TECHNICALLY SPEAKING: September 11 Carpetbaggers

Just when I thought I had seen it all, our “environmentalist friends,” led by the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP), also known as Beyond Pesticides, (the ones NPMA is working with on the School Environment Protection Act [SEPA]) have come up with another way to protect the public from onerous pesticides and their applicators. They are now promoting the Maryland Pesticide Safety Bill, “A law to ensure public safety by providing enhanced precautions for the possession, mixing, loading, transportation, use, storage and disposal of restricted-use pesticides.”

These are the same “friends” who slipped in backdoor legislation that requires Maryland public schools to provide broad-based notification if most any product other than containerized baits are used in public schools. Under the guise of national security, they are pursuing legislation that would dramatically impact professional pest management and agriculture.

THE DETAILS. Their premise is that restricted-use pesticides (RUPs) are highly toxic chemicals that can be used as chemical weapons. This is not correct. RUPs are not classified solely on toxicity but on their potential to cause adverse effects on human health and the environment. Furthermore, human health considerations may not even involve acute toxicity but other health-related issues, such as eye injury; likewise, environmental issues may not involve toxicity, except to non-target species, e.g., avicides.

The proposed language would also require training of every person that handles restricted-use pesticides. What a novel idea! Maryland law already requires training of all pesticide applicators. The law also would require licensing of anyone who purchases or applies mass quantities of general use pesticides. Who defines “mass”? I doubt most applicators will escape this provision.

“The Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) shall permit only certified applicators to apply RUPs, eliminating all existing provisions for supervision other than line-of-sight.” This will definitely affect a wide range of applications, e.g., golf courses, lawn care, and structural and agricultural pest control.
Criminal background checks will be required on anyone involved in the use of RUPs. Most responsible companies are probably already doing this, since we are responsible for the actions of our employees when they enter various premises and in the conduct of daily operations.

“During national or state emergency terrorist alerts, trucks with pesticide application mechanisms shall be banned in urban areas.” I can’t wait to see the list of “mechanisms” — I imagine it will include aerosol generators, dusters, compressed air sprayers and guns (bait). More specific restrictions are proposed for aircraft, vehicles and transport equipment.

“Chemical storage containers on both helicopters and trucks shall be locked and secured at all times to prevent illegal access.” This is another no-brainer that most of us already “voluntarily” do.

“Pesticide storage facilities that hold more than 5 gallons of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) category I and EPA toxic category II pesticides must be secured and electronically or physically monitored with 24-hour security, seven days per week. Install fencing, caging areas or other equivalent means. Install security lighting and systems for handling emergency situations (i.e., video cameras and alarms).” Note the transition from RUPs to category I and II pesticides, a much wider class of products. This is typical of our “friends” — they “wow” legislators with the importance of a particular class of pesticides and then quietly add a larger group.

One provision of this legislation I could actually support: “Concentrated formula(s) of pesticides shall not be available to anyone except certified applicators, through retail trade, included but not limited to grocery, garden or seed stores (another digression from the premise of RUPs).” This strikes at the heart of the consuming public, an issue neither EPA nor state governments have embraced — limiting the sale of OTC pesticides, except RUPs, to homeowners.

The salt in the wound for Maryland pest management firms and other industries using pesticides is that we get to fund the enforcement of their legislation through a user fee if we elect to use any RUP. Violation would result in criminal charges of at least $1,000.

WHAT’S NEXT? This legislation insults the many pesticide applicators, their companies, trade journals (such as PCT) and associations (such as NPMA), which proac-tively put out timely alerts concerning the potential for certain pesticides and equipment to be used for terrorist acts. Security measures were suggested; actions in the event of suspicious activities, e.g., unusual equipment purchases, large quantities of pesticides, regardless of category were recommended; and notification procedures were promulgated.

Why are these “friends” pressing for regulations? For the same self-serving reasons they have always sought legislation — it is the perfect time and emotions are right for them to limit the use of pesticides under the guise of national security.

NPMA should be careful with whom it jumps into bed…when you pull the brown bag off their head in the morning you might be surprised with whom you have been sleeping.

The author is technical director of American Pest Management, Takoma Park, Md. His e-mail is rkramer@pctonline.com.