Amendment Results In National IPM Legislation For Pesticides In Schools

The amendment, named the School Environment Protection Act of 2001 (SEPA) and sponsored by Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), resulted from negotiations between RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA), the National Pest Management Association (NPMA), the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP)/Beyond Pesticides, other industry groups, Torricelli, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and their staffs, and several other Senate offices.

While more focused on IPM within schools - which falls under structural pest management and is the responsibility of licensed pest control operators - implications of SEPA do exist for lawn care operators (LCOs), specifically surrounding notification requirements and disclosure of pesticides used in lawn care programs.

"Pesticides are absolutely crucial tools in efforts to protect schoolchildren from dangerous pests that seriously threaten their health and safety," said Allen James, president of RISE. "This amendment addresses the desire of those parents who want to be notified when pesticides are applied while still allowing for the safe and responsible use of pesticides to control rats, cockroaches, stinging insects and weeds."

REQUIREMENTS. The amendment requires each state to develop a school pest management plan, which school districts must implement and a certified applicator must oversee, that considers sanitation, structural repair, mechanical, biological, cultural and pesticide strategies that minimize health and environmental risks. At a minimum, the plan would prohibit a pesticide application in any room that is occupied by students and staff in the school. It will also require schools to be vacant 24 hours after certain high-volume pesticide applications, such as baseboard spraying and fogging. However, SEPA does not preempt state and local provisions that exceed provisions of the amendment, according to Toricelli’s office.

H.R. 1 is expected to be signed into law this summer and would take effect on October 1. Then, according to SEPA, each state will have 12 months to adopt a school pest management plan. Once that plan is adopted, it must be implemented into school districts within 12 months.

Besides adopting a pest management plan, each school district must also retain a certified applicator or someone authorized by the state regulatory agency to help implement it into each school.

Once a pest management plan has been implemented into a school, school officials must follow notification requirements outlined in the amendment regarding pesticide applications. According to the amendment, schools must notify parents and staff of the pest management practices at the beginning of the school year, at the midpoint of the school year and at the beginning of summer vacation or summer session. The notice must include the following:

• A summary of the requirements and procedures under the school pest management plan.
• A description of any potential pest problems the school may experience and the procedures that would be used to address those problems.
• The contact information of the Office of Pesticide Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

School officials must also establish a registry for parents and staff that wish to be notified 24 hours prior to any pesticide application at the school. The notification must include the following:

• The trade name, common name and EPA registration number of the product that will be used.
• A description of each location at the school where the pesticide will be applied.
• The date and time of the application.
• All information supplied to the school by EPA, such as potential health hazards associated with exposure to the pesticide.
• The purpose of the application.
• The contact information of the Office of Pesticide Programs of the EPA.

In addition, signs must be posted conspicuously in or outside a school 24 hours prior to a pesticide application and must remain posted 24 hours after the application has been made.

SEPA does exempt antimicrobials, baits, gels and pastes from the notice via registry and posting requirements.

According to James, the amendment also has the ability to change the way the public views the lawn care industry. "If more and more LCOs work with the schools to implement pest management plans, I think it's a great opportunity to demonstrate good stewardship of products, professional techniques and good service to students and staff in protecting them from pests," he said. "I think it's a great public relations opportunity for the industry."

PARENTS’ CONCERNS ABOUT PESTICIDES. Preliminary findings of a RISE Communications Committee-sponsored research study state that pesticides do not rank high on the list of concerns parents have about their children and school. The committee will review the results at an upcoming meeting and then present those findings at RISE’s annual meeting Sept. 7-9 in Palm Beach, Fla.

Conducted earlier this year RISE’s "Communicating With Parents About Pesticide Use In Schools" study is a proactive effort to determine the best means of promoting IPM following what RISE hoped to be the passing of the SEPA amendment. The study had the following objectives:

• Assess parents’ concern about environmental quality in schools;
• Explore in-depth parents’ concerns with pests and pesticide use in schools;
• Identify gaps in parents’ knowledge about pesticides and their use in schools;
• Determine preferences for communications with parents about school-based pesticide use programs;
• Explore awareness and acceptance of IPM; and
• Develop effective messages for communicating the benefits of pesticide use in schools.

The research was held among focus groups in four markets, including Los Angeles, Calif., Chicago, Ill., Cambridge, Mass., and Raleigh, N.C., and participants included kindergarten and elementary school children parents who were active in school-based activities.

The study found the following perceptions:

• Concerns about environmental quality issues do not rank as high as other parental concerns, such as safety, curriculum, bricks and mortar and staffing.
• Environmental concerns tend to be focused on air quality (i.e. fresh air circulation, asbestos and its removal and mold/fungus problems).
• Attitudes about air quality are greatly influenced by concerns about asthma, allergies or other respiratory-related conditions in children.
• There is strong correlation between concern for environmental quality and the age/conditions of the school-building children attend.
• Pests, pesticides or pesticide use are not top-of-mind concerns for parents.

While the study found that parents spend little time thinking about pests or pest-related problems, the issue strikes an emotional cord when raised. The study revealed that most parents believe pest problems either do not exist or are being handled properly by school administrators. Additionally, few parents recognize pest management as an ongoing necessity. However, parents do recognize the threats that pests, particularly rats and roaches, pose to children from a safety and well-being standpoint.

Perceived health concerns related to children and pesticide use that were detailed in the study are:

• May impair immune system;
• Concern about serious/latent side effects;
• Repeated exposure may have cumulative effects;
• May cause cancer;
• Accidental ingestion;
• Allergic reaction; and
• Exacerbates symptoms of existing problems (i.e. asthma).

The study found that parents lack knowledge about pesticides and develop the following erroneous assumptions and misperceptions about pesticides:

• Pesticides are sprayed;
• Pesticides used in schools are "industrial strength";
• School janitors apply pesticides; and
• Application is widespread (i.e. the entire school building) and random (not part of strategy or plan).