be the same. Each state is free to tailor a plan that meets the needs of that particular state, providing that they follow broad statutory parameters.
Pest Control: Can this create problems for pest management professionals (PMPs) if each state is developing different plans?
Rosenberg: We have long opposed the idea of a one-size-fits-all, "Washington top down" approach. This is designed to give flexibility back to the states and localities. The law sets out what the components of the plan need to be, and within that framework, state governments, state pesticide agencies and local governments have flexibility.
Pest Control: Is there one set definition of IPM?
Rosenberg: There is a definition of IPM contained in the statute. It calls for site or pest inspection, pest population monitoring and an evaluation of the need for pest management. The definition takes into consideration pest management alternatives (including sanitation, structural repair and mechanical, biological, cultural and pesticide strategies) that minimize health and environmental risks.
Pest Control: Will this encourage schools to hire PMPs to take care of their pest management needs?
Gene Harrington: I certainly think it will encourage schools to strongly consider contracting out their pest management services. Obviously, the law encourages professionalism, and most schools don't have someone who is knowledgeable about pest management on staff.
Pest Control: Some reports indicate a negative perception of the amendment as it pertains to the industry. Why?
Rosenberg: My sense is that anyone who has a negative take on the amendment, either did not read it, or does not understand it.
Pest Control: Should PMPs be concerned that this could stir up a scare that ultimately leads to a complete ban on pesticides?
Rosenberg: That's not a concern at all. There's nothing in the bill that prohibits the use of pesticides, but, instead, encourages responsible use of pesticides.
Pest Control: According to an Associated Press report, Jay Feldman, executive director of the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP), predicted that schools will reject sprays in favor of baits, gels, pastes or non-chemical solutions. Is this a threat to PMPs?
Harrington: Jerry Keown, general manager of Presto-X-Co.,Omaha, Nebr., responded directly to that quote, noting that the language of the amendment sounds like something that would appear in a pest management trade journal or be said at an association meeting. The fact that there are additional incentives for baits to be used is not something troubling.
Pest Control: Did our industry always support Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), or did we reach a compromise with him?
Rosenberg: No. In fact, we were adamantly opposed to Sen. Torricelli. His original bill, in our judgment, was poor legislation. It had chemical black lists, it had a federal approach and a definitive school IPM policy. However, over the course of several months of negotiation with environmental groups, teacher groups, etc., he came up with a bill that we believe is good legislation. Plus, we’ve been preaching about IPM, and now we finally have a requirement in schools to actually do it.
Pest Control: Why is this positive for PMPs?
Rosenberg: It’s an issue that needed to be addressed. It’s been pending in Congress for six years. When it did happen, it was done in a way that is in the best interest of the pest management community. It provides PMPs with a big marketing opportunity. There are 18,000 school districts, and only a handful currently have an IPM program. All of them will now have to use IPM.
Pest Control: Are there any less-obvious benefits for PMPs?
Rosenberg: Misapplications that gave the industry a black eye, even if it wasn't a PMP who made the appication, will end or be minimized. that's because the law reqires either a certified applicator or someone authorized by a state pesticide agency to apply products.
There's noting in this bill that isn't alrady a pest management practice. There may be people who aren't doing it, but they should be doing it. Now, it's a law--not just recommendation. PC
The POISON "industry" clearly believes that they have changed the SEPA Amendment so that they can continue on with bu$INess as usual, in fact the pesticide applicators see it as a big marketing opportunity. The reason why the "industry" wants the schools to post signs prior to a POISON application and to inform parents of their right to be notified prior to a POISON application, is quite simple, then when a child becomes ill or is POISONED it was the school's policy that mandated the "treatment". No POISON applicator (in their right mind) would personally want to notify parents prior to making a POISON application; because the POISON applicator would appear to be the cause of every sickness or illness and or death that occurs subsequent to their POISON appliucation! I have safely and effectively controlled every pest problem inside and outside in over 350 schools and I never have had to use any volatile pesticide POISONS - that however is clearly not a current pest management practice! Steve
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.
|
Nontoxic Products Recommended by Steve Tvedten Now Available |
| Safe 2 Use Products and Services |