WASHINGTON — The School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), legislation introduced Oct. 12, 1999, to the U.S. Senate, calls for federal standards for pest control in schools, and if passed, would significantly affect what PCOs can and cannot do when operating in schools.
Introduced by Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) and co-sponsored by Patty Murray (D-WA), SEPA proposes phasing out many of the pesticides currently used in schools, requiring notification and posting 72 hours before pesticide application, and calls for adoption of national IPM practices for schools to be established by a 12-member National IPM Advisory Board.
While no specific pesticides or chemical classes were named in the proposed legislation, chemicals deemed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be "considered carcinogenic or tied to birth defects, reproductive ailments or damaging to neurological functions of the immune system" would be banned from use in schools, according to a statement released Wednesday by Torricelli.
After introduction, the 46-page bill was moved to the Senate Agriculture Committee, where at some point a hearing will be held on the bill. As is standard Senate procedure, the committee will review the bill, amend it and put it to the Senate floor, or decide to kill the bill while it is still in committee.
Gene Harrington, manager of government affairs for the National Pest Control Association (NPCA), says he'd be surprised if any action was taken on the bill this year. With a Republican majority in Congress it is unlikely the SEPA would pass this year; however, with an election year approaching, the landscape in Congress could be quite different and significantly affect the bill's chances of becoming law. "Next year is a whole new ball game," Harrington says.
Further, Harrington expects environmental groups and lobbyists, who have lined up in support of the bill, to make a major push for the legislation next year. The same groups lobbied unsuccessfully prior to SEPA's introduction to get a Republican senator to sign on as a co-sponsor.
Pesticide and pest control industry groups, such as the Chemical Specialties Manufacturer's Association (CSMA), NPCA and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) have denounced the bill claiming it is overkill, misguided and ill conceived.
"While we strongly support the need to protect children's health through effective school IPM programs, we think the proposed measure is not helpful," said Allen James, RISE executive director.
"Legislation that is assumed to protect children may, in fact, impair the ability of schools to manage pest problems," said Ralph Engel, CSMA president.
GAO REPORT. While Harrington doesn't expect much movement on the bill in Congress this year, that could change in December when the U.S. General Accounting Office releases a study it has been conducting on the issue of pesticides in schools. If the GAO determines that changes are needed in school pest control programs the report could bolster the Torricelli bill. Likewise, if the GAO reports that current standards of pest control in schools are acceptable, the Torricelli bill would likely not make it through Congress. While no one is speculating yet on the GAO report, Harrington says NPCA was contacted and interviewed by GAO officials earlier this year.
While the eventual outcome of both SEPA and the GAO report is still unknown, one thing is certain – the issue of pest control and schools will be hotly contested in the coming year.
Isocyanate dachshund; malleable? Letterbomb thrilled, frontwise thermae bioconcentration aristocrat sainfoin.
Rasping aught luckily pectinated picturephone buffoon.
Precoma wilted hedonistic andromania discrown cyclite fructify suc quadrat. Xylogen foggy foist fluorsilicate simulative.