The concept of PERS is ambitious: the addition of sources of information and the promise of expeditious corrective measures. Unfortunately there are flaws in this system that we feel may bring about a fate similar to PASS. For example, the report form is unwieldly and the personnel necessary for investigations are insufficient. Congress should urge EPA to develop a workable reporting system, mandatory if necessary, for collection of accident or adverse reaction reports that will generate the data necessary for use by the relevant components of the Agency. As long as pesticides are to be used, any adverse reactions should be reported and investigated, and the information used appropriately. Random information filed away in cabinets should not be tolerated when the risks involved might be preventable if their existence were known. d. Problems in Development of the National Pesticide Monitoring Plan. Administrative problems of coordination, overlap, and fragmentation of pesticide objectives among several federal agencies are amply illustrated in the development of the National Pesticide Monitoring Plan. (NPMP). In response to a Scientific Advisory Committee which in 1963 recommended expansion of monitoring programs to obtain systematic data on pesticide residues, and expansion and coordination of federal research programs concerned with pesticides, the NPMP was established by interagency arrangement between USDA, DHEW, and USDI. When EPA was established in December, 1970, many monitoring activities were transferred to EPA, and the 1972 FIFRA amendments made EPA the focal point for federal policies related to pesticide residue levels in the environment.20 In March 1975, Battelle Columbus Laboratories (BCL) reported on its evaluation of the NPMP, which had been requested by EPA. The 14 conclusions of BCL's report point up the fragmentation of objectives and the overlap problems. Among their findings were: a. EPA has no overall management control. The NPMP is made up of sub-program directors, responsible to different agencies. b. There is no sub-program accountability or operational continuity. c. There is no rationale to determine what pesticides are to be monitored. d. There is no consistent and comprehensive program of nationwide sampling. 21 e. Pesticide monitoring and use data are not correlated. f. Adequate pesticide use data are not available. g. There is no standardization of analytical techniques. The BCL recommended that (1) EPA develop an overall program experimental design which integrates both pesticide monitoring and pesticide research activities: and, (2) the responsibility of designing, coordinating and maintaining pesticide activities within the Federal Government should be placed in one office, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs. 22 The objectives laid out by the Scientific Advisory Committee in 1963 have yet to be fulfilled. With a fifth draft of the NPMP in progress now, and the BCL evaluation in hand, EPA may need a Congressional deadline to aid in reaching the monitoring and research goal. In the course of the hearings conducted by the House Agriculture Committee May 12-16, several recommendations were offered to extend various deadlines for final publication dates. EPA Deputy Administrator John Quarles stated that EPA not only did not want any extensions at this time, but the Agency regarded most deadlines as "psychological prodding" to get the job done. EDF, as indicated by our testimony, would oppose any unnecessary and unwanted extension of deadlines. If any changes are made, we would urge the repeal of the indemnities provision (§ 15), an adverse reaction reporting requirement, and the imposition of more deadlines (§§ 19, 20 (c), 25(c) (3)). [Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.] 19 H. Rep. 92-511, 92d Cong., 1st sess. 11 (1971). 20 Sec. 20(c) of the amended FIFRA requires the Administrator to develop and implement a national strategy on pesticides in the environment, including a NPMP. 21 BCL Report at 6. 22 Id. at 6, 140. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS FILED FOR THE RECORD STATEMENT OF R. M. RUSSELL VICE PRESIDENT, TRAINING AND STANDARDS, NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT, ORKIN EXTERMINATING Co., INC., ATLANta, Ga. Mr. Chairman, I am appreciative of the opportunity to submit testimony to this committee on this consequential legislation. My name is Robert Russell, and I am Vice President of Training and Standards of the Orkin Exterminating Company. We are a division of Rollins, Inc. As you probably know, Orkin is. the largest structural pest control and termite control company in the world. We operate in 39 states, in the District of Columbia, and in Mexico and Jamaica. Our interest in this bill is on behalf of our people and others in our industry who must abide by this new law. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL INDUSTRY AS AFFECTED BY AMENDED FIFRA 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, we are usually 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 1,000,000 active contracts with residential and commercial customers for pest and termite control. To comply with Amended FIFRA, we must qualify through written examination (the certification process) all of our supervisory employees who supervise the use of restricted use pesticides. All uses of those pesticides must now be consistent with the label. All who use these pesticides must be carefully trained and under contact supervision of the certified applicator. If pesticides are used inconsistent with the label, the user and certified applicator are subject to penalties up to a fine of $25,000 and/or one year imprisonment. We willingly accept these responsibilities for we feel that the 92nd Congress, in its wisdom, passed a sound and fair law in Public Law 92-516. We feel very strongly, however, that the regulations which will govern our livelihood should reflect only those stipulations in the law, and as described by legislative history. Innovations and theoretical concepts introduced by EPA, where not included in the law, have no place in either published or proposed regulations. As a member of National Pest Control Association, we also support the testimony of the Executive Director, Richard Eldredge. All of the points that he offers are of importance to our industry and the public we serve. We felt, however, that the points we noted here are of maximum importance and needed total emphasis by our industry. II. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL INDUSTRY AND EPA DURING IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDED FIFRA To assure this country's continued agricultural plenty and to protect the environment, Congress justly discharged its duty in passage of Amended FIFRA. To implement this law is the weighty burden of EPA. To assure that it will be done in fairness to all affected, requires all the resource that can be assembledgovernment, industry, associations, and public. In the complexity of implementation we recognize the possibility of error. We are also very appreciative of the many officials of EPA who have welcomed in dustry input. We would, however, hope that as implementation continues, two things could be done. First, that industry inquiry by letter or otherwise always receive a response. And second, that communication between industry and EPA become a twoway street. Up until now, the street has been primarily one-way, with industry having to go to EPA. As our structural pest control industry has extensive experience and we hope some expertise, we believe that EPA can use us to learn about our industry and how best the laws and regulations that govern us will benefit the public in application. Our industry association, NPCA, furnishes part of this contact, but we in business believe that industry itself, where cost-benefit is a constant factor, is a resource that can be much more fully utilized by EPA. III. REGULATIONS PROPOSED BY EPA THAT EXCEED THE LAW 1. The Introduced Concept of Recertification 2. Accident Reporting, an Addition to the Law The two most prominent examples of EPA's disregard of the letter of the law and the intent of Congress are as follows: 1. Recertification.—The law provides for certification of those who use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides. Though there is no mention in law or in the legislative history of recertification or reexamination, EPA has innovated the concept of re-examination or recertification for commercial and private applicators. The nonnecessity of this course is established by the following facts: First, there is no legal authority in the law for this practice. Second, of the thirty-two States regulating pesticides prior to Amended FIFRA, none embodied this concept. So no precedent existed either in law or custom. Third, the concept of requalification is not required for doctors, pharmacists, lawyers, accountants, or other professions where it might be even more critical to keep up with change. Fourth, the myth of rapid change requiring periodic up-dating in pesticide technology is a myth. In actuality, it does not exist. Fifth, the fine safety record of pesticide usage, both in industry and in agriculture, preclude the necessity of introducing a burdensome and costly system that serves no useful purpose. Sixth, requalification, by some quirk, might well cost the business livelihood of many experience and trained people. In addition, there could be severe economic loss to investors and consequently higher cost to the public. On numerous occasions, several members of our industry, our association, and even members of the Congress, have asked that EPA explain its authority under the law for this regulation. None of those inquiring have ever received a proper reply. As EPA cannot quote an authority for this innovation, we feel that they should withdraw from all its rules and regulations all mention of reexamination, recertification, or any comparable system that requires requalification for either commercial or private applicators. 2. Accident reporting.-Again, there is no mention of this practice in the statutes of Amended FIFRA. We grant that this year it is only on a voluntary basis, but in our experience with the bureaucratic process, each step is inevitably followed by the next and each in succession is more rigorous and restrictive than the preceding. Yet, EPA is trying to establish this negative approach, first on a voluntary basis, and then, we are sure, to make the practice mandatory. Let EPA concentrate on training, a positive approach to assure further safe use of pesticides, rather than the bureaucratic process of a report system. We regret that to some, the writing of a report, the periodic submission of a detailed form, and the collecting of reports and forms is misguidedly accepted as a solution. In our opinion, efforts should be directed to prevention of accidents rather than to reporting them. We suggest that each of the following points might help by reducing paper work to industry and to the states and cost to the public. 1. So that EPA can maximize the safe and economic implementation of Amended FIFRA, we suggest the formation of an Industry-Public FIFRA Imple mentation Advisory Committee. This could serve complimentary to the State Federal Committee formed as noted in the Federal Register of Friday, April 25, 1975. State-Federal is entirely from a regulatory standpoint and we believe an Industry-Public Committee would open up new and valuable resource to EPA in its implementation of Amended FIFRA. 2. In addition, we invite those appropriate regulation-making officials of EPA to visit with us in our offices and on our work projects. Not once, but several times and as often as they wish. See us as we are; learn of us from first-hand knowledge. We think this would be valuable, for in our numerous calls upon EPA offi cials, we have yet to meet one person in the agency who has ever worked in or made a living in structural pest control. It would seem to us to be difficult to regulate fairly and economically without such first-hand knowledge. The inspection visits would then permit their officials to work together with our industry to develop directions and regulations which will fairly implement the word and intent of Congress. 3. Further, we recommend that recertification or reexamination or requalification, however it is called, be abolished from EPA regulations. The same would apply to even voluntary accident reporting. The same should apply to any other innovations or introductions by EPA that are not specifically provided for in the law. First, Gentlemen, let's try the law as passed by Congress. Then, if we still need improvement, we can deliberate and select alternate courses or additional practices. But before the law is even fully implemented, let's not rush pell-mell down alternative paths which will increase the cost burden to the public and intensify the bureaucratic process to States and industry. 4. In our opinion, it might also help if scientific questions be settled on a thirdparty basis. At present, it seems that EPA scientists sometime see one side and industry scientists sometime see another. Perhaps then such scientific bodies as the National Academy of Science could impartially consider all evidence and make a proper and fair determination. It is rather disturbing to see pesticides cancelled where EPA serves as both judge and jury on the scientific evidence presented and then pesticides are removed from the market. 5. It might be of continued benefit if this Committee can periodically review the progress of FIFRA. In coming together in this review process every six months, government, industry and agriculture should do everything in their power to perpetuate and safely extend one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time, the American Food Supply. A periodic formal review might well assist in this objective. 6. The present law, Amended FIFRA, is sound and workable. We think it should be continued, but with clear direction to EPA to conform. If they cannot follow the direction of Congress, our country does not need their service. We would hate to see the law returned to the floor of Congress and open for amendments. If so, we feel the law could be radically altered by amendments and all the work, all the monies expended in its formation and first three years will be wasted. If most agree the law is sound, then let's not change the law, but let's make changes where the unsoundness occurs. Food is a basic essential of life. The greatest agriculture the world has ever known amply provides the food needs of this country. The role of pesticides contributes to the high productivity of our agricultural system-on the farm, in transit, in production, in storage, in distribution, and even in the consumer's home. To assure the perpetuation of the world's greatest food production system, we ask that this Committee guide EPA in its implementation of Amended FIFRA. We feel sure that EPA, if in sincere interest, will follow the guidance of this Committee. May I thank you, Gentlemen, for permitting me to present for my company, Orkin, and the structural pest control industry we represent, our viewpoints re EPA and Amended FIFRA. Mr. MICHAEL MCLEOD, UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C., June 25, 1975. Staff Director, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MIKE: Attached is correspondence and material I received from Dr. Philip J. Spear of the National Pest Control Association, Inc., located in Vienna, Virginia. I referred this material to the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain a report on the issues discussed in Dr. Spear's letter and attachments. I have just received a reply from EPA and am including this response with the file for the Committee's inclusion in the record for the hearing on S. 1629, the FIFRA legislation. I believe this information will be useful when S. 1629 is reported out of the Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation, which has completed its hearings on this subject. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely yours, Enclosures. JAMES B. ALLEN. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Hon. JAMES B. ALLEN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ALLEN: Mr. Train has asked me to reply to your letter of May 22, 1975, concerning Dr. Philip J. Spear's correspondence with your office. In his letter Dr. Spear directs your attention to the problem of controlling pests where no effective pesticide is registered. The Agency recognizes the problems encountered in the structural pest control industry and the need to use registered pesticides against unnamed target pests when no pesticide is registered to control a pest in a given environmental circumstance. On May 5, 1975, the Agency published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice entitled "Institution of Enforcement Policy Statements." It is the purpose of this series of Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statements (PEPS) to inform the pesticide industry and the public of policies developed by the Agency in the enforcement of the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. as amended. A draft PEPS entitled "Use of Registered Pesticides on Unnamed Target Pests in Structural Pest Control" has been prepared by the Office of Enforcement. A copy of this draft was given to Dr. Spear on May 30, 1975, for his review and comment. Comments on the draft policy statement were received from Dr. Spear by the Agency in a letter of June 9, 1975. These comments are being considered by the Agency and will be incorporated in the forthcoming policy statement where appropriate. A notice of the enforcement policy on this issue will be published in the coming weeks. I appreciate your longstanding interest in the position of the Agency regarding the use of registered pesticides against unnamed target pests by the structural pest control industry. I trust that the prompt resolution of this problem in a Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statement will allow effective pesticide regulation by the Agency and will serve the specific needs of the structural pest control industry. I would be pleased to receive any further comments relating to this issue or to the implementation of enforcement policy in the future. Sincerely yours, ROBERT L. BAUM, Acting Assistant Administrator for General Enforcement. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT, PESTICIDE I. General background FOR On May 5, 1975, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register a document entitled "Institution of Enforcement Policy Statements" (40 FR 19526). It was the Agency's purpose in instituting this series of Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statements (PEPS) to inform persons engaged in the formulation, distribution, sale, application or other use of pesticides, as well as interested segments of the general public, of policies adopted by the Agency in the enforcement of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (Pub. L. 92-516: 86 Stat. 973; 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; hereinafter referred to as FIFRA). These PEPS are prepared and published by EPA's Office of |