Are pesticide-related laws and regulations created just to give janitorial supply distributors something to gripe about? Sometimes it would seem so, but the truth is, the main purpose behind many of them is to protect the nation’s children against harmful exposure. Oftentimes, however, in the policy-forming stages, jan/san distributor’s concerns are, it seems, overlooked. Besides that, there’s a lot to learn and a lot to follow. For these reasons, however, it’s all the more important for distributors to have a solid understanding of the laws and regulations that apply in their respective states.

Yes, cockroaches, termites, hornets, ants and even weeds — aka pests — are a common problem in many schools throughout the United States. Unfortunately, the pesticides that are used to eliminate them are often linked to health problems — especially in children. Pesticide sprays exacerbate asthma and are not always effective. Furthermore, because of their smaller sizes, developing bodies, and tendencies to explore their environment, children are particularly vulnerable.

These effects have been documented. For example, a survey conducted in New York State about two years ago found that 71 percent of 206 school nurses from across the state knew of students and staff whose learning, health and/or behavior were affected by indoor pollutants such as pesticides, disinfectants and cleaning products.

Seeking Solutions
Incited in part by a concern over potential adverse effects, state and local governments continue to increase the level of regulation related to the use of pesticides and chemicals in schools.

Steps toward increased regulation have taken a number of forms.

On the federal level, the U.S. Senate last February approved a landmark bill — the School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) — as part of the Farm Bill. The proposed legislation addresses the management of pests in and around schools. The House of Representatives, however, delayed its version of the bill until differing veiwpoints can be ironed out to form one final piece of legislation by a conference committee.

“When it’s law, SEPA will be landmark environmental legislation that carefully addresses the need to manage pests at school while satisfying the interests of parents and staff who want to be informed of upcoming pesticide treatments. The law will institute widely practiced, responsible and effective pest management programs in and around schools from coast to coast,” says Bob Rosenberg, director of government affairs for the National Pest Management Association (NPMA) in Dunn Loring, Va.

“SEPA will ensure that our nation’s children are educated in a safe, healthy and pest-free environment,” he adds.

State-by-State Update
Keeping schools pest-free is good in theory, but how can a balance be struck between germ and bug-free classrooms, while protecting students from harmful chemical exposure?

There are no easy answers, but since federal legislation has not yet been enacted, individual states are putting effort toward devising their own approaches.

Similar regulations on the state level are on the books in Illinois, California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Texas and West Virginia.

Rhode Island recently passed a law directing their Department of Health to develop regulations restricting the use of hazardous pesticides in schools and child care centers. The law also encourages the implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), an increasingly popular technique that corrects the root cause of pest problems and uses pesticides only as a last resort.

In California, the nation’s most regulated state, the state’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment recently released a report identifying 78 potential school site contaminants of concern to public officials. The list was developed as a result of a California public law enacted in the 1999-2000 session of the California Legislature, designed to protect children from environmental contaminant exposure. Currently, the list includes many materials that pest control operators no longer use (i.e. Aldrin, Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Heptachlor and Malathion).

The Kentucky Department of Agriculture recently issued a final rule that requires schools to implement an IPM program and provide advance notification of school pesticide applications. However, the law specifically excludes applications of antimicrobial pesticides such as disinfectants, sanitizers and germicides from its requirements.

The Georgia legislature recently introduced a bill designed to reduce and/or eliminate students’ exposure to pesticides. Among other initiatives, the bill would create a school IPM advisory board, which would be charged with the responsibility of developing an IPM program. In addition, the bill would require the creation of a list of “least toxic pesticides,” which would be the only pesticides allowed in Georgia schools. And, of specific interest to distributors in Georgia, the legislation specifically exempts antimicrobial products.

In Pennsylvania, as of January 1, 2003, schools must post a notice of plans to apply pesticides at least 72 hours in advance and for two days afterward. They must also adopt an IPM plan.

And in New York, the state legislature has introduced a bill that would require all schools — public and private — to keep records about the purchase and use of a host of chemicals used in and around school buildings. Specifically the bill would require schools to maintain such information on products such as solvents, floor wax strippers, degreasers, paint thinners, pesticides and all chemical cleaning products. Under the bill, New York schools would be required to make those documents readily available for public inspection at a reasonable charge.

Best Intentions
SEPA and the various state regulations are obviously designed to protect America’s children from pesticide exposure. The rationale behind these regulations can’t be faulted. SEPA, which affects the jan/san industry to some degree, was in fact supported by a broad coalition which included various members of the chemical industry, environmental organizations, parent and teacher groups, and the pest control industry’s national trade group.

SEPA contains important elements:

  • Each state must develop a pest management plan that school districts must implement, based on the principles of IPM, after other methods have been tried. It combines preventive techniques, non-chemical methods, and the appropriate use of pesticides with preference for products that are least harmful to human health and the environment. Even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is encouraging school officials to consider IPM as a safe and cost-effective method of controlling pests in schools.

  • School districts must employ one certified applicator or other qualified persons to implement the pest management plan.

  • Applications of pesticides to any occupied area or room in a school is prohibited.

  • Schools are required to post signs alerting students and staff to pesticide applications.

  • Parents are to be notified by schools of the existence of the pest management plan.

  • Schools are required to tell parents of their right to be notified prior to the application of specific types of pesticides.

  • Parents expressing an interest in being notified prior to individual treatments are to be notified at least 24 hours prior to applications.

Industry Impact
How are jan/san distributors affected by SEPA and other pesticide regulations? How does the industry define a pesticide? Which ones should distributors be concerned about?

Bill Balek, director of legislative affairs for the International Sanitary Supply Association (ISSA), has some answers:

“Pesticide regulations generally cover those products that make claims they kill, mitigate, or reduce pests which are defined to include microorganisms, germs, fungi, insects, rodents, etc.,” he explains. “As such, the term pesticide includes products such as disinfectants, sanitizers, insecticides, and herbicides.

“There are basically two levels of pesticide regulation: federal and state. Concerning federal regulations, distributors have relatively minor responsibilities compared to other registrants,” he says. “If they are distributors of private-label pesticides, they are considered a registrant and must ensure that the label of the product is consistent with the federally approved label. Private-label distributors also are obligated to report to the EPA any information about adverse effects related to the use of their pesticide products.”

Balek says that distributors of non-private label pesticides may have to report adverse information back to their suppliers.

“Distributors are not directly responsible for fees, but surely feel the impact through pass-through pricing,” he says.

“Regarding state regulations, distributors are generally responsible for registering private and non-private label products with the state and must pay registration fees.”

Jon Scoles, president of Scoles Floorshine Industries, Farmingdale, N.J., and president of the New Jersey Sanitary Supply Association says that his state is among the most regulated states, second only to California. The state is considering legislation that would create guidelines for pesticide use in schools, but ISSA and other industries have spoken out to discourage passage of the New Jersey law, stating that it is overly restrictive of the pesticide industry.

For example, if the bill is passed as proposed in New Jersey, it would require 72-hour advance notification of pesticide applications and prohibit pesticides from being applied when a school is occupied or when individuals will occupy the facility within 24 hours following the application. This bill, like many others, exempts antimicrobial pesticide products, but the time deadlines are excessive, says ISSA. The association believes that New Jersey should require only a 48-hour advance notification period as Massachusetts and New York states do.

Reasons to Study Up
Rick Veatch, president of Veatch Chemical Co., a distributor of pesticides and cleaning chemicals in St. Louis, says this type of regulation scares “the bejeezus” out of a lot of distributors.

“We hear there’s more legislation being proposed for schools. Many distributors don’t know how to walk into a school district and tell them how to go about spraying and what products to use. They’re afraid of lawsuits and hesitate to get mixed up in this,” he says.

Veatch, however, has used his knowledge of the regulations and the reservations of other distributors to his advantage. He recently scrutinized the state regulations in neighboring Illinois and has been putting together a primer on the subject so his company can tell school districts what to spray and keep them informed of the restrictions.

“Actually, our company has developed a better rapport with school districts in our territory because we make it a point to get more information and education to them on a one-on-one basis,” he says.

Veatch also predicts this type of regulation will expand to include nursing homes, hospitals and ultimately, to any public building.

So while new regulations keep cropping up, often it’s the end users that experience the most inconvenience. Educated distributors can help those customers stay informed, and make sure they follow protocol.

Russell McCammitt, a sales and marketing consultant with Contract Cleaning Supply, Inc., West Conshohocken, Pa., believes pesticide regulations such as SEPA have had little effect on his business because recently the germicidal products they sell were removed from the pesticide category.

“We sell aerosol bug and hornet sprays, and a small amount of weed killers to a wide range of customers, including schools, health care institutions, manufacturers, office buildings and contract cleaners,” he says. “It’s our end users that are affected because they have to give notice two days before spraying. But looking down the road, I think the more these products are regulated by federal and state lawmakers, the more difficult it will be for us to sell them. I suspect that many of our end users will look for other means of control.”

McCammitt says his company makes a concerted effort to educate customers to use these products correctly.

On the nation’s West Coast, John Gager, owner of Gager Distributing Co., in Chico, Calif., believes that these regulations are unduly restrictive. Coming from the state with the strictest regulation, he feels regulation simply adds another layer of cost — not only for school districts, but for the chemical and jan/san industries as well.

“California, as you may know, is not very business friendly,” he explains. “I struggle with the state all the time because of hazmat restrictions. Now these pesticide regulations add to our costs and our bookwork. If this goes on, it can get unreasonable.”

The regulatory climate could become too much for distributors to bear, he says.

Even the definitions themselves are sometimes problematic.

“Chlorine, which is considered a pesticide, is an ingredient in dish-washing and laundry chemicals. Does that mean that the regulations will require someone to give three days notice just to wash dishes? Will we have to give notice if we’re about to sanitize floors? It doesn’t make any sense,” he says.

Joe Salamone sales manager at A-1 Maintenance Service in the Milwaukee suburb of Butler, says his company does business with schools, but is skeptical about the pesticide regulation pending in his state. “I believe that people are wringing their hands and getting excited about danger around the corner, when instead they should sit back and try to determine if there really is danger,” he says. “Is there a danger, or will this regulation hurt the economic state of the country and the taxpayers? There’s a cost every time these regulations are created and ultimately enforced. We have to make sure there’s a real benefit coming from the regulations.”

In Seattle, Rick Hoverson, sales and marketing director of Advanced Paper Technologies, a company that provides options to toxics used in the workplace, predicts that distributors will be affected more and more by existing and future regulations.

“The more that pesticides and cleaning chemicals are used, the more we find out how they affect indoor air quality and the environment. Pesticides and most of the antimicrobials — anything that kills anything — often scare distributors away from selling them. They’ve got to be careful with their end users. There’s so much misuse and abuse in the marketplace with disinfectants alone. The labels aren’t being followed at all and that creates a problem. There’s a great need for education.” Distributors can use that need to their advantage.

Jordan Fox is a Milwaukee-based freelance editor and writer.
Email questions or comments regarding this article.




POSTED ON: 9/1/2002