Follow us on:

Major Initiatives:

Version in Word

Regrounding IKE – Commentary from Tom Neltner

I owe thanks to Bill Caddell and the Friends of Frankfort Library.  On Saturday, March 15, they put on an outstanding health workshop called “Fatal Harvest:  What is Happening to Our Health?”  Through persistence, persuasion and community support, they arranged for the nation’s leading experts on the health implications of pesticides and other chemicals to get to come to this small Hoosier town of 16,000.  The presentations were outstanding. 

It is wonderful what a group of committed individuals can do!

It was just what the doctor order for me.  The issues raised at the workshop were exactly what propelled me four years ago to form IKE – the omissions in our public health and environmental programs that allow children to fall in the gap and have their future stolen in the process. 

I needed the doctor’s order after a rough couple of weeks.  The Senate Agriculture and Small Business Committee rejected by a 9 to 1 vote a bill proposed by Senator Dillon that IKE helped craft.  The bill would have allowed the Indiana Pesticide Review Board adopt emergency rules to ensure that the people fogging neighborhoods to kill mosquitoes to slow West Nile Virus would be trained and licensed.  It would also have allowed the Board to adopt public notification requirements for people who apply pesticides in public places but do not have – or need – a license. 

The bill had the support of a wide range of organizations including the Indiana Farm Bureau, Purdue University, Indiana State Chemist, and the Indiana Pesticide Review Board.  The only organization opposed was the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns. 

I failed to convince the committee that untrained and unlicensed applicators fogging neighborhoods pose a risk to the public and that rules were needed to ensure that the public needed to be informed when pesticides were used in public places. 

The next week, I was in a meeting negotiating language regarding a rule that would require licensing of the mosquito pesticide applicators.  Without emergency rulemaking, the rule would not go into effect until next mosquito season, but the rule still needed to move forward.  The workgroup was formed to see whether public notification should be included in the rule. 

Fresh from a legislative victory, a local health department official declared that he would ensure that the legislature would kill any bill that required public notification or that required testing of summer college students who might fail the licensing exam. 

A state health department official went even further.  He said that the public should not be told to close windows when their neighborhood was being fogged with a pesticide.  It would affirm people’s fear of pesticides – conveniently ignoring both that there are not many mosquitoes inside the home that need to be killed and that we should reduce unnecessary exposures.  He cited an EPA/CDC publication that said that the pesticides – when used according to label directions – do not pose unreasonable risk to public health and the environment.  I do not dispute that claim.  However, a reasonable risk does not mean that people with respiratory problems will not be affected.  People who complain or ask to be told are not hypochondriacs.

Obviously, we have some challenges.  Honestly telling the public about a potential problem is still considered dangerous – or at least a burden that the public is not smart enough or interested enough to deal with.   While the public can be told of terrorist threats, they cannot handle the idea that they might want to close their windows when the neighborhood is being fogged. 

Our regulatory programs are still slow to respond to the new science on chemicals such as polychlorinated byphenyls, arsenic, bisphenol A (a component of polycarbonate), and brominated flame retardants that shows dramatic impacts on a child’s growth at levels far below traditional levels of concern.  The same people that embrace the latest science on genetic engineering refuse to acknowledge the science that says that some chemicals can disrupt the chemistry that takes an embryo through the wonderfully complex process to birth and beyond. 

Thanks to Friends of Frankfort Library for the reminder of IKE’s original goals – goals that often get lost in the day-to-day crunch of fighting battles in the trenches!  Despite the progress we have made, we have a long way to go.

Healthy Child Care Facilities – New Guidance

The Indiana Pesticide Review Board unanimously adopted a model policy for pesticide use in child-care facilities on February 13, 2003.  While the policy is only guidance, it lays the foundation to protect children in child care from both pests and pesticides.  For a copy of the policy, click here.

The policy asks the child care facility to make the following commitments:

1.             Designate and identify a contact person to answer questions from parents and staff about this policy and to coordinate implementation of this policy with others such as pest and lawn care management professionals and the landlord.

2.             Inform parents and staff members in writing of the facility's pest control policy.

3.             Base pest management decisions on the results of regular inspections. The facility will avoid routine use of pesticides not exempted below.

4.             Ensure that pesticides used at this facility will be applied by certified pesticide applicators or registered technicians.

5.             Ensure that pesticides will not be applied when children are present at the facility.  Toys and other items mouthed or handled by the children will be removed from the area before pesticides are applied.  Children will not return to the treated area within two hours of a pesticide application or as specified on the pesticide label, whichever time is greater.

6.             In the event of an emergency where pests pose an immediate health threat to children and staff (e.g. wasps) and pesticides are applied, ensure that children will not return to the treated area within two hours of a pesticide application or as specified on the pesticide label, whichever time is greater.

7.             Provide at least two operational days but not more than 30 days advance notice of pesticide application to parents and staff except in emergencies where pests pose an immediate health threat to children or staff (e.g. wasps).

8.             Notify parents and staff as soon as possible when advance notice is not provided and include an explanation of the emergency, the reason for the late notice and the name of pesticide applied.

9.             Make accessible, upon request, all records of pesticide applications and advance notices for at least 90 days. 

Gel bait and manufactured, enclosed insecticides where children do not have access to the bait are exempt.  Granular baits and rodent baits are not exempt. 

The next steps include getting licensed applicators to follow the guidelines and to integrate the guidelines into the child care licensing and training program.  Thanks to Julia Tipton-Hogan for her work on this critical policy!

ISDH Indoor Air Quality Reports

What do you do when you find a white dust on your desk in the morning?  Your son breaks a mercury thermometer that falls on new carpeting?  The bathroom at the office has mold all over the ceiling?  Your child comes home from school with a headache every day?

These questions arise every day.  Local health departments usually get the calls and respond as best they can.  Some of the calls go to a team of specialists at the Indiana State Department of Health.  Ron Clark or Lee Murrow went in the field to monitor indoor air quality 56 times in 2002. 

In April 2002, the Indiana General Assembly enacted SEA-407.  SEA-407 requires that ISDH inspect when it receives a complaint about the quality of air in a public or private school.  ISDH must report the results of the inspection to the person filing the complaint, the principal, the local health department, and the Indiana State Board of Education.  If you want to make a complaint, please put your complaint in writing and send it to John Ruyack of ISDH at Jruyack@isdh.state.in.us.  Please note that the law did not give ISDH additional funds to conduct these inspections so you may have to wait for the inspection. 

ISDH provides this valuable service to Hoosiers.  Two people do most of the work and the mandate to inspect schools provided no additional resources.  To their credit, most reports were completed within two weeks of sampling.

Thanks to the public records law, IKE obtained a copy of the 56 reports for 2002 as well as 48 assays ISDH ran on samples submitted to it.  For your reference, IKE put the information in a database and has it posted on its website where you can search by contaminant, city or requester. Please note that IKE removed the names and addresses for the 44 residences investigated.  There are many ways to look at these reports but here are some statistics that may help:

·         Contaminants Checked

o     Formaldehyde:  15 locations checked.  Two locations showed levels over the suggested indoor air quality guideline of 0.1 ppm of air.

o     Mercury:  6 locations checked primarily for broken thermometers.  Levels detected at all locations.

o     Asbestos:  39 samples submitted to ISDH.  Asbestos (chrysotile) confirmed in 20 samples.

o     Carbon Dioxide:  37 locations checked. 32 locations had mold concerns.  5 locations (all schools) exceed 2000 ppm.  19 locations (11 schools) exceeded ISDH’s recommended levels.

o     Relative Humidity:  39 locations checked. 32 locations had mold concerns.  14 locations (7 schools) exceeded industry recommended maximum level of 60% relative humidity.

o     Fungal (Mold) Counts:  32 locations checked.  7 locations had indoor levels greater than outdoor levels.  7 locations hade counts over 1000 fungal colonies per cubic meter of air.

o     Bacteria Counts:  32 locations checked.  15 locations had indoor levels greater than outdoor levels.  5 locations hade counts over 100 bacteria colonies per cubic meter of air. 

·         Types of Facilities Checked:

o     56 total visits 

o     10 offices

o     25 residences

o     21 schools

·         Organization Making Request for Inspection

o     2 state agencies

o     16 schools

o     21 residents

o     14 local health departments (39 samples submitted by local health departments)

o     2 other

The review raised three concerns:

1.             Is it worthwhile to sample the air for mold without identifying the type of mold or thoroughly investigating the sources of mold?  The sample can give a false assurance that there is no problem.  The ISDH inspector points out these problems when it samples the indoor air but a thorough evaluation for moisture and mold may be a much more difficult but worthwhile undertaking.

2.             Should more guidance be provided to help the user better address the results of the sampling?  ISDH typically includes a standard, short paragraph on each contaminant checked.  It would be helpful to better identify additional references and information. 

3.             How representative is the sampling if it is not done early in the morning?  Many schools turn off the ventilation systems during the night and on weekends.  The air becomes stagnant and contaminants can build up.  It is this air that can most impact students and staff.

IKE will work with ISDH to address these concerns. 

Healthy Schools in Indiana:  Tools to Facilitate Change

Parents, students, faculty and staff periodically call Improving Kids’ Environment with concerns about the health of their school.  Mold, lead, mercury, pesticides, asbestos, and pests top the list of their concerns.  IKE has developed a fact sheet tailored to the laws and resources in Indiana to help them constructively address their concerns and bring about change.   For the Fact Sheet in Word, click here. Contact Tom Neltner at mccabe@ikecoalition.org or Sandy Wampler at healthyschbrochure@worldnet.att.net for more information.

 The fact sheet provides a summary of the requirements for schools to address a variety of environmental hazards.  A summary of your rights and available resources is provided.  Key rights and resources are:

1.             Key Rights

                        a.     Access to Public Records:  Hoosiers can get copies of pest inspection reports, pesticide application invoices, material safety data sheets (MSDS), maintenance records, and email communications by asking the school for the documents.  The public school must respond to in-person requests in 24 hours and seven days for written requests.  The school is allowed to respond by providing a later date when they will have the document ready.

b.    Indoor Air Quality Inspection:  If you ask ISDH in writing, ISDH will send someone out to inspect the public or private school.  You will get a copy of the report.  See above article on ISDH’s Indoor Air Quality reports for more information. 

2.            Best Resources:

a.     Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).  Contact Tami Johnson at 800-451-6027, tsjohnso@dem.state.in.us, or www.in.gov/idem/kids/toolsforschools.html.  She is a good resource on a wide variety of issues, including EPA’s structure approach “Tools for Schools Program.”  Chad Trinkle is focused on environmental education but is also a helpful resource. You can contact him at ctrinkle@dem.state.in.us or 317-233-9479.

b.    Healthy Schools Network in Albany, New York is a nationally recognized advocate for the protection of children’s environmental health in schools.  You can contact them at 518-462-0632 or www.healthyschools.org.

c.    Improving Kids’ Environment.  You can contact us at 317-442-3973 or www.ikecoalition.org.

d.    IPM Technical Resource Centeror go to http://www.entm.purdue.edu/schoolipm/.  Chad Trinkle at IDEM.  Check out IDEM’s website on environmental hazards at schools at www.in.gov/idem/kids/toolsforschools.html

Special Legislative Update

The Indiana General Assembly is at its mid-point of the regular session.  Bills had to pass the first chamber by March 4 to be considered by the second chamber.  Here is a rundown on the key bills that would have a direct impact on children’s environmental health.

1.      Drinking Water Fees – HB-1979 & HB-1671?

IDEM desperately needs funds to operate its drinking water program.  The only bill that dealt with IDEM’s fees was HB-1671 by Rep. Bottorff.  It passed the House by a vote of 75 to 22.  The bill increased most existing fees by 10% - barely enough to cover the increased salary and fringe benefits for the past two years.  However, it exempted state or local units of government from paying the increase.  In addition, drinking water fees were NOT included in the bill.  The House made only one concession to the drinking water program.  The drinking water program was given the authority to use funds from the fees collected by other programs in the environmental management permit operation fund. 

No environmental program has a more direct impact on children’s health than the drinking water program.  Safe drinking water is IDEM's most critical public health priority.  With 4601 public water systems out there, a breakdown could injure thousands.  People could die.  With increasingly complex rules and concerns with terrorism, the need for State oversight is increasing not decreasing. 

Indiana’s drinking water program is by far the smallest program in the Midwest.  On a per capita basis – the most important benchmark for drinking water that serves almost everyone in the state – other state programs are much larger than Indiana.

·         Wisconsin – the next smallest program - is 3.4 times larger.

·         Kentucky program is 4.5 times bigger.

·         Minnesota is 9.5 times larger. 

We may try to claim that Hoosiers get the job done for less than other states, but operating at ¼ of Kentucky’s investment in safe drinking water is a shortfall that no level of efficiency can overcome.

For too long, we have trusted public water suppliers to provide safe drinking water with limited oversight.  IDEM’s drinking water program lacks the staff and the resources to do more than simply crank out construction permits and try to keep their head above water.  The program cannot effectively monitor the public water suppliers to ensure that they are doing what is necessary. 

There were options presented that did not get considered by the House committee.  Rep. Peggy Welch authored HB-1979 with the support of the administration.  The bill would have established fees on public water supplies and raised $2 million.  Even with the new funds, Indiana would still have the smallest program in the Midwest.  The funding would only be enough to staunch the bleeding, but it would have made a tremendous difference.  Despite the critical need, the bill did not receive a hearing in the House Environmental Affairs Committee.  Unless the Senate amends HB-1671 or HB-1001 (the budget bill), Indiana will not get additional funding for IDEM’s safe drinking water program. 

The bill would also have increased permit fees for other programs and established new fees for resource intensive efforts.  In 1994, the General Assembly set rates for permit fees to support IDEM’s permit-related operations.  Ten years later, those fees remain unchanged.  Last year, IDEM asked for a 30% increase in permit fees and wanted authority for the Water Pollution Control Board to adopt fees for public water suppliers.  The effort failed because the groundwork had not been laid and questions were unanswered.  Not so this year, IDEM has opened its books and answered the questions.

2.       Pesticides - Emergency Rulemaking and Public Notification Authority – SB-237, HB-1250 & HB-1985

Two bills – SB-237 authored by Senator “Doc” Dillon of Columbia City and HB-1250 authored by Rep. Dennis Avery of Evansville – were introduced to give the Indiana Pesticide Review Board the authority it needs to protect children from pesticides.  The bill would allow the Board to adopt emergency rules and to adopt rules that require public notification by unlicensed pesticide applicators.  The bill only authorized rules.  It did not mandate them.    

Unlike most states, Indiana does not require training, testing or licensing for pesticide applicators unless they are a contractor applying pesticides for a fee or they are applying particularly dangerous pesticides known as “restricted use” pesticides.  A landlord, a golf course manager, a city transportation department, or a hotel operator can have its employees apply pesticides.  These employees do not have to demonstrate to the state that they know what they are doing.  The Indiana Pesticide Review Board has long wanted to fill that gap in public health protection.

The gap became especially serious this past summer when communities responded to the threat posed by West Nile Virus.  With 285 confirmed or probable human cases of West Nile Virus in Indiana, communities had little choice but to respond.  An untrained applicator with a fogger on the back of a pickup truck who claims to be helping the neighborhood probably has little impact on West Nile Virus and may be dangerous to the community. 

Unfortunately, Senator Dillon’s SB-237 was voted down by a 9 to 1 vote in the Senate Agriculture and Small Business Committee.  The only organization to speak in opposition to the bill was the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns.  In essence, the Committee appeared to have two problems with the bill:

1.             They did not see the urgency behind the need to license applicators who fog a neighborhood to kill mosquitoes. 

2.             They saw little reason to notify the public when pesticides are applied in public places.  In their view, public notification would serve little purpose other than to scare people.

The second bill, HB-1250 – introduced by Rep. Avery – did not get a hearing in the House.  But Rep. Orentlicher’s HB-1985 did. As introduced, HB-1985 would have required extensive public notification and the development of a sensitive persons registry.  The bill’s scope was narrowed to child care facilities and schools by the committee.  The bill did not get a final vote by the House.

3.        Mercury Variances Linked to Air Permits – HB-1261

Rep. Dennis Avery introduced HB-1261 to deal with variances from water quality standards for mercury.  The bill would require the state to adopt rules for a wastewater discharge permit holder to take tangible steps to reduce sources of mercury that enter or are already in the wastewater collection and treatment system in order to qualify for a streamlined variance.  The streamlined variance would allow the permit holder to avoid a complicated site-specific analysis by IDEM and the permittee. 

In exchange for the simplicity, Indiana air pollution sources would have to take steps to protect surface water such as streams, rivers and lakes as well.  They would need to either implement strict technology-based limits or ensure that the source does not cause rain to exceed the water quality standards.  The bill would direct the Air Pollution Control Board to adopt rules to accomplish this goal and allow IDEM to issue the streamlined variances as long as progress is made on the rulemaking.  Sometimes the pollution we generate does not respect the arbitrary boundaries we have created between air pollution and water pollution.  In the case of mercury, we need to eliminate the bureaucratic barriers to ensure that fishing can be a healthy and safe sport and, where needed, a way to sustain a family. 

4.         Environmental Assistance Authority – SB-327 and HB-1690

Researchers at Indiana University estimated that Indiana communities will need more than $12 billion over the next 20 years to fix shortcomings in our water pollution control infrastructure:  specifically sewers, storm water, drinking water and septic systems.  That total does not include controls needed to deal with non-point source pollution, especially agricultural operations.  Much of this investment only offsets decades of neglect when developers – with municipal and state permission - put in new subdivisions with little to regard to the overloaded infrastructure.

Under EPA guidance, the State offers revolving loan funds for drinking water and wastewater programs.  As currently designed and operated, these funds fall far short of the amount needed to cover the $12 billion needed.  Two bills – HB-1690 and SB-327 – seek to address this problem.  Rep. Weinzapfel’s HB-1690 would make the Indiana Development Finance Authority responsible for the programs.  Senator Gard’s SB-327 would establish a new Environmental Assistance Authority.  Both bills are a good step forward.

5.         Adult Blood Lead Evaluation System (ABLES) Legislation – SB-367

Hats off to Senator Miller!  The Indiana State Chamber of Commerce and Indiana Manufacturers Association were opposed to her bill – SB-367 – if it said that labs needed to report an adult’s employers or industry.  Apparently, if ISDH knows that the adult works in a particular industry such as construction or metals refining, the Chamber and IMA believe the knowledge would somehow cause problems for employers. 

Senator Miller offered an amendment that pulled the employer/industry identification requirement but still required labs to report blood lead test results for adults to ISDH.   The twist is that an existing clause authorized ISDH to require reporting of any “information that is required to be included to qualify to receive federal funding.”  See IC 16-41-39.4-3(1)(E).   The employer or industry identification is required to qualify for an ABLES grant from CDC.  As passed by the Senate, ISDH could require the information. 

The bill also requires ISDH to publish a report summarizing the number of adults and the number of children diagnosed with lead poisoning in each county.  The report is due at the end of 2003 and 2004.  For more information on the legislation, click here.  The next step is to get Rep. Charlie Brown of Gary to hear the bill in his committee.  Let me know at mccabe@ikecoalition.org if you need more information.

6.         Licensing Home Inspectors- HB-1515

Rep. Peggy Welch’s HB-1515 passed 78 to 17.  The bill sets up a licensing program for home inspectors.  Unlike 25 other states, Indiana does not require licensing for home inspectors although some cities such as Evansville do.

I am working with Rep. Welch to amend the bill so home inspector’s reports make it clear that the report does not address environmental hazards including but not limited to lead-based paint, radon, asbestos, cockroaches, rodents, pesticides, treated lumber, mold, mercury, or carbon monoxide. 

No word on which committee will hear the bill in the Senate.  If you support licensing of home inspectors, now is the time to speak up.  Without hearing from you, the Senate may not hear the bill.  For more information on the legislation, click here.

Recent Topics in IKE’s Two Other Newsletters:

·      Sewage in Our Streams Newsletter – See February 2003 Edition

¨        Confined Animal Feeding Operations

¨        16 Draft NPDES Permits Published

¨        Court Orders IDEM to Issue Permits or Lose NPDES Authority

¨        Draft Rule for General Permits

¨        E. coli and Triennial Review

¨        CSO Right-to-Know Rule Passes

¨        $10.3 Billion to Reduce Sewage in Our Streams

¨        Funding to Deal With Water and Wastewater Infrastructure.

¨        No Net Increase in Sewage Overflows Policy Stuck

¨        City of Columbus LTCP

·      Indiana Lead-Safe and Healthy Homes Newsletter – See February and March 2003 Editions

¨        Upcoming Meetings and Events

§      Thursday, March 27 – Fort Wayne and Gary.  FREE Healthy Homes Satellite Videoconference will be held from 2:00 to 4:00 EST in two places in Indiana.  The videoconference covers lead, mold, asthma and integrated pest management.

§      Saturday, May 3 – Indy.  “Mold:  The Growing Threat to Real Estate.”  The workshop will be held at the Marten House – 1801 W. 86^th St..  Jeffrey May will be the featured speaker.  He is the author of "My House is killing Me!  The Home Guide for Families with Allergies and Asthma". 

§      October 15 & 16 – 2003 Indiana Lead-Safe and Healthy Homes Conference.  By popular demand, we are expanding our focus to include more healthy homes topics.  The rates, schedule and format will stay the same as 2002. 

¨        Revising the Licensing Rules

¨        Compliance Hints

¨        CDC Funding for ISDH

¨        Medicaid Funding for Health Departments

¨        State Building Commission

¨        Senator Miller Advances Adult Blood Lead Evaluation System Legislation

¨        Beware of Reusing Carpeting and Furniture

¨        Lead Jackets on Kids

¨        Taking Lead Home from Work

¨        Rehabbing an Old School

¨        Licensing Home Inspectors – Rep. Welch’s HB-1515

Thanks for improving kids' environment!   

If you have any questions or comments about this newsletter or Improving Kids’ Environment, contact Tom Neltner at mccabe@ikecoalition.org, 317-442-3973 or 5244 Carrollton Avenue, Indianapolis, IN  46220-3181.  Please let us know if you do not want to receive this newsletter.  You may get enough emails and faxes already.  We do not want to add to the burden if you are not interested in receiving the materials. 

IKE publishes two additional newsletters on a quarterly basis.  Let Tom Neltner if you want to get copies of either of those newsletters.  To avoid duplication, issues addressed in these newsletters are only briefly mentioned in this newsletter.

§      “Sewage in Our Streams” newsletter on behalf of the Indiana Clean Water Coalition.  This newsletter deals with issues and events that directly relate to sewer overflows, sewer management and septic systems.

§      “Indiana Lead-Safe & Healthy Homes” newsletter on behalf of the Indiana Lead-Safe Task Force.  This newsletter deals with issues and events involving lead-poisoning and healthy homes in Indiana.

If you want to become a member of IKE and make a deductible donation, please go to www.ikecoalition.org/membership.htm.