51st Annual ASPCRO Meeting Opens Up Critical Dialogue

A Mosquito misting panel at this year’s ASPCRO meeting included (from left to right): Bonnie Rabe, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, Randy Elkins, Coastal Mosquito Control, Joe Conlon, American Mosquito Control Association, Mike Page, Florida Dept. of Agriculture, Pest Control Bureau Chief, and Kevin Casky, McLaughlin Gormley King Co.

CHARLESTON, S.C. — The 51st annual conference of the Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials (ASPCRO), held Aug. 25-29 in Charleston, S.C., was filled with subtle and not-so subtle differences this year. Participation among state pest control regulators, EPA officials, pest management professionals, researchers, distributors, manufacturers and others, created important dialogue at this year’s meeting.

EPA UPDATES. With the exception of termiticide registration issues, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rarely figures significantly in the ASPCRO meeting agenda. This year, however, Kevin Keaney, chief, certification & worker protection branch, EPA, provided presentations on a number of ongoing EPA initiatives.

Of particular interest is the effort to improve the 30-plus-year-old applicator certification program. This effort includes, among other things, efforts to standardize certification categories, examinations, and recertification requirements. EPA hopes to make it easier for states to reciprocate with neighboring states on certification and recertification. Voluntary and mandatory program changes will be used to accomplish this goal.

EPA also is working toward mandatory and improved voluntary recycling programs. Although voluntary recycling programs have been successful, the sustainability of these programs has been questioned and pesticide registrant participation is not universal. EPA is considering a recycling rule and program that would be mandatory for agricultural and specialty professional registrants and voluntary for retailers and end users. The program may also include registrant flexibility to tailor programs to their needs, exemptions for the smallest registrants and the use of third party entities to certify rinsing and recycling. EPA hopes to publish the proposed rule in late 2007.

In a state legislative update, Gene Harrington, director of government affairs, NPMA, provided a detailed report of state legislative activity. State legislatures have been active in the past year in a wide variety of areas including: sunset review of structural pest control laws; school IPM; other health and environmental issues; and licensing requirements for both SPC and home inspections and mold control and remediation. Based on Harrington’s report, it is reasonable to assume that this level of activity is likely to increase in future.

A trio of panel discussions highlighted this year's meeting: Mosquito Misting, Regulating Termiticides, and Wood Treatments [for termites].

MOSQUITO CONTROL PANEL
Bonnie Rabe, New Mexico Department of Agriculture
Randy Elkins, Coastal Mosquito Control
Joe Conlon, American Mosquito Control Association
Kevin Casky, McLaughlin Gormley King Co.
Mike Page, Florida Dept. of Agriculture, Pest Control Bureau Chief

With the advent of mosquito misting systems, mosquito control became a significant and controversial issue in the structural pest control industry. State regulatory and PCO concerns are many and include: the qualifications of these non-traditional applicators entering into the business of mosquito control; the ability of property owners to override timed misting systems and apply pesticide at potentially inappropriate times; resistance management; drift and pesticide exposure in residential and commercial settings; effects on beneficial insects; liability; and the lack of adequate label language in either the use directions or precautionary statements when pesticides are applied through automated misting systems.

ASPCRO and NPMA efforts have yielded considerable progress in resolving many of these issues. An ASPCRO/NPMA workgroup was developed and has published best management practices (BMPs) and advertising guidelines for mosquito misting. Label use directions have been refined for products intended to be used in misting systems while others not intended for the purpose now clearly prohibit their use in such systems. Exposure issues have been addressed by EPA in the reregistration of pyrethrin insecticides. Equipment design and installation have improved, in part as a result of the continuing dialogue of the workgroup, as has the general level of education of applicators and regulators.

The NPMA / ASPCRO workgroup continues its work and plans to develop model rules, based on the BMPs and advertising guidelines that states may use to aid in regulation of the industry.

REGULATING TERMITICIDE PANEL
Joe Debrow, Alabama Department of Agriculture
Lisa Gervase, Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Jim Harron, Georgia Department of Agriculture
Mark Suarez, EPA
Bo Davis, EPA

This year’s ASPCRO meeting also included a panel that dealt with the regulation of termiticides. Panel members included (from left to right): Lisa Gervase, Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission, Jim Harron, Georgia Department of Agriculture, Bo Davis, EPA, Mark Suarez, EPA and Joe Debrow, Alabama Department of Agriculture.

Although this panel covered some of the expected areas with typical responses, the most interesting discussion centered on new thinking among the regulatory community. Most remarkably, regulatory personnel seemed much more willing to consider innovative termite control strategies and very different means of regulating termite control than did the PCOs in attendance.

This discussion centered around the new perimeter treatment labels and the possibility that termiticides of less than five-year efficacy, or even “kills only,” might be registered in the future. Of the panel members, only Gervase expressed a negative opinion toward the possibility of less than five-year efficacy. Both Harron and Debrow acknowledged that there may be a place for such products in the future provided mechanisms such as more frequent inspections are put in place to compensate for the shorter longevity.

All panel members acknowledged that innovation would continue and would challenge efforts to regulate and that current and future innovations would require better trained PMPs with individually designed control programs.

WOOD TREATMENT DISCUSSION PANEL
Greg Crosslin, Attorney
Kevin Kirkland, Nisus Corporation
Lisa Gervase, Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission
Rick Bell, Arrow Exterminators
Dr. Brian Forschler, University of Georgia
Mike Page, Florida Dept. of Ag., Pest Control Bureau Chief
Mark Suarez, EPA

This discussion derived from the work of the ASPCRO Borate [Termite] Treatment Committee. This committee was established to examine the efficacy of borate termite treatments, determine what constitutes a “proper” treatment, and to assess the ability of regulators to ensure proper treatments. Of the approximately 20 products making structural protection claims, only one, BoraCare®, has submitted data for registration. According to several panelists, BoraCare treatments are showing a very low incidence of failure. Forschler captured the essence of the issue in pointing out that there is no standard test protocol for evaluating the efficacy of these products. Regulatory decisions made in the absence of standardized tests will ultimately result in the marketplace determining which work and which do not. The ASPCRO Borate Treatment Committee will continue working to resolve questions surrounding these treatments and products.