ED 472 775

TITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATE

NOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEEDRS PRICE

DESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EF 006 203

Fact Sheets on Pesticides in Schools.

National Coalition against the Misuse of Pesticides,Washington, DC.

2002-00-0017p.

Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse ofPesticides, 701 E. St., S.E., Washington, DC 20003. Tel: 202-543 -5450. For full text:http://www.beyondpesticides.org/SCHOOLS/publications/index.htm.Guides Non-Classroom (055)EDRS Price MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.Educational Facilities Improvement; Environmental Standards;*Pesticides; Physical Environment; *School Buildings;Ventilation*Integrated Pest Management

This document consists of a collection of fact sheets aboutthe use of pesticides in schools and how to reduce it. The sheets are: (1)

"Alternatives to Using Pesticides in Schools: What Is Integrated PestManagement?"; (2) "Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesticides in Schools";(3) "The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws--2002 Update: A Review of StatePesticide Laws Regarding Schools" (Kagan Owens and Jay Feldman); (4) "TenMyths behind Pesticide-Dependent Pest Management in Schools"; and (5)"Schools Save Money with Integrated Pest Management." (EV)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

71-

toNNN

44

Fact Sheets on Pesticides in Schools

Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E St. SEWashington, DC 20003202-543-5450wvvw.beyondpesticides.org

2002

Full texts available at:http://www.beyondpesticides.org/SCHOOLS/publications/index.htm

Cr)C) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

CN ED CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION, . CENTER (ERIC)

CD This document has been reproduced as

C)received from the person or organizationoriginating it.

C) Minor changes have been made to

U...improve reproduction quality.

1.1.1 Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

_Kagan_Owe.n_s

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

1

2BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Alternatives to Using Pesticides in SchoolsWhat is Integrated Pest Management?A Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP Fact Sheet

A strong integrated pest management (IPM) definition and policy is one of the best ways to minimize or eliminatechildren's exposure to pesticides while at school. IPM is a term that is used loosely with many different definitionsand methods of implementation. IPM can mean virtually anything the practitioner wants it to mean. Beware ofchemical dependent programs masquerading as IPM.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a program of prevention, monitoring, and control which offers theopportunity to eliminate or drastically reduce pesticides in schools, and to minimize the toxicity of and exi.:)6ure toany products which are used. Education, in the form of workshops, training sessions and written materials, is anessential component of an IPM program for everyone from administrators, maintenance personnel, cafeteriastaff and nurses to parents and students.

IPM is a managed pest management system that: (a) eliminates or mitigates economic and health damagecaused by pests; (b) minimizes the use of pesticides and the risk to human health and the environmentassociated with pesticide applications; and, (c) uses integrated methods, site or pest inspections, pest populationmonitoring, an evaluation of the need for pest control, and one or more pest control methods, including sanitation,structural repairs, mechanical and living biological controls, other non-chemical methods, and, if nontoxic optionsare unreasonable and have been exhausted, least toxic pesticides.

The Six IPM Program Essentials

Monitoring. This includes regular site inspections and trapping to determine the types and infestationlevels of pests at each site.

Record-Keeping. A record-keeping system is essential to establish trends and patterns in pestoutbreaks. Information recorded at every inspection or treatment should include pestidentification, population size, distribution, recommendations for future prevention, and completeinformation on the treatment action.

Action Levels. Pests are virtually never eradicated. An action level is the population size whichrequires remedial action for human health, economic, or aesthetic reasons.

Prevention. Preventive measures must be incorporated into the existing structures and designs fornew structures. Prevention is and should be the primary means of pest control in an IPM program.

Tactics Criteria. Under IPM, chemicals should be used only as a last resort only, but when used, theleast-toxic materials should be chosen, and applied to minimize exposure to humans and all non-target organisms.

Evaluation. A regular evaluation program is essential to determine the success of the pestmanagement strategies.

3

How to Implement a School IPM Program

Least Toxic Pesticides include:

(a) boric acid and disodium octobrate tetrahydrate,(b) silica gels,(c) diatomaceous earth,(d) nonvolatile insect and rodent baits in tamper resistant containers or for crack and crevice treatmentonly,(e) microbe-based pesticides,(f) pesticides made with essential oils (not including synthetic pyrethroids) without toxic synergists, and(g) materials for which the inert ingredients are nontoxic and disclosed.

The term 'least toxic pesticides' does not include a pesticide that is

(a) determined by EPA to be a possible, probable, or known carcinogen, mutagen, teratogen,reproductive toxin, developmental neurotoxin, endocrine disrupter, or immune system toxin;(b) a pesticide in EPA's toxicity category I or II; and,(c) any application of the pesticide using a broadcast spray, dust, tenting, fogging, or baseboard sprayapplication.

Decision-making Process. Create an IPM decision-making process that draws on accurate, timely infOrmation tomake pest prevention and management decisions. Determine the needs of the site, and set "action thresholds;"levels of pest populations at which remedial action is necessary. This will vary depending on the site what type ofstructure it is, who is using it, and how it is being used. For instance, cafeterias will need to be more pests freethan the equipment room. This decision should be made with someone knowledgeable about the pest needingcontrol and the risks of pesticides, someone who does not have a financial interest in selling a pesticide product.

Monitor. Implement a monitoring program designed to provide accurate, timely information on pest activity - toestablish whether there is in fact a pest problem and to identify its causes. Implement a schedule and a plan formonitoring pest populations and the success of pest control efforts. This will help determine acceptable pestpopulation levels, effective reduction measures, and breach of the action threshold. The best way to monitor formany pests, like cockroaches, is with sticky traps. They should be placed throughout the school structures atmany different levels. Set the traps for 24 hours, and then record your results. The traps should be used on aregular schedule, such as monthly.

Pest Prevention Practices. Use practices that eliminate the need for hazardous pesticides - changing theconditions to prevent problems, including occupant education, careful cleaning, pest-proof waste disposal, andstructural maintenance. Learn about what the specific pest needing control needs to live - food, water, and habitat.Reduce the sources of food and water. For instance, always clean up food and food areas, place food in airtight,sealed containers, dispose of food and food wrappers in sealed garbage containers, repair leaky pipes andfaucets, caulk up cracks and crevices, and eliminate clutter whenever possible. Remember that it can take sometime for these methods to be effective.

Mechanical, Biological, and Least Toxic Controls. If all other methods have failed, and monitoring shows thatyour pest population is still above your action thresholds, use mechanical traps, such as sticky traps, andbiological controls, such as pheromones and parasitic insects. Then, and only then, should you consider spottreatment of the least toxic pesticides. You must weigh the risks associated with the use of a pesticide against theproblems caused by the pest. Consider your options carefully, being mindful not to blindly jump at a solution thatmay have risks without first collecting the facts.

4

If you must use a pesticide, you should the least toxic pesticide available. Boric acid, formulated from a naturalmineral, is an effective ant and cockroach stomach poison. When properly applied, it has a relatively low toxicitycompared to other pesticides. Further, it does not evaporate into the indoor air of the structure, unlike many otherpesticides. Look for boric acid that has less than one percent of inert ingredients, therefore you have a better ideaof what you are applying and its risks than with most other pesticides. While boric acid is somewhat slower actingthan other materials, it is highly effective over a long period of time. But remember, all pesticides are poisonesdesigned to kill, and should be handled carefully and with respect. Boric acid should be applied only in areaswhere it will not come in contact with people cracks and crevices, behind counters, and in baseboards.Applicators should wear protective clothing, gloves, and a filter mask.

Also see Schools Save Money with IPM.

5

Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesticides in Schools. A Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP Fact Sheet

Pesticide Cancer Reproductive Neurotoxicity Kidney / Liver Sensitizer / Birth DefectsEffects Damage Irritant

r r --1,

Insecticide 1, 11 it, 1[ L 1',---1

J I J

Acephate C X' X2 X'

1

1Ft XT r

111X1Allethrin

Avermectin X' X' XI X'Bendiocarb j [ xr

Bromacil Cr--L Chlorpyrifos 7[

Cyfluthrin

x' x3

II x4 11 k2 1 1r xl 11 x4 1

x' xl x' x'Cypermethrin IL C

DiazinonL Dichlorvos C. 2B jj1

1

x5

JFenoxycarb B2

Fenvalerate

1 1 1:1

t.

x2 x5 x'x2 1 Pc

x' x'1[1 xl L

lLXl

1L ir x' IL

Hydramethylnon C X2

r Isophenfos -I,1 i 1 [

Lamda Cyhalothrin D

jj PhenothrinPiperonyl butoxide C X5

(a synergist)D 71FNometon i

r

Propetamphos

L Propoxur [ B2 JPyrethrinTetramethrin II c --,

Trichlorfon

JL xxi

J

X2

Irx5 x5 x6

Lx2

Jil X2 JI .)I1 11

XI X' x' x'L

x'

XI x2 XI XI

Herbicides JL L IL JLAtrazine C, 2B XI X1 X1

j Bensulide -11- 1,[ --E-- x3 jr x8 1; XI.

2,4-D X9 X' XI X' XI,

1: xmI [ Iii X2I DSMA II. IL 1 1

Dacthal C XI X3r

L Dicamba '' 13 711 Xi jjDiquat Dibromide X3

Endothall xT ILGlyphosate

Isoxaben

MCPAMCPPMSMA

Pendirnethalin

Pronamide

Siduron

XI

X3

C1

11

,

,

xiX1

., --,-c :,,i x' j :

B2 X3

)77e. 1,1, )7t7 I I

X3

X'"X

xi8

X3

I

L

11

i

i ,.

XI

-1 1

1 r

i

1:

X3

X1

X 1

X3

X1

X3

x2

XIir_EL

X3

Beyond Pesticides/ National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street, SE, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20003, (202) 543-5450 voice, (202) 543-4791 fax, info@beyondpesticides.org, www.beyondpesticides.org

zEsT COTT1 1'.

Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesticides in SchoolsA Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP Fact Sheet

Pesticide

TriclopyrTrifluralin

FungicidesBenomyl

ChlorothalonilManeb

PCNBSulfurTriadimefonZiram

TOTAL

Cancer ReproductiveEffects

Neurotoxicity Kidney / LiverDamage

IF g3- iLC X1

C

r x3X'

Sensitizer / Birth DefectsIrritant

i

X3

rX'xT 1'

X' x'

1

x'4 P ir x iF IP x'4X' x'

21 probable or 26 31possible

Xl X1

31 41 16

B2 = EPA weight-of-evidence category, "probable human carcinogen, sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence inhumans."

C = EPA weight-of-evidence category, "possible human carcinogen" rating.D = EPA weight-of-evidence category, "not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity," usually due to inadequate data.2B = International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization (IARC) category, the agent (mixture) is possibly

carcinogenic to humans.X = Adverse effect demonstrated.

'Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET) Pesticide Information Profiles, ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/ghindex.html.2 California Department of Pesticide Regulation.3 EPA's Office of Pesticide Program Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Factsheet, www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/REDs/.4 EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Revised Risk Assessments on Chlorpyrifos (Released 8/16/00).5 Environmental Defense Fund, Scoreboard Database, www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/.6 Farm Chemicals Handbook, 2000.7 New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Hazardous Substances Factsheet.8 Human Health Risk Assessment for Bensulide, EPA's OPP Health Effects Division.9 Based on National Cancer Institute epidemiological evidence.I° Material Data Safety Sheet for DSMA, www.horizononline.com/MSDS_Sheets/195.txt.

National Library of Medicine, TOXNET, Hazardous Substances Database, http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/.12 Classified under California Department of Pesticide Regulation's Proposition 65.15 EPA classifies chlorothalonil as a "Likely" carcinogen, under proposed EPA weight-of-evidence category, because the availabletumor effects and other key data are adequate to convincingly demonstrate carcinogenic potential for humans.

Beyond Pesticides/ National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street, SE, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20003, (202) 543-5450 voice, (202) 543-4791 fax, info@beyondpesticides.org, www.beyondpesticides.org

7 EST COPY HAMA LZ

The Schooling of State PesticideLaws 2002 UpdateA review of state pesticide laws regarding schoolsBy Kagan Owens and Jay Feldman

eyond Pesticides surveyed state pesticide laws regard-ing pesticide use in schools in 1998 and 2000. Sincethe report's publication in 2000, six states' have passed

laws that address one or more of the following five evaluationcriteria: (i) restricted spray (buffer) zones to address chemicalsdrifting into school yards and school buildings; (ii) posting signsfor indoor and outdoor pesticide applications; (iii) prior writtennotification for pesticide use; (iv) prohibiting when and wherepesticides can be applied; and,(v) requirements for schools toadopt an integrated pest man-agement (IPM) program.These five criteria are essentialingredients in a program toprotect children from pesti-cides used in schools.

Although there continuesto be growing movement onthis issue, including pend-ing federal legislation, theSchool Environment ProtectionAct, pesticide use policiesand practices remain defi-cient in the protection ofchildren. Without minimum federal standards, the protec-tion provided children is uneven and inadequate across thecountry. Just two-thirds of the states, or 33 states, haveadopted pesticide acts and regulations that address the pro-tection of children by specifically focusing on pesticide usein, around or near schools. Of these, only 24 states ad-dress indoor use of pesticides.2

Beyond Pesticides' survey of state laws regarding pesticideuse in schools shows that:

10 states restrict when or what pesticide may be appliedin schools; and16 states recommend or require schools to use 1PM.

These laws are instrumental in improving protections fromschool pesticide use. However, to the extent that these lawsdo not prohibit the use of toxic pesticides around childrenand do not treat pesticide exposure as a public health issue

by providing universal priornotification of pesticide use,they all to some degree com-promise the protection ofchildren. Massachusetts isthe only state in the nationto prohibit the use of themost dangerous pesticidesin and around schools. Al-though the Massachusetts'law has some weaknesses, itshould be considered, alongwith Maryland's and Penn-sylvania's school pesticidelaws, a model for other states.

7 states recognize the importance of controlling drift by re-stricting pesticide applications in areas neighboring a school;

16 states require posting of signs for indoor school pesti-cide applications and 25 states require posting of signsfor pesticide application made on school grounds;

21 states require prior written notification to students, par-ents, or staff before a pesticide application is made to schools;

This report is the third edition of the report released in Pesticidesand You, "The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws 2000" (vol-ume 20, no. 2, 2000) and "The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws"(volume 18, no. 3, 1998).

Restricted spray (buffer) zones aroundschool propertyBuffer zones can eliminate exposure from spray drift on toschool property. In order to adequately protect against drift,buffer zones should, at a minimum, be established in a 2-mile radius around the school's property and be in effect at alltimes of the day. Aerial applications should have a larger bufferzone, at least 3 miles encircling the school. Seven states haverecognized the importance of controlling drift by restrictingpesticide applications in areas neighboring a school that rangefrom 300 feet to 2 1/2 miles.

Posting notification signs for indoor andoutdoor pesticide applicationsPosted notification signs warn those at the school when andwhere pesticides have been or are being applied. It is impor-tant to post signs for indoor and outdoor pesticide applica-tions because of the extensive period of time students and schoolemployees spend at school. Signs posted days before, ratherthan simply at the time or just after a pesticide application, aremore protective. Prior posting may enable people to take pre-cautionary action. Because of the residues left behind after anapplication, signs should remain posted for 72 hours.

Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street, S.E. Washington DC 20003 * 202-543-5450 phone * 202-543-4791 fax info ebeyondpesticides.org * www.beyondpesticides.org

BEST COPY AVAIL BL

0 Dl

rn cn in

CI:

7 (1q

ft, g cc *e

l

I, F

.:0 Az E

.=

*fc ""

N3'

s g'e

7 C

D-0

0 *tn

eE

.:

o (Pa

E:

a g" 0 tlt 0 On

Now

Sta

tes

Aro

und

the

Cou

ntry

Pro

tect

Chi

ldre

n F

rom

Pes

ticid

e E

xpos

ure

in S

choo

lsS

tate

Ala

ska

Buf

fer

Zon

esP

ostin

g S

igns

t

Indo

or &

out

door

, pos

t sig

n, r

emai

n fo

r24

hou

rs. W

hen

scho

ol o

ut o

f se

ssio

n &

open

to p

ublic

, pos

t not

ific

atio

n si

gn 2

4ho

urs

prio

r to

app

licat

ion.

Prio

r N

otifi

catio

n2IP

M2

Pro

hibi

tion

of U

se

Chi

ldre

n pr

ohib

ited

from

ent

erin

g tr

eate

dar

ea f

or 2

4 ho

urs,

or

the

reen

try

inte

rval

stat

ed o

n th

e la

bel.

Pare

nt &

sta

ff r

egis

try

or u

nive

rsal

no-

tific

atio

n, s

choo

l dec

isio

n,24

hou

r no

tice.

Ala

bam

aA

eria

l app

licat

ion,

400

fee

t.

Ari

zona

Gro

und

& a

eria

l app

licat

ion,

114

mile

, cer

tain

odo

rife

rous

&hi

ghly

toxi

c pe

stic

ides

.

Indo

or S

t out

door

, sch

ool d

istr

ict e

stab

-lis

h po

stin

g re

quir

emen

ts.

Pare

nt&

staf

f,un

iver

sal 4

8 ho

ur n

otic

e,

Cal

ifor

nia

Indo

or &

out

door

, pos

t sig

n 24

hou

rspr

ior

to a

pplic

atio

n, r

emai

n 72

hou

rs.

Pare

nt &

sta

ff r

egis

try,

72

hour

notic

e.R

ecom

men

ds.

Con

nect

icut

Out

door

, pos

t sig

n, n

o sp

ecif

ics

on ti

me

to r

emai

n po

sted

.Pa

rent

s &

sta

ff r

egis

try,

24

hour

not

ice.

Rec

omm

ends

.Pe

stic

ide

appl

icat

ions

pro

hibi

ted

duri

ngop

erat

ing

hour

s.

Flor

ida

Out

door

, pos

t sig

n be

ginn

ing

of a

ppli-

catio

n, n

o sp

ecif

ics

on ti

me

to r

emai

npo

sted

.

Req

uire

s.

Geo

rgia

Indo

or, p

rior

pos

ting,

rem

ain

24 h

ours

.O

utdo

or, p

rior

pos

ting,

rem

ain

until

the

follo

win

g da

y.

Illin

ois

Out

door

, pos

t sig

n, r

emov

e fo

llow

ing

day.

Pare

nt r

egis

try

or u

nive

rsal

not

ific

a-tio

n, s

choo

l dec

isio

n, 4

8 ho

ur n

otic

e.R

equi

res.

'

Ken

tuck

yO

utdo

or, p

ost s

ign

imm

edia

tely

fol

low

-in

g ap

plic

atio

n, r

emai

n un

til th

e fo

llow

-in

g da

y.

Pare

nt &

sta

ff r

egis

try,

24

hour

not

ice.

Req

uire

s.

Lou

isia

naA

eria

l app

licat

ion,

100

0 fe

et,

duri

ng s

choo

l hou

rs.

Pare

ntre

gist

ry, m

edic

al v

erif

icat

ion

re-

quir

ed, n

o tim

e sp

ecif

ied.

Req

uire

s.A

pplic

atio

ns o

f re

stri

cted

use

pes

ticid

es, e

n-tr

y re

stri

cted

for

8 h

ours

aft

er a

pplic

atio

n.

Mai

neO

utdo

or, p

ost p

rior

to a

pplic

atio

n, r

e-m

ain

48 h

ours

.Pa

rent

& s

taff

can

req

uest

not

ific

atio

n,ou

tdoo

r ap

plic

atio

ns .$

Rec

omm

ends

.

Mar

ylan

dIn

door

& o

utdo

or, "

in-s

choo

l not

ific

a-do

n."

Out

door

, pos

t sig

n at

tim

e of

ap-

plic

atio

n, r

emai

n 48

hou

rs.

Pare

nt &

sta

ff, e

lem

enta

ry s

choo

l,un

iver

sal 2

4 ho

ur n

otic

e, s

econ

dary

scho

ol, r

egis

try,

24

hour

not

ice,

Req

uire

s.

Mas

sach

uset

tsA

eria

l cro

p ap

plic

atio

n, 1

50fe

et.

Indo

or, p

ost p

rior

to a

pplic

atio

n. O

ut-

door

, pos

t sig

n 48

hou

rs p

rior

to a

ppli-

catio

n, r

emai

n 72

hou

rs.

Pare

nt &

sta

ff, u

nive

rsal

not

ific

atio

n,ou

tdoo

r ap

plic

atio

ns. P

aren

t & s

taff

regi

stry

, ind

oor

appl

icat

ion,

no

time

spec

ifie

d.

Req

uire

s.Pe

stic

ide

use

proh

ibite

d w

hen

child

ren

pres

ent.

Out

door

, pes

ticid

es th

at a

rekn

own,

like

ly o

r pr

obab

le c

arci

noge

ns,

cont

ain

a "L

ist I

" in

ert i

ngre

dien

t or

for

aes-

thet

ic r

easo

n al

one

are

proh

ibite

d fr

om u

se.

Indo

or, c

erta

in p

estic

ides

are

pro

hibi

ted.

Mic

higa

nIn

door

, pos

t sig

n af

ter

appl

icat

ion,

re-

mai

n 48

hou

rs. O

utdo

or, p

ost s

ign

afte

rap

plic

atio

n, r

emai

n 24

hou

rs.

Pare

nt r

egis

try,

24

hour

not

ice.

Req

uire

s.°

Indo

or, s

pray

or

aero

sol i

nsec

ticid

e, e

ntry

rest

rict

ed f

or 4

hou

rs a

fter

app

licat

ion.

Out

door

, pro

hibi

ts s

pray

inse

ctic

ide,

100

ft o

ut-

side

occ

upie

d ar

ea,

Fiv

e st

ates

req

uire

pos

ting

notif

icat

ion

sign

s fo

r ou

tdoo

r la

wn

appl

icat

ions

: Col

orad

o, In

dian

a, Io

wa,

Ohi

o, a

nd V

erm

ont.

The

se s

tate

s ar

e no

t inc

lude

d be

caus

e th

is is

the

on y

req

uire

men

t the

sta

tes

have

ado

pted

reg

ardi

ng s

choo

ls.

Doe

s no

t inc

lude

pro

visi

ons

rega

rdin

g un

iver

sal n

otifi

catio

n of

the

scho

ol's

pes

t man

agem

ent p

rogr

am a

t the

sta

rt o

f the

sch

ool y

ear

or p

rovi

sion

s re

quiri

ng s

choo

ls to

prov

ide

writ

ten

notic

e af

ter

appl

icat

ions

hav

e ta

ken

plac

e.D

oes

not i

nclu

de s

tate

s (li

ke H

awai

i, In

dian

a, O

klah

oma,

Sou

th C

arol

ina,

and

Ten

ness

ee)

that

hav

e de

velo

ped

mat

eria

ls o

n sc

hool

IPM

. The

sec

tion

only

app

lies

to th

est

ates

that

hav

e ad

opte

d ac

ts o

r re

gula

tions

req

uirin

g or

rec

omm

endi

ng s

choo

ls a

dopt

IPM

.Ill

inoi

s re

quire

s IP

M fo

r st

ruct

ural

pes

t man

agem

ent o

nly.

Mai

ne's

law

allo

ws

for

indi

vidu

als

to r

eque

st to

be

notif

ied

of a

n ou

tdoo

r ap

plic

atio

n by

con

tact

ing

the

scho

ol d

irect

ly a

nd s

ettin

g up

an

agre

ed u

pon p

reno

tific

atio

n tim

e. L

aw d

oes

not r

equi

re s

choo

ls to

est

ablis

h a

form

al r

egis

try.

Mic

higa

n re

quire

s IP

M p

lans

be

deve

lope

d fo

r in

door

pes

t man

agem

ent o

nly.

0 torn in

nn

E 00= 71

O .

O w. N I? 2

o :4

;

g

>ca

CD

ro

st0 o. e

s. cs<a

Cl, 0

0- Ti

`14

eDn to -

r6o; oc

00

Vl

S 0 0

Now

Sta

tes

Aro

und

the

Cou

ntry

Pro

tect

Chi

ldre

n F

rom

Pes

ticid

e E

xpos

ure

in S

choo

lsS

tate

Min

neso

ta

Buf

fer

Zon

esP

ostin

g S

igns

'P

rior

Not

ifica

tion2

Par

ent r

egis

try,

not

ifica

tion

at -

reas

on-

able

" tim

e be

fore

app

licat

ion.

iPM

3

Req

uire

s.

Pro

hibi

tion

of U

se

Mon

tana

Indo

or, p

ost s

ign

at ti

me

of a

pplic

atio

n,re

mai

n "u

ntil

dry.

"R

ecom

men

ds.

New

Ham

pshi

reA

eria

l app

licat

ion,

dur

ing

com

mut

ing

hour

s &

out

door

activ

ity in

sen

sitiv

e ar

eas.

Out

door

, pos

t sig

n, r

emai

n 24

hou

rs.

Pes

ticid

es c

anno

t be

appl

ied

"whe

re e

xpo-

sure

may

hav

e an

adv

erse

effe

ct o

n hu

man

heal

th."

'

New

Jer

sey

Gro

und

& a

eria

l gyp

sy m

oth

appl

icat

ion,

dur

ing

com

mut

-in

g ho

urs,

2 m

iles

grad

esc

hool

, 2 I/

2 m

iles

high

sch

ool.

Aer

ial a

pplic

atio

n, 3

00 fe

et.

Indo

or, p

erm

anen

t pos

ting

at c

entr

al b

ul-

letin

boa

rd, s

tate

s ne

xt a

pplic

atio

n. O

ut-

door

, pos

t sig

n at

sta

rt o

f app

licat

ion,

re-

mai

n 24

hou

rs.

Par

ent &

sta

ff re

gist

ry, n

o tim

e sp

ecifi

ed.

Pes

ticid

e ap

plic

atio

n pr

ohib

ited

durin

g no

r-m

al s

choo

l hou

rs o

r w

hen

area

will

be

occu

-pi

ed w

ithin

tim

e fo

r pr

oduc

t to

dry.

New

Mex

ico

Indo

or &

out

door

em

erge

ncy

appl

ica-

dons

onl

y, n

o sp

ecifi

cs o

n tim

e.P

aren

t reg

istr

y no

tim

e sp

ecifi

ed. P

ar-

ent a

nd s

taff

univ

ersa

l not

ifica

tion,

chi

ldca

re c

ente

r, 4

8 ho

ur n

otic

e.

Pro

hibi

ts u

se o

f cer

tain

pes

ticid

es w

hen

area

occ

upie

d or

will

be

for

next

6 h

ours

.Li

cens

ed c

hild

care

cen

ters

use

of p

estic

ides

proh

ibite

d w

hen

child

ren

on p

rem

ises

.

New

Yor

kIn

door

& o

utdo

or, d

ayca

re c

ente

r, p

ost

sign

48

hour

s pr

ior

to a

pplic

atio

n. O

ut-

door

, pos

t sig

n, r

emai

n 24

hou

rs.

Par

ent &

sta

ff re

gist

ry, 4

8 ho

ur n

otic

e.R

ecom

men

ds.

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Aer

ial a

pplic

atio

n, 3

00 fe

et,

whe

n sc

hool

occ

upie

d.

Pen

nsyl

vani

aIn

door

& o

utdo

or, p

ost s

ign

72 h

ours

prio

r to

app

licat

ion,

rem

ain

48 h

ours

.P

aren

t reg

istr

y or

uni

vers

al n

otic

e, 7

2ho

ur n

otic

e. S

taff,

uni

vers

al 7

2 ho

urno

tice.

Req

uire

s.P

rohi

bits

pes

ticid

e ap

plic

atio

ns w

hen

stud

-en

ts w

ill b

e pr

esen

t in

the

scho

ol b

uild

ing

or o

n sc

hool

gro

unds

for

seve

n ho

urs

follo

w-

ing

the

appl

icat

ion.

Rho

de Is

land

Out

door

, pos

t sig

n, r

emai

n 72

hou

rs.

Par

ent &

sta

ff re

gist

ry; 2

4 ho

ur n

otic

e.

Tex

asIn

door

, pos

t sig

n 48

hou

rs p

rior

to a

p-pl

icat

ion,

no

spec

ifics

on

time

to r

emai

npo

sted

.

Par

ent r

egis

try,

indo

or &

per

imet

erap

plic

atio

n, n

o tim

e sp

ecifi

ed.

Req

uire

s.P

estic

ides

are

gro

uped

into

list

s. N

o in

door

appl

icat

ion

of c

erta

in G

reen

Lis

t whe

n st

u-de

nts

in a

rea.

Oth

er G

reen

Lis

t & Y

ello

w&

Red

Lis

ts, r

estr

ict e

ntry

for

12 h

ours

af-

ter

appl

icat

ion.

Out

door

app

licat

ions

,G

reen

Lis

t: st

uden

ts m

ust b

e 10

feet

aw

ay,

Yel

low

Lis

t: 10

feet

aw

ay, 1

2 ho

urs

re-

stric

ted

entr

y, R

ed li

st: 5

0 fe

et a

way

, 12

hour

res

tric

ted

entr

y.

Was

hing

ton

Indo

or &

out

door

, pos

t sig

n at

tim

e of

ap-

plic

atio

n, r

emai

n po

sted

for

24 h

ours

.P

aren

t & s

taff

regi

stry

or

univ

ersa

lno

tice,

48

hour

not

ice.

'

Wes

t Virg

inia

Indo

or, d

ay c

are

cent

er, p

ost s

ign

24ho

urs

prio

r to

app

licat

ion,

no

spec

ifics

on ti

me

to r

emai

n po

sted

.

Day

car

e em

ploy

ees,

aut

omat

ic 2

4 ho

urno

tice,

leve

l 3 o

r 4

pest

icid

e. P

aren

t reg

-is

try,

sch

ools

& d

ay c

are

cent

ers,

24

hour

not

ice

of le

vel 3

or

4 pe

stic

ide.

Req

uire

s.P

estic

ides

are

gro

uped

into

leve

ls.

Stu

dent

s &

em

ploy

ees

rest

rict e

ntry

for

4ho

urs

afte

r le

vel 3

pes

ticid

e &

8 h

ours

afte

rle

vel 4

pes

ticid

e.

Wis

cons

inIn

door

& o

utdo

or, p

ost s

ign

at ti

me

ofap

plic

atio

n, r

emai

n 72

hou

rs.

Wyo

min

gIn

door

& o

utdo

or, p

ost s

ign

12 h

ours

prio

r to

app

licat

ion,

rem

ain

72 h

ours

.P

aren

t & s

taff,

uni

vers

al p

rior

notic

e.'

7A

lthou

gh th

is la

ngua

ge is

ope

n to

inte

rpre

tatio

n, it

is a

str

onge

r sa

fety

sta

ndar

d th

an c

onta

ined

in th

e F

eder

al In

sect

icid

e, In

sect

icid

e, F

ungi

cide

and

Rod

entic

ide

Act

(F

IFR

A),

whi

ch p

rote

cts

for

"unr

easo

nabl

e ad

vers

e ef

fect

s."

°W

ashi

ngto

n la

w s

tate

s th

at a

sch

ool -

as a

min

imum

, not

ifies

inte

rest

ed p

aren

ts o

r gu

ardi

ans

of s

tude

nts

and

empl

oyee

s at

leas

t 48

hour

s pr

ior

to a

pest

icid

e ap

plic

atio

n."

°W

yom

ing

scho

ol p

estic

ide

notif

icat

ion

act r

equi

res

the

pest

icid

e ap

plic

ator

pro

vide

72

hour

prio

r no

tice

to th

e sc

hool

dis

tric

t, w

hich

is r

equi

red

to "

furt

her

notif

y st

uden

ts,

teac

hers

and

sta

ff."

Sixteen states require posting of signs for indoor school pes-ticide applications. Pennsylvania, the strongest state in this regard,requires posting warning signs at least 72 hours in advanceof the application, while three states, California, Wis-consin and Wyoming, require that signs remain posted for 72hours, the longest time frames among the states.

Twenty-five states have posting requirements when pesticideapplications are made on school grounds. Pennsylvania requiressign posting 72 hours in advance of the application. NewYork and Massachusetts require signs be posted 48 hours prior toapplications to school grounds and buildings. Five states requiresigns remain posted for at least 72 hours. Thirteen states requireposting for both indoor and outdoor pesticide applications.

Prior written notificationWritten notification prior to each pesticide use is a good way tomake sure that all parents, children and staff are aware andwarned. There are basically two types of notification registriesand universal, and modified systems that incorporates elementsof both. Notification-based registries are a less effective means ofnotifying people and do not qualify as true right-to-know be-cause of their limited scope. Requiring that individuals placethemselves on registries affords only those who already knowabout toxic exposure the opportunity to be informed about pes-ticide use in the school. Registries also tend to be more costlyand time consuming for the school because of the time associ-ated with list management. Prior notification should be 72 hoursin advance to make sure the information has been received, toget further information regarding the pesticide, and to make ar-rangements to avoid the exposure, if necessary.

Twenty-one states have requirements to notify parents orschool staff in writing before a pesticide application is to oc-cur. Of these, ten states have provisions for universal notifi-cation prior to each pesticide application.3 Nineteen stateshave provisions that establish a registry, allowing individualsto sign up for prior notification.4 The widest range of notifi-cation activities, requiring posting signs for indoor and out-door applications and providing prior notification of a schoolpesticide application, are met by only eleven states.

Prohibitions on useLimiting when and what pesticides are applied in and aroundschools is important to the reduction of pesticide exposure. Pes-ticides should never be applied when students or staff are, orlikely to be, in the area within 24 hours of the application. Tenstates restrict the type and/or timing of pesticides that may beused in a school. In reality, certain types of pesticides, such ascarcinogens, endocrine disruptors, reproductive toxins, devel-

opmental toxins, neurotoxins and pesticides listed by EPA as atoxicity category I or II pesticide should never be used aroundchildren. Massachusetts is the only state that bans the use ofcertain pesticides by schools. Alaska has the longest re-entry re-strictions, requiring that the area treated with certain pesticidesremain unoccupied for 24 hours after the application.

Integrated pest managementA good integrated pest management (IPM) program can elimi-nate the unnecessary application of synthetic, volatile pesticidesin schools. The main elements of a good 1PM program include:1) monitoring to establish whether there is a pest problem, 2)identifying the causes of the pest problem, 3) addressing the causeby changing conditions to prevent problems, 4) utilizing pestsuppression techniques, if necessary, that are based on mechani-cal and biological controls, and 5) only after non-toxic alterna-tives have been tried and exhausted, use the least toxic pesticide.

Sixteen states address IPM in their laws, but only elevenof those require that schools adopt an IPM program. Unfor-tunately, IPM is a term that is used loosely with many differ-ent definitions. More and more, we hear pest control pro-grams inaccurately described as IPM. Of the sixteen states,California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota,have comprehensive definitions of IPM, and allow only theleast toxic pesticide to be used as a last resort. It is importantto incorporate a strong IPM definition into policies and lawsto achieve effective, least-hazardous pest management.

ConclusionRaising the level of protection across the nation to meet the high-est possible standard of protection for children is essential. Wherea state offers protection not provided by your state, advocate forit. Where policies exist, make sure that they are enforced. En-forcement of existing pesticide laws is also critical and often themost difficult phase of community-based efforts. Both the adop-tion of laws and ensuring their enforcement once adopted, re-quire vigilant monitoring and public pressure. Exemptions thatwaive notification requirements before or after pesticide use, suchas during school vacations, undermine protection.

Parents and community members can help school districtsimprove their pest management practices by contacting dis-trict officials and encouraging them to implement an IPM andnotification program. School administrators will be more con-scious of their pest management policy if they know parentsare concerned and tracking their program.

For information on state pesticide laws, school district policies, andtools on how to get such policies at the federal, state and local level adopted,

please contact Beyond Pesticides or see wwwbeyond pesticides.org.

' The six states that have passed school pest management laws since "The Schooling of Pesticide Laws- 2000" include Alaska, Kentucky, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

2 States that "address" indoor use of pesticides are based on whether the state requires schools post notification signs for indoor pesticide applications,provide prior notification of an indoor pesticide applications prohibit the use of certain pesticides in school buildings or recommend or require inte-grated pest management.This includes the four states that give the schools the choice of providing notice either via a registry or universal notice, the four states thathave provisionsfor both registries and universal notice, and the two states that specifically require schools provide universal prior notification.

4 This includes the four states that give the schools the choice of providing notice either via a registry or universal notice, the four states that haveprovisions for both registries and universal notice, and the 12 states that specifically require schools maintain a registry.

Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street, S.E. Washington DC 20003 202-543-5450 phone * 202-543-4791 fax info@beyondpesticides.org www.beyondpesticides.org

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

A BEYOND F'ESTiCID /NCAMP FACTSHEET e A BEYOND ICIDESiNCA P FACTSHEET A BEYOND P ICIDES/NCAMP FA YSNEET

Ten Myths Behind Pesticide-DependentPest Management in SchoolsDebunking opponents to school integrated pest management,pesticide bans and notification programs.

The pro-pesticide lobby has engaged in an all-out effortto convince local school districts that pesticides canbe used safely in schools and therefore fully integrated

into school pest management programs. One such group, Re-sponsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), distributeda letter containing misleading and inaccurate information onschool pesticide use to 25,000+ school facility managers aroundthe country.

To halt the pro-pesticide lobby from continuing to un-dercut community activists' efforts to reduce or eliminatepesticide use in favor of alternative strategies, Beyond Pes-ticides/NCAMP has developed this fact sheet as a guide tobetter understanding the issues. No-tification of pesticide applicationsand elimination of toxic pesticideuse where possible can be accom-plished in our schools. Invalidatethe pro-pesticide lobby's top tenmyths with the facts.

MYTH #1Pesticides are a vital ingredient to anIntegrated Pest Management (IPM)program.

FACT #1:Those who argue that IntegratedPest Management (IPM) requires an ability to spray pesti-cides immediately after identifying a pest problem are notdescribing IPM. IPM is pest management that is sensitiveto the health of students, school staff and the environment.Pesticide use is unnecessary because safer alternatives cansuccessfully control pest problems. The goal of an IPM pro-gram is to minimize the use of pesticides and the associ-ated risk to human health and the environment while con-trolling a pest problem. IPM does this by utilizing a varietyof methods and techniques, including cultural, biologicaland structural strategies to control a multitude of pestproblems. (See box on page 16).

Essential to the control of a pest problem are solutionsbased on preventing pest outbreaks to occur in the firstplace. For example, improving a school's sanitation caneliminate cockroaches and ants. Many techniques are rela-tively simple, such as mulching to prevent weeds or caulk-ing cracks and screening openings where insects and ro-dents can enter a building. Constant monitoring ensuresthat pest buildups are detected and suppressed before un-acceptable outbreaks occur.

Conventional pest control tends to ignore the causes of

pest infestations and instead rely on routine, scheduled pes-ticide applications. Pesticides are often temporary fixes, inef-fective over the long term. Most common pests are now resis-tant to many insecticides. For effective pest control, it is ab-solutely necessary to identify the source of the problem, de-termine why the pest is present zlnd modify its habitat. Forexample, since weeds tend to like soils that are compacted,the solution is not the temporary control achieved by killingthem, but the adoption of practical strategies to make the soilless attractive to the weeds.

Alternatives to conventional hazardous pesticides are be-ing implemented in over 100 school districts around the

country and, thus, prove that alter-natives work. Non-toxic and leasttoxic control products are a majorgrowth area and new materials anddevices are increasingly available inthe marketplace.

Vol. 20, No. 4, 2000-2001

MYTH #2:Pesticides pose no risk to the healthof children.

FACT #2Student and staff poisoning atschools is not uncommon. Adversehealth effects, including nausea, diz-

ziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mentaldisorientation, may appear even when a pesticide is appliedaccording to label directions. Low levels of pesticide expo-sure can adversely affect a child's neurological, respiratory,immune and endocrine system. Of the 48 commonly usedpesticides in schools, 22 can cause cancer, 26 can adverselyaffect reproduction, 31 are nervous system poisons and 16can cause birth defects.'

The General Accounting Office (GAO) in 2000 docu-mented over 2,300 reported pesticide poisonings in schoolsbetween 1993 and 1996.2 Because most of the symptoms ofpesticide exposure, from respiratory distress to difficulty inconcentration, are common in school children and may beassumed to have other causes, it is suspected that pesticide-related illness is much more prevalent.

EPA and Dow AgroSciences agreed in June 2000 tophase-out Dursban (chlorpyrifos), one of the most com-monly used insecticides in schools, because of its high risksto children, even if used according to the label directions.The product has been marketed for the past 30 years withclaims that it could be used safely. Even though EPA andthe manufactures of Dursban agreed to phase-out its use

Pesticides and You Page 15Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a managedpest management system that: (a) eliminates or miti-gates economic and health damage caused by pests;(b) uses integrated methods, site or pest inspections,pest population monitoring, an evaluation of the needfor pest control and one or more pest control meth-ods, including sanitation, structural repairs, mechani-cal and biological controls, other non-chemical meth-ods, and, if nontoxic options are unreasonable or havebeen exhausted, least toxic pesticides.

Least toxic pesticides include: boric acid and di-sodium octobrate tetrahydrate, silica gels, diatoma-ceous earth, nonvolatile insect and rodent baits intamper resistant containers or for crack and crevicetreatment only, microbe-based insecticides, biological,living control agents, and materials for which the in-ert ingredients are nontoxic and disclosed. The term`least toxic pesticides' does not include a pesticide thatis determined by the EPA to be an acutely or moder-ately toxic pesticide, a probable, likely or known car-cinogen, mutagen, teratogen, reproductive toxin, de-velopmental neurotoxin, endocrine disrupter, or im-mune system toxin, and any application of the pesti-cide using a broadcast spray, dust, tenting, fogging, orbaseboard spray application.

in many settings, including schools, it can continue to beused until existing stocks are used up. The EPA chlorpyrifosannouncement begins the process of getting high consumerand children exposure uses of Dursban off the market, butputs people at risk by not stopping its uses immediately.'

MYTH #3:Without pesticides, pests pose a serious health and safety riskto children.

FACT #3:The pro-pesticide lobby wants people to think that if we stopusing toxic pesticides, our schoolbuildings and lawns would be over-come by disease-carrying pests andweeds. However, this is not true.School pest problems can be effec-tively managed without toxic pes-ticides, as discussed in fact #1.Most insect and weed pests may bea nuisance, or raise aesthetic issues, but they do not pose athreat to children's health. Children should never be exposedto potentially harmful pesticides for this reason.

Increasingly the public is calling into question the use ofpesticides for cosmetic results alone. The unleashing of these

toxic chemicals into our environment for aesthetic gain isresponsible for countless human suffering and untold envi-ronmental consequence. In the words of Rachel Carson, "Howcould intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted spe-cies by a method that contaminated the entire environmentand brought the threat of disease and death even to their ownkind? Future generations are unlikely to condone our lack ofprudent concern for the integrity of the natural world thatsupports all life."

Toxic pesticides and certain pests do pose a health risk tochildren,; which is why schools need to implement a com-prehensive school IPM program. A school IPM program isestablished to prevent and manage pest problems, not to letpests rui. rampant.

MYTH #4:School IPM programs are too costly for schools.

FACT #4:According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), "preliminary indications from IPM programs in schoolsystems suggest that long term costs of IPM may be less thana conventional pest control program."5 Because IPM focuseson prevention of the pest problem, and properly monitoringto determine the extent of the pest problem, school IPM pro-grams can decrease the amount of money a school will spendon pest control in the long-term. Some economic investmentis usually required at the outset of an IPM program. Short-term costs may include IPM training, purchasing new equip-ment, hiring an IPM coordinator, or making preliminary re-pairs to a school's buildings. Chemical-intensive methods onlyprove to be less expensive in the short-term. The long-termhealth of our children is not worth short-term economic sav-ings that just do not add up over time.

A well-known example of school IPM is the MontgomeryCounty, Maryland public schools. The IPM program in Mont-gomery County covers 200 sites and reduced pesticide usefrom 5,000 applications in 1985 to none four years later, sav-ing the school district $1800 per school and $30,000 at theCounty's school food service warehouse.6

In Indiana, Monroe County Schools implemented an IPMprogram that decreased the school's pest management costsby $6,000 in two years. Pesticide use has reportedly droppedby 90% with the IPM program, and all aerosol and liquid pes-

ticides have been discontinued.'At Vista de las Cruces School

in Santa Barbara, California, pestmanagement was contracted outwith a pest control company for$1,740 per year for routine pesti-cide applications. After the schoolswitched to an IPM program, their

costs were reduced to a total of $270 over two years.Albert Greene, Ph.D., National IPM Coordinator for the

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), has implementedIPM in 30 million square feet, approximately 7,000 federalbuildings, in the U.S. capital area without spraying toxic in-

EPA has stated that no pesticide

can be considered 'safe.'

Page 16 Pesticides and You Vol. 20, No. 4, 2000-2001Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

A BEYOND P /NCAMP FACTSHEET A BEYOND. PE 1CIDES/NCAMP F IGT5NEM' A BEYOND PESTICIDES / NCAMP FACTS

secticides. Dr. Greene states that IPM, "can be pragmatic, eco-nomical and effective on a massive scale."8

MYTH *5:Pesticides are extensively tested and regulated. Before a pesti-cide product is approved for use, it must undergo over 120government-mandated tests.

FACT *5:Suggestions that pesticides in wide use have been subjectedto full and adequate health and safety testing belies thewidely acknowledged deficiencies in EPA's pesticide regis-tration process. In addition, thesafety standard in pesticide lawallows elevated rates of diseaseunder a risk assessment-basedstandard. As a result, EPA hasstated that no pesticide can beconsidered 'safe.'

Pesticides products containformulations of a number of dif-ferent materials, including ac-tive and inert ingredients, aswell as contaminants and impu-rities. Additionally, pesticides,when subject to various envi-ronmental conditions, breakdown to other materials, knownas metabolites, which are some-times more toxic than the par-ent material. So-called inert in-gredients can be as or more toxic than the active ingredi-ent active ingredients in other pesticides, toxic chemi-cals, chemicals regulated under other legislation, or haz-ardous wastes, solvents, propellants, wetting agents, pet-rochemicals and synergists. Inerts, often petrochemicalslike toluene or xylene, are generally the largest percentageof ingredients of apesticide product.

0

ernments have never been fully tested for the full range ofpotential human health effects, such as cancer, birth de-fects, genetic damage, reproductive effects and neurologi-cal disorders, and endocrine disruption. Indeed, pesticidescan be registered even when they have been shown to causeadverse health effects. Due to the numerous pesticide for-mulations on the market, the lack of disclosure require-ments, insufficient data requirements, and inadequate test-ing, it is impossible to accurately estimate the hazards ofpesticide products, much less lifetime exposure or risk.There is no way to predict the effects in children solelybased on toxicity testing in adult or even adolescent labo-

ratory animals, which is EPA'sprocedure for evaluating ad-verse effects.

Despite this, inert in-gredients are treatedas trade secret infor-mation and not dis-closed on product la-bels. Contaminantsand impurities are of-ten a part of the pes-ticide product and re-sponsible for theproduct hazards. Di-oxin and DDT havebeen identified ascontaminants in pesticide products.

Existing pesticide use patterns and a deficient regula-tory process add up to inadequate regulation of pesticidesis not protection of public health. The vast majority of allpesticide products registered for use by EPA and state gov-

MYTH #6:Each school board should only beresponsible for maintaining a reg-istry of individuals interested inbeing notified and not be overlyburdened with providing univer-sal notification.

FACT #6:Parents are often kept in the darkabout pesticide use at schools.Without notification, parents areunable to make important deci-sions about whether they wanttheir children to go to school

when potentially hazardous pesticides have been applied.Universal notification is a good way to make sure that

all parents, guardians, children and staff are aware andwarned about pesticide applications. Providing prior noti-fication to all individuals attending or working at a schoolis less obtrusive to the school's administrative staff. Uni-

versal notificationdoes not require a

By providing prior written notification to all parties

that would otherwise unknowingly be exposed to the

chemicals and posting notification signs, affected

parties can take the necessary precautions to avoid

the exposure and potential harm it may cause.

separate database.Several school dis-tricts around thecountry, such as AnnArundal CountyPublic School sys-tem in Maryland,agree that it is muchless cumbersome toprovide universalnotification. Manyschools already sendhome notices and

school announcements about lice infestation, field trips,book fairs, and crime at school. Schools can simply senduniversal pesticide notices as they would other such an-nouncements or they can be attached to notices alreadybeing sent home.

Vol. 20, No. 4, 2000-2001 Pesticides and YouBeyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

4

Page 17

Notificationbased registries are a less effective means ofnotifying people and does not qualify as right-to-know be-cause of its limited scope. Requiring that individuals placethemselves on registries, affords only those who already knowabout toxic exposure the opportunity to be informed aboutpesticide use in the school. Registries are more costly andmore resource consuming for school districts to implement.It may even require an extra staff person to keep the registryup to date and coordinate the notification.

MYTH #7:Notification of pesticide applications are unnecessarily alarm-ing parents and is a scare tactic by environmentalists.

FACT #7:Parents and school staff have a basic right-to-know when pes-ticides are being used at school. By providing prior writtennotification to all parties that would otherwise unknow-ingly be exposed to the chemicals and posting no-tification signs, affected parties can take the nec-essary precautions to avoid the exposure andpotential harm it may cause. Pro-pesticide lob-byists may be concerned that if parents andschool staff know that a school is applyingan EPA classified probable carcinogen, neu-rotoxin or other type of hazardous pesticide,they may be activated to advocate for alter-native approaches that prohibit these chemi-cals. As discussed above, schools do not needto use toxic pesticides in the buildings or onthe grounds where children spend their timelearning and playing. IPM, if properly imple-mented, enables a safe learning environmentfor children, one that does not introduce unnec-essary and routine use of toxic pesticides.

72 hours in advance to make sure the information has beenreceived by the student's parents or guardians and by schoolstaff, allowing them to obtain further information regardingthe pesticide application, and, if necessary, to make arrange-ments to avoid the exposure.

MYTH#9:Schools should not have to notify parents and teachers priorto the use of baits, gels, pastes pesticide applications.

FACT#9:As long as the bait, gel or paste falls under the "least toxicpesticide" definition (see box on page 16), schools do notneed to provide prior notification. However, advance notifi-cation should occur for any formulation containing pesti-cide or other toxic ingredients that are volatile or toxic syn-

ergists. Just because a pesticide is applied in baits, gelsand/or pastes does not mean these products do not

contain a chemical that is a carcinogen, mutagen,teratogen, reproductive toxin, developmental

neurotoxin, endocrine disruptor, or an im-mune system toxin.

MYTH #8:Parents and staff only need to be notified 24 hours prior to theuse of pesticides at schools.

FACT #8:Twenty-four hour prior notification of pesticide use does notprovide enough time react. Prior notification should be made

MYTH #10:As long as the pesticide is not applied whilethe area is occupied, once the students andteachers return to the area, the pesticide hasdried and will not affect their health.

FACT #10:Pesticides should never be applied when

students or staff are, or are likely to be, inthe area within 24 hours of the application.

Pesticides residues can linger for hours, daysand even months after an application is made. It all

depends on the type of chemical applied and the conditionsthat may apply to its degradation. For example, airborneconcentrations of seven insecticides were tested three daysfollowing their application in separate rooms. Six of the sevenpesticides left residues behind through the third day.") A1998 study found that Dursban (chlorpyrifos) accumulatedon furniture, toys and other sorbant surfaces up to two weeksafter application."

' Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides.2000. Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesticides in Schools: A BeyondPesticidesINCAMP fact sheet. Washington, DC.

2 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1999. Use, Effects, and Alterna-tives to Pesticides in Schools. RCED-00-17. Washington, DC.U.S. EPA. 2000. Chlorpyrifos Revised Risk Assessment and Agreement withRegistrants. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Wash-ington, DC.

4 Gurunathan, S., et al. 1998. "Accumulation of Chlorpyrifos on Residen-tial Surfaces and Toys Accessible to Children." Environmental HealthPerspectives 106(1).

5 U.S. EPA. 1993. Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting Inte-grated Pest Management. 735-F-93-012. Office of Pesticide Programs.Washington, DC.

Page 18

6 Schubert, J.D., et al. 1996. Voices for Pesticide Reform: The case for safepractices and sound policy. Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Againstthe Misuse of Pesticides. Washington, DC.Safer Pest Control Project. 1998. Cost of IPM in Schools: A fact sheet fromthe Safer Pest Control Project. Chicago, IL.

8 Greene, A. 1993. "Integrated Pest Management for Buildings." Pesticidesand You 13(2-3). Washington, DC.

9 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1990. Lawn Care Pesticides: RisksRemain Uncertain While Prohibited Safety Claims Continue. RCED-90-134. Washington, DC.

19 Wright, C., et al. 1981. "Insecticides in the Ambient Air of Rooms Fol-lowing Their Application for Control of Pests." Bulletin of Environmen-tal Contamination & Toxicology 26.

" Gurunathan, S., et al. 1998.

Pesticides and YouBeyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

15

Vol. 20, No. 4, 2000-2001

Schools Save Money WithIntegrated Pest ManagementA Beyond Pesticides Fact Sheet

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a program of pre-vention, monitoring and control which offers the oppor-tunity to eliminate or drastically reduce pesticides in

schools, and to minimize the toxicity of and exposure to anyproducts which are used. Habitat modification, the corner-stone to any IPM program, is key to eliminating and prevent-ing pest outbreaks.

Because IPM focuses on prevention of the pest problem, andproper monitoring to determine the extent of the pest prob-lem, school IPM programs can decrease the amount of moneya school will spend on pest control in the long-term. Chemi-cal-intensive methods, a symptomatic approach to managingpest problems, may only prove to be less expensive in the short-term. The long-term health of our children is not worth someshort-term economic savings that just do not add up over time.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,"Schools across the nation thathave adopted such programsreport successful, cost-effectiveconversion to IPM. IPM can re-duce the use of chemicals andprovide economical and effec-tive pest suppression ...IN reliminary indications fromIPM programs ... suggest thatlong term costs of IPM may beless than a conventional pestcontrol program."'

In a report entitled, PesticideUse At New York Schools: Reduc-ing the Risk, the Attorney Gen-eral of New York State, EliotSpitzer, says the following:

We often hear that imple-mentation of integrated pest management...can be expen-sive. Because it is easy to envision costs associated withestablishing new policies and practices, re-training per-sonnel and educating building occupants, this can be apowerful argument to school administrators trying tosqueeze the most out of admittedly tight budgets. Whilethe argument might have some initial appeal, experiencetells a different story. In case after case, schools and otherinstitutions have reduced their pest control costs early inthe transition, often in the first year.2

The Washington State Department of Ecology has done acareful analysis of the costs of pest control that considers someof the "hidden" costs, such as regulatory compliance, wastedisposal, insurance, and liability for health effects, environ-

mental damage and compliance violations.'Depending on the school's current maintenance, sanitation

and pest management practices, some economic investment isusually required at the outset of an IPM program. Short-termcosts may include IPM training, purchasing new equipment,hiring an IPM coordinator, or making preliminary repairs tobuildings. Whether the pest management services are con-tracted out, performed internally by school staff, or both mayalso affect the cost of implementing a school IPM program.

Activities that can be absorbed into a school's existing bud-get include training of maintenance, cleaning and food ser-vice staff and educating students and teachers to modify theirbehavior. In addition, some school maintenance and struc-tural repair funds may already be budgeted for activities suchas replacing water-damaged materials, landscaping, wastemanagement, and physical barriers.

Monitoring is critical to re-ducing pest management costsbecause it helps pest managersdetermine if, when and wherepest populations warrant actionand therefore requires more pre-cise and strategic pest manage-ment approaches. For example,instead of spraying the entireschool building for a pest,monitoring may determine thatthe pest problem is concen-trated in the food service area,thus decreasing the amount ofresources needed to control thepest population. Without moni-toring, conventional pest man-agement spray programs tend tospend a lot of time spraying ma-

terials into all sites. Monitoring can also help determine if dam-age thought to be caused solely by pests is actually caused byother factors; like poor drainage or leaky pipes.

The fact that pest control is not often a large part of theschool's budget should not hinder the school's transition to anIPM program. It is not necessary for the entire school to bemonitored, just those areas with the potential for a pest prob-lem, leaving the other areas to be monitored and managed on acomplaint basis. In addition, certain facets of an IPM programcould be implemented over time in order to keep costs down.

Pests can be managed effectively and economically with-out toxic chemicals through the implementation of a clearlydefined IPM program. For more information about IPM andschool pest management, contact Beyond Pesticides.

Integrated Pest Management

a)

b)

c)

eliminates or mitigates economic and health dam-age caused by pests;

minimizes the use of pesticides and the risk to hu-man health and the environment associated with pes-ticide applications; and,

uses integrated methods, site or pest inspections, pestpopulation monitoring, an evaluation of the need forpest control, and one or more pest control methods,including sanitation, structural repairs, mechanicaland living biological controls, other non-chemicalmethods, and, if nontoxic options are unreasonableand have been exhausted, least toxic pesticides.

Page 18 Pesticides and You Vol. 22, No. 1, 2002Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

6 BEST COPY AVAILAITI,IF,

ll

Across the country, schools and communities thatare currently using 1PM strategies indicate that awell-managed IPM program is saving them money.

Following are just a few examples.

A school board member in Illinois has stated that "most[of the] schools utilizing IPM strategies [in his schooldistrict state] that IPM does not cost more, it just costsdifferently. Thus, a school having a problem with micemight install door sweeps to deny access instead ofcontinuously allocating funds for a pest control pro-fessional. Additionally, an 1PM program need not beburdensome with regard to personnel. Typically, it willrequire some light training, and it then integratesseamlessly into existing roles and responsibilities."

The Boulder Valley School District in Colorado hassaved thousands of dollars for pest management afterhiring a company that has successfully controlled theschools' pest problems with the implementation of anIPM program that does not use any toxic pesticides.5

Before Monroe County Schools in Bloomington, INimplemented an IPM program in 1995, it was spend-ing about $34,000 on pest management. With the hir-ing of an IPM Coordinator in 1997, and spending lessthan $1,000 per year on products, the school districtis saving around $13,600 a year in pest management.6

A survey of 21 Pennsylvania school districts foundthat 81 percent were able to control pest problemsusing 1PM with little or no change in costs.'

At Vista de las Cruces School in Santa Barbara, Cali-fornia, pest management was contracted out with apest control company for $1,740 per year for routinepesticide applications. After the school switched toan IPM program, their costs were reduced to a totalof $270 over two years.8

A school in Susquehanna, New York implemented

an IPM program after students were poisoned from apesticide misapplication. The school engineer statesthat they have cut costs by more than $1,000 per year"and the turf looks better than ever."

Mt. Lebanon School District in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania'sIPM program is "manageable and no more expensivethan using pesticides." The school district has imple-mented their IPM program since 2000 "at a relativelylow cost with improved playing surfaces." i°

A well-known example of school IPM is the Montgom-ery County, Maryland public schools. The 1PM pro-gram in Montgomery County covers 200 sites used byover 110,000 students and 12,000 employees. AlthoughGerman cockroaches are the biggest problem thecounty faces, they also manage rodents, termites, andstored food pests. The county successfully reduced pes-ticide use from 5,000 applications in 1985 to none fouryears later, saving the school district $1,800 per schooland $30,000 at the food service warehouse."

In another county in Maryland, the Anne Arundel SchoolDistrict reduced its pest control budget from $46,000 to$14,000 after its first year of IPM implementation.12

An 1PM program at the University of Rochester re-sulted in a 50 percent reduction in material costs anda substantial reduction in personnel costs."

The City of Santa Monica, California's IPM programfor the city's public buildings and grounds reducedthe cost of pest control services by 30 percent."

Albert Greene, Ph.D., National IPM Coordinator forthe U.S. General Services Administration, has imple-mented IPM in 30 million square feet, approximately7,000 federal buildings, in the U.S. capital area with-out spraying toxic insecticides. Dr. Greene states thatIPM, "can be pragmatic, economical and effective on amassive scale. "15

' U.S. EPA. 1993. Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting Integrated Pest Management. 735-F-93-012. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, DC.2 Spitzer, E. 2000. Pesticides Use at New York Schools: Reducing the Risk. Environmental Protection Bureau, Attorney General of New York State, p.20.3 Washington State Department of Ecology. 1999. Calculating the True Costs of Pest Control. Publication No. 99-433. Olympia, WA.4 Kusel, R. 2001. Member of the Board of Education, East Prairie District #73, Skokie, IL. Letter to U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee.

Gilpin, T. 2002. Personal Communication. Native Solutions, Inc., Boulder, CO.6 Carter, J. 2001. Personal Communication. Director of Planning, Monroe County Community School Corporation, Bloomington, IN.7 Wendelgass, B. 1997. Evaluation of Integrated Pest Management Use in Pennsylvania School Districts. Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund. Philadelphia, PA.

Boise, P. et al. 1999. Reducing Pesticides in Schools: How Two Elementary Schools Control Common Pests Using Integrated Pest Management Strategies.Community Environmental Council. Santa Barbara, CA.

e Safer Pest Control Project. 1998. Cost of IPM in Schools. Chicago, IL. Citing Angelo Ranieri. 1998. Building Engineer, Susquehanna, NY. Personal Communication.'° Smartschan, G.F. 2000. Superintendent of Schools, Mt. Lebanon School District, Pittsburgh, PA. Letter to U.S. Senator James Jeffords." Schubert, S. et al. 1996. Voices for Pesticide Reform: The Case for Safe Practices and Sound Policy. Beyond Pesticides, National Coalition Against the Misuse

of Pesticides and Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. Washington, DC.'2 Washington State Department of Ecology. 1999. Calculating the True Costs of Pest Control. Publication No. 99-433. Olympia, WA." 3 Spitzer, E. 2000. Citing Castronovo, P. 1999. Personal Communication. University of Rochester.14 Washington State Department of Ecology 1999. Citing U.S. EPA. 1998. The City of Santa Monica's Environmental Purchasing A Case Study. EPA 742-R-98-001.15 Greene, A. 1993. "Integrated Pest Management for Buildings." Pesticides and You 13(2-3). Washington, DC.

Vol. 22, No. 1, 2002 Pesticides and YouBeyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

7-rrrs rrl invcc7 ANITA ITN A TO IT l

Page 19

n

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

RIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").