Work Group on Pesticides and Health - Agenda

DISCUSSION ISSUE LIST ~ PESTICIDE WORKGROUP

January 14, 2008

State Capitol, Room 360, 1:00 – 3:00 pm

Chair: Representative Suzanne Bonamici

Issue: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach

• Most schools have no pest control policy in place and most are not familiar with IPM
• Approximately 20% of Oregon districts have IPM policy
• Some schools are still using highly toxic pesticides

Recommendation 1: All Oregon schools should implement IPM

• 14 states require IPM in all schools
• Information and resources have not been readily available
  • State IPM Coordinator at OSU and many others have offered assistance
• Scope should include school districts, Education Service Districts (ESD), and Community Colleges.  Some states (New Jersey) also require IPM in charter and private schools.
• Districts may perceive that IPM will be costly; studies show that IPM may be more labor intensive but can reduce costs in the long run
• Need information about start up and ongoing costs

Recommendation 2: All Oregon schools need to have an IPM policy by [a date to be determined]

• No mandate now; strongly recommend IPM but include implementation timeline
  • 2010?
• Possibility of incentive grants if IPM expedited (PE bill model) – funding request
• Need more support and information to schools and districts
  • Work with state IPM coordinator
  • IPM Star Program: resources and certification for schools
    • http://www.ipminstitute.org/IPM_Star/ipmstar_schools.htm#School
  • Support from industry trade association

• Mentor program for schools

Issue: Misuse of pesticides by teachers or custodians; well-intentioned but lack information and training           

Recommendation 3: Require application of pesticides in schools to be done by a licensed applicator

• May be possible to implement this requirement by deleting ORS 634.116(15)
• IPM is included in licensing exam; licensed applicator may serve the role of IPM contact person for school or district
• Green Shield certification model: trained in IPM
  • http://www.ipminstitute.org/greenshieldcertified.htm
• If small district, require licensed applicator at ESD
• Districts may comply by contracting with a company that follows IPM protocol
• Need more information on cost
• Related issue: have a pesticide gathering event to clean out and dispose of old pesticides

Issue: Parents, faculty, and staff are unaware of when pesticides are applied and may want to avoid area.

• at least 19 states require some type of pre-application notification
• posting at the site, notice by mail or email, or both

Recommendation 4: Require schools to notify parents, faculty, and staff prior to pesticide application

• Districts want some flexibility in designing notices
• Consider that implementation of IPM policies will reduce instances of pesticide application

• Notification is not to allow public input like a hearing but instead to give recipients the option of avoiding the area
• Washington has at least 48 hour notification requirement; see RCW 17.21.415
• Type 1 - Posting at the site of application
  • Notice needs to be posted when it can be seen prior to the application
    • at start of school day at least a day or two prior to the application
  • length of posting may depend on what pesticide is used

• Type 2 - Pre-application Notice
  • Sent to families and given to faculty/staff prior to application
  • Can be emailed or a hard copy sent home

Issue: Pesticide use around schools; possible drift onto school property or children on their way to school (for example, at a school bus stop)

• Some states have buffer zones (distance restrictions) or time restrictions that prohibit aerial application when children are commuting to and from school or during outdoor activity (example - New Hampshire)
• Workgroup members differ on approach to this issue

Recommendation 5: Continue work on ways to reduce and eliminate drift

• Buffer zones
  • Precautionary/preventive approach (especially with children) or science-based approach (only after data shows specific risks)

• • Gathering Data on Drift
    • Need for “systematic evidence review” of existing data
    • Washington currently doing study to “examine airborne pesticide concentration levels in agricultural areas of the state"
    • For a study in Oregon, would need approximately $500,000. Could be done in collaboration with scientists at OSU, OHSU, and appropriate state agencies
    • Need to enhance/improve reporting from the medical community to get more accurate data
• Buffer zones are best when combined with resources and information on drift reduction technology
  • DEQ “pesticide stewardship” program: needs stronger funding

• Buffer zones are already established for some situations; i.e.: natural resources ~ streams
• Buffer zones are considered good business practice for sites that border “sensitive area.”
  • Schools should be “sensitive area” (example - New Hampshire)
  • Some schools may be in areas of widespread pesticide use
  • Need more information and outreach to farms/agriculture/rural landowners in those areas
  • Need more information to users on “best management practices” (but some concern about defining in statute)
• Buffer zones arguably a “taking” of property; need to be narrowly drafted
  • (New Jersey uses 250 or 300 feet, depending on equipment used; North Carolina 300 feet; Alabama 400 feet; Mass. 500 feet)
• Perhaps start with buffer zone limited to certain EPA-identified chemicals (Arizona approach - certain types of pesticides not to be sprayed within ¼ mile of school or day care facility).
• Possible approach is to have one size buffer zone around school for aerial application and smaller zone for ground application (similar to buffer zone for salmon)

• Technology
  • “Spray drift workshop” held recently
  • With improvements in technology, eventual approach may be establishing size of buffer zone dependant on technology used.
    • If technology completely controls drift, little or no buffer zone
    • Use of older technology would require larger buffer zone

• Increased Enforcement
  • Drift considered trespass on land
  • Under federal law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), a pesticide label can stipulate that use of the product will not result in drift.  This requires site-specific assessment of conditions to avoid drift.
  • Enforcement by state agencies is discretionary
  • Will increased enforcement reduce instances of drift?

Issue: Statutory definition of IPM (ORS 634.650(1))

• Currently applies to state agencies
• Need consistency and predictability by having one definition of IPM in the ORS
• Concern about inconsistency with other state’s definitions

Recommendation 6: Revise definition of Integrated Pest Management

• Opinions differ on the need for change or how to change
• State IPM Coordinator requests alignment of definition with USDA National Roadmap for IPM, which emphasizes the goals of reducing health, environmental and economic risks.  http://northeastipm.org/whatis_ipmroadmap.pdf
• Industry concern about removing options that may allow them to do the job right the first time.
• Possibility of amending the policy statement of ORS 634.655; also adding schools to entities listed in ORS 634.660, which sets out which state agencies are required to implement IPM

Additional Work to Be Done

• Expanding IPM to licensed daycare centers (California 2006; Illinois; 2003)
  • How to implement and enforce
• Need for increased education to medical community
  • Recognize signs of pesticide poisoning
  • Increase and improve reporting
• Wells and Water
  • Scope and extent of problem
  • How to address problem
• Prenatal exposure
  • How to determine source
  • How to address problem