Chairman Stone: Welcome all, it's 9:30, we should
begin now. Welcome to all of you, we're glad you’re here.
Apparently there is a lot of interest based on the number of slips
to request speaking time. If you have something you want to say
to the Board, you need to fill out one of these little slips that's
on the table in the back. We're glad to have each of you here,
and the Board Members. Even the ones that are partially ill. Let's
begin with having the Board Members introduce themselves.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Phil Tham,
representing Texas Department of Agriculture; Terry Johnson, Texas
Department of Health sitting in for Elias Briseno by proxy; Madeline
Gamble, public member, Dallas; Lee Morrison, industry member,
San Antonio; Tommy Cantu, industry member, McAllen; Dr. Roger
Gold, Texas A&M University, College Station; Les Hoyt, public
member, Amarillo, Dr. Jay Stone, Chairman, industry member, Lubbock,
Texas.
Members absent: Elias Briseno, Texas Department
of Health
BOARD STAFF PRESENT: Dale Burnett,
Executive Director; Frank Crull, General Counsel; Rita Martinez,
Deputy Administrator; Barbara Luedecke, Administrative Technician;
Mike Buchanan, State Investigator; Murray Walton, Program Administrator;
Mike Kelly, Project Coordinator.
Chairman Stone: Is Elias ill?
Mr. Johnson: No sir, he had an emergency situation
that needed his attention, so he's out of town addressing that.
Chairman Stone: Okay. Glad he's not ill.
Agenda Item I. Approval of Board Minutes
of November 13, 2001.
Chairman Stone: Let us begin with approval of the
Board minutes which is item number one before we get to the public
comments. This is the minutes of the last meeting. Are there any
corrections, additions, deletions to the minutes? If there are
none, I will need a motion to approve the minutes.
Mr. Morrison: I motion
Ms. Gamble: Second.
(page 2)
Chairman Stone: Motion seconded to approve the minutes
as presented in the Board book. All in favor say "aye"
. Response "aye". Opposed? None. Motion passes.
Agenda Item II. General Public Comments.
We will move then to the Public Comment section.
We have quite a few people who have requested time to speak. As
in the past, it's historical with the Board we allow three-minute
presentations before the Board. I'll call them in the order they
are stacked here and we would ask that you limit your time to
the three minutes. Dale is the timekeeper and the muscle in the
room, so he will be picking up on whoever does not. First one,
we will start with on this stack is Debbie Aguirre. I guess you
were the last one they handed me.
Ms. Aguirre: I know.
Chairman Stone: Good to have you Debbie.
Ms. Aguirre: Thank you. It's been a while since
this Board has had the pleasure of my company.
Dr. Gold: Good morning Debbie
Ms. Aguirre: Good morning. Morning Lee, Tommy, nice
to see ya'll. You can start now with the timer. Well, as I was
glancing through the website like I normally do, about once a
week, I happen to come across the agenda and on it was a section
that was going to talk about fumigation and the need to further
train. I wasn't real up on the, what the specific topic was going
to be about, so I called Murray and I asked and he gave me kind
of a highlight of what was supposed to, apparently it's just up
for discussion. For those of you that don't know me, to know that,
that's primarily the type of work that we do, my business, mine
and my husband's, and I don't mean to be critical of this Board
but I need to bring a little fact to you. When I saw it, I got
a little bit shaky and I got shivers down my back that ya'll were
going to mess with this section again or not mess with it but
really hearing discussion. It was this Board that allowed heating
to be part of a remedy for drywood termites and we all know what
a joke that ended up being. Additionally, the last time the Board
made any amendments to this particular section, ya'll changed
it, and it is now the way the amendment reads now, or the new
rule reads now, it's in complete violation of the stewardship
policy and the product label. So again, I'm a little bit worried.
It's a little bit confusing to fumigators when they look at the
law and then they look at the label and they look about following
stewardship, and it's a complete, I should say it doesn't match.
So, it is my understanding that the discussion will revolve around
the need to have additional training or a training requirement
before somebody is allowed to look at being in the business of
fumigation or maybe for further licensing or to add on a category
for licensing. Any legitimate fumigator that is a fumigator that
does their business the right way and conducts their business
the right way is not going to be opposed to this, okay, any legitimate
fumigator anybody that's concurrently doing it the right way.
Fumigation is probably the most dangerous aspect of our industry
as opposed to general pest control, so many may be affected by
not applying the product correctly, may get an asthma attack,
or may have some side affect, but if you do a fumigation incorrectly,
and you overdose, then the changes are that the danger is much
greater and your going to die, your going to be dead. So those
of you that are public members should be more concerned about
the regulation as it governs us right now. Additionally, if it's
not done correctly, and it goes the other way where enough fumigant
is not used, then it's fraud because it wasn't done correctly.
A lot of times we run across a situation where people become licensed,
that come three times to take the exam, finally on the third time
they're lucky enough to pass the test probably because they've
(page 3)
memorized the question. Another issue I have with
this Board about testing, but eventually they get their license,
they go on to conduct business not knowing exactly what the fundamentals
are of fumigation. It's a great concern because I have to compete
against these people. This is reality looking you in the face;
okay I know that in the past ya'll always like to look at stuff
that happens on a day-to-day basis. I'm going to keep these to
myself because some of these I have turned in to the State and
in the past it's been a slap on the hand or basically something
that says "Oh Debbie, you know, sorry about that, they made
a mistake." Proposals, disclosure documents incorrectly filled
talking about, is that my three minutes?
Mr. Burnett: That's three minutes.
Chairman Stone: Finish your thought.
Ms. Aguirre: Okay, basically we have a disclosure
that talks about injecting two hundred pounds of fumigant, Dr.
Gold, into a structure that's twenty-thousand cubic feet. That
may not be so bad you got powder post beetles meaning well it's
over one hundred pounds of gas, but then eighty pounds of Chloropicrin
into the house
Dr. Gold: Oh, eighty pounds.
Ms. Aguiree: Eighty pounds the entire city would
have to be evacuated had I not gotten this job or these would
people would of shocked this structure according to the specifications
of their disclosure document. Real fun, this is what I deal with
on a day-to-day basis. (unclear) we need to really look at what
we can do to enhance the fumigation process. Real quick, your
investigators and I'm not being critical of them, but you really
need to look at investing in their training, and their knowledge,
and the equipment to be able to come to a fumigation site and
know exactly what they are doing. The ability to monitor a job,
the ability to walk into that structure safely to ensure that
fumigant was used, that Chloropicrin was used. Without it, you
know, a fumigator could be deceiving the public, deceiving the
Board, and you'd never know. I can't stress enough how educated
they need to be in the process. Thank you, I have several other
issues but…
Dr. Gold: Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stone: You have a question?
Dr. Gold: Can we question the public comment?
Chairman Stone: Sure.
Dr. Gold: Debbie, are you in favor of requiring
on the job training before licensing other then just taking an
exam now?
Ms. Aguirre: Yes I am.
Dr. Gold: Thank you.
Ms. Aguirre: And I'm a fumigator, and it's not about
limiting competition. It's about fair game, fair play, okay. Thank
you.
Chairman Stone: The next one in my stack here is
Jim Schumacher.
(page 4)
Mr. Schumacher: Good morning. I'd like to thank
Dr. Stone and the Board for giving me this time, and I'd like
to acknowledge Dale Burnett's presence in the marketplace. Dale,
your presence is being felt out there, you're making a difference,
and we appreciate it.
Mr. Burnett: Thank you.
Mr. Schumacher: Now, you can start my clock.
Mr. Burnett: What clock is that?
Dr. Gold: You mean your four minutes?
Mr. Schumacher: I would like to ask the Board to
raise the bar. The entry levels of qualifications, experience
required to have a business license in this State is woefully
inadequate. Twelve months experience in this industry does not
prepare an individual for doing a good job in this industry. When
I first raised this issue to this Board just over two years ago,
I held up as standards, the other trades in the state, the plumbers,
the electricians, and the air conditioning people. We pale by
comparison to the entry requirements that they require the people
to go in business in their trades. We even pale by comparison
to our neighbors to the east, Louisiana, in the pest control industry.
Their Board seeks to protect their consumers more then our Board
seeks to protect the consumers of Texas. The issues here have
to do primarily with long-term contracts. If we have a PCO that
goes out and does a termite treatment, collects thousands of dollars
from a consumer, and then fails and goes out of business because
he is ill prepared, that consumer is left hung with a worthless
piece of paper, an orphan contract that has no value. That impacts
all of us in this industry negatively. In the timeframe since
we initially talked, the Plumbers Examining Board, State of Texas,
saw to add more to their requirements. They broadened the gap
between us and them in the last two years. They now have an educational
requirement that pertains to business practices. They actually
test master plumbers for their prowess in the business world before
giving that license out. While I'm frustrated that the Board's
inaction over the last two years, I see progress. I appreciate
the attempt that you're making to look at the fumigation license
and strengthening that, hopefully, when you get through with the
analysis of it, respectfully though, I bring to your attention
there are probably ten million people in this state who have never
seen a fumigation tent. Their risk is not Methyl Bromide, their
risk is a financial risk that falls upon them because they pick
the wrong pest control company. One that is not trained, one that
is not prepared, one that is in the business prematurely based
on their level of experience and qualifications. Please address
this issue.
Chairman Stone: Thank you Jim. The next on my stack
is Warren Remmey. Welcome Warren.
Dr. Gold: Good Morning.
Mr. Remmey: Good morning. The first fumigation that
I did in I would guess 1974 or 75 was ordered by the manager of
the company that I worked for, and it was three cans of Methyl
bromide and an ice pick, and he told me to poke a hole in the
cans and throw them under the house and run. I didn't know any
better. I wasn't scared because I didn't know to be scared. But
since that time, I have learned a lot, and I continue to be a
fumigator and my point is that I just wanted to reiterate about
the training, having knowledgeable people out there in the fumigation
industry. I do think that on the job training is really a must.
With my people, I'm training them all the time as we go in fumigation,
and they're taught that everything is meticulous in a fumigation,
all the way down the line because your dealing with a very sophisticated
process, and
(page 5)
you can't take anything for granted. So, I would
hope that ya'll really look at the on the job training aspect
in the law.
Chairman Stone: Okay, thank you Warren.
Dr. Gold: Warren, before you leave, how much training
and how would it be regulated? Have any ideas on that?
Mr. Remmey: I honestly haven't thought enough about
it. I can give you feedback later, after I really jell in my mind,
but I would say a minimum of two years, minimum of two years.
Mr. Cantu: Warren, is it safe to say no structural
fumigation could be done with one person?
Mr. Remmey: I think so. Absolutely.
Mr. Cantu: Okay, so basically, what I'm getting
at is, if we have a lot of inexperienced operators out there,
it's reasonable not to believe that their help is even further
inexperienced and it poses a greater danger to them.
Mr. Remmey: Absolutely.
Chairman Stone: That's a good point.
Mr. Remmey: Absolutely. Rookies, they're taken out
of the pest control field because their route is low, and they
don't have a lot of work to do, you're going to go work with the
fumigators today. They have no concept of what they're really
doing out there.
Mr. Cantu: And chances are if we have a fumigator
that's left his employer to start fumigation on his own, he'd
probably have someone that has zero knowledge of the industry.
Mr. Remmey: Scary, very scary.
Chairman Stone: Warren let me ask you one. The question,
the problem that we face is the same as the one we faced for many
years now, and that is, how do we deal with the issue of a man,
smaller company who wants to go into fumigation, how does he get
the OJT? If he's in San Antonio, you're not going to give him
the OJT to train him to go into business against you? That's always
been our problem with these issues.
Mr. Remmey: Ironically enough, I don't have a problem
with training anyone.
Chairman Stone: Then you’re a very unusual
pest control operator.
Mr. Remmey: I know if I can raise the bar, if I
can teach these other guys how to do better work, safer work,
it just helps the industry. So, I don't have a problem with teaching
and training whatsoever.
Chairman Stone: But that would mean that this other
pest control operator would have to go to work for you for the
period that the training time. This is just the sticky issue that
we face Warren, it's always held us up on requiring additional
training, or education.
(page 6)
Mr. Remmey: I think that that can be worked out.
I think that there's got to be a way to work that out. These people
have got to have hands on with fumigation.
Chairman Stone: If you think of a way to do that,
would you call me?
Mr. Remmey: I absolutely will.
Dr. Gold: Warren, before you leave again, what if
in some states they actually offer a fumigation school which is
a very intense period of time, from three days, depends on where
you go, to ten days. Would that be a start or is that not even
enough to consider? In other works, require that they go to some
commercial training program?
Mr. Remmey: That would be wonderful.
Dr. Gold: Okay.
Mr. Remmey: Even if it was three days. If you could
get these peoples attention, and bring them down to earth, and
show them what a meticulous process fumigation is, and why it's
important to do all of these variables, so that the end process
is correct.
Chairman Stone: Thank you Warren. Appreciate your
comments. Good questions. The next in my stack is Bryan Springer.
Good Morning Bryan.
Mr. Springer: Morning.
Chairman Stone: We do have a copy of a letter. Each
of the Board Members has a copy of the letter that you mailed
to the Board.
Mr. Springer: Okay, thank you. Well my comment is
pretty much of a reiteration of it. I've been in the pest control
business for many years, and fumigation business also, and I think
that you'll agree that fumigation is a category of pest control
that there at least exist a life threatening danger to the general
public or service personnel. Therefore, I think there is some
things that need updating like these other people have spoken.
When I began teaching fumigation CEU's, I was told that the purpose
was to provide additional training for licensed certified applicators.
I was instructed to teach graduate fumigation as opposed to fumigation
101. But I found out in these classes that when someone raises
their hand when I asked how many people are in it, probably 90%
of these people have a fumigation license, but they're not in
the business, or most of them have never even seen a fumigation
job before. It's just real difficult for me to understand how
that can work out. It's disturbing that the majority of these
people have never seen a fumigation job, holding a license. Never
had any direct supervision, they can buy this product, they can
simply hang tarps, buy the material, hang the tarps, and they're
in the business. I'm not, I think that the option here is continuing
education. The schools that someone else talked about. The test
for certified applicators license is not exactly difficult, you
can take it many, many times till you finally pass it. The issue
to me is, if someone, for example, has a weed control license,
and they want to have a lawn and ornamental license. Basically
it's taking a concentrate of pesticides, and putting into the
tank, and spraying so many gallons, to so many square feet, or
so many acres. The same thing applies for lawn and ornamentals,
or weed control, etc., but there is no spraying in fumigation,
none whatsoever. So I find myself doing CEU's on how to measure
a house the most rudimentary procedure there is, and you'd be
surprised at the number of people who can't measure a house properly.
If you can't even do that, you can't add the chemical the right
way. There's all types of problems that can happen with rookies.
I don't know how to limit the time for
(page 7)
the number of people, or for people to get a certified
applicators license, but there was a company in our area the guy
has a certified applicators license in fumigation and he is instructing
his employees on the job training, I don't know how that could
work to get a technicians license. Hell, the guy's never seen
a fumigation job before in his life. How can you get that? How
can you get somebody to get a structural fumigation technicians
license, and on the job training, and classroom hours? This guy's
never seen a license before. I think that it's strange that someone
can have a weed control license, and just arbitrarily take the
test as many times as necessary to get a fumigation license. So,
if that's my beeper?
Chairman Stone: That's your beeper.
Mr. Springer: Okay. The bottom line though is stop
the cross licensing, at least for fumigation. It has nothing to
do with spraying, nothing at all.
Chairman Stone: Very good. Thank you Bryan.
Dr. Gold: Mr. Springer, before you leave, there
is a provision in our state that you can get a fumigation license
under the Department of Agriculture, and apparently, without license
your allowed to buy fumigants, and actually do on the site houses
and so forth. See any way to solve that problem?
Mr. Springer: It's a different entity. But I think
at least the Structural Pest Control Board should be a bar or
two above the TDA. I think there was an issue here in Houston
recently with a private applicator, with the use of Methyl Bromide.
Unfortunately, there a death or two involved. There is a lot of
differences, for example, TDA now, I understand that they don't
even require a technicians license. You have what we would call
a certified applicator and everybody that works under them needs
no licensing requirement. I stand corrected if ya'll understand
what I'm saying.
Dr. Gold: Phil is here and can respond to that I'm
sure.
Mr. Tham: (unclear).
Dr. Gold: Well then, not, since I'm already involved
with the Structural Pest Control Board why then would I not get
a license through TDA and not mess with the Structural Pest Control
Board? I mean, you have to get together an entity, and I think
these people are more designed to do urban pest control. The Structural
Pest Control Board is, as opposed as TDA.
Dr. Gold: What about fumigations for, I mean, you
live down in Galveston area, in terms of commodity versus structural.
We have those split out. Is that a good idea to have them split
out?
Mr. Springer: Poisonous gas is poisonous gas. I
really don't see any different. There is very few state inspectors
that understand the difference between the two, and there is even
some discussion on which one's what. When restaurant fumigation
with Methyl Bromide was allowed for example, was that a commodity
fumigation or was that a structural fumigation? It's a structure,
but your not fumigating for wood destroying insects. It's to me
fumigation is fumigation. It's doing business with a poisonous
gas. It's not spraying anything. As far as I'm concerned it's
basically the same (unclear).
Dr. Gold: So you are in favor then of requiring
on the job training before you can be licensed?
(page 8)
Mr. Springer: Absolutely, and it took me five minutes
to get there. I know I'm two or three minutes over, sorry. But
yes, and teaching somebody with books, I have a daughter that
can fly on flight simulator a 747, and she's really good at it,
but that doesn't mean I want her up front in the drivers seat
if I'm riding. And that's the way I feel that even the schools
would be without on the job training, hands on, they need to do
it. A&M's already got a termite school. Fumigation could be
the same. But I really do think there's a whole lot of idiosyncrcies,
little nuts and bolts about fumigation that the only way you learn
is do it, and you need to do it under some guy that knows how
to do it.
Chairman Stone: Thank you Bryan.
Mr. Cantu: Should we request that there be on the
job training to continue your licensing on an annual basis?
Mr. Springer: Yes sir. I would think so, there is,
I don't know how many fumigators are licensed across the state,
but again, when I do the CEU's 90% of 'em have the license because
it was either grandfathered whenever they can into the business,
or I'm up here to take one test, why not take two or three, one
day I may need it. If they never use it, doesn't matter, if they
don't use it, and they don't have any on the job training, why
should they even have it to begin with? How about take the certified
applicators test, and make it into a fumigation technician category
so that CA's from another, for example, if a man owns a company
that just does pest control, he can't even sell fumigation unless
he has a fumigation license. Well, what's his options, either
ignore the drywood termite situation, or use a boric acid substitute,
or round rocks from Easter Island, I don't know, but he's not
making any money, and the bottom line for PCO's is we got to make
a buck. Well, so what happens, if he had a technicians license
for example, if the rules were changed this is just an example,
it would allow him to at least take a test, and subcontract to
somebody else if he didn't want to be in the fumigation business.
As it is, he's, I've seen boric acid sprayed on houses with vinyl
siding, I mean it happens, and because it's legal to do, tell
me it's not, it happens all the time in my area, it's a daily
occurrence, and nobody's here to say well that's not, that shouldn't
happen, well it does, and so if the guy can make a buck by having
a technicians license. Now for that technician point, if he wants
to be a certified applicator fine, require on the job training
or something like that, but, the point is, is it needs to have
hands on. You got to have hands on. You got to rub the hair off
the back of your hands, and the skin off you knuckles to understand
what's involved. It's not the simple day to day.
Chairman Stone: Let's move on to these other two.
Bryan, thank you. If there are additional questions, we can talk
about them during the fumigation, when we're talking about the
fumigation regs.
Dr. Gold: That'll be great if they're going to be
around. We got our experts actually in the audience, so,
Chairman Stone: We have a lot of people here that want to talk
to. Bill Cohen. Morning Bill.
Mr. Cohen: Morning. I kind of wear four hats. I'm
a distributor for commodity fumigants. I'm a distributor for structural
fumigants. I'm a commodity fumigator and a structural fumigator.
And a lot of these questions that you're asking are really brought
out in the labels. We do have representatives here of both the
commodity fumigant and the structural fumigant that will talk
today. A lot of these things are brought out in their labels,
and if you read the labels, a lot of these questions will be answered
in there. Both these manufacturers have had product stewardship
programs for the last few years, and it's mandatory that people
come to these product
(page 9)
stewardship meetings before they can buy the product.
Most of the fumigants that are sold in Texas are commodity, and
come under TDA, and as a distributor of these products, and I
have a great liability if I sell a product to somebody who's not
licensed to purchase this or hasn't a common knowledge. And if
I have a new customer who wants to buy a product, that has a license,
then I might quiz him, and get a little bit of a knowledge, if
he's capable of fumigation before I'll sell him the product. The
manufacturers have understood this, and they're taking it to heart,
and their making it harder for people to buy their products. There
aren't many new fumigators, we're losing a lot more then we've
gained in the fumigators. There are no new fumigators coming on
the market. There is no new people who are thinking about fumigation
because I supply most of these products, and I would hear about'em,
and they would call me, and ask for information, so it's not a
lot of us. It's a very small handful of people, and we've just
had our two products stewardship meetings one in Houston and one
in Corpus. In Houston we had less than 30 people. In Corpus we
had less than 50 people, and a lot of these were people who have
license who want to come and get the CEU, and that, but, aren't
practicing fumigators. I don't know if we need to maybe weed out
the ones who are practicing fumigators, the ones who just want
to retain a license.
Chairman Stone: Bill how many practicing fumigators
are there in Texas?
Mr. Cohen: Structural fumigators?
Chairman Stone: Not licensed, but practicing.
Mr. Cohen: Structural fumigators? There's probably
three in the Valley, there's four of us in the Corpus Christi
area, Victoria, Ganado, Port Lavaca there's one, Houston area
there's four or five.
Dr. Gold: Less than twenty then.
Mr. Cohen: That's it.
Chairman Stone: Practicing fumigators.
Mr. Cohen: Practicing day to day that you could
call up, and go out, and do it, and these people and yes we have
a turnover of employees, but we train those people, and I think
when you talk about what's your definition of, we need to come
up with a definition of on the job training. Do we just say on
the job training, and don't tie anything to it, an outline of
what we expect out of them. Yes we always need more education.
We always need more. I've talked to the Browder County Junior
College where they have a fumigation school about three times
a year, two or three times a year, and they've talked to me about
bringing it to Texas, and getting Louisiana people, and Texas
people, but we haven't had a big call for it.
Mr. Tham: You think it would be possible to define
on the job training in terms of the number of jobs for instance?
Mr. Cohen: When you look at commodity fumigation,
it could be, what type of job? I don't think that you could tie
a number to it, because there's so many different things, I mean
you can go out, fumigation is a ground application of Aluminum
Phosphine for rodent control, it's grain elevators, it's fumigating
warehouses for different insects, or rodents.
Mr. Tham: So you could still have a situation where
a person had X number of years of on the job training and still
not have any knowledge of the particular job?
(page 10)
Mr. Cohen: Sure there's not that much crossover.
A commodity fumigator is not going to have the knowledge of a
structural fumigator. The structural fumigator is not going to
have the knowledge of a commodity fumigator. They are different
things. They're similar, yes, they're gases, they're different
gases, but they're different.
Chairman Stone: I think you point is well made Phil.
We'll look at the number of licensed fumigators as opposed to
the figure of twenty practicing fumigators.
Mr. Cohen: There are some more commodity fumigators
other than those, but those are the structural ones.
Chairman Stone: Okay. Thanks Bill.
Dr. Gold: Bill, just in summary, I'm trying to understand.
You don't favor changing the law at all then?
Mr. Cohen: No. I think we need to define the law
a little bit better. Yes, I'm not going to say we don't need more
education, sure we always do.
Dr. Gold: No, I mean it's more than education. We
have education now because they have to get their continuing education
unit
Mr. Cohen: Sure and they have to go through product
stewardship programs.
Dr. Gold: Okay but that's not under the aegis of
the Board at all, in other words, we don't have any.
Mr. Cohen: No, but it is, in part, of my agreements
that I sell these products that I have to sign agreements once
a year with a distributors that I can't sell these products to
people, if I don't feel that they are (competent or confident)
in using these products.
Dr. Gold: Okay.
Mr. Cantu: Bill, can you define product stewardship
to those of us who don't fumigate?
Mr. Cohen: Dow Agro Science puts on a Vikane seminar.
It's about a 2 1⁄2 hour program they do in January or February
of every year, and we invite all the people who use their products
to these meetings, and its mandatory that they come to these meetings.
At these meetings they go over new label changes, and they'll
highlight three or four things each year that they want to talk
about either Chloropicrin, fan usage, different techniques that
have come up, and locks that were required. You know Texas is
different then all the other states. Texas and Louisiana are the
only two states that require guards, so, luckily we haven't had
a death in a structural fumigation in Texas or Louisiana, and
I think, we can attribute that to, we go a step beyond with the
guard.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Cohen, I have a question regarding
you making the decision at the point of purchase. If the person
comes in, he has a certified applicator license in fumigation,
he's legally entitled to purchase that product. You stated to
the Board that you'll make inquiries, and somewhat test his knowledge,
and that you'll ultimately make the decision to sell or not sell.
Mr. Cohen: Un huh.
(page 11)
Mr. Morrison: Do you have a written criteria, and
do you use that?
Mr. Cohen: It's just, it's over 30 years of fumigating,
and just kind of a knowledge of what type safety equipment they
have, what they're going to be fumigating, how their going to
seal it. Just kind of ask some leading questions to them, because
I'm liable, the person. There was a death a week ago in the Houston
area of a certified TDA certified applicator who knew better that
applied a product wrong, and it caused two deaths.
Mr. Morrison: Do you think now
Mr. Cohen: The person who sold that gas to him is
going to be involved in a lawsuit more than likely probably, and
I don't want to.
Mr. Morrison: Your applying liability based on a
few inquiries. You're making ultimately the decision, well yes,
I think he is proficient in that just based on a few answers.
That kind of concerns me.
Mr. Cohen: These are mainly TDA licenses. These
aren't
Mr. Morrison: Still it's a licensee no matter what
though.
Mr. Cohen: Yeah, but I'm liable, and it's my livelihood,
and I'm not going to sell a product to somebody that I don't think
is capable of applying it.
Mr. Morrison: The legal?
Mr. Cohen: Yeah, but I don't have to sell it to
him, and I'm not going to jeopardize my business for someone that
I don't feel is capable of applying the product properly.
Chairman Stone: Okay, let's move on guys. Thank
you very much. We have three more. Vern Walter. Good to have you
here Vern.
Dr. Gold: I was just going to say for those of you
who don't know Vern, this is the Dean of fumigation, so, worldwide.
Mr. Walter: I am a survivor of over fifty years
of fumigation in every part of the world where they do fumigation,
so I've been around quite a while. I'm co-author, of a Texas A&M
manual on fumigation along with Dr. Gold. I'd like to bring up
several points. Number one, the Board should not try to make fumigation
a closed group that no one else could enter. I think we all agree
on that. By it's very nature fumigation is a use of a very toxic
pesticide. Misuse can result in injury or death to the fumigator
or other people. Next week I'll be in Louisiana at a hearing on
a man who was injured with Methyl Bromide, and this is where I
make my living now on court cases where it was done improperly.
Fumigation can utilize one or more of several pesticides, each
has it's own requirements. And, I disagree with my friend Bryan
there. Competency in one does not denote competency in the other.
When we have time, I'll cite you case law with hundreds of thousands
of dollars in damage where the man thought he could cross over
from one fumigant to another and failed. Fumigation is utilized
in homes, ships, warehouses, factories, grain storage, commodities
and many others. Each has it's own techniques that are necessary
to follow to be safe and effective. I campaigned for the split
in the fumigation, and I was grateful that the Board did that.
We may have to look at even more splits. Ship fumigation is one
that is
(page 12)
split-off in Louisiana with special requirements
there. Books and labels are valuable, but do not take the place
of hands on training. Some type of experience requirement is needed,
and I'll state that very frankly. There are very few people actually
trying to become fumigators as Bill said. The number that are
passing to become fumigators simply is a trophy. Some of these
may not be qualified. When I'm giving the lectures, I tell people
if you haven't fumigated in several years, get out of it, you're
dangerous. If you get more training, fine. Most serious fumigation
accidents in the last twenty or thirty years have involved private
applicators, not SPCB members. They are not required to own their
own testing equipment. If they're farmers, they're not required
to own their own SCBA's. This is wrong. That's the federal law.
State's can be more restrictive. Other serious accidents have
occurred with grain fumigation, and others who are licensed by
TDA. We need uniform requirements, training, and tougher exams
by both agencies. Dale you have worked with TDA, and I think it's
going to require some work to get the two agencies together. Beside
the line of demarkation where one is responsible, where the other
one isn't, and tighten it up, and I can site some cases where
there was human death, and TDA fined less than a thousand dollars.
The fumigations that we use are constantly changing as we lose
some and potentially we will have others. Labels on today's fumigants
are changing. Methyl Bromide changed just recently, and must be
followed. Other words, what I'm saying here is, that the continuing
education is extremely important at best. New monitoring equipment
is being constantly developed. Some are very good, and some don't
agree with each other for some of the testing equipment. It's
difficult to stay up to date with only the present CEU requirements.
I would suggest the best way to achieve our goals is to strengthen
the CEU requirements, so if fumigation would require hands on
training for each fumigant add? that you're going to use and for
each type of fumigants the person intends to do. This would need
to be renewed annually, or some other (coughing going on - cannot
pick up speaker) as the Board decides. I'm thinking here of a
very good detailed CEU course that would probably cost about a
hundred or more dollars to attend, in other words, whoever's putting
the course on must be able to recoup their money as there are
only a limited number of fumigators. So if it's five hundred,
I have no qualms about that, but what this would do unfortunately,
or fortunately, it would eliminate the people who own a one-trophy
fumigation licenses. It would get it down to the people that seriously
want to fumigate. Would give a chance for the manufacturers, and
the distributors to come in, and give the latest information to
go ahead and do a mock fumigation in some cases. I think this
is the way to go.
Chairman Stone: Bryan, how often would you suggest
that training be required?
Mr. Walter: Annually.
Chairman Stone: Every year.
Mr. Walter: Yes
Chairman Stone: Are those schools offered anywhere
currently?
Mr. Walter: Well, the one that Dr. Gold mentioned
is a very good school. I've sent some of my own employees to that
one in Broward (unclear), college in Florida, that's a good one,
that only deals with structural fumigation. I don't know right
now of anyone that's giving commodity fumigation, a school like
that.
Chairman Stone: Murray brought me some literature
on one from Degech. Is that the name of the company? Whatever
that is?
Dr. Gold: It's a stewardship program.
(page 13)
Mr. Walton: It's more of a stewardship program,
but I think that one had some hands on.
Chairman Stone: It was a three-day course.
Mr. Walter: Yeah.
Chairman Stone: Is that like what you're talking
about?
Mr. Walter: Yes, that's the idea that I'm talking
about. We have this pool of people out there that have a license
right now that legally can buy any fumigant they want, and I don't
like that thought either, because I've seen the errors, and of
course, if makes work for me as an expert witness, but, that's
not my goal.
Chairman Stone: Are you going to stay around for
a few minutes?
Mr. Walter: Yes, sir.
Chairman Stone: Because I have some other questions
that I'd like to ask you during our discussion on fumigation.
Mr. Morrison: Yeah, I just have one question. Mr.
Walter you mentioned increased training on it. Would you also
be in favor for proficiency test on an annual basis, over and
above training?
Mr. Walter: Yes.
Mr. Morrison: Proficiency testing.
Mr. Walter: Yes, there has to be a meaningful test
afterwards. The idea that someone can sleep through one of my
lectures and get a CEU is dangerous.
Chairman Stone: Okay. Thank you. Next is Tom Atkinson,
Dow. Morning Tom.
Mr. Atkinson: Morning. When I came here this morning,
I didn't think I had any comments. I didn't realize the ??? until
I got a phone call last night that knew something about the people
being here. I'm actually a field R&D representative for Dow
Agro Sciences for other people I may not be able to answer some
of your questions, because some of these are better known to our
commercial reps, but I can give you a fair assessment of Dow's
position in this. One is that from the get go, we are absolutely
in favor of keeping training and licensee requirements high. We
have been doing our stewardship program for some time. I usually
participate more indirectly, I know some of our customers are
bored and complain sometimes, but it comes back to something Bill
Cohen said is that no, a person with a licensee is not entitled
to buy. But one reason we need state and clear regulations is
that sometimes helps there are different cracks people can fall
through and it helps if we have mutually supporting, stewardship
in the broad sense. Why do we do this, why do we take this so
seriously, because this is a hazardous enterprise, and none of
us are going to do business if people both customers and clients
are dropping like flies. So as it stands, there are fatalities,
and we don't want that. On the other hand, yes, I guess a company
like Dow Agro Sciences survives in a risky environment because
we identify risks and take steps to minimize them. And one of
those is in the case of fumigations. There is some business that
is just not desirable. And so, we would rather, we're not in general
stating a preference for restricting ????? re-affirming that we
take the stewardship seriously, and yes, we do try to
(page 14)
keep people out that we, we don't keep them out,
we try not to sell to them. I'd like to also say that in the last
couple of years some of you are aware of this, we have also been
pursing extended labeling for commodities, and I think maybe another
class that might be worth identifying here is industrial facilities.
So some of the commodities actually in storage facilities, but
there's also a class of fumigations which is the food processing
plants, that's why I'm calling it industrial facilities which
currently aren't quite structural, and aren't quite agricultural.
I'm not quite sure where they fall, but they aren't residences,
and I would say that we actually apply for a federal label in
this and it has been a major eye opener. We thought we knew a
whole lot about fumigation from years of doing structures, and
working in some of these plants has taught us, and it is sobering.
So, and I guess in addition to the risk I think in the industrial
facilities, what you see is much more of a risk to applicators,
but there are also some workers exposure issues for people who
come back into these plants whereas I think on structural we tend
to focus on the owners (unclear) of those structure who have made
through ignorance or lack of preparation on the part of fumigator
to come to harm. So, all I want to say is that we're in favor
of keeping things rigorous. I don't want to say tight or restricted,
I say rigorous. So, in these days and times it's (unclear) hard
to believe that as a corporation we actually want to do good.
So I'll just say that we want to stay in business and that's regulation
in this case can help achieve that good. I guess on one of the
things that's come up, Mr. (unclear) mentioned this, it's also
important to point out is, addition we focus on the risk to human
risk, by the time you have paid for a fumigation, the financial
risk you have mentioned is also significant (unclear), so, even
if no one is harmed by this, we don't like situations where even
the pests aren't harmed and someone has paid a substantial amount
of money so all aspects of this need to be covered.
Chairman Stone: That's your three minutes Tom. Finish
your thought.
Mr. Atkinson: Okay, I'll close it up. If there's
a hardship that's been brought up, I certainly think that the
schools have a place, and I would reiterate that I think it was
Phil's comment that maybe we need to look at counting jobs because
there is something about going through the setting up and taking
down of the job that words cannot cover, and you start to see
a couple of these, and you start to realize that this is a complicated
business.
Dr. Gold: Tom, before you leave, just one quick
question. Are you in favor of demonstrating your abilities in
addition to taking an examination to get your initial license
then? See right now they don't require, you just pass the test.
Mr. Atkinson: Mostly an annual order, periodic.
Dr. Gold: Just go back to the initial license.
Mr. Atkinson: Certainly.
Dr. Gold: So you think there ought to be hands on
before you can get your initial license?
Mr. Atkinson: Right.
Dr. Gold: Okay.
Mr. Atkinson: I think maybe make it easier and I
don't have the numbers our commercial rep would, but, Bill Cohen's
comment about the number of structural fumigators sounds very
reasonable to me.
(page 15)
Chairman Stone: Thank you Tommy. The last one that
I have that's turned in a form is Otis Woods,
Pioneer Pest Services, and where's this?
Mr. Woods: Leander. I was just coming to observe
today, but since this fumigation issue came up I wanted just to
say a few things. I'm not from here, I'm from Mobile, Alabama
and I worked for Allied Bruce Terminix there, Mr. Bob Williams.
I did his fumigation work, me and Doug Webb. Doug actually shot
the jobs, and I had a crew of guys, and we actually put the tarps
up. Make sure we had tight seals, and we he would clear it, make
sure the job was clear, then we would bring the tarps down. This
fumigation issue that's coming up here in Texas. I
have a pest control business here or in San Juan up in Dallas,
but the situation coming that's up right now about fumigation,
we lost a guy who was using Sulfuryl Fluoride, Vikane. It is very
dangerous. On the job training is the only way to go. There
is no way in the world that you can teach someone fumigation through
books. I went to Broward Community College down in Miami, and
I was down there for about a week studying and even with that
plus on the job training with them for over a year. Still wasn't
enough for a guy to go in business for himself. First of all,
you got so much financial problems unless you have a lot of money
to buy the tarps, buy leak detectors, buy all this equipment in
order to do the job. One thing that you brought out about competition,
allowing having a set-up where we didn't keep certain people out
of fumigation work. I look at it this way, that's just tough luck.
If you don't have enough money to get into the business, you don't
have the training to get into it, you don't need to be in it.
What's going to happen, I feel is that your going to have a lot
of guys losing their lives, and it's going to be a bad reflection
on the whole industry here in Texas. Just the lack of training.
I just wanted to say that there's no way in the world that you
can get on the job training in a short period of time, plus schooling
and be prepared to open a fumigation business. I don't see it.
I don't want to have that type of business, but I just wanted
to let you guys know from the experience that I have had with
fumigation, it's a dangerous deal.
Chairman Stone: Thank you, Thank you Mr. Woods.
I have no other, okay. I'm sorry Dan, I didn't mean to leave you
out. This is Dan Ayers.
Dr. Gold: Morning Dan.
Mr. Ayers: Good Morning Dr. Gold. My name is Dan
Ayers. I'm a sales manager for Great Lakes Chemical Corporation.
We're the base manufacturer of Methyl Bromide and several other
trade names of Methyl Gas and Broma Gas. Our primary concern is
the safety of the applicator and for the general public. We've
done training for many years, and two years ago we started a training
or instituted a program for the applicator, the end user who is
actually putting the product on and any person who uses Methyl
Gas has to go through a training program at least every two years
and at the conclusion of that, he is issued a certified applicator
card or Methyl Gas applicator card I guess it's called. It's a
card about like the size of a credit card that we send to him
that has an expiration date on it, and that person is not allowed
to purchase product from any of our distributors without showing
that certification number. This year we started and instituted
a test that we've been giving at the conclusion of the presentation,
and based on that test results we've been getting back, we believe
that the standards for the fumigator ought to be raised. It ought
to be at least reviewed. Fumigants are really a valuable tool
in the U.S. food supply, both foods that are used here and are
imported into this country from outside from other countries.
We need to do everything we can to insure that we have these tools
available. The list is getting shorter. We have fewer and fewer
fumigants all the time. There are fewer and fewer products that
take care of what the fumigants do. We believe that the only correct
course of action to take is to raise the standards for certification
of fumigators. As you well know, the fumigants are coming under
regulator scrutiny now, Methyl Bromide in particular with a Montreal
protocol as
(page 16)
far as it being an ozone depleter. It's our opinion
we ought to be pro-active when we're dealing with situations where
the public safety is involved. It's better to drive the process
than it is to react to new regulations that are something that
we can't live with. I have given you a handout I think that delineates
some of the things that we think are a reasonable path forward
for fumigator certification. While we understand there is going
to be some resistance to this, new standards we feel it's the
action that ought to be taken. Personal safety of applicators
and the overall safety of the general public cannot be jeopardized.
It's out collective responsibility to see that every fumigator
is fully trained, and that's he's competent in the safe handling
of applications or products and anything that's less than that
is not acceptable. Anybody have any questions about?
Dr. Gold: Other than a comment to you. This is an
excellent program that you've laid out here. I think it's a very,
very good start.
Chairman Stone: Thank you Dan.
Dr. Gold: How would it be if, Dan we're always looking
for ways to expedite how this could happen. What about in order
to renew your license a fumigator would have to give either a
card from your company or from Dow Agro Science's saying that
they had completed training on an annual renewal basis?
Mr. Ayers: We certainly would be receptive to working
with the Board or anyone along those lines, yeah I think that's.
Chairman Stone: How long is your training program?
Mr. Ayers: It's, depending on how long we can get
like on a program with other people. It's usually a minimum of
one hour and can run as long as three hours. Just depends on the
situation, if we're on a program where it's like a seminar that
runs for say one to three days and we're one of many speakers,
then our time is not as long. But if it's a program that we put
together specifically for just our product or maybe one other
fumigant, then we would have longer on the program.
Dr. Gold: But, there's no hands on in your program,
your stewardship program?
Mr. Ayers: There has not been any hands on.
Dr. Gold: Okay.
Mr. Ayers: Other than in, we have had some training
programs hands on, on emergency response where we would have a
mock situation of handing a crisis or something where there's
been a release of the product or something like that. We have
done some of those in different parts of the country, but that's
not an on-going thing that we do regularly like the Methyl Gas
applicator training.
Dr. Gold: Great.
Chairman Stone: Would
Speaker Unknown (SU): Only hands on that's available
is through the distributor?
SU: Okay.
(page 17)
Chairman Stone: Thank you Dan.
Mr. Ayers: Yeah.
Chairman Stone: I have no others.
Mr. Tham: Jay I'd like to ask a question of some
of these folks that do these fumigations if I could. Would you
say that the number of structural fumigations that you do is on
the increase, decrease or staying about the same?
SU: Increase.
Mr. Tham: Increase.
Chairman Stone: Let me, hold on guys, let me, I
don't want this to get into a discussion between ya'll and the
Board unless the Board has a specific question for you. But first,
let us introduce the topic that will allow us to do that. We're
on the agenda item, which is agenda item number three. Which is
actually what most of the public testimony is about this morning.
But we will conclude the public comments at this time and go to
the next agenda item so we can make this discussion legal at least
on item number three.
--
page 17 continued to PART 2--