some testing of sites where the chemical had been used, but no residues were found.
No injury, illness, or exposure to the pesticide was alleged. However, as the chemical
is classified by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen, a warning notice was
issued.^46June 9, 1997, Chardon, Ohio.Seven staff members and nine students at Chardon
High School experienced dizziness and difficulty breathing and were treated at local
hospitals after fumes of the herbicide HNS-300 (bromacil) seeped into the building.
It was applied by school maintenance workers in spot applications to the perimeter
of the building and under stadium bleachers. The fumes were drawn into the school
by the ventilation system, and came in through the gymnasium’s windows. Com-
plaints about odor were reported approximately one hour after the application was
completed. The school was evacuated. The incident was not reported to the Ohio
Department of Agriculture, although the agency did a site inspection three weeks
later after learning about the incident through newspaper accounts. It was found that
the school district did not have any licensed applicators on its staff. The state inspec-
tor issued a ‘‘field notice of warning,’’ but no citations or fines were levied.^47March 20, 1997, Amherst, Massachusetts.A kindergarten class was moved out of
Fort River Elementary School after complaints of persistent headaches from three staff
members and a number of students throughout the spring. One teacher was out sick
for weeks. The school had a history of indoor air quality problems. However, some
people in the school suspected that applications of an ant spray, Double Active Residual
(propoxur, pyrethrins, and piperonyl butoxide) might be contributing to the problem.
Custodians had applied it multiple times inside the kindergarten classrooms in March.
The teachers’ union filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Pesticide Bureau on
June 9. The state inspected the school on June 19, three months after the pesticide
applications were made and health symptoms began. Because of the untimely nature
of the complaint, state investigators undertook no human or environmental testing.
The state investigator concluded that the pesticide applications were made according
to product labels, and that any symptoms that had occurred were unlikely to have
been caused by the pesticides. This conclusion was reached based on the fact that the
last application was made more than two months before the complaint was filed, and
that the active ingredient of the product was pyrethrin at a very low concentration.
(In fact, the product also contained another active ingredient, propoxur, at ten times
the concentration of the pyrethrins. The EPA classifies propoxur as ‘‘moderately per-
sistent.’’ Incident information reported to the EPA between 1992 and 1996 showed
that symptoms people experienced from post-application exposures to propoxur
included headaches, nausea, and respiratory irritation.) The school principal was
quoted in a newspaper account the day after school’s evacuation as saying that expo-
sure symptoms listed on the spray can are similar to ones that people reported experi-
encing. State investigators did note in their report that the school employees who
made the applications were not licensed, and that notices of the applications had not
been posted as required by state law.^48136 | Pesticides