FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PESTICIDE CONTROL ACT

FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 1971

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND

GENERAL LEGISLATION OF THE COMMITTEE

ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:08 a.m. in room 324, Old Senate Office Building, Senator James B. Allen presiding. Present: Senator Allen (presiding), and Senator Young. Senator ALLEN. The subcommittee will please come to order.

There is a quorum of the subcommittee present, so we will proceed with the hearing.

Dr. Shinkle I believe is to testify in lieu of Mr. Russell, is that correct?

Mr. SHINKLE. That is correct.

Senator ALLEN. You plan to give Mr. Russell's testimony?

Mr. SHINKLE. Yes, I do.

Senator ALLEN. Or independent testimony?

Mr. SHINKLE. Mr. Russell's testimony.

Senator ALLEN. If you will proceed, then, please, Dr. Shinkle.

Mr. SHINKLE. Due to Mr. Russell's absence and sickness, I have been asked to present his testimony.

Senator ALLEN. Yes, I understand.
Proceed, sir.

་་

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. RUSSELL, VICE PRESIDENT, TRAINING AND STANDARDS, ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., ATLANTA, GA., AS PRESENTED BY DR. MICHAEL SHINKLE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, MIDWEST REGION, ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., WAUKEGAN, ILL.

Mr. SHINKLE. I am appreciative of the opportunity to testify before this committee on this consequential legislation. My name is Robert Russell, and I am vice president of Training and Standards of the Orkin Exterminating Co. We are a division of Rollins, Inc. As you probably know, Orkin is the largest pest control and termite control company in the world. We operate in 35 States, in the District of Columbia, and in Mexico. Our interest in this bill is on behalf of our people and others in our industry who apply insecticides.

In structural pest control, we primarily treat buildings for household pests and for wood-destroying insects. These buildings are both residential and commercial structures. When these buildings are treated with insecticides, only certain parts or areas are treated. Thus,

(603)

59-044 0-71—39

we are treating selected areas and parts inside buildings in contrast to agricultural pest control where outside areas such as fields or crops are sprayed. At present, Orkin has approximately 1 million active contracts with residential and commercial customers for pest and termite control.

First, we want to state that we are in support of the basic intent of legislation to protect our communities from environmental contamination. The Orkin Co. constantly makes changes in choice of insecticides to better protect the environment. We accept that an overall and standardized approach can be most helpful.

You have previously heard the testimony of Dr. Ralph Heal of the National Pest Control Association. We generally support this position. There are, however, a few points in this bill which may reduce the efficiency of structural pest control programs. As these would result in increased cost to our customers, the general public, we would like to briefly emphasize their importance.

Regarding Senate 745, section 3 (a) (3), page 12, line 23, the legal requirement requiring skull and crossbones and "poison" for any "substance *** injurious to man" can be very broadly construed. Most anything can be "injurious" yet not everything should be categorized as "poison." Perhaps some attention should be directed to this section to improve the present designation of "poison." Section 4(d), page 18, line 18:

*** (2) Restricted use (1) General use *** (3) Use by permit only. In practice, there will only be two using groups, the general public and professionals, such as those in our company. We, therefore, feel that two categories corresponding to the two using groups is more logical. To attempt to differentiate within the professional groups would introduce a needless complication and, perhaps, an extra

expense.

Section 4(d) (2), page 19, line 12:

The term "approved pesticide applicator" is not clear to us insofar as designation is concerned. In our company and in our structural pest control industry, a servicing location is usually a branch office. The responsible person in charge for our company is a manager, and for many others in the industry, an owner or a manager. Thirty States have laws regulating the pest control industry. In all of these States, the manager or owner is the person who must be licensed, not the workman himself. This has been workable in practice for our industry, vet at the same time it has correctly assigned an accountable responsibility. We, thus, feel that "approved pesticide applicator" should be clearly designed as the person in charge of a multiperson location. This would be a manager or an owner. To attempt to license each workman would be a significant cost without parallel benefit to the public.

Section 4(d) (2), page 19, line 21:

We are also unsure of the term "license issued by the State." Will this mean new legislation in all States or new legislation in the 20 States without a present pest control law and perhaps amendments in the 30 that now have legislation? There would also be some question as to what could happen during the interim period until all States comply. Again, this might unwittingly lead to complications and serious inconveniences to the public.

Section 4(d) (2), page 20, line 5:

Perhaps in this same vein we may need close attention and clarification on the "standards as the Administrator shall approve." Whatever these standards may be, noncompliance could result in a loss of license and thus a rather drastic possibility such as a business closure. Section 4(d) (3), page 20, line 20:

As we only need two categories of chemicals, we only need two groups to use chemicals. Thus, there seems to be no need for an "approved pest management consultant." This term and function seems to overlap the "approved pesticide applicator." We do not believe we need to pay a fee to one professional to tell another professional how to do the work that is already described on the insecticide label which has been properly registered by law. Again, this classification does not now exist in our industry, and its introduction can seemingly only increase the cost to the public without further benefit.

At present in the pest control industry, training is generally conducted by each individual company. There is, however, a great deal of help in this field. The National Pest Control Association conducts and sponsors numerous conferences and workshops on subjects from technical to management and even to sales. Many prominent colleges and universities hold meetings and short courses. State associations also hold training sessions. For those who want, there is an abundance of information on all phases of pest control. I believe this information is available to all levels and all sizes of companies and at a very reasonable cost.

Referring to section 12, page 41, line 14, we thus hope we can eliminate that section outlining the use of Federal funds to train people as "approved pesticide applicators," et cetera. Let industry bear its own cost of doing business.

Regarding S. 232, whereas we accept S. 745 as good direction, we are quite concerned that S. 232 would ban all insecticides which are presently registered for termite control. There is no effective substitute, and I would like to reemphasize, no effective substitute, as noted by our Government authority, Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Their statement has been previously quoted in these hearings, and I realize you are familiar with it. We appeal to this committee to study this matter most carefully.

We feel that we should be permitted to retain aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, and heptachlor for termite control and that we can use them for this purpose so that they in no way constitute an environmental hazard.

Regarding S. 272, we recognize and accept that some control of DDT may be necessary. Our company has already voluntarily discontinued the use of DDT as an insecticide. This was done not because of health hazards or contamination possibility, but because we have other insecticides that we can use as effective substitutes. But, we do need to continue the use of DDT for the control of mice and bats. Both of these mammals are associated with disease transmission and DDT is the safest and most effective method of control.

We ask consideration that DDT be permitted for selective use where it is in the interest of public health, where it is the most effective material available, and where its use would in no way contribute to the contamination of the environment.

In summary, not all change is progress, but there probably is very little progress without change. We accept that there will always be change. We do, however, want to be sure that change will mean progress. Concern as a reason for change must be supported by facts. Mr. Chairman, for the pest control industry, for the Orkin and Rollins companies, I thank you very much for the opportunity of being here with you today.

(End of Mr. Russell's prepared statement as delivered by Mr. Shinkle.)

Mr. SHINKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Shinkle.

Did you participate in the preparation of Mr. Russel's testimony which you have just given?

Mr. SHINKLE. No: I did not.

Senator ALLEN. I see.

Now, I notice that there are some 20 States that do not have any pest control law at all according to the testimony.

Mr. SHINKLE. That is true.

Senator ALLEN. How do they operate? What sort of regulation is there of them?

Mr. SHINKLE. Some of them simply have no regulation unless it is a municipal regulation. There are municipal regulations, scattered municipal regulations, but this is diverse. I do not think I can comment as a general principle.

Senator ALLEN. Well, do you feel that there ought to be some regulation at the Federal level of pest control operators?

Mr. SHINKLE. If this helps coordinate the overall effort I think this is fine. Our company has been in this business for seventy-some years and have been regulated and we understand the implications of regulation by license. Regulation has not harmed us. In fact, if anything, it certainly has upgraded the overall standards of the industry.

Senator ALLEN. Actually, S. 745 in seeking to control the use of these compounds, pesticides, seeks to regulate the use not only by farmers but by pest control operators and also in the home. So it would seem as you have pointed out that it is difficult in the same language to control such diverse areas of use without causing some hardship to some of the levels. So actually your operation is considerably different from the operation of a farmer in that his application of a pesticide is out in an open field or an orchard, whereas your application is usually inside a house or in the basement or around the foundations. Is that correct?

Mr. SHINKLE. Yes, that is correct.

Senator ALLEN. So you are suggesting that some type of language be put in the bill that would draw a distinction between your operations and the operations of a farmer in the use of pesticides?

Mr. SHINKLE. This is right, or as an option, if additional legislation is necessary, separate the two categories by separate bills.

Senator ALLEN. Yes. Well, now, does any of the pesticide used by the termite eradicators, does that get into the air and into the water? Mr. SHINKLE. It can get into the air and can get into the water, but when we are using these materials listed for termite control, basically and generally they are restricted in placement, you see. If a concrete block void is drilled and the materials are placed in that void, they are

certainly restricted from movement. The location under the house is not to say that there is no movement at all but that there is very little movement, and so that, yes, vapor pressure of these materials being what it is, they move a little bit but not as much as some of the other materials.

Senator ALLEN. Do you think that the classifications ought to be reduced to two in number, the general use classification and the restricted use?

Mr. SHINKLE. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLEN. Now, I note that you are critical of the management consultant occupation or profession that is apparently created. That would go out with the elimination of the "by permit only" classification. The management consultant is not needed-not required under the bill as to the first two classifications. If the third classification is eliminated that apparently would eliminate the management consultant as well.

Mr. SHINKLE. As it refers to our industry, we would think that this should be eliminated as well. But we are saying nothing, of course, of the other industries, just simply the structural pest control industry, yes, that is right.

Senator ALLEN. You are suggesting that on the licensing of an applicator that the man in charge of the work is the only man that should be required to obtain a license, not each and every employee and workman.

Mr. SHINKLE. That is correct, and I think certainly a definition can be drawn forth to clarify this to benefit all types, all sizes of companies. This is correct. But as far as another category of another type of professional, we feel there is considerable overlap here. So that the responsibility and the liability should certainly be assigned to supervisory personnel, someone who is responsible for others or for the operation of the business.

Senator ALLEN. Do you have any idea of what percentage of the total production of pesticides is used or applied by the companies engaged in the so-called exterminating business?

Mr. SHINKLE. I am afraid not. I think Dr. Ralph Heal might have a better idea for the association and the industry as a whole. Senator ALLEN. Would you have any idea of the total volume in dollar amount of pesticides used by the pesticide exterminating companies?

Mr. SHINKLE. Industry? No, I would say not.

Senator ALLEN. But you do approve in general of some type of Federal regulation of the registration and use of pesticides. Some additional Federal regulation?

Mr. SHINKLE. Yes, if this Federal regulation is properly defined. I think this is probably as big a problem as any. There are certainly many ambiguities at the present time in relation to the meanings of words and as long as they are clarified, we see no reason why this cannot help the overall situation.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Shinkle. I am sure the committee will consider very carefully the suggestions that you have made and the proposed amendments that you have offered, sir.

Mr. SHINKLE. Thank you very much.

Senator ALLEN. Dr. Van den Bosch is our next witness.