Termite Control: Can You Afford To Use Less Than The Label Rate?

On July 27, 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued its draft Pesticide Regulation (PR) notice regarding termiticide labeling in the Federal Register (59 FR 38172). The agency was on the verge of taking action on the PR notice earlier this year by convening a work group to hammer out its final details when the government went through a series of shutdowns that delayed publication of the final rule.

The National Pest Control Association, state regulatory officials and several pest control operators have worked with the EPA to create product labels that best meet the needs of the consumer, the environment and the industry, with one exception: post-construction applications. But before discussing that major aspect of the PR notice, I want to address the proposed changes that are without question in the best interest of all concerned.

The NPCA has proposed a number of changes to the PR notice that are worthy of note; they will be addressed here. The EPA proposed that termiticides be classified as Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs), most likely in an effort to keep them out of the hands of consumers and to ensure some training or supervision of their use. Termiticides should not, as a matter of course, be classified as RUPs; classification should be based on the same criteria as any other product.

SAFETY ISSUES. The use of personal protective equipment should be based on a two-tier system: mixing/handling and application. Products are diluted as much as 50 to 100 times and applied to the soil at low pressure, reducing the risk of exposure to high concentrations during application. In this situation it is often sufficient to wear long pants, a shirt, shoes, socks, and chemical-resistant gloves.

Other worker protection standards would require the use of fans to exhaust crawl spaces during application. In these situations, proper respiratory protection for the applicator should be sufficient. A nonapplicator issue in the PR notice was keeping construction workers out of the pre-construction site during application, and posting warning signs. Because of the minimal risk of exposure, this appears to be overkill.

The EPA proposed prohibiting the treatment of dwellings with wells and cisterns within the foundation. As there are procedures for dealing with these situations excavation, treatment and replacement this is an unnecessary requirement.

Specific instructions for the mixing and use of foam technology, something everyone should have in their tool chest, will be addressed on new labels. Mixing instructions will be more specific and there will probably be provisions for variable application rates.

A new section was proposed with regard to the treatment of structures with basements and the depth of treatment. Current labels suggest treatment to the footing regardless of depth, and some states have taken enforcement action. The practicality of the situation is that we do not have tools that allow us to treat more than about 4 feet vertically. It is ludicrous to expect a technician to get on an 8-foot ladder and try to rod to the footing on a full in-ground basement. Drilling through from the exterior is not a viable option. Unfortunately there is no known research on the depth of termite colonies or foraging. But I believe we can safely assume in most circumstances it is below the frost line or the colony would not survive the winter. Thus it has been recommended that basements with footers more than 4 feet below grade be treated to a depth of 2 to 4 feet unless there is evidence of activity occurring below the treated depth. In no case should the technician treat below the footer.

Under the provisions of this PR notice, the EPA will continue to require the demonstration of five years' efficacy for registration of conventional soil termiticides. This would not apply to baits and other products with different modes of action. While currently registered termiticides meet this standard as measured by the concrete slab test, most fail in some sites, providing only one to two years of repellency in the ground board test. This test, which is analogous to exterior perimeter treatments, sheds light on the problems we are having with the current termiticides.

LABEL RATES. Furthermore, the products are often registered for use at lower concentrations than those tested. Manufacturers and researchers have done soil residue analysis and bioassays that in some circumstances show significant decomposition in a short period of time. The reasons the termiticides decompose in soil still elude us, but the fact remains that they do, and more quickly on the exterior perimeter and in the upper layer of soil. Other studies have shown that termiticide distribution in the soil is a major factor in establishing a continuous barrier. We have therefore emphasized the need to maximize the volume of product being applied depending on soil type and moisture content. So if we want to get five years' longevity out of a soil termiticide, we had better use at least the minimum label rate, if not the maximum.

The NPCA has taken several steps to deal with the problem of persistence and guarantees. It has been recommended that the EPA relax the current label requirements that permit reapplication only when there is evidence of reinfestation or when the barrier has been disturbed. This recommendation would permit retreatment of the exterior at no less than two-year intervals. In addition, retreatment of the entire structure would be permitted at no less than five-year intervals unless reinfestation occurs within the first two years of treatment.

The PR notice proposed that termiticide labels require application at the minimum label rate for pre- and post-construction treatments. Originally the NPCA concurred with this approach with several caveats for post-construction treatments. In recent discussions with the EPA, however, it was agreed that the agency would remain silent on the issue of post-construction, in essence preserving FIFRA 2(ee) for termiticides. You may recall that this provision of FIFRA allows any product to be applied at less than the label rate unless prohibited by the label. It is interesting to note in the 1970s (during the chlordane era), the EPA published a Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statement (PEPS) which stated that all products except termiticides, rodenticides and disinfectants could be applied at less than the label rate. When FIFRA was amended in 1988, this PEPS was incorporated and the exception disappeared.

BEFORE VS. AFTER. These proposed changes are great for the pretreat market and will give the states some regulatory leverage over lowballers. But where does this leave the consumer in the post-construction market? As an industry, we have an obligation to protect consumers' greatest investment their homes. Yet I am increasingly concerned about this issue because consumers continue to be confronted with recurrent termite problems and companies returning year after year to honor their retreatment warranty but failing to solve the problem. Or worse yet, the company operating in Virginia that performs post-construction treatments using a 2-gallon compressed air sprayer to treat the perimeter of the structure. How convenient FIFRA 2(ee) is for a company like this, when they say it's legal.

It's time we take a stand on the issue of post-construction treatments. The NPCA originally proposed the following wording: "When making a post-construction application, do not apply at a lower dosage or concentration than specified on the label unless there are specific environmental, physical or other valid reasons. In the event that this prod uct is used at a lower dosage or concentration than specified on this label, commercial applicators must document the reason for using this product at a lower dosage or concentration than specified on this label." Stick to your guns and try to maximize the benefit to the consumer.

The evidence is overwhelming in terms of the need to maximize the amount of product being applied if we intend to protect someone's home and guarantee our work for any amount of time. Termite control is not routine pest control, where we service the structure on a monthly, quarterly or even an annual basis. I don't think any of us as reasonable persons would tolerate the continued presence or reinfestation of termites every year.

We need to get behind all these changes in the termiticide labels, including post-construction treatment. So contact the NPCA, your state regulatory agency and the EPA and let them know how you feel.